My views:
There is a vitally important disconnect in the approaches used by atheists and theists.
Skeptic atheists consistently try to bludgeon theists with empirically supported truths or at least the concept that empirically supporting ones truths is important.
RELIGIONS DON'T CARE ABOUT TRUTH, no matter the lip service of their adherents to the contrary.
Religions are engaged in their own perpetuation. Those (e.g. sacrificing to Dianna) which don't persist and go extinct are not generally mentioned (losers.) Those which depend on views which cannot be empirically supported must deny the importance of empiric support or must contort the practice enough to claim that empiric support does exist (e.g. through re-translation, customized interpretation or dependence on mere assertion.) Else they go extinct.
Hence we see the perverse and twisted logic of only the survivors. Those who might say, "Oops, I guess demons can't be driven into marathon running pigs after all," slouch off and don't get represented in the next mutated iteration of the religion.
I find it more interesting to examine the underlying motivation of the single theist with the aim of establishing some commonality within their population which, en masse, makes up the slow and stupid animal that is their religion. The whole, the religion, is less intelligent, but more robust, than the isolated theist. Showing a single person their behavior in rejecting empiricism and the reasons behind that behavior can be effective in restoring sanity and objectivity.
I am ambivalent to the fact that definitive proof cannot be forced on individuals who simply choose (insert objections to libertarian free will here) not to believe. Catastrophic climate change would be easier to head off if it could, but dystopic fascist states would also be more easily inflicted on the people.
![[Image: hySCaoP.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FhySCaoP.jpg)
There is a vitally important disconnect in the approaches used by atheists and theists.
Skeptic atheists consistently try to bludgeon theists with empirically supported truths or at least the concept that empirically supporting ones truths is important.
RELIGIONS DON'T CARE ABOUT TRUTH, no matter the lip service of their adherents to the contrary.
Religions are engaged in their own perpetuation. Those (e.g. sacrificing to Dianna) which don't persist and go extinct are not generally mentioned (losers.) Those which depend on views which cannot be empirically supported must deny the importance of empiric support or must contort the practice enough to claim that empiric support does exist (e.g. through re-translation, customized interpretation or dependence on mere assertion.) Else they go extinct.
Hence we see the perverse and twisted logic of only the survivors. Those who might say, "Oops, I guess demons can't be driven into marathon running pigs after all," slouch off and don't get represented in the next mutated iteration of the religion.
I find it more interesting to examine the underlying motivation of the single theist with the aim of establishing some commonality within their population which, en masse, makes up the slow and stupid animal that is their religion. The whole, the religion, is less intelligent, but more robust, than the isolated theist. Showing a single person their behavior in rejecting empiricism and the reasons behind that behavior can be effective in restoring sanity and objectivity.
I am ambivalent to the fact that definitive proof cannot be forced on individuals who simply choose (insert objections to libertarian free will here) not to believe. Catastrophic climate change would be easier to head off if it could, but dystopic fascist states would also be more easily inflicted on the people.
(December 8, 2015 at 1:33 am)dyresand Wrote:
Are... you a troll......
![[Image: 1iwnPtT.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2F1iwnPtT.jpg)
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
