A little nugget to piss off christians...

[Hannibal]

...because it's fun.

 

I've heard this mistake from religious folk so much recently I figured I'd post it here in the atheism section for all those who haven't had the pleasure of a Christian-ish upbringing (I say Christian, but perhaps it's just Roman Catholic - I dunno).

 

 

Explain to them that they don't understand their own scripture when you catch them referring to the/an immaculate conception as a conception without sex. I.e. the virgin Mary - mother of god, or some other person that claims they can't be pregnant, unless it was an "immaculate conception".

 

The immaculate conception refers to Jesus' mother Mary being conceived without original sin - a special exception having been made as she was destined to be the vessel for Jesus. Nothing to do with sex.

 

Oddly enough it's entirely clear from looking at the wikipedia page, but I find it funny that people recite all of the mumbo-jumbo that they do in church, while probably at least 2 thirds of them don't even understand half of what it's supposed to mean.

 

Disclaimer - you guys in 'merica! seem to have many more complete nutters (most of the folk here in the UK are fairly apathetic in their nutterness, so maybe your lot are bang-on the scripture )

[Wuzzums]

Mary being a virgin is also one of these misconceptions. It's just a bad translation, the original word meant young unmarried woman or something like that. I can be associated with virginity but it doesn't require it.

 

There's this theologian scholar that was so fed up with these bible errors he decided to spend his life correcting them by studying the evolution of the bible text from different sources and languages. Needless to say he became an atheist. And wrote a book about it, "Misquoting Jesus" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus

[wdiaz03]

...because it's fun.

 

 

But is it really? Seems like arguing whether unicorn's can see in the dark or not. Or at which end of the rainbow leprechauns hide their gold..

[Hannibal]

Seems like arguing whether unicorn's can see in the dark or not. Or at which end of the rainbow leprechauns hide their gold..

 

Hmm.... not really. It's not the same at all.

[wdiaz03]

Hmm.... not really. It's not the same at all.

Care to elavorate?

 

If I approach a unicorn believer and ask him if unicorns can see in the dark and he says yes..then I Laught and point to their Holly book and say "HA HA! see it says here that the cannot..." then he can say..."oh...ok...good then thanks" or "well that's not the holly book we believe in..bla bla".

 

Where the fun in that? why do you feel it is fun to engage irrational people in this manner?

[Hannibal]

Ok, that's fine - from your first post it sounded like you meant arguing about the truth of things, rather than pointing out that the believer doesn't understand their own scripture.

 

It was all really meant as a joke though. The idea than the immaculate conception refers to a virgin conceiving is a very pervasive misconception, and it's sometimes amusing to see the "wow" on someones face when they realise that they've thought something else all these years, and to see them squirm when they have to concede that their ignorant atheist actually might know what they're talking about.

 

As to whether it's fun or not? I'm not sure that that is an objectively measurable quality.

[docgnu]

...because it's fun.

 

I've heard this mistake from religious folk so much recently I figured I'd post it here in the atheism section for all those who haven't had the pleasure of a Christian-ish upbringing (I say Christian, but perhaps it's just Roman Catholic - I dunno).

 

 

Explain to them that they don't understand their own scripture when you catch them referring to the/an immaculate conception as a conception without sex. I.e. the virgin Mary - mother of god, or some other person that claims they can't be pregnant, unless it was an "immaculate conception".

 

The immaculate conception refers to Jesus' mother Mary being conceived without original sin - a special exception having been made as she was destined to be the vessel for Jesus. Nothing to do with sex.

 

Oddly enough it's entirely clear from looking at the wikipedia page, but I find it funny that people recite all of the mumbo-jumbo that they do in church, while probably at least 2 thirds of them don't even understand half of what it's supposed to mean.

 

Disclaimer - you guys in 'merica! seem to have many more complete nutters (most of the folk here in the UK are fairly apathetic in their nutterness, so maybe your lot are bang-on the scripture )

How did a Christian harm you growing up that you now lash out like this? 

