What is New Earth
-
@scottalanmiller said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@scottalanmiller said in What is New Earth:
@thanksajdotcom said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@thanksajdotcom said in What is New Earth:
@coliver said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:
@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:
@scottalanmiller said in What is New Earth:
@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:
@thanksajdotcom said in What is New Earth:
@JaredBusch said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@RojoLoco said in What is New Earth:
I've always practiced a policy of "never discuss science with those who subscribe to any religion". This has saved me immeasurable time over the years.
I've known plenty of atheists with piss poor understanding of science. Of course, if one's religion clouds their ability to reason it doesn't really matter, but you can find a lot of die hard conspiracy theorists and flat earthers who are atheists too. There's one famous flat earth guy, I think his film is called "under the dome", anyway he thinks it's aliens, not God which put us in this dome.
Atheism is not an automatic sign of being reasonable or intelligent.
Who said I was atheist? That's as bad an "ism" as all the rest. I am fervently anti-religion, all of them. I believe in science, not in re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-translated stories from thousands of years ago.
Nobody, I never said you were an atheist. I was merely pointing out lack of a religion doesn't mean they're intelligent, which is what you basically said.
Actually, I said I don't discuss science with religious people. Nor do I discuss it with idiots or otherwise unreasonable people. When not at work, I surround myself with intelligent people.
So what are you defining religious as then? Any faith in anything or organised religion only?
I like to torment my religious friends by calling their religion a cult.
I was actually raised in a cult, so I actually have done this and find it hysterical.
All religions are a cult. That is the definition of the word.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cultYeah, cult isn't a bad word to someone religious. Christianity based on Christ's teachings is just the "Cult of Christ" for example. Or Islam the "Cult of Mohammed."
But to most American Christians, it is a horrible nasty word and they get offended.
American christians are super easy to offend, especially in the south. It can be loads of fun if you feel like tormenting someone.
If you really want to mess with some of their heads, start comparing Christianity and Islam, and argue some of the logical problems in Christianity (such as the crucifixion and resurrection, and the trinity, especially the trinity) and explain how these ideas work versus in Islam. It makes them uncomfortable, sometimes hostile because of the strangeness. It's a whole thing I don't want to derail the thread about, but as a Muslim I think it can be quite funny.
Especially though if they want to quote any violent aspects of the Qur'an, I can find usually the same things in the Bible, sometimes almost word for word since most of the Qur'an comes from the Bible in some form or another. There's plenty of double back flips trying to explain why if the Qur'an says it, it's bad, but if the Bible says it, well that's different.
One easier... just bring up the Council of Nicaea.
This is where the Trinity doctrine came from . Constantine, a lifelong pagan, was trying to unite his empire, and basically imposed immortality of the soul, the trinity, Christmas as Jesus' birthday, etc all to appease to both pagans and Christians. Many Christians refer to this as the real start of "the great apostasy".
I don't think overlapping pagan holidays are bad, it makes transition easier, but in my opinion going against the previous 300 or so years in order to spawn something more easily changeable I think is unreasonable. The Islamic view of Christianity traditionally is that Christians have the right idea, but are largely incorrect in their interpretation, and are still considered "People of the Book" regardless. I've seen a similar view from some Jewish sects over the years as well, but in a sort of reverse way considering they don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah.
There's actually a movement in more recent times in Judaism where some believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and that the Jews of that time were just dumb. It's kind of weird to hear about it because it kind of goes against everything that traditional Judaism stands for.
There is a name for that branch of Judaism. We call it, Christianity.
Messianic Judaism. Christianity is far different from Judaism. Islam and Judaism are closer than either one is to Christianity.
Actual Christianity is just Judaism that followed Christ. That most people using the term Christian today follow different or additional doctrine makes it confusing. But the term Christian, or the Cult of Christ, is simply an extension of Judaism. Or as it applies to Gentiles.
Christianity in its original form, yes, but it has been modified so much that it's hardly similar. Islam, for example, also follows Christ, but it doesn't ignore the dietary and other laws which Christianity now does. In the early days Christians and Jews were essentially identical except for the whole Messiah thing, now if you compare and contrast both views of God and also views of the tenates of faith, I think you'll find as I said above, Islam and Judaism are fairly similar, Christianity is pretty different. The roots are the same and I'm not denying that, but I think in addition to dietary laws, the biggest is the trinity. Both Judaism and Islam see God as one and indivisible, Christianity on the otherhand does not, in fact it creates an odd situation where Jesus is God, but he doesn't know things God knows (Matthew 24:36 ) and he prays to God all the time, which is himself, but not really.
