Sort:  

In this instance... I was referring to how, religion as a whole, depends solely on ignorance. I could have been clearer. With education in logical reasoning and basic science we could avoid this entirely. However, religion depends on the ignorance of others to trick them into a faith based system. That's not persuasion at any level. The proper term for those individuals, "selling" those claims, should be crooks.

I appreciate your cordial reply. I must say I find it ironic that your castigation of OP regarding her grammar was so poorly worded as to be incomprehensible, particularly given your superior tone.

Let me speak in the voice of Billy Mays here for a second: but wait! there's more!

You now explain your complaint with the content of the post was that religion stems from ignorance, and proselytization is fraudulent and criminal. That's a pretty broad claim from someone who states that with education in 'logical reasoning and basic science we could avoid this entirely.', which is based on what? Statistical studies? Actual science?

No. Not at all. It's based on nothing other than your faith in what you've been told, assume about others, and your own personal views.

But I'm not even done. You see, OP's post wasn't about religion and how it provides a proper faith based point of view. OP's post was about skepticism - the very basis of science itself. Something you should have for your personal world view and basic science, which I don't even want to ask you to define, because I'm actually not trying to become more scornful, but reveal how you have completed a trifecta of irony in your comment above so that you can properly regret it, learn from it, and hopefully never make such a fool of yourself ever again.

I'm on your side @cannabisguy420. I don't want you to ever shame yourself like that again.

You scathingly chide OP for a fairly well written post, which you assume is from someone who learned English as a second language, yet you so poorly use your mother tongue the main thesis in your comment is utterly incomprehensible. Score one for irony. You then misunderstand OP's post completely. It's not advocating blind religious faith, but, after noting such faith can have significant impact on folks, states "I am very skeptical of that kind of thing." Irony the second, you have misunderstood the point of OP's post completely. And then, for the grand icing on the cake of irony, it turns out that your complaint against OP's post is that you advocate skepticism regarding religion, based on your own faith in education and basic science. [Note: that's actually four very ironic things, but I've never heard of a 'quadrecta', and don't even like the look of that word. At all. So, sticking with trifecta. I'm a traditionalist at heart.]

I'd give this thought were I you. I love criticism of me, of my thoughts, my words, everything I believe, because if I cannot disprove the critic, I should benefit from their better understanding. I prefer it to money, because it does me more good. Do try to accept this criticism in that light.

Unless you want to completely reveal your utter failure meet your own standards, understand your own philosophy, or grasp that your faith in what you've been told by your indoctrinators is no less specious than the faith anyone else has. I'd work on that if I were you. I'd also apologize for my tone to the OP, because I care about how I treat people, and I would be ashamed of so poorly lecturing someone so far ahead of me philosophically, intellectually, and educationally.

Funny thanks for the lecture... Ill put it in all the other files filed under go fuck yourself.

Perfect. That's exactly what it means. See? You are capable of understanding written words, if you spend a month or two trying.

Good job!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.18
JST 0.032
BTC 86998.67
ETH 3233.80
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.92