[Tenko]

KJV Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

 

The Bible describes Mary as a virgin. Does this mean the metaphorical kind of chaste virgin in preparation for marraige to Christ [salvation]? Or does this mean the literal meaning, that she had no intercourse yet had concieved a child?

 

KJV Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

 

Jesus was concieved by the Holy Ghost. Also, she was found with child before marraige, meaning in the time of the law that no intercourse had yet occurred between her and Joseph, clearly indicating a divine means of conception. There's more too.

 

KJV Matthew 1:1-18

 

Notice how each father begats a firstborn son, and that son begats their own firstborn son, etc. It looks like this.

"And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;"

Each time a father naturally concieves their own firstborn son, it is referred to as "begat."

 

KJV Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

 

This verse does not say that Joseph begat Jesus. How could Joseph have done that, if the child was conceived of the Holy Ghost? This verse says that Joseph is the husband of Mary, and that Jesus was born of Mary. In the entire line of 'begats' it always mentioned the father who was begating, not the mother, until Christ comes.

 

The way I interpret the words, I believe the conception of Jesus was indeed immaculate.

[JamesRedford]

...because it's fun.

 

I've heard this mistake from religious folk so much recently I figured I'd post it here in the atheism section for all those who haven't had the pleasure of a Christian-ish upbringing (I say Christian, but perhaps it's just Roman Catholic - I dunno).

 

 

Explain to them that they don't understand their own scripture when you catch them referring to the/an immaculate conception as a conception without sex. I.e. the virgin Mary - mother of god, or some other person that claims they can't be pregnant, unless it was an "immaculate conception".

 

The immaculate conception refers to Jesus' mother Mary being conceived without original sin - a special exception having been made as she was destined to be the vessel for Jesus. Nothing to do with sex.

 

Oddly enough it's entirely clear from looking at the wikipedia page, but I find it funny that people recite all of the mumbo-jumbo that they do in church, while probably at least 2 thirds of them don't even understand half of what it's supposed to mean.

 

Disclaimer - you guys in 'merica! seem to have many more complete nutters (most of the folk here in the UK are fairly apathetic in their nutterness, so maybe your lot are bang-on the scripture )

 

I'm a Christian, and I've had one lady argue with me about this. I brought up the Wikipedia page on this on an iPad, and she still didn't believe it. I don't blame her on that count in and of itself, since her point there was that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, whatever their knowledge or intentions toward truth. And she's quite correct on that. I then brought up the online Catholic Encyclopedia, and at that point she relented and granted that I was right--as my point to her there is that the Catholics know their own doctrine (i.e., Catholics at a high enough level to get it into the Catholic Encyclopedia).

 

I don't think this lady was even particularly religious. She certainly wasn't a doctrinal Catholic, as she said as much to me. She was a computer engineer by trade. Rather, I think she thought, like with most people who have some awareness of this term, that it meant something that it didn't mean (i.e., the Virgin Birth), and couldn't conceive that this term, Immaculate Conception, refers to Mary being born without Original Sin.

 

So yes, Hannibal, if one's intendment is to "piss off" (to use your vernacular) those who call themselves Christians, then this might make for a little morsel of contention with such folk. But then, you could probably get many atheists to argue with you about this term, as probably most of them think it refers to the Virgin Birth.

 

Physicists and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler has presented the hypothesis that Mary was indeed born without Original Sin, i.e., that she was a mutation who did not possess the killer instincts which characterizes the members of the metazoans in particular. Since all humans are the not-too-distant descendants of serial-killing, baby-raping cannibals. Such a past appears to be universal for mankind if one goes back far enough in time. What Tipler proposes is that Mary was born with a genetic mutation which made her lack such a killer instinct. Tipler further proposes that Jesus was parthenogenetically born from Mary with all of Mary's genetic material, but that the SRY gene was inserted into one of Mary's X chromosomes, but that it only became active in Jesus, who would hence be an XX male.

