/abs/ - Absurdism

You are Sisyphus, this board is your boulder.


New Reply
Name
×
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files10MB total
Tegaki
Password
Don't Bump
[New Reply]


banhammer.jpeg
(17.3KB, 540x303)
They banned me under rule 3 "Quality Posts and Comments" for saying in replay to polytheist moderator, which may be a former moderator by now, making a post in the same vain in a now deleted thread. Here is what I said.

>Yeah, if you bash God and don't declare him to be non-existent, you get a downvote. You also get a downvote if you bash any cherished secular egregores used for social control.

I know I need to have my own platform to argue from to support my extroverted thinking style so I don't take in bad thought patterns unconsciously, and because I am a religious dissonant outside of the Abrahamic, red team vs blue team, paradigm. I am a polytheist that has formally been a monotheist and an atheist, I have my own deities (somehow mostly roman) and I have my own opinions about them.
Replies: >>658
Can we get an example "quality post" as reference?
>>656
Uf god is real, why are there suffering children. Checkmate religitards.
Here is the highest up voted post in the thread with a visible score. I have to split it into 2 parts.

>No, I don't think you do understand where I'm coming from at all. That is such as nonsensical reach I can't even….
>
>What does modern medicine have to do with anything? Not everyone in history with mental illness has been deemed as possessed. As OP says, some people think modern mental illness is caused by possession. There’s plenty of “possessed” people who don’t have a history of mental illness, or at least haven’t been diagnosed with anything. Also, people in third world countries DO have access to those facilities, which is how we know how rampant things like HIV/AIDS are in places like Africa.
>
>Let me clarify because you seem determined to deliberately misinterpret what I said or put words in my mouth.
>
>As far as I'm aware every case of demonic possession (Christian) or other sort of possession (other religions I'm not well versed enough in to know the specifics of what possesses people) who are then "cured" with an exorcism, are believers.
Part 2

>No atheists have ever been possessed by a demon. No Buddhists have ever been possessed by Satan/Lucifer/The Devil and required a Christian exorcism (which usually amounts to nothing more than a priest yelling in Latin and throwing Holy Water) to be cured.
>
>If demonic possession, or any other sort of possession were real, it wouldn't happen only to people who believe that they can be possessed.
>
>I do not believe for one second that people can be "possessed" by an external force. Therefore, if possession were real, I should be just as likely to be possessed as any Christian, but I haven't yet.
>
>The only people who have been possessed are people who believe they can be possessed. (Historically people have always differentiated between run of the mill crazy and "being possessed".) They are often abused and/or raised in ridiculously strict/fundamental/crazy religious households, and "being possessed" is a way of dealing with the guilt of whatever normal thing they've done that their upbringing has instilled a disproportionate amount of guilt/shame in them for doing. They're then "exorcised" and lo and behold they're right as rain. Because there was nothing wrong with them in the first place.
>
>If demonic possession as outlined by Christians were real, all people would be affected regardless of their beliefs, race, or level of orthodox-ness. Instead it's only devout Christians who have been demonically possessed.
>
>Now please take your strawman argument and leave me alone.
Replies: >>662
Seems like they did you a favour. That site seems to be a gigantic waste of time.
>>660
It is amazing how this post made me question something i whole heartedly believe while defending the opposite. Redditors write soo passive aggressively to the point  their arguments always reads like it is public shaming instead of actual arguments.

alsa nice dubs.
Replies: >>664
>>662
I'm sorry but that's really pathetic. I despise people who evaluate opinions based on the likeability of the people holding it.
Replies: >>665
>>664
I didn't talk about who holds the opinion, i talked about how bad they are at presenting their arguments. You can be the most open-minded person in the world but when a argument starts with a public shaming attempt you would think lowly of the argument itself as long as you can see the attempt. If he wrote 
>That is nonsensical
instead of
>That is such as nonsensical reach i can't even….
It would show me he is writing a counter-argument instead of talking to auidance for approval. He didn't start his argument, i don't know anything about his argument but i already know he trusts the auidance more than he trusts his opinion. And right after he presents his arguments he wrote
>Now please take your strawman argument and leave me alone.
Trying to play the more mature one in a discussion is just lowly and won't work after high school. If i wasn't opinionated in the subject i would assume him to be wrong purely for his attempts to play to auidance twice. Until i decided on thinking about the subject myself that would be my opinion about the subject.
Replies: >>668
>>665
You claim you don't care about who holds the opinion and then your whole post is bitching about the one who holds the opinion… It's over for you I can hear the audience laugh…
I'm more amazed they just gave you a temporary ban.
[New Reply]
10 replies | 1 file
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

- news - rules - faq - stats -
jschan+chaos 1.7.0
-><-