Messianic Judaism does not turn into what we see as "Christianity" today automatically, even views of the afterlife are largely based on non-Biblical literature in modern Christianity. You can find various Jews which do believe in the Messianic view of Jesus, but they're not Christians as we'd think of it, even though technically they are.
-
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
-
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).
It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.
-
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).
It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.
Yeah. This is one of those things of man trying to describe God when we really just...can't come close to understanding. Did some reading up over lunch and found an interesting read about it... It's kinda lengthy and uses a lot of scripture references... Seems to me to do a good job of describing it.... http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
-
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).
It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.
Yeah. This is one of those things of man trying to describe God when we really just...can't come close to understanding. Did some reading up over lunch and found an interesting read about it... It's kinda lengthy and uses a lot of scripture references... Seems to me to do a good job of describing it.... http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
This was the one I sent the person for reference: http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine
-
@thanksajdotcom said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).
It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.
Yeah. This is one of those things of man trying to describe God when we really just...can't come close to understanding. Did some reading up over lunch and found an interesting read about it... It's kinda lengthy and uses a lot of scripture references... Seems to me to do a good job of describing it.... http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
This was the one I sent the person for reference: http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine
Added to a tab on my laptop!
-
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).
It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.
Yeah. This is one of those things of man trying to describe God when we really just...can't come close to understanding. Did some reading up over lunch and found an interesting read about it... It's kinda lengthy and uses a lot of scripture references... Seems to me to do a good job of describing it.... http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
That's what I meant though, none of the other concepts require that much to just explain it, and even then it still creates troublesome issues. You can find a lot by searching for "why does Jesus pray to himself" or things like Luke 23:46 (his spirit is different from God's), John 14:28 (he's going to see the father, implying he's separate completely rather than a part of something), John 8:28 (in addition to the ones I talked about before, here he says he doesn't know anything, God does, implying again he's not God), John 20:17 (another about going to see God, rather than he himself being God), Isaiah 11:2-3 (Jesus is afraid of God), and so on.
Of course you can find ones which seem to imply the opposite, that's what I was talking about when it comes to the contradictions which are hard to reconcile. I don't have an answer for that which can be universally applicable, and that's normal, because the belief in his divinity is an act of faith anyway so there's really no contest.
-
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).
It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.
John 14:28 - "...the Father is greater than I am." Jesus here speaking. With one Scripture, he just showed that coeternal, coequal, etc is all made up.
-
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
@thanksajdotcom said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@dafyre said in What is New Earth:
I've always reconciled the identity of the Trinity like three puzzle pieces of the same puzzle... You don't say you have three complete puzzles... You have three puzzle pieces. Put them together, and you get one complete puzzle.
Well the problem is the trinity itself is not defined in the Bible, in fact God himself in the Bible claims to be indivisible (Galatians 3:20, Hosea 13:4, Romans 3:3), though of course you can find some contradictions in how the concept of "the son" is explained in various places, even though those also don't quite fit (Isaiah 43:10-11).
It seems to me though that the trinity if itself is fairly inelegant, because when it comes to explaining any other aspect of faith you don't typically need to reach all over the place to build this view point. Furthermore, the concept of the trinity didn't even exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. I think it's the result to attempt to reconcile a lot of issues with viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh, rather than the Messiah alone.
Yeah. This is one of those things of man trying to describe God when we really just...can't come close to understanding. Did some reading up over lunch and found an interesting read about it... It's kinda lengthy and uses a lot of scripture references... Seems to me to do a good job of describing it.... http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html
This was the one I sent the person for reference: http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine
Added to a tab on my laptop!
It's a very long read but it's great information. Very well written IMO.
-
-
Religion is highly dependent on place of birth, that alone seems to raise troubling questions
-
Religion oppresses intellectual curiosity by providing answers from authority and shutters debate
-
Religion provides another way to divide society and segregate others (humans are good enough at this already, we don't need any more help)
-
Religion is the first known example of thought crime
-
You always go to heaven. Especially boring people go to heaven. Murderers go to heaven. Hell is for other people and the out groups (gays, jews, your irritating neighbor, that guy that does the Axe commercials, etc).
