It's telling that every theist I've talked with has made the same tired arguments, regurgitated the same tired talking points, and in response to the various fallacies, absurdities, holes poked in their evidence, and everything else that's been pointed out to them, their response is, without fail:
"You obviously don't understand. <previous argument said in a new way, maybe with a new quote or something> See? Now do you get it?"
They never point me to my 'obvious' failures. They never acknowledge that I've slashed at the underpinnings of their arguments. They just deny, reformulate, and go at it again. They seem to think that changing the lipstick on a pig makes it something other than a pig wearing lipstick, and changing from Luscious Red to Tempting Tangerine really isn't the seismic rhetorical shift they think it is.
I can see how it would work on those people already sympathetic to their beliefs, but to a skeptic? It's laughably transparent.
"You obviously don't understand. <previous argument said in a new way, maybe with a new quote or something> See? Now do you get it?"
They never point me to my 'obvious' failures. They never acknowledge that I've slashed at the underpinnings of their arguments. They just deny, reformulate, and go at it again. They seem to think that changing the lipstick on a pig makes it something other than a pig wearing lipstick, and changing from Luscious Red to Tempting Tangerine really isn't the seismic rhetorical shift they think it is.
I can see how it would work on those people already sympathetic to their beliefs, but to a skeptic? It's laughably transparent.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
