panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>jesucris...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(marques de sade) wrote:
>>dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> so why do you act like you engage atheists in debate from a
>> scientific perspective when all is settled religiously for you...
that's the lure. most of the scientistic don't want to waste
their time with theists who aren't familiar with science and
logic, so one must give the impression in order to engage.
>They never seem to understand how absurd it looks to someone
>who's not a member of their own religion.
once one oneself accepts fantastic premises, then that
others may do so seems like a demonstrated likelihood.
>God believers, it really is this simple:
>I don't believe your gods exist.
the plane of belief. it's pretty flimsy. that's the jousting
arena of most theists. they'll inform you of the im****tant
things to believe or the problems of refraining from belief.
>...When
>you try to tell me that your holy books are "proof" of something,
>imagine that I'm trying to get you to "believe" in Goku using my
>Dragonball Z DVDs as proof. When a do***ent is *part* of the mythos,
it isn't, really.
>it has no impact upon someone *outside* the mythos.
it comes with the premise, for the converted, that the do***ent
is authoritative. once we depart from this premise, all the
consequential conclusions based on it fall apart.
>Your religion is *not* im****tant to somone who does not share it.
>It really is that simple.
it isn't really that simple to those who conceive of the
message of their religion as a secret they may inform us
all about to cure our benighted condition.
mental conscription is the general aim. if a few are
resistant from the domination it is no real problem.
others will come around and beg to be indoctrinated.
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
--
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html
--
--------------------------------------------
|
