I’m not arguing with you about logic, what would be the point? From my perspective it’s like arguing with someone who thinks Lord of the Rings is based on real true story, which would be rather ridiculous endeavor.
From my perspective you are not different than your average schizophrenic, who has troubles to tell real and imaginary world apart. So as I would not argue with a schizophrenic (I would just enjoy the madness) - I see no point in arguing with you. You need some Dawkins kind of dude who is into this kind of kinky shit. I enjoy talking to people about their believes and spirituality, but I need to have at least some resemblance of agreement on nature of reality to argue with them.
I’m not arguing with you about logic, what would be the point? From my perspective it’s like arguing with someone who thinks Lord of the Rings is based on real true story, which would be rather ridiculous endeavor.
How is that relevant?
From my perspective you are not different than your average schizophrenic, who has troubles to tell real and imaginary world apart. So as I would not argue with a schizophrenic (I would just enjoy the madness) - I see no point in arguing with you. You need some Dawkins kind of dude who is into this kind of kinky shit. I enjoy talking to people about their believes and spirituality, but I need to have at least some resemblance of agreement on nature of reality to argue with them.
Dawkins is basically, “Jesus didn’t rise from the dead because people can’t rise from the dead” circular reasoning
So, you two would be locked for ever in a beautiful but annoying dance.