So, your definition of 'troll' is anyone that proposes a counter argument or offers a feasible and sensible alternative to your vision of 'reality'.
I propose that the claim of those who have seen god is both risible and as inane as those claiming they seen their Mother-in-Law naked. The bottom line is who cares? Psychiatry and psychology are filled with cases of people who have seen god. Doesn't make the existence of a god any truer or factual. But it does say something about a person's state of mind and the relative ease that one can be inculcated, almost overwhelmingly during early childhood, into unjustified belief. One can not be more mindful at how some adherents absolutely believe excising the foreskin of a male child and sucking the bloodied penile end forms a actual covenant with god. Nor the idea that eating the meat and drinking the blood of a dead person forges a magical blood tie with a live [putative] disembodied ethereal omni-max non-human entity.
Superimposing a magical other-wordly supernatural cloak over ordinary life is no more credible or plausible or reasonable than Linus's security blanket. [Though a good case could well be argued that Linus's blanket indeed has a stronger claim than christian theism in matters of 'reality']
4 comments:
If you go down the list a little further you'll come across:
'I seen mt Mother in Law naked, and
'I don't take my cues from any god'.
No accounting for atheist trolls, as you should know.
So, your definition of 'troll' is anyone that proposes a counter argument or offers a feasible and sensible alternative to your vision of 'reality'.
I propose that the claim of those who have seen god is both risible and as inane as those claiming they seen their Mother-in-Law naked. The bottom line is who cares? Psychiatry and psychology are filled with cases of people who have seen god. Doesn't make the existence of a god any truer or factual. But it does say something about a person's state of mind and the relative ease that one can be inculcated, almost overwhelmingly during early childhood, into unjustified belief. One can not be more mindful at how some adherents absolutely believe excising the foreskin of a male child and sucking the bloodied penile end forms a actual covenant with god. Nor the idea that eating the meat and drinking the blood of a dead person forges a magical blood tie with a live [putative] disembodied ethereal omni-max non-human entity.
Superimposing a magical other-wordly supernatural cloak over ordinary life is no more credible or plausible or reasonable than Linus's security blanket. [Though a good case could well be argued that Linus's blanket indeed has a stronger claim than christian theism in matters of 'reality']
That's an ARGUMENT?
Post a Comment