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 time
Method 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.