 

The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo are both known to have quite divergent histories and different purported carbon-14 datings, and yet they both display the same XX male blood samples, results for which the world-renowned DNA scientists who collected and studied the samples on both artifacts had no explanation for (see Lucia Casarino, et al., "Ricerca dei polimorfismi del DNA sulla Sindone e sul Sudario di Oviedo", Sindon Nuova Serie, Quaderno n. 8, dicembre 1995, pp. 36-47). The team of Italian researchers who conducted these tests on both the Turin Shroud and Oviedo Cloth in January 1995 were lead by Prof. Marcello Canale of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Genoa, Italy. This team included several researchers who had invented the standard DNA test for gender. Such was this research group's confusion that they simply published the raw data without any attempt to provide analysis in an obscure Italian journal (which is quite remarkable, since Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo research typically gets published in leading journals such as Nature and Science). Yet this is precisely the result to be expected from a virgin birth.

 

The extreme rarity of a human parthenogenic birth would be one of the confirmations that a miracle had occurred if Jesus was a virgin birth. Prof. Tipler proposes that at the very least the Y gene that encodes for maleness (the SRY gene) was inserted into one of Mary's X chromosomes (if not all the Y genes, of which there are 28), but only became active in Jesus. DNA tests on the Turin Shroud and the Oviedo Cloth have both confirmed the DNA of an XX male, i.e., the blood is that of XX chromosomes but with Y genes present, which is strong evidence that the blood is that of an XX male. For more on this, see Ch. 7: "The Virgin Birth of Jesus", pp. 154-193 of Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007).

 

For the details on how such a Virgin Birth miracle can be forced by the known laws of physics, see my following article:

 

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

[LanceD]

KJV Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."The Bible describes Mary as a virgin. Does this mean the metaphorical kind of chaste virgin in preparation for marraige to Christ [salvation]? Or does this mean the literal meaning, that she had no intercourse yet had concieved a child?KJV Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."Jesus was concieved by the Holy Ghost. Also, she was found with child before marraige, meaning in the time of the law that no intercourse had yet occurred between her and Joseph, clearly indicating a divine means of conception. There's more too.KJV Matthew 1:1-18Notice how each father begats a firstborn son, and that son begats their own firstborn son, etc. It looks like this."And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;"Each time a father naturally concieves their own firstborn son, it is referred to as "begat."KJV Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."This verse does not say that Joseph begat Jesus. How could Joseph have done that, if the child was conceived of the Holy Ghost? This verse says that Joseph is the husband of Mary, and that Jesus was born of Mary. In the entire line of 'begats' it always mentioned the father who was begating, not the mother, until Christ comes.The way I interpret the words, I believe the conception of Jesus was indeed immaculate.

So not only do ghosts exist but they can impregnate women?! This puts your other thread where you are trying to use logic and reason to prove God is possible into a whole new light!

[Mike Fleming]

 

I'm a Christian, and I've had one lady argue with me about this. I brought up the Wikipedia page on this on an iPad, and she still didn't believe it. I don't blame her on that count in and of itself, since her point there was that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, whatever their knowledge or intentions toward truth. And she's quite correct on that. I then brought up the online Catholic Encyclopedia, and at that point she relented and granted that I was right--as my point to her there is that the Catholics know their own doctrine (i.e., Catholics at a high enough level to get it into the Catholic Encyclopedia).

 

...

 

The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo are both known to have quite divergent histories and different purported carbon-14 datings, and yet they both display the same XX male blood samples, results for which the world-renowned DNA scientists who collected and studied the samples on both artifacts had no explanation for (see Lucia Casarino, et al., "Ricerca dei polimorfismi del DNA sulla Sindone e sul Sudario di Oviedo", Sindon Nuova Serie, Quaderno n. 8, dicembre 1995, pp. 36-47). The team of Italian researchers who conducted these tests on both the Turin Shroud and Oviedo Cloth in January 1995 were lead by Prof. Marcello Canale of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Genoa, Italy. This team included several researchers who had invented the standard DNA test for gender. Such was this research group's confusion that they simply published the raw data without any attempt to provide analysis in an obscure Italian journal (which is quite remarkable, since Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo research typically gets published in leading journals such as Nature and Science). Yet this is precisely the result to be expected from a virgin birth.

