A person (to hereto be referred to as X) who is angered such by the mere
existence of
people who don't believe they will exist in X's imaginary place when they cease to exist for not believing in X's imaginary friend, that X will, on encountering
non-X, desperately make
sure to communicate X's belief that all
non-X will come to exist in X's imaginary place when they cease to exist for not believing in X's imaginary friend while X will come to exist in X's 2nd imaginary place when X ceases to exist as a consequence of believing in X's imaginary friend. But this is only the beginning of the paradoxes, as despite being angered by the mere
existence of
non-X, believes that most
non-X represents the vast majority of the human race and will therefore exist in the first imaginary place when they cease to exist while only they and their friends will exist in the second imaginary place when they and their friends don't exist. Also paradoxically, X firmly believes in the critical importance of
10 arbitrary rules of conduct, even though they make absolutely no difference according to X's own beliefs as to which imaginary place an individual is comes to exist in when that individual ceases to exist. More paradoxes include the condoning of the crusades despite these
10 rules of conduct, the belief that not only the first religion that theirs grew out of but the third one that appended onto their own are both inherently evil while theirs is good, the belief that the guidebook containing these
10 rules of conduct and much other paradoxical material contains no paradoxes or self-contradictions whatsoever despite the ease of finding references that clearly point out numerous such self-contradictions, that every scientific theory of the last
500 years, except POSSIBLY excluding the theory of
gravity, IS completely self-inconsistent, and yet that science somehow exists for the purpose of glorifying X's imaginary friend, and often appeal to the
superficial knowledge of the parts of this science that doesn't flagrantly contradict with their beliefs in their attempts to deride the rest of this science which they denounce entirely.
How to deal with
Bible-Thumpers:
Method 1: Tell him you don't agree with him. Then follow it up with explaining why everything he believes in is all a crock of nonsense invented by a cult of bronze-age savages if you're harsh, debunk his claims, one by one if intermediate and if you're gentle, just try to persuade him that nothing he can say can convince you to believe what he does:
A few weeks ago a
bible thumper came to my
door and said that fish fossils were found at the tops of mountains and that it proves that there was a great flood. I told him that is the result of continental drift and that they are hundreds of millions of years old and not only don't prove there was a worldwide flood thousands of years ago but prove that the world is at least 100 thousand times as old as he says. He then said that they dated to only a few thousand years ago. I in turn told him that if he tries to use radioisotope
dating to convince me that the universe is 6000 years old, that he has
lost the argument before he even began it.
Pros: you'll feel superior
Cons: You're going to end up arguing for a really long
timeMethod 2: Nod your head and agree with him
Have you accepted Jesus as your savior?
Say "uh huh" and nod your head.
Pros: potentially get rid of him
fast.
Cons: Somewhat humiliating. Can backfire especially if he then asks followup questions and tries to get you to join his bible study group.
Method 3: Put a door knocker on your
door that looks like male genitalia.
Pros:
Bible thumpers may decline to knock on your
door in the first place.
Cons: Your neighbors and the mailman may suspect you of being a child molester. Except that neighbor up the hill who drives the Prius with rainbows painted
all over it. He'll probably ask you on a date.
