'Religion is clearly rubbish' is quite different from 'My opinion is that religion is rubbish' and I wouldn't call that sort of opinion fanaticism. Also, about the books, obviously some religious people aren't going to want them to exist, but a lot of those people are not going to say 'let's get rid of all the books convincing people that God is real too because it's fair that way'. If the books telling us that God is the way are perfectly acceptable, then there should be no reason why the ones that tell us God does not exist aren't too.
Not believing is also having faith that something you can never disprove does not exist and someone calling a believer 'delusional' is no different to a believer telling an atheist that they are going to hell because they don't believe. It's not the atheist side doing all of the insulting of intelligence all the time.
Personally, I don't know what I believe right now. I'd be leaning towards atheism but I suppose I would actualy be fitting into the agnostic category which is just a realistic and respectful attitude. Nobody has proof of anything so I don't know, probably what I find pointless is arguing about it at all. (That's not to say I wouldn't understand the arguments if I knew about them in detail which I obviously don't, not studying it and all that). I don't care who believes in what or who doesn't believe in what. I wouldn't be judging anyone on their views of religion of all things.
First: "Religion is clearly rubbish' is quite different from 'My opinion is that religion is rubbish'" Actually no, it's the same thing. The only difference is that in the second one you have stated that this is your opinion whereas in the first instance this is implied and indeed assumed because of the lack of factual evidence either way. The second way is just a more polite way to put it. The original sentiment is just as offensive to religious people in the same way that saying 'the idea that people can be gay is clearly rubbish' would be offensive.
Second: The books which tell us that God is the way make more sense than the books which refute it because the existence of God is something that is usually taken to be false until proven otherwise in general logical debate. As such these books go against the 'normal' reasoning of society and so have some purpose. They are more necessary than the ones refuting God, although not by much.
Third: Not believing is not faith. Faith is believing in something despite all evidence being contradictory or non existant. I would say evidence against God's existence is quite common and strong from a reasonable persons viewpoint. Having negative faith in this respect is impossible. That is like saying you have faith in gravity. You don't have faith in it, you believe in it and can offer scientific proof of it. You would have faith in there NOT being gravity. The word faith in this context being a positive and constructive one rather than a deconstructive one. Double negatives are not necessary.
Fourth: I know that calling believers delusional is no different. That is what i said in my original post. My point was however that it is more often the atheists who complain about having 'religion shoved down their throats' while attempting to do the same thing to the believers. I find this hypocritical and was pointing it out.
Fifth: On the fact that it is pointless to argue about it. I agree. It is not worth arguing about. What it is worth is detailed discussion and study to analyse the impact which religion can have on the human psyche and the new predominantly 21st century anti-religion trend and how this is virtually the same as a 'new' religion.
Sixth: Nobody says you are judging people on their views of religon.
Seventh: I need to start debating again. This is fun.
Ok, if 'Religion is clearly rubbish' is no different from 'My opinion is that religion is rubbish' then why did you say 'the only difference is...' ? There is clearly a difference. It may not be a big difference I know. As you said, in the first case you've implied it is your opinion but are stating it as more of a fact than opinion. You can't state facts about things that nobody has the answers to but you can express an opinion, and that's why they are different. Using the word 'opinion' usually implies respect for other opinions, but stating unknowns as facts implies lack of respect.
About the books; I don't think that just because most people/ a lot of people / society in general thinks in a certain way that it means any book is more purposeful or necessary than another.
''the existence of God is something that is usually taken to be false until proven otherwise'' You could say that exactly the other way around and it would make no difference to anything seeing as either way, it's never going to be proven.
On the point of 'faith', the first definition it gives in the dictionary is complete trust or belief, no mention of religion, and therefore you can have faith in your belief that something that cannot be disproved doesn't exist. It THEN uses the word in reference to religion.
Saying you have faith in your belief that God does not exist is not the same as saying you have faith in gravity. You can't use gravity in comparison to religion. Gravity is a scientific proof. Nobody believes in gravity. We know it exists because it is a scientific law. You don't need faith or belief in it.
Both sides are guilty of shoving their opinions down the other's throats...but it's basically a fact (as you said) that you hear less of ''stop shoving your atheism down my throat'' than you do of ''stop showing your religion down my throat''. As soon as the atheist side starts to fight more strongly for its belief (which it hasn't until recently in the scheme of things) all of a sudden they're hypocrites? They're defending their belief, just like the religions defend theirs.
