do atheists give religiously obsessed people a hard time? (religiorant)

i've often heard the religious say that nasty atheists were, or are giving them a hard time....

well, boo friikking hoo - the shoe is finally on the other hoof after well over a thousand years of the religiously obsessed being arseholes to everyone in the name of "peace"...

at least atheists don't go around preaching notions of peace from their holy scripture (they don't *h*a*v*e* any holy scripture) only to be total hypocrites by completely and utterly ignoring or getting those scriptures *wrong*..

in other words, far too many of the religiously obsessed, BRAG about following something that they aren't even following correctly in the first place!!

that's pretty fucking pathetic... and they have the nerve to whinge about atheists?

but how soon "these" people forget that for way more than a thousand years, christians were the ones persecuting non-believers, and that christians would even persecute other christians with their multiple crusades, hundreds of years of inquisitions, and reformations, witch hunts etc etc... (The Fourth Crusade didn't make it to the middle east, the Crusaders from the WEST christian empire, invaded the EAST christian empire! )

and how soon we forget that the Muslims, for the first 100 years of their religion, that they conquered everything from the west of India, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, to Egypt, all the way across the North of Africa and all the way to *Spain*... religion of peace, my arse.

i mention this because recently a poor "persecuted" online christian believer mentioned something to me, alluding to the fact that all the atheists that they had encountered in real life, ended up giving them a hard time....

anyone see the problem with this person?

if you have a problem with *every* person you encounter that has different religious beliefs to you, then NEWSFUCKINGFLASHMORON!!

IT IS *YOU* THAT HAS THE FUCKING PROBLEM!

does it occur to these Sluts for their Religion, that if every non-believer they encounter gives them a hard time about their beliefs, then it is *THEM* that is obviously being belligerent towards everyone else who doesn't share their bullshit god story, therefore they are *creating* the animosity between themselves and the non-believer?

Anyone who needs to defend their bullshit beliefs so seriously, is *CREATING* the animosity between themselves and the people who don't share their beliefs because they don't really believe in those beliefs.. ie. if you had faith, you would not need to get upset, you should not even need to even feel the need to defend your religion, let alone actually go and defend it...

if I didn't have faith, then I wouldn't go around stating that much now would I? I would only make an issue of not having faith WHEN some moron with faith had a hissy fit at me for not believing. If you don't have cancer, you don't go around saying that you don't have cancer, do you?

That's a bit like if you were told the sun wasn't going to rise, then you go into a wild temper tantrum over that statement that conflicted with your "belief" that the sun would rise tomorrow. ie. if you truly believed the sun was going to rise tomorrow, why would you get upset if some clown said it wasn't?

WELL???

here-in lies the problem with people and their religion, if somebody can rattle the believer and their beliefs, then they DO NOT TRULY BELIEVE - it's *that* simple

and ya know, seriously, if people want to be pricks, then they will be pricks, and we should expect that to happen, but if you are going to be a prick, you better not go around pretending that you are morally superior, that your religion is "peaceful", that it preaches "tolerance"... point is, if you are going to say you are religious, then you don't get to be a fucking hypocritical prick about it while you are preaching peace, love and mung beans of tolerance of your religion while doing the exact fucking opposite....

the religious fucktards are the ones with the holy scripture telling them to be nice to everyone, not the non-believers...

that is to say, that believers HAVE NO EXCUSE TO **NOT** BE NICE TO EVERYONE...

did you hear me?

religious fucktards have NO EXCUSE FOR BEING CRAPPY TO OTHER PEOPLE - you are PERMANENTLY SUPPOSED TO BE ON YOUR BEST BEHAVIOUR, that's the price you pay for claiming to be like Jesus, or that your religion is one of peace.

i expect nothing short of Jesus-like behaviour from every christian, NO EXCEPTIONS, ALL THE TIME, and yet, many clearly are far from being Christ-like, a lot are not even able to ignore others that do not share their fantasy story, they just have to *React* in an outburst of rage to provide an affirmation for their beliefs, and a lot of them give their *fellow* believers, who believe in something ever so slightly different, the hardest time of all.

To put it simply, if you are prick to anyone and you claim that you are christian, then taaahhh dahhhhhh.... you are NOT christian, and you NEVER will be

and there is no excuse if you've not heard that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" is the highest law in christianity... LOVE is the highest law that Jesus taught.. If you don't believe me, then you've missed the point of the bible (if you're a believer) or if you are a non-believer, then you have a tainted view of christianity, which was completely caused by that previous bunch who have missed the point of their bible in it's message that LOVE is the highest law...

even "Saint" Paul said ....

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

perhaps LOVE is too strong a word, and should be read as "being NICE", as we wouldn't want any HOMOPHOBES to think we're cracking on to them, now would we? ... so instead of "love thy neighbour as you would have them love you", it should be read as "be nice to other people, in the same way that you want them to be nice to you!" .. frankly I'd be happy if people were taught that you "don't be a cunt to people if you don't want them to be a cunt to you" ...

If you are a prick to anyone while you pretend to be christian, then you are LYING that you are christian .. now i don't mind if you lie to yourself, that's none of my business, but make it my business by spewing that lie to me or any other non-believer, and you are definitely at risk of being given a hard time, and if you don't want to be given a hard time about your religion, then it's best you shut the fuck up about it

so if you can't follow your precious holey scripture, and at least try to get along with everyone, then you are just a Slut for Jesus/Muhammad/Moses .. and that's all you are.... and yes, that's more IDOLATRY, as you are making out that the fact that you believe, is more important than what your beliefs have taught you.

and if people disagree with your religious views, then *LET* them, otherwise they *WILL* call you out if you start being pricks to them about things that don't even fucking matter...

the moral of the story?

religious obsession, is no different to being stupidly obsessed over things like Harry Potter, or Dungeons and Dragons, or Justin Beiber, or Britney ra ra ra or the ridiculous obsessions people have with "Twilight" and vampires that are all glittery..... well, it's no different, except for the fact that religion is *much* *worse*, because at least most of these "fads" burn themselves out, either that, or those fad stricken people actually GROW THE FUCK UP

that was kind of all over the place ..... mostly written 26th October 2010, mostly....

the god haters.... (religiorant)

this is one of the most ridiculous arguments of the religidiot, ''non-believers are "god haters"!!!''

*ahem* ... what did you say??

MOI? a GOD HATER?

even been called a god hater??

if you are not a believer in the existence of god, then how is it possible to hate something that doesn't exist? so it is extremely and pretty and very hard to hate something that is an unknown, I would say!


