dimreepr

The next bit, you know, the context you ignored "why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old?", for a working geologist to believe the world is 5 thousand year's old, would require some serious weed. But for a geologist to believe in karma, would just require a little thinking...

I disagree, why would a geologist believe the Earth is 5 thousand years old? You don't need to believe in anything specifically, to believe in an idea... +1, please teach me your eloquence.

No it's not, nothing of what I've said in this thread AFAIK, is conflating anything. Edit. I understand what you're arguing, what I don't understand is why you're arguing it.

Agree, because it's happened before and we seem profoundly blind to yesterday. Disagree, if you mean part 3 equal's mutually assured destruction.

If the playing fields are level then I would agree with you, but they're not; so the problem occurs when we're on the down slope; in comedic term's it's punching down, and in this fora it's a valid discussion because we all get the joke. The problem is, not everyone gets the joke; so, just saying "I don't <insert dislike>" in public just keeps the ball rolling towards their goal; we need a better defence...

The "Lord of the flies" require a monster. Then why pick up the conch?

Quite, the other day I saw a women, who in both size and shape was the spitting image of Hagrid (seriously); my mate and I had a good laugh at her expense, but not with her knowledge.

Then @iNow is right to be annoyed with our bickering.

That's the insidious nature of the innocent joke, not everyone gets it but we all feel the need to laugh, even if we find it distasteful (for a reason we're not entirely sure about). That feeling only grows with the respect we give to the joker.

No, that's the point...

Because it's a different question; what is a fact? or why does my belief trump another's?

So, if they're not you they can't believe in a fact? "Cogito ergo sum", has it's flaws.

No one is asking you to suck on something that you find distasteful, especially if you're "normal". It's the insidious nature of culture, that if enough people innocently say "that's distasteful" it has an effect on their neighbours/neighbourhood, who then require otherwise innocent people to acquire your taste. It's a simple question of balance, is your distaste more important than their taste???

The difference is, I have evidence... 😉

Point well missed, besides how is 0 worse than -1? How did you do that? Context missed: I'm starting to think your arguments are less than, honest. Much like your voting protocol. 🙂

But not why, that God is central to that culture, so much context is lost between the generation's.

Why should they? If it is an acquired taste, it automatically mean's you don't like it and that it requires, some sort of, force to make you taste it again.

Tell that to the strawman. I wouldn't have left a red 1, but the post didn't deserve a green 1. Because you're conflating santa and god in an attempt to ridicule my premise, not argue it. But just to be clear, most philosophical/cultural attacks on religion revolves around the existence of god (or santa if you prefer), rather than the credence of the philosophies written.

Well, if you're going to use a logical fallacy to explain my faulty logic, I can't take you seriously.

Therefore, can a parodox ever exist?

Besides, I think you're missing some context. The paradoxical bit.

Why not?

Please explain.

It's a genuine paradox: Atheist/"arelionist", whatever, state's as a matter of fact, there is no such thing as god/s. (Edit let's not get into semantics here.) So therefore, in a world without God's, the bible and the idea's therein have to be written by man and accepted by their fellow man. So therefore, if a lot of people, even in the face of cultural difference, say "that's an idea worth following". No God needed. Therefore, God has become a weapon for atheism/<insert word>. 🤔

Bugger, I'm too late again, god only knows what religion will be the latest version...