3 ms·

some people in religion are bullshitters, some are liars, and some are truth tellers. the real bullshit comes in with people like you who pretend your preachin

by autokad 12y ago

some people in religion are bullshitters, some are liars, and some are truth tellers. the real bullshit comes in with people like you who pretend your preaching the truth but you really know nothing about it. your just a bullshitter. see, if you truly believed in science, which could be coined as the pursuit of truth, you'd simply stick to saying some elements of a religion are true, some are false, and some if not many cannot be known/discovered. you'd probably sit there and complain if someone said something that blanketed an entire topic, while you do the same to religion. and i would guess you'd probably call yourself scientific. again, i think this is the epitome of bullshit.

bradleysmith 12y ago
I'd say Aoyagi was really just expressing disdain for not including religion on the list. Saying he/she was 'preaching the truth' seems a bit far-fetched. He/she asked a question about something not being included: "not religion?", and expressed vague dislike (in an obviously subjective way): "awww" He/she didn't really make any statements of what truth is. Only what his/her opinion of a missing element of the article was. He/she did set off a heap of reactions though, which is interesting to me. I've noticed how much more religion-friendly, or at least religion-neutral HN has become over the past year. That is a positive thing, in my opinion.
jdmichal 12y ago
Of a particularly relevant note here is agnosticism [1], or the viewpoint that there are certain things that are simply unknowable to humans. The implication being that humans can neither confirm NOR deny the truth value of the statements. Metaphysical statements often fall into this category. And hence, you can also have agnostic theists [2] and agnostic atheists [3], who both recognize that they are taking a stance on an unknowable truth value. Some would then define this as the very essence of the word faith, but I would like to at least point out that both sides are subject to the same definition. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

by autokad 12y ago

bradleysmith 12y ago

I'd say Aoyagi was really just expressing disdain for not including religion on the list. Saying he/she was 'preaching the truth' seems a bit far-fetched. He/she asked a question about something not being included: "not religion?", and expressed vague dislike (in an obviously subjective way): "awww" He/she didn't really make any statements of what truth is. Only what his/her opinion of a missing element of the article was. He/she did set off a heap of reactions though, which is interesting to me. I've noticed how much more religion-friendly, or at least religion-neutral HN has become over the past year. That is a positive thing, in my opinion.

jdmichal 12y ago

Of a particularly relevant note here is agnosticism [1], or the viewpoint that there are certain things that are simply unknowable to humans. The implication being that humans can neither confirm NOR deny the truth value of the statements. Metaphysical statements often fall into this category. And hence, you can also have agnostic theists [2] and agnostic atheists [3], who both recognize that they are taking a stance on an unknowable truth value. Some would then define this as the very essence of the word faith, but I would like to at least point out that both sides are subject to the same definition. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism