The atrocities of religiosity warrant our finest. Logic is not it

[Ghetto Sheldon]

Would you consider engaging in discussion at all? I mean, that’s kind what this place is for.

Boru

Well! You're on his list now, too!

There's no discussion nor Q&A until after I have had a chance to lay out my position. 
I can't lay out my position if no one wants to hear about line 3 & 4 in my OP 
I don't debate a licensed scope of practice w/ a lay person let alone listen to their bickering before they've had a consult 
It really is this simple^  
if an atheist is interested in how science could enhance our arguments,  then there's no room to proceed. 
If/when an atheist has no interest, it's over before it starts

---

I lied, I'm responding again.

Just to say: this forum isn't your work place, and the members here aren't your patients.

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our finest because logic isn't it

---

Ghetto, you're allowed to put a person on "ignore", or let your eyes glaze over if you don't like that person's response, just like the rest of us. You're already playing shit-house lawyer. We'll see how long it is before you start whining about your first amendment rights, which, BTW, don't exist on a private platform. I have a few people on ignore simply because they make inane or stupid comments. Jury's out for you, so far.

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our finest because logic isn't it

---

The rules state that I have to answer to each responder? 
The rules state I can't ignore a responder? 
The rules state I have to engage with a responder who won't focus on OP topic?  
Gee,  I guess I do need to review the rules

Reading benefits us all.

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our finest becAUSE  logic isn't it

---

Would you consider engaging in discussion at all? I mean, that’s kind what this place is for.

Boru

Well! You're on his list now, too!

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our best because logic isn't it

---

What do you propose is better than reason to comprehend the atrocities of religion?

  This question ^^ is the best response under my OP.
Reality orientation (RO)  towards the delusional is a standard practice VS logic against them 
It wouldn't be that difficult to enhance logic w/ RO 
#1  Promote one thing first:  that you understand them.   This affords a connection from which you can stand a chance to gain further cooperation.
#2   Per my OP,  we need to start collecting data to see how badly we are only causing backfire & strengthening their faith.

If we really  care about the life threatening atrocities of religiosity  over proving ourselves smarter than a fukken moron,  then we wouldn't want to increase the delusional's defiance 

The next appropriate step is to collect data to discern our best from our worst.  We then toss out the ineffective & that which increases a life threatening atrocity.  As I mentioned in OP,  we need an ancillary team to create a comprehensive approach.  We put the level of cognitive involvement on a spectrum so others can rank the delusional.  From a theist's ranking on a spectrum,  you can then choose the menu of options already discerned apt for their ranking.
 
IF you don't already comprehend the atrocities,  then I suggest referring out to someone who does, pretending you understand or accept you'll never understand them..  Im a recovery pentecostal...  I don't demand evidence for a gawd I already understand