AWWWW DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

the intellectual vacuum in the heads of some religionuts is just astounding, and these people are probably the same people who think that the LHC is going to destroy the world, the density difference between their brains and the atmosphere is far more likely to create a black hole that would suck the earth into oblivion than the LHC....

maybe believers think that non-believers are sooooo evil, that we *must* have so much hatred festering inside us, that we can find some hate for the stray hydrogen atoms out there in the vacuum of outer space??.. and why not? those stray atoms are infinitely more "real" than this god we supposedly hate

i find it amazing that the non-believer can literally do NOTHING, and that's all it takes for the non-believer to be offensive and hateful enough to tick off some "believers"

pathetic would probably be a better word to describe believers calling non-believers "god haters"

DIDN'T THAT BULLSHIT DIE OFF IN THE 80s?

I remember hearing about religion and god worship once during the 90s, and my reaction to hearing this notion was... "oh what the fuck?! didn't everyone else stop believing in Jesus and god soon after they were told that Santa Claus and the easter bunny and the tooth fairy and leprechauns etc etc were all made up?.... grrrr..." ... ..

so uhmm.. yeah, regardless of whatever *you* think of your god existing or not, as far as *I* am concerned, this god of yours *ONLY* lives in your head, so if you say that I am a god hater, then you are, in fact, saying that *I* HATE *YOU*, and, seeing how this is *your* god, that lives in *your* brain, *you* are in fact, saying that *you* actually *WANT* me to hate *you*.. LOL!

dumbarse!

so given that, if want me to hate you, then don't fucking whinge when I *DO*!!

and here's the even more pathetic thing about this::

the problem here is NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE - do fucktarded religiomorons understand that concept? no!!

For me personally, the source of the offensiveness is that *you* are making ASSUMPTIONS about *me*, that *you* think you are permitted to be speaking on *my* behalf with notions as to what I apparently hate.

THAT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD

but I fucking BET that you are calling me a "god hater" because you think it makes you better than me and that somehow this all powerful fantasy creature being in your brain (aka your EGO) gives you a mental rush for having the opportunity to make an AFFIRMATION of your belief!!!

FUCK YOU, SLUT FOR GOD!

So just who do you think you are to "know" what it is exactly, that I actually hate?

So just how do you know how to form my own opinion of you, on my behalf?

So just how can *you* then formulate for me, my *own* opinion of you and then have the nerve to expect that I'm going to conform with your fucked up offensive ideas of me that you have *just* created with absolutely no way of knowing if what you are bullshittering about, is indeed accurate?

And even *if* you knew exactly what I hated, WHAT GIVES YOU THE FUCKING *RIGHT* TO EVEN SPEAK FOR ME AT ALL??

hmmph?

did I give you permission to do that? no, I fucking did not!! If I did, then you probably missed the fine print of that agreement, where it said that you are supposed to have a shovel shoved up your butt, side-ways, before you are allowed to speak for me about what I supposedly hate, especially if you have never even met me!

SO JUST WHO THE FUCK DOES SOME STRANGER THINK THEY ARE BY SAYING THAT I HATE GOD??

you don't know shit about god, and furthermore, you don't know shit about what I believe when it comes to god, so if that's you trying to tell me that I hate god, then you are a cunt-faced liar, and that is as polite as I will be on the matter with some cunt who thinks that they can speak for me...

JUST WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?


Who are you to wave your finger, you musta been out your head.... eye-hole deep in muddy waters, you practically raised the dead....

are you god itself? ARE YOU?!??

you musta been high, because without *me* telling *you* in extreme details of what I hate, you would *have* to be GOD to be able to *know* what I hate, and you would have to *BE* god in order to think you would get away with that as well, and to top it all off, this god of yours is going to be pretty well fucking pissed off with any body assuming the role of being an all knowing being!!

this is proof that god doesn't exist, because just how blatantly, obviously, deliberately and persistently can god's will be defied?? And yet people expect they will get away without any retribution? people don't really believe in god, NO FUCKING WAY, how can they? because if they truly feared some all powerful being they wouldn't fucking leave the fucking house for fear of doing something wrong and they are constantly doing things that are wrong but they don't give a fuck about. This is proof that god only exists in the YOUR mind, because NO OTHER god would let you get away with the bullshit that it lets you get away with

And by calling me a god hater, you reveal yourself to be one of fucking stupidiest people on earth, because it obviously didn't occur to you fuckheaded people, that you are trying to force me to acknowledge that this god creature of yours actually exists by calling me a "god hater"...

what's the big deal you say?

CAN YOU SAY "IDOLATRY"?!??!

you may want to defy your god by committing idolatry by yourself with your boasting that your god exists and that it is "the" god, but you go and commit idolatry DOUBLY-SO by trying to make me commit it as well..

so go fuck yourself, all you people with your "god hater" rhetoric, because if there is a god, you can accept the punishment for breaking your precious god's highest law all on your *own*. That seat in hell that you are screaming for so much, has been reserved *just* for you.

just how arrogant does the person calling me a "god hater" have to be to actually do that? that's like telling some person, you don't even know, who they like and who they dislike.

idiot: "Oh you like Justin Bieber!!"
non-idiot: "pffft!! who the FUCK is that?"

These created assumptions cross all manner of personal boundaries, the fact that this is about god, is beside the point and merely serves to compound the arrogance of the person using the phrase "god hater"..

you are judging me to be a hater because *you* think that a non-believer is worthy of being cast into hell, because I am defiling your precious god with my *not* acknowledging its existence ... that is idolatry on *your* part..

so first of all .. fuck you, with bells on it, just because I don't share your opinion of god, you get to insult me? just how insanely rude *are* you people calling me a "god hater"?

NO! you do NOT get to formulate my OWN OPINION on ANYTHING for me, let alone god, the most unknown of the all the unknowns..

STILL DO NOT GET IT, DO YOU?

Still don't get it? That's hardly surprising seeing how the average IQ of the world drops every time a religionist fuck head fundamentalist opens up their mouth.

*you* fundies are the ones calling us god haters, get it?

we didn't come up with any of that bullshit, *you* fundies did that all by yourselves, get it?

so even if god actually *does* exist, *you* are *creating* our alleged hate for us *regardless* of there actually being a god or not, *you* are superimposing *your* own hatred towards non-believers by calling us god haters... and all of that is because we refuse to share your fantasy story ... seriously, calling someone a "god hater" is like calling somebody a cunt because they don't share your passion for the music of the "Traveling Wilburys"

believers are taking their FEAR that the non-believers are actually right, and they are turning that fear into anger, and that anger leads believers to HATE non-believers who will NOT be swayed by the believers' pathetically small minded religious nonsense. the result of this is that believers are creating their own suffering which they then need to further alleviate by ACTING OUT this anger in a reflex conditioned reaction towards non-believers with *our* "alleged" hatred of god. (remember, we can't hate things that don't exist)

fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.--[Yoda]

In other words, not only are these "believers" forming my opinion for me, but they speak of their *OWN* *HATRED* for the universe when they are talking about people that they've labelled "god haters"

so it is actually more correct to say that *believers* hate "god haters", with the caveat for us people in the real world, is that "god haters" don't actually fucking exist because they can't hate something that only exists in the fucked up sick and twisted little mind of the believer that insists on calling non-believers "god haters".

