[001]
SchizoTechnician
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
And a person interpreting (insert religious text here) in a not literal fashion consistent with current science is still obviously wrong, because that view still contradicts a not-literal interpretation consistent with modern science of (insert religious text from a different here). If we start talking about how (insert religion of troper here) is obviously the most scientifically plausible, we\'ll be knee-deep in FlameWar shitstorm before you can say \
to:
And a person interpreting (insert religious text here) in a not literal fashion consistent with current science is still obviously wrong, because that view still contradicts a not-literal interpretation consistent with modern science of (insert religious text from a different religion here). If we start talking about how (insert religion of troper here) is obviously the most scientifically plausible, we\\\'ll be knee-deep in FlameWar shitstorm before you can say \\\"cosmological uncertainty\\\", and we\\\'ll end up with a \\\"my religion is better!\\\" page rather than an atheism one.
On a less ranty note, we don\\\'t put talk about how theism is scientifically implausible all over the pages on religion, so I see no reason why we should put talk about so-called theistic plausibility in the atheist page.
On a less ranty note, we don\\\'t put talk about how theism is scientifically implausible all over the pages on religion, so I see no reason why we should put talk about so-called theistic plausibility in the atheist page.
