In article <47584b83$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> >   It seems impossible for some people to grasp the concept of a complet
ely
> > normal, intelligent and rational person, perhaps one with a degree in a
> > scientific area of expertise, talking about something like religion in 
a
> > more or less philosophical way, without trying to "convert" anyone to h
is
> > religion. "He is defending his own religion" always equals "he is tryin
g
> > to convert me into his religion, I must fight back".
> 
> I'd like to. Usually, tho, when one gets to the hard questions, the 
> other side fall back on "you only disagree because you don't understand."
> 
We have people talk about religion from a purely philosophical 
perspective all the time. Then the religious people show up and start 
insisting that we are all wrong, don't understand anything, never read 
anything, etc. There two favorite *defenses* of their position is, 
"Obviously you never read <insert Bible verse of crazy book full of the 
same old, over used, arguments>", and, "You just don't understand it, 
and until you accept Jesus, you never will!"

Case in point. I read one long thread, just between two people, which 
had like 150+ posts in it. They started out talking about the 
philosophical positions, but by about post 100, you could start to see 
the cracks forming in the religious position, and by post 130 or so, 
every possible argument that could be made for religion had been, and 
been countered with logical reasons why they didn't work, make sense, or 
imply what the believer wanted them to. By post 140+ every single post 
from the believer consisted of either, "But have you read this...", and, 
"Well, if you just accepted that any part of it was true, or allowed 
Jesus into your heart, you would understand why my arguments *actually* 
make sense, even though I don't have one scrap of new information, or 
one new argument, or any valid statement that would suggest that you are 
not 100% right about everything I said so far." In other words, he 
***knew*** he wasn't going to win, since not one argument he made was 
convincing to *either* of them, and he admitted that this was the case 
in his own rebuttals, so he fell back to, "You just don't understand it 
the way I do!".

It was both enlightening, and at the time, funny as hell to read. Now, I 
just find the fact that this is *always* the result of such purely 
philosophical arguments with such people a bit depressing.

Don't believe me, then try it yourself. I absolutely guarantee that, no 
matter how smart or literate the believer, and how careful you are to 
"only" deal with the arguments they bring up, and be completely fair to 
them, it will *inevitably* sink to the point where their only defense is 
that they believe, you don't, and until you do, you won't understand the 
sublime genius of their position.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message