In order to hate something, you stupid cunts, you have to acknowledge its existence.

YOU'RE MAKING SHIT UP TO BE ANGRY ABOUT

Get it now?

So people who use the term "god haters" are making up shit to be angry about, that's all it is, THEY ARE MAKING UP STUFF TO BE ANGRY ABOUT, and then they are taking out that anger on the non-believers.. and if you choose to be angry at me for a reason that *you* *made*up*, then you can quite clearly go and choose to fuck yourself as well

so much for a religion of peace, huh?

Just because christians don't realise that they are not being peaceful, that doesn't mean they get to treat others like shite.

If denying or not even acknowledging that something exists makes me a hater of said thing that does not exist, then it is *YOU* that has the fucked up perception of reality, it is *YOU* with the hatred issues towards people who don't believe in this god creature *YOU* have created in *your* brain.

it is *YOU* that is acting out in anger that the rest of the world DOES NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR BULLSHIT FANTASY STORY

YOUR GOD IS 100.000% in YOUR BRAIN, IT IS 0.000% in my brain

the god you speak of, is 100% in your mind, so when you say we are "god haters" - you are actually saying that we hate *you* - get that through your thick heads

deny it all you want, but I went for ten years without a thought of god, but then I get online and people INSIST that god is real to me, "ahem! no... that's your *opinion*"

I wouldn't give a rats arse about what people believe in, that is, *until* they start harassing me to believe the same bullshit they believe - so for me personally - my going on about god is *DIRECTLY* caused by people INSISTING to me that I believe in their god...

that's right, if god haters actually do exist, then it's the religious who brought the god haters into existence because the only way god haters could exist is if a believer managed to piss off a non-believer into hating the god concept that the believer is trying to flaunt.

by speaking about "god haters", you create them! aka. Speak of the devil, and the devil will appear

people come to their beliefs of their own accord, all by themselves, in their *own* time, insulting someone by saying that they are god haters is an INSTANT WAY to make people HATE YOU and this god thing in your brain.

So much for *SPREADING* the word hey?

If you call me a god hater, then you are spreading HATRED, and you have got ZERO chance whatsoever of converting me to your bullshit, in fact, nothing you say from that point on is going to be listened to, not without me being skeptical about what you are saying...

Calling me a "god hater" is also an idle threat that I will not capitulate to, you don't scare me, your god doesn't scare me, and seriously, what god would give a fuck if I hated it anyway? but more importantly, if there was a god, it will get its own revenge back at me in its own sweet time, so why do the fundies feel a need to act out and threaten me on behalf of their god? You are pretending to be god when you judge me. do you commit idolatry much, or is it just a hobby?

That in itself, is SOLID proof that god only exists in your mind, why does the most superior being in the universe need INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE OLD YOU to be defending it or have you work its will on its behalf?

could it just simply be you are defending your own ego?

which is more likely? god is just a figment of the imagination that you parade around as your ego, or that god made the entire universe out of nothing?

And people should also realise, that since this god creature that some people believe in, is completely in the minds of said people, that any threats made in the name of that god, are actually threats that have originated from the mind of that person who believes.

So when people say "Allah" or "GOD" is going to get me for misbehaving, they are *actually* talking about the god in their minds, meaning that *THEY* are making the threat to enact this retribution on behalf of their god. Meaning that a detached part of their brain has just made a threat against me, but then in true hypocritical style, the person making the threat has no idea that they are making a threat, or perhaps they do, and they just think some random prophet or god will forgive them for doing so, after all, it *was* a threat made in prophets/god's name?

If I took you to court because you said to me that "GOD is going to kill me tomorrow", my argument to the Judge would be that the only way you could know that, is if *YOU* were going to be doing that killing on behalf of said god

So unless you can prove your god exists, it is YOU that is making threats on behalf of the god in YOUR brain, which makes you accountable for any bullshit you say in the name of said god. Making threats in the name of Jesus Christ or Muhammad doesn't negate the illegality of the threats you are making.

In other words, if I *do* hate 'god', then you can safely lay that blame on the people who have harassed, threatened, insulted, bullied, pestered, or badgered me to believe their bullshit story, ie. THE INCESSANT INSISTENT BELIEVER!!!!!

those are the people I hate, not this made up bullshit story about some sky daddy that you expect me to believe, I don't hate stories, I don't read stories that I don't even like in the first place, I *stop* reading them when I find them to be against my values or more likely, I stop reading when i am not entertained.

I have my own opinion - you are entitled to yours - but you don't get to form *MY* opinion for me

the only time I have talked smack about god is because some believer has rudely tried to convince non-believers that god exists by INSISTING on spreading the word, or by INSISTING that they are correct and that we fall into line with their opinion, without question, without reservations, they just want us to believe, and that's all there is to it.

that is RUDE - that is INSULTING - go FUCK YOURSELF

if you are rude and insulting enough times - people are going to be rude and insulting back at you, count on it.

But in saying that, please keep calling non-believers "god haters", I think it's great that you are deliberately destroying your own religion under the premise of "spreading the word", that you think calling us "god haters" is some way to guilt trip us into believing your bullshit .. keep it up... it's *great*, dumbarses!

written mostly 29th March 2010.... mostly ....

the virtual you ... (religion v science)

The human brain contains roughly 300 megabytes of information. Not much when you get right down to it. The question isn’t how to store it, it’s how to access it. You can’t download a personality. There’s no way to translate the data. But the information being held in our heads is available in other databases. People leave more than footprints as they travel through life…. medical scans, dna profiles, psych evaluations, school records, emails, recording, video, audio, cat scans genetic typing, synaptic records, security cameras, test results, shopping records, talent shows, ball games, traffic tickets, restaurant bills, phone records, music lists, movie tickets, tv shows… even prescriptions for birth control.--[Zoe Graystone]


is there currently enough information out there about you already such that in the near future, an accurate "simulation" of *you* could be created?

a *virtual* you?

could you end up being a set of variables running around in some program? you would be a program itself, a process running on some computer, perhaps even across dozens or hundreds of computers

is it possible to make that information come "alive" right now? could you have all the information about you, live on after you? imagine the day after you died, your first blog entry would be something about having died the previous day... "I died yesterday, how inconvenient" ... how strange would that be?...

but is this not the scenario we are already heading towards?

eventually some bright spark will come up with a program that could take all the myspaz, facebook, google, tweets, blogs, all your moods, pictures, videos, emails, and turn that into a program that you could interact with and ask questions. would we have to put up banners on our blogs, "No! you may not make a virtual me out of this information!"??

so instead of searching for information on google about, for instance, Einstein, you'd log onto "his" web site and ask *him* the questions and the accumulated "knowledge" scraped off the web about him, would then be the basis of the response!