Anyway, I'm all for people defending what they believe in, whatever that is, but to argue over it when both sides know there won't be a winner is why it is my opinion that agnosticism with respect to both sides of the argument is the most reasonable point of view out of all of them. Learning about it for what it is and what it has caused in the world, I agree, is something worth doing.
And here we go again. One: The difference is in respect to the wording not the meaning. These are not the same thing.
Two: You are not stating it as a fact. You are stating it as an opinion. You are right that you can't state facts about things that nobody has the answer to. Therefore you have just contradicted yourself in saying that the first statement is a fact. Statement and fact are different. There are no unknown facts. Therefore when you say 'stating unknowns as facts implies lack of respect' you are wrong. Stating unknowns as facts implies nothing as they are not facts merely statements. These are two very different things. Unless you actually say 'religion is bullshit, FACT' then you are expressing an opinion. Anyway anyone who says 'fact' at the end of a sentence should die.
Re Books: It is more necessary as it is always necessary to have a number of books disputing what society in general considers the norm. This is how we grow and develop.
Re Existence of God: No you cannot say that the other way round. Because the Gods existence is NOT usually taken to be true unless proven otherwise. This is scientific and not a matter of people's opinions. In science things are always false until proven otherwise. As such, God is false until proven otherwise. By saying 'god not existing is false...' you are not reversing the logic but coming up with an entirely contradictory view upon how science operates. Unfortunately, this view is wrong according to the entire scientific world.
Re Faith: Tip for how dictionaries work - many words in the english language have MULTIPLE meanings according to their CONTEXT. Thus, when defining a word in a religious context as we are here you do not use the primary definition but the one which is used in reference to religion. These definitions are not sorted in order of importance but rather in order of which is used most often. Basically, you are using the dictionary wrong and as such this point is moot.
Gravity and Faith: If you read back you will see that i said that it is the same has having faith in there NOT being gravity. Therefore the argument you have given is also moot and irrelevant to the original point proposed. It is quite a good comparison in fact. It is analogous in the following ways, it is rational to believe that gravity exists, we have a certain amount of proof that gravity exists (it is necessary to note that nothing can be claimed as certain). So for one to not believe in gravity seems to be going against scientific evidence. In fact, there is quite a lot of proof which says that God as many people believe in it/him/her does not exist. These things include the age of the earth and the existence of the solar system. Also, evolution. Therefore despite what seems to be overwhelming scientific evidence they continue to believe something which contradicts this. This is having RELIGIOUS FAITH. One could have religious faith in gravity not existing if you really tried.
Re Atheists: Yes they are hypocrites. This is not fighting for ones belief, this is complaining about other people preaching about Jesus and then going and preaching against Jesus. This is hypocritical. That is quite basic logic. If they had not kicked up such a fuss about people preaching religion then it would not be hypocritical but as it is one of the main points on which they criticise religion i find it very irritating the way they start with their little 'the bible is rubbish' rant as if they are not being hypocritical. Unless they stop moaning about the preachers they cannot preach themselves.
Last thing which i just realised... "On the point of 'faith', the first definition it gives in the dictionary is complete trust or belief, no mention of religion, and therefore you can have faith in your belief that something that cannot be disproved doesn't exist"
Please stop using double negatives. They make my head hurt. They are also unnecessary. I am not even going to start arguing why faith should only be used in a positive context because instead i will recommend to you 2 books. The first of these being 'Meditations on the Metaphysical" by Descartes and the second being 'Beyond Good and Evil' by Nietzsche. Read these, then come back to me.
I shouldn't even be replying at this stage because it's clear that we're never going to get anywhere.
"The difference is in respect to the wording not the meaning." Not true. The way something is worded has an effect on its meaning. I thought that would be obvious. I didn't say ANYTHING was a fact. I said people USE statements LIKE facts. Just because you CAN state something AS IF it was a fact doesn't mean it IS a fact. That's what I'm saying. It's called ignorance.
The books again, there is no reason why any book shouldn't exist. Mein Kampf, The God Delusion or Harry Potter. I'm never going to agree with you on that so I'm ending that argument.
About the existence of God. For plenty of people God exists to them and that is that. Plenty of people think they KNOW God exists so those same people could actually turn it around. All i'm saying is it's a pointless thing to be arguing over. I'm not 'contradicting how science operates'. Seeing as God's existence has been neither proved or disproved, it isn't a scientific topic as far as i'm concerned. It's a supernatural topic until we have scientific proof. Which we won't ever, so again, pointless arguing.