 

The extreme rarity of a human parthenogenic birth would be one of the confirmations that a miracle had occurred if Jesus was a virgin birth. Prof. Tipler proposes that at the very least the Y gene that encodes for maleness (the SRY gene) was inserted into one of Mary's X chromosomes (if not all the Y genes, of which there are 28), but only became active in Jesus. DNA tests on the Turin Shroud and the Oviedo Cloth have both confirmed the DNA of an XX male, i.e., the blood is that of XX chromosomes but with Y genes present, which is strong evidence that the blood is that of an XX male. For more on this, see Ch. 7: "The Virgin Birth of Jesus", pp. 154-193 of Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007).

 

For the details on how such a Virgin Birth miracle can be forced by the known laws of physics, see my following article:

 

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

 

 

Science without one shred of evidence is not science.  It's just trying to theorise about how someone's fantasy might have been able to work in practice.  Even if your theory is scientifically sound, it sounds absurd to me but what do I know I'm not a scientist, but even if it is scientifically sound it doesn't prove a single thing.  Any more than people who try to work out the science in Star Wars or Star Trek.  Yeah, it's interesting for people interested in those stories, but it doesn't make the stories true.  For that you need evidence.

[J-William]

wow.... things get nutty when you involve true believers that believe hard in.... whatever

 

I believe that Mary was a virgin but god stuck a really long needle in her and impregnated her that way... that would still make her a virgin, right? 

[LanceD]

wow.... things get nutty when you involve true believers that believe hard in.... whateverI believe that Mary was a virgin but god stuck a really long needle in her and impregnated her that way... that would still make her a virgin, right?

As long as that needle wasn't penis shaped I believe so!

[nathanm]

[tasmlab]

I used to subscribe to an atheist magazine called "Free Inquiry" where a lot of the content was showing inconsistencies or the absurdities in scripture.  It became a little tedious.

[JamesRedford]

Science without one shred of evidence is not science.  It's just trying to theorise about how someone's fantasy might have been able to work in practice.  Even if your theory is scientifically sound, it sounds absurd to me but what do I know I'm not a scientist, but even if it is scientifically sound it doesn't prove a single thing.  Any more than people who try to work out the science in Star Wars or Star Trek.  Yeah, it's interesting for people interested in those stories, but it doesn't make the stories true.  For that you need evidence.

 

It is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics that God as described by the world's leading religions does exist. Said known physical laws being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the conclusion that God as described by the world's leading religions exists is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Omega Point cosmology, which is the aforesaid proof of God's existence, has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

 

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

It is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics that God as described by the world's leading religions does exist. Said known physical laws being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the conclusion that God as described by the world's leading religions exists is to reject empirical science.

 

Man, are you going to show us the math for that or not?

[cobra2411]

I was raised Catholic and even at a very young age I saw the hypocrisy in it. The parents of my first serious girlfriend in college were religious nutters. The father was completely sincere in his believe and has traveled the world doing missionary stuff. The mother was a convert and was manipulative as hell. She didn't like me, probably because she saw her manipulation wouldn't work and she told her daughter to dump me and if she didn't she'd be sinning against god because god says "Honor your mother and father". I was in earshot for that one and came back with "He also has something to say about using his words for your own benefit too". 

 

I had a co-worker who was a southern baptist and he believed the uiverse was only 6-7k years old and was due to be destroyed around 2000. He was smart too, at least he had the capability to be intelligent. So we were discussing the universe being billions of years old which he said was wrong. I took him down the path of emperical science....

 

Me: We know how long it takes light to cover a certain distance right? 

 

CW: Yeah, we can measure it. 

 

Me: We have been to the moon and have sent probes out and can measure distances from earth to them, including the sun, right?

 

CW: Yeah, absolutely. 

 

Me: We know how long it takes for the earth to make one complete revolution of the sun and by taking half that time we know we are 2 times the distance to the sun, right?

