Quote:
Originally Posted by Profits of Doom
In arguments relating to religion, there are 2 different kinds of hacks...
Hack #1 believes that the bible is the true word of god and condemns anyone that doesn't believe it, and of course gives you the usual "if you do ::insert sinful activity here::, or don't believe in god/Jesus/etc. you are going to hell" argument.
Hack #2 believes the bible is a fairy tale, and goes to any length to let the believers know that. They give you the usual "invisible man in the clouds" argument, and call anyone that believes in the bible a sheep.
I think we need more of a new hack, hack #3, that may or may not believe the bible is real, but they don't give a rat's ass what anyone else believes. For those of you that are slow, hack #3 may believe the bible is the true world of god, or he may believe it is bullshit, but he keeps it to himself either way, because forcing his opinion on others is the true bullshit.
For a very long time I was hack #2, but then I realized if believing in religion gets you through the day, and you keep it to your fucking self, then more power to you...
|
I think you'll find that few atheists have a problem with people like
Jay Bakker.
The problem with religion are the people who try to force it into the classroom, into politics, etc. If nobody speaks out against them, theirs will be the only voice that is heard.
And no, discussion does not imply forcing your opinion on others. If someone tells you that Rick Astley is the best musician in human history, is he forcing you to become a Rick Astley fan? If someone tells you Coke tastes better than Pepsi, is he forcing you to start buying Coke instead of Pepsi?