Yes, there is faith, and there is religious faith. The faith religious people have is the RELIGIOUS faith and the faith that atheists have in their belief that the supernatural doesn't exist, is just FAITH. For Atheists, the supernatural doesn't exist and therefore the word faith can be used by them to describe what they have faith in. It's just a word. I've argued about what it means for way too long. Oh and I know how dictionaries work. There was no need for the condescending tone there.
About faith and gravity..I still don't think you can compare scientific fact and supernatural unknowns. Yes, you might have faith in gravity not existing if you were, oh I don't know, say, delusional. (I'm not being disrespectful because it's a hypothetical situation and as far as I know, nobody has faith in gravity not existing) Gravity is nothing to do with religion, so I'm going to try to stop talking about that too.
Atheism is not hypocrisy. Athesits expressing opinions is also not hypocrisy. I find it odd that you think it is. Both sides are equally entitled to their own opinion. Expressing OPINIONS and saying 'religion is bullshit' are still different.
Also, again there's really no need for the condescending read these books and then you can have an opinion otherwise you can't attitude.
1. Yes true. Wording can change while meaning remains the same. Of course wording can change the meaning but in this case it does not. Again, you cannot state something which can not be a fact as a fact. It does not work. It remains a statement and not a fact. Statements are different and are not interchangeable. Just because to someone ignorant it may SOUND like a fact does not make it one. That is a ridiculous notion.
2. No one ever said the books should not exist. Just that they were a pointless exercise. Clearly there are reasons why some books should not exist however. Let's say i wrote a book about how to murder black people and how much i hated them. That is not something which should be published. This is common sense.
3. I have already rebutted your point. Nothing is supernatural. That is the entire point. There is science and that is the end. If you are going to turn round and say that things are supernatural you might as well just go hold a seance and ask the nice spirits if God exists.
4. Belief in entities above us is classified as religious. Therefore faith applies in its religious context. It is nice that you know how dictionaries work. Maybe actually use this knowledge in future and stop arguing about words in different contexts to the relevant context.
5. Supernatural unknowns are SCIENTIFIC unknowns. If you believe in the supernatural you are a deist of some variety and need to accept that. The gravity point is still entirely valid. To some people, religion is delusional. Gravity is a perfectly good analogy and just because you are not drawing the parallels necessary to view it as such does not win you that point.
6. Atheism is not hypocrisy. I never said that. Again you did not read what i said properly. Atheists expressing oppinions is not hypocrisy. Athiests who complain about people expressing opinions and then claim that they have a right to do so themselves are hypocritical. I find it odd that you still have not grasped the distinction i am making. And again. 'religion is bullshit' IS AN OPINION.
You can have an opinion if you haven't read those books i did not say you couldn't. But i am not going to start going into the metaphysical and start arguing semantics if you haven't read them because it's way too complex for me to explain in my own words and i will leave it to the experts.
*I missed a bit. Yes you ARE contradicting how science operates. Logical scientific reasoning operates upon the concept that nothing is true until it is proven so. I have said this already though and you ignored it then too.
I am now officially bored of this because you are just making the same argument again and again and clearly haven't been listening to any of my points properly as you continue to take them out of context or misread them. I think you should stop arguing this with me because it is making me slightly annoyed and clearly not going anywhere.
I wrote another long reply and then read over it and was like what the hell is the point? ...and there was none, because you're right, it's getting boring.
If I was taking points out of context, I didn't mean to do that and I'm sure you didn't mean to either but the one thing I'll just say is I never said that ignorant people can make statements facts. I said that the way they say them in their ignorance makes them sound like facts when they are clearly not. That's all, I won't be arguing about anything else now because it's not that important. (Not religion, I mean this argument!)
"1. Yes true. Wording can change while meaning remains the same. Of course wording can change the meaning but in this case it does not. Again, you cannot state something which can not be a fact as a fact. It does not work. It remains a statement and not a fact. Statements are different and are not interchangeable. Just because to someone ignorant it may SOUND like a fact does not make it one. That is a ridiculous notion."
Special simple translation of this for you: Only ignorant people mistake statements for facts.
At NO POINT in this did i say that you said or implied that 'ignorant people can make statements facts'. Seriously, i do not know WHAT you are reading but it certainly isn't what i am typing. You're clearly adding words in your head or just having an illiterate day. Whatever it is, please fix it because it is WRECKING MY GODDAMN HEAD.
