3 ms·

I'm an atheist; I've read and studied the Bible as part of my catholic education 25 years ago. Not that I'm strongly against it, but my attention is challenged

I'm an atheist; I've read and studied the Bible as part of my catholic education 25 years ago. Not that I'm strongly against it, but my attention is challenged by many things, and a man who starts an article about becoming a father with a clear sex-is-for-procreation Bible quote makes it sound like his experience of life is not relevant to mine.

tasuki 3y ago
> a man who starts an article about becoming a father with a clear sex-is-for-procreation Bible quote makes it sound like his experience of life is not relevant to mine It's not like he believes any of it. He just quotes the bible because that makes for a funnier article.
galdosdi 3y ago
You're behaving foolishly. If you spend just a moment looking at it you'd see the author isn't even taking the religious text he's quoting seriously! So your great fear of accidentally interacting with a religious individual is overblown. Well, since you chose not to read it, and continue to choose thusly in similar situations, you'll never really be able to confirm or deny whether or not"his experience of life is relevant" to yours. Not sure what the point of engaging in discussion on an article you admit to refusing to read is... So you are basically refusing to read this simply because the author is even willing to be aware of what's in the bible. What a bizarre and anti intellectual stance. I've been seeing this strange kind of attitude more lately -- for example, I encountered a young person who refused to read books that were more than 20 years old "because they might have bigoted ideas in them since they're old" But avoiding reading about the past because it scares you is a great way to remain stupid and cede control of the world to others without such hangups. > God smote Onan, starting a 4,000-year-old tradition of religious people getting angry about wasting sperm on anything other than procreative sex.
- mgaunard 3y ago
  I'm not "refusing" to read it. I just reacted on a comment.
  - galdosdi 3y ago
    Please don't comment on articles that you are unwilling to engage with beyond the headline alone. This is part of HN's rules to keep the discussion from being so superficial
- briansm 3y ago
  I dunno. 'Ignorance is Bliss'. I only have so much brain capacity and attention, I'd rather direct it to what's important to me than leave it wide open to the sewage-infected firehose of incoming information that is life in the 21st Century. An article who's title implies the inevitability of parenthood is probably not good mental fodder.
  - galdosdi 3y ago
    Oh, it didn't interest you enough to read? But it did interest you enough to comment!
koliber 3y ago
In the paragraphs that follow he goes on to explain how people twisted their god's intent while writing the bible, at least on this particular topic.

tasuki 3y ago

> a man who starts an article about becoming a father with a clear sex-is-for-procreation Bible quote makes it sound like his experience of life is not relevant to mine It's not like he believes any of it. He just quotes the bible because that makes for a funnier article.

galdosdi 3y ago

You're behaving foolishly. If you spend just a moment looking at it you'd see the author isn't even taking the religious text he's quoting seriously! So your great fear of accidentally interacting with a religious individual is overblown. Well, since you chose not to read it, and continue to choose thusly in similar situations, you'll never really be able to confirm or deny whether or not"his experience of life is relevant" to yours. Not sure what the point of engaging in discussion on an article you admit to refusing to read is... So you are basically refusing to read this simply because the author is even willing to be aware of what's in the bible. What a bizarre and anti intellectual stance. I've been seeing this strange kind of attitude more lately -- for example, I encountered a young person who refused to read books that were more than 20 years old "because they might have bigoted ideas in them since they're old" But avoiding reading about the past because it scares you is a great way to remain stupid and cede control of the world to others without such hangups. > God smote Onan, starting a 4,000-year-old tradition of religious people getting angry about wasting sperm on anything other than procreative sex.

mgaunard 3y ago
I'm not "refusing" to read it. I just reacted on a comment.
- galdosdi 3y ago
  Please don't comment on articles that you are unwilling to engage with beyond the headline alone. This is part of HN's rules to keep the discussion from being so superficial
briansm 3y ago
I dunno. 'Ignorance is Bliss'. I only have so much brain capacity and attention, I'd rather direct it to what's important to me than leave it wide open to the sewage-infected firehose of incoming information that is life in the 21st Century. An article who's title implies the inevitability of parenthood is probably not good mental fodder.
- galdosdi 3y ago
  Oh, it didn't interest you enough to read? But it did interest you enough to comment!

koliber 3y ago

In the paragraphs that follow he goes on to explain how people twisted their god's intent while writing the bible, at least on this particular topic.