-
No where is it specifically stated in ANY religion* that your pets get to come, and that alone is bullshit. *(Pastafarians excepted)
-
Why do you believe other religions are untrue? They can't all be correct! (I'm personally rooting for http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
I've come to think of religion as the security blanket of the youth of our species. It's comforting and nice to think there's something extra or that justice will be ultimately served. When we remove those preconceptions and move on as a whole I believe society will be fundamentally changed for the better.
PS. I'll be celebrating the 8 "I'd really rather you didnt's" at the stripper factory below the beer volcano tonight. All welcome except for vegetarians, as per scripture.
- I’d Really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don’t change the subject.
- I’d Really rather you didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
- I’d Really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this through you thick heads: woman=person, man=person. Samey-samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
- I’d Really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age and mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is go f[moderated] yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
- I’d Really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynist, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bullshit.
- I’d Really rather you didn't build multi-million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick): a. Ending poverty b. Curing diseases c. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable. I might be a complex carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I am the creator.
- I’d Really rather you didn’t go around telling people I talk to you. You’re not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can’t you take a hint?
- I’d Really rather you didn’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubrication/las vegas. If the other person is into it however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures. And for the love of me, wear a condom! Honestly it’s a piece of rubber, if I didn’t want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.
Our S'ghetti,
Who "Arghh" in colander,
Swallowed be thy meatballs.
Thy noodle come,
Thy recipe be done,
On forks as it is on spoons.
Give us this day our daily sauce,
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trample on our lawns.
And lead us not into low-carb diets,
But deliver us some pizza,
For thine is the spaghetti, and the meatballs, and the sauce
For ever and ever.R'Amen
-
-
@MattSpeller Yes, yes, tea cup in orbit, flying spaghetti monster, etc.
Simply saying religion is worthless, doesn't really have much to do with the discussions in this thread. Secondly, I imagine we've all read these things already, many times, and if it was going to have any sort of sudden impact, it would have already.
And being condescending doesn't win you converts, or de-converts, it just makes you look like a jackass. If you want to convince people there is no God or whatever, you do it by getting them to challenge the concepts of their faith, not by saying "lol pastafari dawg."
I know of no one who read a goofy Italian-cuisine based prayer and said "finally, I get it, of course, there is no God." People lose their faith primarily with intellectual challenge, not by ridicule and mocking, all you do is push people back inward.
-
-
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@MattSpeller Yes, yes, tea cup in orbit, flying spaghetti monster, etc.
Simply saying religion is worthless, doesn't really have much to do with the discussions in this thread. Secondly, I imagine we've all read these things already, many times, and if it was going to have any sort of sudden impact, it would have already.
And being condescending doesn't win you converts, or de-converts, it just makes you look like a jackass. If you want to convince people there is no God or whatever, you do it by getting them to challenge the concepts of their faith, not by saying "lol pastafari dawg."
I am an ass, though there's no donkey lineage I'm aware of.
As for condescending, I do not believe I was, though I stand ready to be corrected happily.
Religion is far from worthless, I can think of quite a few things where it would be highly useful - none of them make it true.
-
Ok guys be nice..... again see community guide lines. http://mangolassi.it/topic/60/our-community-guidelines
-
@MattSpeller said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@MattSpeller Yes, yes, tea cup in orbit, flying spaghetti monster, etc.
Simply saying religion is worthless, doesn't really have much to do with the discussions in this thread. Secondly, I imagine we've all read these things already, many times, and if it was going to have any sort of sudden impact, it would have already.
And being condescending doesn't win you converts, or de-converts, it just makes you look like a jackass. If you want to convince people there is no God or whatever, you do it by getting them to challenge the concepts of their faith, not by saying "lol pastafari dawg."
If you were not already aware, news alert, I am a jackass.
As for condescending, I do not believe I was, though I stand ready to be corrected happily.
Religion is far from worthless, I can think of quite a few things where it would be highly useful - none of them make it true.
~lol pastafarianisim, dawg.