''Just because to someone ignorant it may SOUND like a fact does not make it one. That is a ridiculous notion.'' Saying that implies that I think it IS a fact.
As for what kind of day I'm having, maybe it's just a really pissed off one. Maybe I'm just really fucking pissed off and taking it out on livejournal, maybe I'm just angry over NOTHING again. I don't have a clue more than you do. So yeah, I'm the fucked up one here. It's no big news. It's really fantastic to know I'm now ignorant and illiterate as well.
Also, about the books, obviously some religious people aren't going to want them to exist, but a lot of those people are not going to say 'let's get rid of all the books convincing people that God is real too because it's fair that way'. If the books telling us that God is the way are perfectly acceptable, then there should be no reason why the ones that tell us God does not exist aren't too.
Not believing is also having faith that something you can never disprove does not exist and someone calling a believer 'delusional' is no different to a believer telling an atheist that they are going to hell because they don't believe. It's not the atheist side doing all of the insulting of intelligence all the time.
Personally, I don't know what I believe right now. I'd be leaning towards atheism but I suppose I would actualy be fitting into the agnostic category which is just a realistic and respectful attitude. Nobody has proof of anything so I don't know, probably what I find pointless is arguing about it at all. (That's not to say I wouldn't understand the arguments if I knew about them in detail which I obviously don't, not studying it and all that). I don't care who believes in what or who doesn't believe in what. I wouldn't be judging anyone on their views of religion of all things.
Reply
Actually no, it's the same thing. The only difference is that in the second one you have stated that this is your opinion whereas in the first instance this is implied and indeed assumed because of the lack of factual evidence either way. The second way is just a more polite way to put it. The original sentiment is just as offensive to religious people in the same way that saying 'the idea that people can be gay is clearly rubbish' would be offensive.
Second: The books which tell us that God is the way make more sense than the books which refute it because the existence of God is something that is usually taken to be false until proven otherwise in general logical debate. As such these books go against the 'normal' reasoning of society and so have some purpose. They are more necessary than the ones refuting God, although not by much.
Third: Not believing is not faith. Faith is believing in something despite all evidence being contradictory or non existant. I would say evidence against God's existence is quite common and strong from a reasonable persons viewpoint. Having negative faith in this respect is impossible. That is like saying you have faith in gravity. You don't have faith in it, you believe in it and can offer scientific proof of it. You would have faith in there NOT being gravity. The word faith in this context being a positive and constructive one rather than a deconstructive one. Double negatives are not necessary.
Fourth: I know that calling believers delusional is no different. That is what i said in my original post. My point was however that it is more often the atheists who complain about having 'religion shoved down their throats' while attempting to do the same thing to the believers. I find this hypocritical and was pointing it out.
Fifth: On the fact that it is pointless to argue about it. I agree. It is not worth arguing about. What it is worth is detailed discussion and study to analyse the impact which religion can have on the human psyche and the new predominantly 21st century anti-religion trend and how this is virtually the same as a 'new' religion.
Sixth: Nobody says you are judging people on their views of religon.
Seventh: I need to start debating again. This is fun.
Reply
About the books; I don't think that just because most people/ a lot of people / society in general thinks in a certain way that it means any book is more purposeful or necessary than another.
''the existence of God is something that is usually taken to be false until proven otherwise''
You could say that exactly the other way around and it would make no difference to anything seeing as either way, it's never going to be proven.
On the point of 'faith', the first definition it gives in the dictionary is complete trust or belief, no mention of religion, and therefore you can have faith in your belief that something that cannot be disproved doesn't exist. It THEN uses the word in reference to religion.
Saying you have faith in your belief that God does not exist is not the same as saying you have faith in gravity. You can't use gravity in comparison to religion. Gravity is a scientific proof. Nobody believes in gravity. We know it exists because it is a scientific law. You don't need faith or belief in it.
Both sides are guilty of shoving their opinions down the other's throats...but it's basically a fact (as you said) that you hear less of ''stop shoving your atheism down my throat'' than you do of ''stop showing your religion down my throat''. As soon as the atheist side starts to fight more strongly for its belief (which it hasn't until recently in the scheme of things) all of a sudden they're hypocrites? They're defending their belief, just like the religions defend theirs.
