Forums | MacLife

user wrote:

I'm still very amused by even the suggestion that such magical rituals be practiced.

Yes, yes, you're amused by all religious practices. We get it.

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

I'm still very amused by even the suggestion that such magical rituals be practiced.

Yes, yes, you're amused by all religious practices. We get it.

No, just amazed that otherwise rational people believe that stuff.

Demonic possession would explain a lot of the crap on YouTube, wouldn't it ?

Is this because Dungeons & Dragons started referring to Tan'ari as demons again?

Maybe they stayed up late one night watching "The Exorcism of Emily Rose."

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Yes, yes, you're amused by all religious practices. We get it.

No, just amazed that otherwise rational people believe that stuff.

and quite a few extremely rationale people do - which probably means your statements that it is irrational to do believe in such stuff is incorrect.

You're jumping to a conclusion.

Just because normally rational people believe does not prove that the beliefs aren't irrational. Most people really can't help it. The indoctrination process is quite powerful and they've had hundreds of years to perfect it. A lot of people are actually scared to contemplate the possibility that their religion is false. For many people it's just plain easier to accept it as true and not put too much thought into. It takes a relatively rare individual to face the hard questions and decide that they won't accept the rote for an answer. That's actually what keeps the population of the non-religious low.

Last edited by user (2007-12-30 12:24 pm)

Of course.

user wrote:

It takes a relatively rare individual to face the hard questions and decide that they won't accept the rote for an answer. That's actually what keeps the population of the non-religious low.

Oh, totally. And the same thing goes for Scientology too. Actually, just about all minority religious opinions sing the same song.

Denying humans having any impact at all on the environment is exactly like people being overly defensive and/or irrational when it comes to philosophies!

Tallgeese wrote:

so few scientists who deny anthropogenic global climate change...

Tallgeese wrote:

"skeptical of anthropocentric global warming = denying humans have any impact at all"

I keep looking but I don't find that quote. Perhaps you could explain to me how denying human impact is interchangeable with skeptical as to the extent of human impact. You're basically using the common misconception as to what scientists are arguing about. It's kind of like how some creationists use scientific debate about evolution to try to "prove" evolution is flawed.

I would hope you would be less self righteous about this and maybe have a discussion without resorting to baseless attacks but you continually refuse to change. It is like how you jump on people who are amused by anything remotely relating to religion. It is kind of sad.

I don't know, the one a post ago. Again, I wasn't really expecting anything more from you. Say something, someone calls you on it, you change your definition and then say the person is somehow morally offended by you and then followed by you pretending it didn't happen. At this point you'll say something similar to how I shouldn't be in this argument for one reason or another because my amusement isn't warranted or something. Of course by saying that I probably short circuited your routine. Oh well.

Global warming: an argument with a universal attachment