subtitled: A professor and a punk rocker discuss science, religion, naturalism & christianity.<\/p>\n
I found this book super annoying. While in many ways, I would agree more with Graffin’s arguments, I thought he was being kind of a dick the whole time. You shouldn’t agree to be in a CONVERSATION with someone if you aren’t actually interested in conversing.<\/p>\n
While Jones, the religous one, was coming at things from a “this is interesting to think about \/ it’s interesting to hear other viewpoints and try reconciling them with my own and pondering” viewpoint, Graffin seemed to coming from a “what I think is right and you are wrong and I will just tell you YOU ARE WRONG over and over again” viewpoint.<\/p>\n
Graffin seemed to only want to talk about THE EXACT FACTS and how anything else was RIDICULOUS; Jones was interested in exploring WHY do people believe, whether it’s right or wrong. (It ain’t all about the facts.) Most of the time, Graffin’s response was basically “NO.” Then why even respond? Why bother discussing it? It really didn’t seem like he even heard the other point of view.<\/p>\n
I mean, I understand. There’s a reason I don’t discuss politics with Republicans. I don’t fucking care what they think. But I wouldn’t bother writing back to their letters and saying “NOPE YOU’RE WRONG” everytime either.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
subtitled: A professor and a punk rocker discuss science, religion, naturalism & christianity. I found this book super annoying. While in many ways, I would agree more with Graffin’s arguments, I thought he was being kind of a dick the … Continue reading