"Hey Einstein, what got you into science in the first place??"

then he'd probably rattle off that story about how the magnetic compass needle showed that there was more to the universe than what could be seen with the eye alone... but whatever you'd ask him, even stupid things, there'd be some sort of response, if somebody had-a-go at this virtual character, one of the things the magic programming would have 'gleaned' from the web, was what sort of response the real person would have, in any situation.

like the wild swings in style of deliverance some people can write with, one paragraph, being extremely funny, and then being dead-on and direct to the point in dealing with a "serious" issue in the next paragraph. that style of writing may be indicative that that someone would humour someone who was abusive at first, but would eventually lose patience with the person and respond to them in an appropriate manner.

a virtual me, would probably just block everyone who was being a cock so that i never have to have my knowledge of the universe tainted by their idiocy, at least not directly.

but what if that information could then be able drive a program that ran on some big network... by itself? *all* by itself, with no human intervention?

set it in motion and it lives forever? would it creep you out that your dead facebook friends would keep clicking "like" on your posts? wishing you happy birthday? firing off anecdotes to make you laugh when you're down? would it make any difference to you that your dead internet friends, were still around to talk to you? what if your great great great grandfather had kept journals and somehow they'd been published online.. I wonder if he'd seek you out and send you a friend request on faysebook? myspaz? twatter?

but imagine if this Einstein was running virtually everywhere that he was interacting with someone, with all the Einsteins, sharing the things they are learning, imagine if the collective knowledge of Einstein could be resurrected to the point where a virtual Einstein was "clever" enough to be able to continue his work on relativity and all that funky stuff? or at the very least be a valuable tool for research and teaching purposes

but why wait until you're dead with this magical program? you could set this program in motion now to do the mundane things you waste your time doing online, you could even have it learn your habits, in what you do on the computer?

a virtual Tolkien could write novels, Nietzsche could philosophise, and Hitler could explain his fucked up world in excruciating detail, in any language

you could spend your entire physical life teaching this virtual you how to virtually live forever, teach it morals, and how to play nice on the internet for all eternity ( the teacher teaches themselves while teaching the virtual-you )

could you have this virtual you, be *you* while you are out, could you have it answer the phone? pay your bills? could you have your virtual-you gather up all the news stories you like to read? without you having to skip over all the bullshit? eg. i go through thousands of headlines and only ever read a few full articles in comparison.

with a virtual me, could I be able to *skip* that whole trolling through the headlines, could it also be able to spot new unexpected things that are interesting for me to read?

imagine that? you could even be more *you*, than you ever could.. this "you" would not run out of patience, would not need to sleep, take toilet breaks or need to go outside to get some sunlight, it would be "All net", all the time...

you could have it go learn stuff you couldn't be bothered to learn because there was some fundamental aspect you just couldn't "get" and after pure CPU crunching what would take you months to eventually figure out, this virtual-you could figure out how to explain in a matter of seconds in way that you were able to understand. ... could that teach kids how to understand in ways that they would understand, would education then become tailored for every individual?

an example of this would be me and relativity: I just didn't get it until relatively (LOL!) recently, I thought it was all crap, I said "where's the *proof*, sounds like a buncha hooey, to me" ... but then i found out about this experiment where 'they' had very accurate clocks in perfect alignment, one was taken up high in a plane, and when it was brought back to earth, it was out of alignment with the other identical clock that was left back on the ground. i could have saved myself thinking that relativity was a bunch of crap for ten years if not for that, a "virtual me" could have read everything about relativity and been able to sum it up by telling me to "forget all the math, they did an experiment with these two clocks, ya see...." .. (I, would also know to that myself, I was being condescending with myself as well, "ya see?", which I say in a sarcastic red-neck sort of way in my mind) ... this virtual me would also have then been on the look out for more experiments that demonstrated relativity, just to rub it in, like *I* would.. "Hey did ya see, that GPS wouldn't work if not adjusting for relativity, *ah-huck*"

imagine the really popular virtual people, chewing up all the CPU.. actually it wouldn't be a CPU, it would have to be a Distributed Processing Units (DPUs), we'd be complaining to the systems administrators "Hey! can we put a limit on how many people can shag Justin Beiber at a time? Most of them are under-age *anyway*"

and you'd have to replicate yourself as a backup, so why not have virtual you's on standby distributed across the net, doing the mundane tasks, but serving as a "backup" should power fail in one section of the net.. LOL! upload a copy of yourself to the node at Alpha Centauri?

and how many times do you just ignore some clown on the internet? imagine the virtual you, arguing with every moron on the internet simultaneously, without a single iota of idiocy set aside or tolerated, and *nothing* ever repeated twice, every interaction would be unique... you could virtually argue with real people, and with unlimited patience no idiot would be able to out-argue the virtual you, and virtual idiots could be held at bay for all eternity -- or more likely the DPUs would detect an infinite loop and kill both virtual arguers' programs, or maybe kill the one that was doing the most extraneous I/O .. conversations could be shortened by sending a special message to your "opponent", automatically ... the stupid religious fundie morons would not "believe in" making multiple copies of themselves, because that would be blasphemous

you could block people such that any time their program came near yours it would tell them to fuck off with no sugar coating whatsoever, why hold back? the only thing stopping me from telling every stupid cunt that they are a stupid cunt, is this it's just too much hassle to sink to their levels to be able to give them the real caning that they are begging to receive. oh and I probably have too much compassion, being a Jedi and all... LOL!

compassion could have been born out of it being more hassle to push someone away than it would be to just be nice! i.e. it requires less energy to be "nice" - compassiapathy (thumbs nose at Palin)

but! without being burdened by compassion, we would have avatar battles, fighting a virtual war... would the last avatar standing, be god?..... or would everyone just end up needing to block everyone? maybe we'll end up setting up our avatars to only communicate with similar minded people, i could block all people who just have to insist on telling me about their religion even before I've spoken to them, fucking idolaters! Praise Jebus!

