Holographic projection theory was evolve to prove the non-sequitur nature of creationist theory.
I think it's very cool and creative. Building a niche theory to disprove your opponent is an awesome way to debate.
It's pointless to try and start a thread expecting logical arguments from religious folk, they are by definition illogical people...
There's a pretty massive distinction between believing in something illogical and being an inherently "illogical" person (I can only interpret this word to mean less capable of thought, or less intelligent).
To demonstrate this argument, your inability to make this distinction in this specific instance does not make you stupid, nor does it mean that I should expect all of your posts to be stupid. Though this one is. Very.
In this context I am talking about discussing religion with religious folk.
Why should I expect logic from someone who has already illogical opinion about a subject? I've never really met a religious person who says "of course, without proof of my religion scientifically it can be said to be completely false, but I personally believe in it even so".
None of them seem to be able to separate fact from fiction...
In this context I am talking about discussing religion with religious folk.
Talk to my dad. He's a Christian, but he told me right off the bat that he knows his religion could be completely wrong, but he believes anyways. Maintaining your belief while knowing you can be wrong is the ultimate show of faith in his mind. And I believe him on that. He let me decide my religious affiliations because he knows that, whatever I choose, I will believe it all the stronger because I decided on it myself. He's the first to point out the hypocrisies of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but he'll still believe in the ideal of a Christian god despite it being questionable.
Believing in an absolute truth requires no commitment. Believing in an almost certain falsehood requires the pinnacle of faith.
No, you weren't, you were just taking an opportunity to insult them. Were it within the context of a discussion about religion you would describe them as "people who hold illogical views on this issue," not "lol stupid peeepz."
There's a pretty massive distinction between believing in something illogical and being an inherently "illogical" person (I can only interpret this word to mean less capable of thought, or less intelligent).
No, that's the equivalence you just made when you called them inherently "illogical" people.
If you're not going to actually read posts, perhaps you shouldn't reply to them.