(July 30, 2017 at 3:39 pm)JackRussell Wrote: I am just sad that these guys don't actually see the bias they are introducing and the relevance thereof.
Even if they are right, they do not comprehend the academic approach to substantiate this.
Tentative is a word they don't seem to understand, confirmation bias, lies, cultural and textual criticism seem to elude them too.
I am not saying they are wrong, but they have got peer review study arse backward. Never assume the conclusion, and I think they clearly have.
Happy to admit I don't know it though.
The dumbest part is that, none of this crap is what convinced them in the first place; a limited set of circumstances, i.e. indoctrination at their most vulnerable ages, produced this cognitive dissonance, and since they're already convinced of their conclusion, they assume all of this crap must be both true (to support the conclusion they're already 'right' about) and compelling, when it's neither and in fact couldn't be further from true or convincing.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.