Anyway, I'm all for people defending what they believe in, whatever that is, but to argue over it when both sides know there won't be a winner is why it is my opinion that agnosticism with respect to both sides of the argument is the most reasonable point of view out of all of them. Learning about it for what it is and what it has caused in the world, I agree, is something worth doing.
Yes, it is kind of fun.
Reply
One: The difference is in respect to the wording not the meaning. These are not the same thing.
Two: You are not stating it as a fact. You are stating it as an opinion. You are right that you can't state facts about things that nobody has the answer to. Therefore you have just contradicted yourself in saying that the first statement is a fact. Statement and fact are different. There are no unknown facts. Therefore when you say 'stating unknowns as facts implies lack of respect' you are wrong. Stating unknowns as facts implies nothing as they are not facts merely statements. These are two very different things. Unless you actually say 'religion is bullshit, FACT' then you are expressing an opinion. Anyway anyone who says 'fact' at the end of a sentence should die.
Re Books: It is more necessary as it is always necessary to have a number of books disputing what society in general considers the norm. This is how we grow and develop.
Re Existence of God: No you cannot say that the other way round. Because the Gods existence is NOT usually taken to be true unless proven otherwise. This is scientific and not a matter of people's opinions. In science things are always false until proven otherwise. As such, God is false until proven otherwise. By saying 'god not existing is false...' you are not reversing the logic but coming up with an entirely contradictory view upon how science operates. Unfortunately, this view is wrong according to the entire scientific world.
Re Faith: Tip for how dictionaries work - many words in the english language have MULTIPLE meanings according to their CONTEXT. Thus, when defining a word in a religious context as we are here you do not use the primary definition but the one which is used in reference to religion. These definitions are not sorted in order of importance but rather in order of which is used most often. Basically, you are using the dictionary wrong and as such this point is moot.
Gravity and Faith: If you read back you will see that i said that it is the same has having faith in there NOT being gravity. Therefore the argument you have given is also moot and irrelevant to the original point proposed. It is quite a good comparison in fact. It is analogous in the following ways, it is rational to believe that gravity exists, we have a certain amount of proof that gravity exists (it is necessary to note that nothing can be claimed as certain). So for one to not believe in gravity seems to be going against scientific evidence. In fact, there is quite a lot of proof which says that God as many people believe in it/him/her does not exist. These things include the age of the earth and the existence of the solar system. Also, evolution. Therefore despite what seems to be overwhelming scientific evidence they continue to believe something which contradicts this. This is having RELIGIOUS FAITH. One could have religious faith in gravity not existing if you really tried.
Re Atheists: Yes they are hypocrites. This is not fighting for ones belief, this is complaining about other people preaching about Jesus and then going and preaching against Jesus. This is hypocritical. That is quite basic logic. If they had not kicked up such a fuss about people preaching religion then it would not be hypocritical but as it is one of the main points on which they criticise religion i find it very irritating the way they start with their little 'the bible is rubbish' rant as if they are not being hypocritical. Unless they stop moaning about the preachers they cannot preach themselves.
Last thing which i just realised...
"On the point of 'faith', the first definition it gives in the dictionary is complete trust or belief, no mention of religion, and therefore you can have faith in your belief that something that cannot be disproved doesn't exist"
Please stop using double negatives. They make my head hurt. They are also unnecessary. I am not even going to start arguing why faith should only be used in a positive context because instead i will recommend to you 2 books. The first of these being 'Meditations on the Metaphysical" by Descartes and the second being 'Beyond Good and Evil' by Nietzsche. Read these, then come back to me.
Reply
"The difference is in respect to the wording not the meaning." Not true. The way something is worded has an effect on its meaning. I thought that would be obvious.
I didn't say ANYTHING was a fact. I said people USE statements LIKE facts. Just because you CAN state something AS IF it was a fact doesn't mean it IS a fact. That's what I'm saying. It's called ignorance.
The books again, there is no reason why any book shouldn't exist. Mein Kampf, The God Delusion or Harry Potter. I'm never going to agree with you on that so I'm ending that argument.
About the existence of God. For plenty of people God exists to them and that is that. Plenty of people think they KNOW God exists so those same people could actually turn it around. All i'm saying is it's a pointless thing to be arguing over. I'm not 'contradicting how science operates'. Seeing as God's existence has been neither proved or disproved, it isn't a scientific topic as far as i'm concerned. It's a supernatural topic until we have scientific proof. Which we won't ever, so again, pointless arguing.