Let me clarify, I'm saying the general idea of this ridicule and mocking based arguments people use (I know yours was largely copy/paste, I've seen it in tons of places), like pastafari don't do anything except work against whatever you're trying to prove. I just see it all the time, from people who are far more serious about seeming to believe it works, and they look like jackasses.
If one's goal is to challenge faith, there are better ways to do it. To me what you did copy/paste does suggest religion is worthless, even if you don't think so (by your own admission) and I'm addressing what it's talking about.
If you want a good way to really challenge someone's faith, get them to explain it to you, and just ask questions. That alone works for a lot of people, primarily because they don't really have strong faith to begin with, or even so, faith in easily confusing and unsound ideas. It may not turn someone into an atheist, but often it can get them away from certain ideas which may actually be dangerous to their health or family life, or what not.
-
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@MattSpeller said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@MattSpeller Yes, yes, tea cup in orbit, flying spaghetti monster, etc.
Simply saying religion is worthless, doesn't really have much to do with the discussions in this thread. Secondly, I imagine we've all read these things already, many times, and if it was going to have any sort of sudden impact, it would have already.
And being condescending doesn't win you converts, or de-converts, it just makes you look like a jackass. If you want to convince people there is no God or whatever, you do it by getting them to challenge the concepts of their faith, not by saying "lol pastafari dawg."
If you were not already aware, news alert, I am a jackass.
As for condescending, I do not believe I was, though I stand ready to be corrected happily.
Religion is far from worthless, I can think of quite a few things where it would be highly useful - none of them make it true.
~lol pastafarianisim, dawg.
Let me clarify, I'm saying the general idea of this ridicule and mocking based arguments people use (I know yours was largely copy/paste, I've seen it in tons of places), like pastafari don't do anything except work against whatever you're trying to prove. I just see it all the time, from people who are far more serious about seeming to believe it works, and they look like jackasses.
tl;dr you disagree with my methods, that's fine.
I never stooped to name calling and tried pretty hard to avoid being condescending, still awaiting any corrections to make on that.
We disagree that humor and sarcasm have no effect. In fact I strongly disagree with you there.
-
@MattSpeller said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@MattSpeller said in What is New Earth:
@tonyshowoff said in What is New Earth:
@MattSpeller Yes, yes, tea cup in orbit, flying spaghetti monster, etc.
Simply saying religion is worthless, doesn't really have much to do with the discussions in this thread. Secondly, I imagine we've all read these things already, many times, and if it was going to have any sort of sudden impact, it would have already.
And being condescending doesn't win you converts, or de-converts, it just makes you look like a jackass. If you want to convince people there is no God or whatever, you do it by getting them to challenge the concepts of their faith, not by saying "lol pastafari dawg."
If you were not already aware, news alert, I am a jackass.
As for condescending, I do not believe I was, though I stand ready to be corrected happily.
Religion is far from worthless, I can think of quite a few things where it would be highly useful - none of them make it true.
~lol pastafarianisim, dawg.
Let me clarify, I'm saying the general idea of this ridicule and mocking based arguments people use (I know yours was largely copy/paste, I've seen it in tons of places), like pastafari don't do anything except work against whatever you're trying to prove. I just see it all the time, from people who are far more serious about seeming to believe it works, and they look like jackasses.
tl;dr you disagree with my methods, that's fine.
I never stooped to name calling and tried pretty hard to avoid being condescending, still awaiting any corrections to make on that.
We disagree that humor and sarcasm have no effect. In fact I strongly disagree with you there.
Oh I'm sure you do.
See what I did there?
Edit: Actually did I even use sarcasm correctly?
-
The bottom line is there's no real polite or nice way to say I think the vast majority of humans believe in an imaginary friend with magic powers.
-
@MattSpeller said in What is New Earth:
I never stooped to name calling and tried pretty hard to avoid being condescending, still awaiting any corrections to make on that.
I never said you used name calling, and the entire idea of reducing someone's faith to pasta is condescending, at least it seems that way to me. As I said, I don't know of any atheists who became atheists because of this sort of thing, it was usually years of internal struggle or whatever.
-
@MattSpeller said in What is New Earth:
The bottom line is there's no real polite or nice way to say I think the vast majority of humans believe in an imaginary friend with magic powers.
Actually I think that's a lot more polite than that whole other thing, just saying exactly how you feel. It's a lot more succinct too.