the internet is a cesspool of hatred, maybe the majority of people are nice, but it's too easy to be a violent cave man creature on the net with little provocation.. there is no "moral" guidance, it's everyone for themselves, and if you are too gutless to stand up for yourself, expect to get trompled upon

is that what has already happened?... and god is just the last player, the last virtual being? with everyone else just trompled upon, bullied to death by "god"...

so that makes us the computers this "god" software is running upon...

so in emulation of this software, we build our own heaven to live forever in

so instead of false promises of living forever from some fantasy story from the bronze age, religion will die in favour of *actually* living virtually forever ... and maybe then, those programs will be transferred into artificial bodies, so then you could live in both the virtual and physical, simultaneously... just like a Cylon!

imagine sending yourvirtualself on a trip into the photosphere of the sun, go to alpha centauri? go to Rigel, it's only 700 light years away.. check out Eta Carinae... before it explodes... or *be* there when it does go up in some super indestructible space probe

imagine if, through some sort of quantum entanglement, or some un-thought-of way to communicate, we could have instantaneous network access between nodes that are light years apart? and via our virtual selves, we could "be" in thousands of locations spread over dozens of light years...

it's not everywhere at once, but it's a start

and it's not quite all knowing either, but a virtual you would be able to eventually figure out anything right? and it would have access to all the knowledge of mankind in real time... any logical dilemma you have, could be *resolved*, I wonder if god would win that battle against the virtual mind? how many iterations of bullshit did you go through to lose your religion? (if you have lost it) .. you could resolve those mental gymnastics once and for all in your virtual mind in a second.

so a virtual you could figure shit out, thus making the god-like notion of actually knowing everything beforehand, unnecessary

are we turning ourselves into gods? maybe god just figures shit out as it happens as well, maybe god's brain is just one big computer

but you may not even like the virtual you once you set it free and it ascends to its potential in minutes what would take you a million years, maybe your avatar would kill itself? maybe certain people wouldn't be allowed to have virtual selves?

i hope you kept the receipt... (religiorant)

even been told that "you need to read the bible!" ? ...

why should I? it's just a bunch of stories, that are supposedly meant to give moral guidance, and the exact details of the story aren't important if the point of the story is to give you moral guidance.

i've read "The Lord of The Rings", a few times, i bet there are good morals to be gleaned from there, but, no-one went and made a fucking religion out of Lord of the Rings, you MORONS!

But i have read dribs and drabs of the bible, I just couldn't get past the fantastic flood story

I can't believe in a bible, or any sort of fantastic stories that people supposedly believe in as if those stories were *for*real*, and that's not because the bible has some *real* tall tales of total bullshit, it's because I have got the gist of what was important in the bible and I have moved on.

I will not "believe in" the bible, because to admit such a thing would be to admit that I am bragging over the fact that I "read the bible", well so bloody what...??? the only thing you admit to when you admit to a belief in something, is that you're not willing to grow your view of the universe, that you are content to leave your beliefs as they are, right now. You are willing to let your knowledge of the universe STAGNATE and become STATIC.

and that is sad

because people purporting to believe in the bible have completely missed the point of it on far too many occasions. I say show us what you learnt or shut the frack up, because to be honest, you shouldn't even need to mention that you're a christian, or that you've read the bible.

It should go without saying because your extremely helpful and peaceful attitude with compassion for all, would stand out like a beacon in a crowd.

a high percentage of people who mention that they have read the bible, also seem to have it wrong, so considering the type of people who have said that they have read the bible, i can only pre-empt that notion by concluding that all people that mention that they are christians or that they've read the bible, are indeed bragging, at least on some level. If you don't want me to do that, then shut the frack up about your religion.

Many claiming to be christian, have not even read the bible at all, yet they still call themselves christian? what's that about?

Many have missed the *very* fucking simple point of christianity ("do unto others!"), many people, instead, seem to think the ten commandments is the point christianity. The "Ten commandments" is more the point of Judaism, isn't it? Jesus, the christian messiah, didn't mention the ten commandments much at all, he taught TWO COMMANDMENTS!

Many just say they "believe" because mum said to, because they were never taught to think for themselves.

Many believe because it was beaten into them, and some of them even believe that they should beat those same teachings into *their* children.

Many dwell over what isn't important. Many just don't care that they have their religion wrong. Many don't even know they have it wrong. Many become violently outraged when confronted with the fact that they know *shit*all* about their precious religion.

So there's no fucking way I would deliberately label myself as christian when too many have it wrong. The christian church itself split many hundreds of years ago, and *millions* died, I just could not call myself religious at all, when history has shown that religion has bad results, and if religion is supposed to set "the" guidelines of supposedly good moral behaviour, then uhhmmm... ? WTF?

Religion has failed, abysmally, time to go on a different path, perhaps this time, we can blame ourselves for the things that go wrong? Maybe it should be compulsory to learn multiple religions in school?? maybe some morality could be gleaned from half a dozen religions because obviously the teachings of one religion isn't enough to make someone a moral person.

Learning what religion teaches would be more practical at the very least, because "words" are just words, just saying you "believe in god" or believe in religion, means nothing without actions to back up your bragging, just telling yourself you are christian or muslim is idolatry as well - it means nothing to just tell yourself that you have achieved some goal or pinned some label upon yourself and that you should be rewarded for your saying this bullshit mantra thing...

I reckon you need to *earn* your religious accolades - eg. maybe it should be compulsory for you to formally study christianity before you are allowed to call yourself a christian?? make it a free online test, and all the atheists can do it as well just to put all the christians to shame

until all christians start being christ-like, the label "christian" means nothing.. same with muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists blahists blatisms hbalilists bahareans blahreists

if christianity truly wanted to get some respect back, doing the things that christ taught instead of saying they believe in christ, would be a good start because who honestly gives a rats arse what people believe? if you are a generally good person and treat me with respect, you could believe in flying pink unicorns for all I care

fact of the matter is that according to the biblical stories, *Jesus* taught that your beliefs mean nothing unless your actions back up your words (that's the *point* of the good Samaritan story, right?) in fact, the words should come after the actions, if at all, as one should not need to speak if their actions have already spoken for them...

and to be completely honest, any generalising the religionists cop is deserved because the majority of religious people just want to live out their lives in peace and do nothing about the minority of their religious brethren who ruin it for everyone, instead they complain to atheists asking them to not generalise about them when they could be out there telling their religious moronic brethren to pull their fucking heads in, but no....

in the very same way, no-one should be able to offend someone else's faith/god by saying something 'bad' about it, you should be able to say anything you want about a religion, because they too are just words, and if mere words from some non-believer heathen scum who "knows nothing" of your faith and yet is still able to upset your "faith", then i hope you kept the receipt for your "faith", because your faith is a dud...