Yes, there is faith, and there is religious faith. The faith religious people have is the RELIGIOUS faith and the faith that atheists have in their belief that the supernatural doesn't exist, is just FAITH. For Atheists, the supernatural doesn't exist and therefore the word faith can be used by them to describe what they have faith in. It's just a word. I've argued about what it means for way too long. Oh and I know how dictionaries work. There was no need for the condescending tone there.
About faith and gravity..I still don't think you can compare scientific fact and supernatural unknowns. Yes, you might have faith in gravity not existing if you were, oh I don't know, say, delusional. (I'm not being disrespectful because it's a hypothetical situation and as far as I know, nobody has faith in gravity not existing) Gravity is nothing to do with religion, so I'm going to try to stop talking about that too.
Atheism is not hypocrisy. Athesits expressing opinions is also not hypocrisy. I find it odd that you think it is. Both sides are equally entitled to their own opinion. Expressing OPINIONS and saying 'religion is bullshit' are still different.
Also, again there's really no need for the condescending read these books and then you can have an opinion otherwise you can't attitude.
Reply
2. No one ever said the books should not exist. Just that they were a pointless exercise. Clearly there are reasons why some books should not exist however. Let's say i wrote a book about how to murder black people and how much i hated them. That is not something which should be published. This is common sense.
3. I have already rebutted your point. Nothing is supernatural. That is the entire point. There is science and that is the end. If you are going to turn round and say that things are supernatural you might as well just go hold a seance and ask the nice spirits if God exists.
4. Belief in entities above us is classified as religious. Therefore faith applies in its religious context. It is nice that you know how dictionaries work. Maybe actually use this knowledge in future and stop arguing about words in different contexts to the relevant context.
5. Supernatural unknowns are SCIENTIFIC unknowns. If you believe in the supernatural you are a deist of some variety and need to accept that. The gravity point is still entirely valid. To some people, religion is delusional. Gravity is a perfectly good analogy and just because you are not drawing the parallels necessary to view it as such does not win you that point.
6. Atheism is not hypocrisy. I never said that. Again you did not read what i said properly. Atheists expressing oppinions is not hypocrisy. Athiests who complain about people expressing opinions and then claim that they have a right to do so themselves are hypocritical. I find it odd that you still have not grasped the distinction i am making.
And again. 'religion is bullshit' IS AN OPINION.
You can have an opinion if you haven't read those books i did not say you couldn't. But i am not going to start going into the metaphysical and start arguing semantics if you haven't read them because it's way too complex for me to explain in my own words and i will leave it to the experts.
*I missed a bit. Yes you ARE contradicting how science operates. Logical scientific reasoning operates upon the concept that nothing is true until it is proven so. I have said this already though and you ignored it then too.
I am now officially bored of this because you are just making the same argument again and again and clearly haven't been listening to any of my points properly as you continue to take them out of context or misread them. I think you should stop arguing this with me because it is making me slightly annoyed and clearly not going anywhere.
Reply
If I was taking points out of context, I didn't mean to do that and I'm sure you didn't mean to either but the one thing I'll just say is I never said that ignorant people can make statements facts. I said that the way they say them in their ignorance makes them sound like facts when they are clearly not. That's all, I won't be arguing about anything else now because it's not that important. (Not religion, I mean this argument!)
Reply
"1. Yes true. Wording can change while meaning remains the same. Of course wording can change the meaning but in this case it does not. Again, you cannot state something which can not be a fact as a fact. It does not work. It remains a statement and not a fact. Statements are different and are not interchangeable. Just because to someone ignorant it may SOUND like a fact does not make it one. That is a ridiculous notion."
Special simple translation of this for you: Only ignorant people mistake statements for facts.
At NO POINT in this did i say that you said or implied that 'ignorant people can make statements facts'.
Seriously, i do not know WHAT you are reading but it certainly isn't what i am typing. You're clearly adding words in your head or just having an illiterate day. Whatever it is, please fix it because it is WRECKING MY GODDAMN HEAD.
Reply
Saying that implies that I think it IS a fact.
As for what kind of day I'm having, maybe it's just a really pissed off one. Maybe I'm just really fucking pissed off and taking it out on livejournal, maybe I'm just angry over NOTHING again. I don't have a clue more than you do. So yeah, I'm the fucked up one here. It's no big news. It's really fantastic to know I'm now ignorant and illiterate as well.
Reply
For christs sake, over sensitive much.
Go to bed or something and calm down.
Reply
Leave a comment