 

CW: Seems reasonable - I agree. 

 

Me: If we have a the length of one side of a triangle and know two angles we can estimate the height of the triangle with a good degree of certainty, right? 

 

CW: Yeah, it's called trigonometry. 

 

Me: Then since we know the distance between the earth 6 months apart and we can measure the angles to a start we can estimate how far away it is, then since we know how long it takes light to travel a certain distance we can estimate how long it would take light from that star to reach us. Some of the more distant stars are billions of years away. How do you rectify that with your believe that the universe is only thousands of years old? 

 

CW: God wouldn't want us to know the true age of the universe so he moves the stars so the measurements aren't accurate and we think the universe is older than it is. 

 

Me:

[JamesRedford]

Man, are you going to show us the math for that or not?

 

It's very simple. I've always shown the mathematics of it. It's in my article which I often cite. But are you asking me to post the proof here? I can certainly do that.

 

At any rate, let me know what you're actually asking of me. If you're just asking where that proof can be found, then see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", pp. 12-19 of my following article:

 

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

 

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

 

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

 

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

[tiepolo]

There is a Catholic belief that Mary the mother of Jesus was conceived without sin (lust) but not that she herself was born of a virgin. Two of the gospels mention that Jesus was born of a virgin, and the context belies the idea that it was a mistranslation. Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph did not 'know' Mary until after she had brought forth her firstborn son. This implies that he had sex with her afterwards and that there were other sons, contradicting the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. (Jesus' brothers are mentioned elsewhere in the gospels, but that is also explained away by those who seem to feel the need to do so).

[ThomasPaineintheArse]

How did a Christian harm you growing up that you now lash out like this? 

they pushed their values onto my education, they bullied my political system, they attempt to return my sister citizens to subjugation...........please; allow me to retort.  Christianity has hindered Western thought since Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome.  Christians went from humble, peaceful cultists, to burning priests of opposing versions of "Christ," in one generation.  my ancestors drove out the mother goddess, and put Yaweh Manson on his bloody throne, but the Christians really picked up the ball and ran with it.  Abraham was a dick, for his willingness to sacrifice Issac.............not some hero.

[P. Mason]

Why do you want to piss off christians? If they interact in a voluntary manner who cares what they believe.

[CoreyF]

I don't think trying to piss anyone off is a good idea.

However if your intent is to educate and help... that is different.

If on the other hand, they become discontent or upset, this is not my goal.

 

key is intentions and don't be a jerk.

[hannahbanana]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MclBbZUFSag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbTbEvFSSF8

Pretty interesting stuff.

[PGP]

What do we receive in information re: Jebus.

He was born to a virgin and his pop had no idea wtf was going on.

Jebus lived with his mother except for a theorized road-trip with an extended group of males and one woman (Mary Magdalene).

He dressed in flowing robes and had impeccable hair, abs and pecs.

He was betrayed to the authorities for a monetary gain. Said traitor hanged himself in a suspicious incident involving a donkey.

 

Read: Mary a lesbian, conceived via turkey baster (hence turkey now the predominant Christmas meal (mmmm...)

Gay, one fag-hag.

Gay, looked after himself.

Lovers tiff with ANOTHER of the circle-jerk jerks. Betrayed to authority.

Judas had exotic tastes in sexual partners and ended his time in an orgasmic grief-ridden suicide.

 

Just sayin'.

[Hannibal]

I forgot about the thread.

I think a lot of you guys took it way more literally than I meant (and to be fair, reading it back it reads more serious than I meant).

I just felt like mentioning at the time that it's amazing how many religious folk believe so devoutly without any evidence, yet often have a very poor grasp of their own chosen religion (at least here in the UK).

 

As for pissing them off... I derive pleasure - albeit very little - from undermining the foundations of people's bullshit beliefs that they freely choose to pursue. I like truth. I dislike fraud (including self-fraud). The feeling of being pissed off is a side-effect, although I might sometimes feel satisfaction in that to, as is natural for one to feel when witnessing the frustrations of someone they hold in contempt.