if they know nothing about your faith, then how the fuck can they offend your faith?

that's like some body walking up to you and saying "you can't count to ten!" and you getting all violently upset over that statement, what sort of clown are you to BITE like that? any one lashing out at someone else for saying that they can't even count to ten, well, I would be inclined to think that "yes, they actually can not count to ten"

the muslims crack me up the most, for a culture that is so worried about committing idolatry, as shown by their extreme reactions to Muhammad cartoons being displayed, they sure do fret over making their little treks to holy places like Mecca and Medina

a "holy" place is a representation of your faith, and a place is still a thing, albeit a big thing... in fact, all places of worship, churches, synagogues, mosques... all idolatry.. bibles, korans, torahs ... just words, just mere echoes of the original message, a message that should have been simple enough to be taught by word of mouth. How hard can it be to remember the important things religion supposedly teaches?

these days it seems that people are taught to say things like "PRAISE JESUS" and that, *somehow*, is how you get into heaven....

was it just too fucking hard to remember simple things like "do unto others" (aka "love thy neighbour"), "judge not lest thee be judged"?

even the words themselves of those holy desert voodoo books are just representations of the original message, even the memory of those words committed into your brain, that's all just idolatry..

for instance, all I remembered from going to Church and Sunday school those *very* few times, was that "Jesus loves everyone"... that's *all* I remembered... the implication there was that I should do that as well... it's possible that i got that from some TV show, so it's not something I learnt directly from christianity, but that's what my brain boiled christianity down to.

That's the lesson from christianity: basically it says "be nice to everyone", now i've got to somehow implement it, should i so choose to do so

but there is no choice in this matter with "christians", they are commanded to do this "love thy neighbour" thing, they have no choice, if they can't do that.. then nope - they are no christian.... you don't get to dip you feet in and out of the christianity wading pool, you either get in and swim in it, or get the fuck out of it, or at the very least, stop pissing in it

no actual part of your religion is important, it's what you learned and how you implement that teaching that is what is important. eg. so what if you've read the bible? if you can't show what you've learned, then so fucking what if you read the bible? that's no different to someone bragging that they read the dictionary, so fucking what? do you remember the meaning of every word? I can read stuff about quantum mechanics, but it doesn't mean shit to my actually being able to understand it..

think of it this way, it's just as important to human life on this planet that we don't all stare into the sun, probably even more important to our survival than the whole "do unto others" thing! why? because there would not be a human race if we all stared into the sun upon the first chance we got.

but did you see any mother fucking idiots make a religion about not staring into the sun?

no, it's just something you do NOT do, you don't go making a big deal out of it by saying "HEY! I don't stare into the sun, are you a true i-don't-stare-into-the-sun believer as well?", do you?

is there a religion about taking a shit? we'd all die if we didn't shit! you didn't see any fucktard go make a religion about taking a dump..

hey let's make a religion out of BREATHING??

the golden rule, as taught by Jesus and all those others, is just supposed to be something you do, like breathing, you don't go and make a big deal out of it.

the whole point of the teachings of these various "prophets", which got turned into the various religions, was to keep it simple, and to keep it so simple, that even a moron could remember it.. but no....

this is where I find the greatest offence in all religion, because as far as I am concerned, Jesus, Buddha, and probably many others, they all probably had it right, at least in their day and age, and whether those characters existed or not is beside the point, it was what was taught by those characters that's important.

eg. the highest commandment of christianity, is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" aka "love thy neighbour, as you would have them love you" .. that's all that you needed to know about chimptianity, because if we apply that rule to every thing in life, we can envision a much fairer society .... it's commonly called the "golden rule", but too many have got that totally wrong, there is too much selfishness, if *things* that pertain to your religion are more important to you than what you learnt from it, then you have missed the point of your religion.

the only way to be a true believer - is to *not* believe at all - because believing means nothing, doing is everything, because do you honestly believe in your fucked up little brain, that if god actually taught us all these things of doing unto others and all the shit like that, that it's *actually* important to god that you just *say* that you believe?

and if you don't *get* that, don't even expect a refund, even if you *do* have the receipt...

Faggots and Retards (mincing words)

When I was a kid, all the kids would call all the other kids, fags, gaylords, homos, pooftas, poo hole punchers, and various other terms that were supposedly derogatory to gays that are too numerous to remember, and I for one, didn't even know what "gay" was, probably because we were kids that barely even knew anything about sex at all

But as it was, when I was a child I heard that Freddy Mercury was gay, so being "gay" was a matter of "whatever it fucking means, then so fucking what!" to me...

So for me, the word FAGGOT, and all those other words kids flung around to try and make themselves seem more "tough", were just insults to people that didn't really mean anything to me. So, to me, those derogatory words towards gays, never evolved to be hateful words in explicit reference to gays because I hardly used it in the context of someone actually being gay anyway, and I certainly never said it in the context of being hateful to someone who is gay.

eg. If I said to you, "don't be a FAG!", I would simply be saying - "don't be annoying" - and the use of the word "FAG" would be some sort of way to make my statement "light hearted", you know how friends call each other names all the time, they don't mean to be hateful, they are just "having a go" at you. We call this "shit stirring" in Australia.

So in that sort of context, the word "FAG" is no different to "RETARD", in that, the common meaning of the word is very rarely, if ever, used in the context of people who actually are mentally challenged (aka retarded), and if it is used in that context, it's usually not used in the sense of being hateful.

little-kid: "don't be a FAGGOT Mister!!"
busy-body: "you should not use the word FAGGOT, little boy"
little-kid: "what! why not?"
busy-body: "as it's hateful to gays"
little-kid: "what are 'gays'?"
busy-body: "ya know? homosexuals!"
little-kid: "homosexuals? do you mean like when two guys love each other?"
busy-body: "yes!"
little-kid: "what's two guys loving each other got to do with *you* being a FAGGOT, Mister?"
busy-body: "what?"


the most common context I would use the words faggot and retard in, is this:

a RETARD is someone who is being ignorant in how they interact with the world, and a FAGGOT, is someone being *deliberately* and/or *willingly* ignorant in how they interact with the world.

I say "would use" because too many people get butt-hurt when the term FAGGOT is used, so I don't use it that much, which is the point of the blog, the word FAGGOT needs to be unleashed at the people who deserve to have it unleashed upon.

So in the above common context, ironically, someone who is being a deliberate ignorant dumb fuck homophobic arsehole, is a FAGGOT for not being able to keep their bigotry to themselves.

homophobe: "GOD HATES FAGGOTS!"
freethinker: "Well then, god must hate *you* for being a FAGGOT!"

So for me, as a child, FAGGOT was an insult to other people that was nothing to do with their sexuality, but rather, was used to insult their identity as if they were really *were* gay but not because of their sexuality, but because they "deserved" to be ripped on, they deserved to be riled up.

In other words, the point was to *insult*, not *how* the insult was made, so it didn't matter what the actual 'theme' of the insult was.

Other similar "untrue" insults, explicitly designed to insult, regardless of them being true or not, included saying things like "your mum is a slut" "you suck donkey balls" "you fuck dead dogs" ... none of those things were likely to be true, but we just say them to get a rise out of the other person as if they *do* suck dead donkey balls, that they *do* fuck dead dogs, that their mum *is* a slut, it had *nothing* to do with these situations actually being true, it was the implication itself that was the insult, what was said was actually irrelevant, and the bigger the embellishment, the bigger the insult.

but that sometimes backfired on us ... "shhhh!! man!! you shouldn't say that dude sucks dead donkey balls, because he really *does*!!! he has to suck them in order to make his kidney dialysis machine thing work or some complicated thing that his mother told me about once! and I've seen him do it, it's really gross, so shhhhh... he hates people talking about it!"

it's what kids do to rile each other up, and it's probably an evolutionary trait to weed out the weaker members of the group, as nothing is funnier than a little shit of a child that you just can't stand that goes into fits of temper tantrum when they are called a HOMO, and if people can't handle being called a HOMO, then I do not want them out in the forest with us while we're hunting woolly mammoths while we're trying to avoid being eaten by sabre tooth tigers..



So I personally would rarely use the term FAGGOT in the context of homosexuals, and likewise, I would very rarely (if *ever*) use the term RETARD, in the context of someone who was actually mentally challenged.

So for me, the word FAGGOT evolved into something that would be used in relation to some one who was being annoying! So while it may very well have started out as being a derogatory term towards gays in the 70s/80s, that might have been because they *were* being annoying, "okay okay okay! I heard you the first fifty fucking times! I don't care if you are GAY, stop being such a FAG about it!"

ie. for me the word FAGGOT is and always was used far more in the context of people who are being fucking annoying cunts, it's almost a reflex action in my brain, i see someone do something annoyingly stupid, and "FAG!" is quite often what my brain lunges to label someone in judgement of their being an idiot.




SO GIVEN ALL OF THAT, HOW IS IT THAT...............

how is it that you can call someone a FAGGOT and get into trouble for using a hateful word that is supposedly incendiary to the homosexual community, when it is extremely unlikely that you are even using that word in the context of anything that is even vaguely viewed as being "traditionally" gay?

ie. "The xyz footy club can't play footy for QUIDS, they are a bunch a of GIRLY SKIRT FAGGOTS!!"

for those who don't get the reference: "footy" in this context is *not* traditionally a very "gay" sort of thing, it is a very manly type of thing where lots of manly men man types nudge and throw and kick a bit of a pig skin ball around a big open field, quite often watched by large crowds cheering them on as they score points throwing said pig-skin ball around, while tackling, injuring and sometimes beating the crap out of each other. Basically it is the modern day, "politically correct" equivalent of the gladiator type battles that the Romans used to have, "politically correct" in that no-one is *supposed* to die. my how we've grown up, we don't kill each other for entertainment and sport these days, but we still pay good money to watch people beat the crap out of each other?? indeed, how we have grown..

So using the word FAGGOT is supposedly insensitive, but we can post images of gays and men in drag as an insult to other people online, which is deliberately using an explicit and obvious reference to "gayness" as a basis for the insult itself, in other words the insult is "YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL, HAHAHHAHAH!"

point being: you can call someone a FAGGOT and get into trouble, yet you can post an image representing homosexuality, and not get into trouble, or at least be tolerated.

while those notions by themselves, kind of don't make any sense in that they are hypocritical of each other, if we combine those notions with the following, that's when it really starts to totally make NO sense...

ie. how is it that you can call someone a RETARD and get NOT into trouble for using a hateful word that is supposedly derogatory to the mentally challenged when you are not really using that word in the context of those poor unfortunates who actually are mentally incapacitated, but then you DO get into trouble when you attempt to insult another person online by posting an *image* that quite clearly shows a mentally challenged person that obviously has down syndrome or are otherwise similarly mentally challenged, as if to say "you are mentally challenged, you are incapable of independent rational thought, you can't look after yourself, you are a dumbarse, YOU ARE A RETARD!"???

in summary:

how is that you can call someone a FAGGOT to insult them and get into trouble for not being "P.C.", but we call each other RETARDS all day and no-one blinks an eye?

and

how is that you can post a picture of a mentally challenged person to insult someone else and cause an uproar of disapproval, but then we often deliberately insult people with quite explicit images of homosexual and effeminate behaviour, and cause an uproar of laughter?


This does not make sense... and it's very hypocritical, but that's what we do, we have people who get offended by the word FAGGOT, but they don't have a problem when somebody uses the word RETARD, and those same people often will not be offended by seeing an image of a person that is clearly homosexual in a very obvious way, but they'll get all upset when they are exposed to an image of a mentally challenged individual ...

I believe the people who act like this, to be the some of biggest bigots we have, as that's being two faced, it's alright to be a cunt all the time, that's staying in character, but to find offence in one thing, but then not the other, then what's the source of your fucking hypocritical problem?

I have a theory...

You don't like to *SEE* mentally challenged people because it offends you, as *YOU* don't ever want to be like that but you know that it's out of your control and if it where true, then there would be nothing you go do about it, so you are perfectly happy to call people retards as an affirmation that that would never happen to you, because if it was going to happen, it more than likely would have *already* happened as you are likely to be born mentally challenged, ie. it's not something you would likely choose if somehow you were given the option.

At the same time, you don't mind seeing extreme representations of gay behaviour because you know that *YOU* will never actually go to that extreme and be like that yourself, but you get offended by the use of the word FAGGOT because you are afraid that deep down, you aren't sure that you wouldn't go off and start being GAY yourself.

In other words you see the specific image of a mentally challenged person and reject that as offensive as that won't happen to you, but you find the image of a sexual orientation different to yours to be humorous, because you know that you would never consciously choose to actually go and do such a thing.

Thus meaning that the word RETARD is acceptable because there is nothing you would do that would make you consciously make you mentally challenged, but you find the word FAGGOT unacceptable because at some level, you know that it's possible for you to be a homosexual, there's nothing stopping you from choosing to run with your feelings.


well, it's just a theory....

believers create anti-believers... (religiorant)

"belief" in god or religion, is something that you are taught, and you are taught that it is "the" way because you are taught it is the *only* way.. I mean, seriously, what's the point in following a god, if it's not *THE* god? like, "derrrrr!", so belief already has an inherent arrogance in its "I'm right and you are wrong" stance...

however, "non-belief" is something you are NOT taught, or more correctly, you are taught that there are options, so you are free to reject these fantasy stories, which I suspect you normally would do when given multiple religious options.... so inherently, non-believers are more likely to have a less arrogant stance because non-believers aren't taught that they are correct, non-believers are not taught that *not* believing in something is the way to go, in fact, the last thing a parent should do if they don't want their kids to believe in god, is to forbid them from believing in god.

"anti-belief" is what is created when someone tries to teach you their beliefs and then you tell them to fuck off and then they don't.

Don't agree with me? then how else is anti-belief created? you don't just decide one day to become anti-something, you need to know something about that something before you can reject it.

because if you don't know anything about something you dislike, then you are no better than some jerk-off racist or some low brow bigot that just hates things because they merely exist. like how christians get their skirts all caught up around their ears when they go off about the mere existence of atheists.

---

non-believers have the default position - when you are born, this is the default state of your beliefs, you don't *believe* in anything when you are born, how can you? no-one is born religious, so don't be a dumbarse and think that they do

believers have the extreme belief position, this is taught to them as they grow up, so people choose to believe in the fantasy stories that they are being taught, usually these are the parents' fantasy belief system stories.

anti-believers have the extreme non-belief position, this anti-belief is acquired when someone tries to push their religion on you, you DON'T become an anti-believer by any other means, how can you? why would you spontaneously hate something without there being a source or a catalyst for your hatred?

"oh you just need to read the bible"...
"uhmm... okay, I will, thanks for the info"

If you are not religious, that means that you have NO religion, right?

If you have never had a religion, do you seek religious people out and tell them that they are stupid (or whatever) for believing their bullshit? no you do not, you *ONLY* reject religion as a result of previous attempts at someone trying to sell religion to you.

in other words, there is ALWAYS a catalyst of some kind. And that includes people who were already religious, if you dump your religion after having one, why did you do that? Somebody tried to sell you some part of your religion that you didn't like, or you realised the lies that you were telling yourself and you woke up to yourself. what other ways are there?

it may have taken years for you to get around to realising this, but there is ALWAYS a catalyst to the rejection of religion, whether you ever had a religion or not.

non belief *is* the default position and belief is acquired and anti-belief is created when non-belief and belief meet head on

an analogy: think of someone telling you that they like country music (aka a "believer" in country music) and therefore they think you should like it too, but *you* have never heard country music before, you've heard "of" it, but you've never *actually* heard it, (or more likely, you aren't aware that you have heard it), so how could you like or dislike a thing that you do not (or are not sure that you) have a personal experience with?

this would make you a non-believer in country music, right? if it doesn't make you a non-believer in country music, then what does it make you? a non-participant in country music? ignorant of country music? blessed? lucky? regardless, whatever it is called is irrelevant and beside the point

but then you do go and listen to it, and then you *hate* it! so now you choose to reject country music because it's CRAP. There is a reason that you now reject country music, that being: someone told you country music was good, so you listened to it, and it was NOT good, in other words, THEY LIED TO YOU.

"oh you just need to read the bible"...
"I did read it, I thought it was CRAP"
"no no no! you need to believe in Jesus in order to read the bible!!!"
"what?"

so now, you are an "anti-believer" when it comes to country music. You've now heard country music, and you do NOT like it.

but being an anti-believer doesn't necessarily mean that you go around ragging on country music all the time, that one experience is not enough to make you go ballistic when the next person tries to tell you to listen to country music, you *only* mention that you don't like country music, *when* someone else tries to get you to like country music or if they tell you it's "good"

"yeah I don't like country music, but then again, I don't listen to it, so it's not a problem for me, and when I am subjected to it, I can tolerate it, for at least a little while."

now imagine a person, *insists* to you that you go and listen to some more country music, what is going to happen?

the more you bug me to like something that i've said that I do not like, the more I will start to go on about just how much I do NOT like country music, if you keep bugging me, eventually I will reach critical mass in my hatred of people trying to sell me country music, such that I *will* take an active stance *against* it, and i'll probably be so frigging annoyed about it, that i'll start conversations about how annoying it is.

but how did that happen? it didn't "just" take one person to piss me off enough to make me actively reject country music, it took multiple people, on multiple occasions, using multiple methods of trying to get me to like country music.

This is no different to religion. Non-belief (aka atheism) is the default position - belief is the theist position - and anti-belief is the anti-theist position

most atheists are, or were anti-theists at some time. this is why I choose to describe myself as a non-believer, as the term "atheist" has become ambiguous, as it seems that people use it in the context of anti-belief too often.

I have no interest in religion at all, and that means in a POSITIVE way or in a NEGATIVE way, religion is BULLSHIT, for me, it's a matter of "who gives a fuck?? people can have their religion or they can not have a religion, it doesn't bother me either way", but if you keep bugging me about this stupid thing called religion, then you *will* be bothering me..

"oh you just need to read the bible"...
"no! i don't! thanks!"

so try to sell me your religion and I'll ignore you, do it again a few more times and I'll probably still ignore you, but after about a half dozen more times, I'll start to tell you to fuck off and leave me alone, and if you are too thick to respect my wishes and keep at it still, like some cunt-faced christians have done many-a-time, then you are starting down the path of invoking a response that you will not like...

and that is *nothing* to do with *what* you are bugging me about, but it's everything to do with the fact that you *are* bugging me, even after I've told you to fuck off.

So, imagine the next person that comes along and annoys me to follow their religion...

"oh you just need to read the bible"...
*facepalms* ... "urrr... no thanks"

I will probably show less tolerance and patience to the next person that comes along and does the same thing, and the more people that do this, the more they are risking a permanent belligerent reaction to their bullshit.

"oh you just need to read the bible"...
"excuse me, but would you please leave me the fuck alone?"

eventually, if enough people bug me about their fantasy bullshit and fail to respect my wishes when i tell them to take a hike and they persist with bugging me about religion, I would become pre-emptive in my rejection of religion such that the mere mention of god or Jesus or Allah or muhammad or whatever will trigger some sort of anti-belief response....

"oh you just need to read the bible"...
"NO I FUCKING DO FUCKING NOT FUCKING NEED TO FUCKING READ THE GOD DAMN FUCKING BIBLE YOU FUCKING ARSEHOLE, NOW FUCKING LEAVE ME THE FUCKING FUCK ALONE!"

moral of the story?

keep your religion to yourself, or risk alienating people from it *permanently*....


oooopps.... too late