Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

well crud. this is as far back ae it goes. paleo hebrew
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c3ca2290776.jpg[/atsimg]

can anyone translate it?

djin

if you read my entire thread (linked in my sig) you would see that i'm actually quite serious and have done years of research on the subject. (oh the image link is not to the first page. you'll have to go to the first page manually)

p.s. i originally thought enki was equivalent to the biblical serpent in the garden and in such case, he would be satan, biblically speaking, till i learned that the seraphim were a race of serpent beings, and that they not only correlated with the archangels and angels of the text, but also the gods. in fact, the sumerian texts refer to both enlil and enki as great dragons. the chinese story of creation is nearly identical in this regard and if you ask a tibetan monk, it gets even more interesting. meaning essentially, that the gods were not human in appearance, in the way we think of human (homo sapian).

also, satan as a word, doesn't show up in the bible until king david, leading me to believe it was a reference to set, who was the serpent (Set) god (An). An was Anu of sumerian trinity. His name had an etymology into egypt,which made it the quintessential generic god name of Egypt, thusly:

YMN
AMUN
AMEN
AMON
MONTU
MENTU
ENTU
ENU
EN
ANU
AN

amen. So satan was the Serpent Amen. The Serpent An. or the Serpent Anu. perhaps the hebrew way of saying, the Accuser god of Egypt ? There's so much interaction between Egypt and Mesopotamia and Israel in these old texts, it's like trying to weed thru a maze

I find that one of the most important aspects in the ever schismatic christianities is the enigmatic 'new covenant'.

For the moment disregarding the formal circumstances around it (Paulus' character and authenticity as middleman and the feed-back effect to OT Jahveh), it's seldom used for anyhting except as a doctrinal argument. The actual meaning and content seem to be of secondary importance, while it actually lies at the root of the christianities' present plight.

Starting with the quibblings in the very early christianity, it's obvious that a main issue was the relationship between deed and doctrine. I hope, it's not necessary to go into an analysis of that, bringing us too far out.

In the original issue-confrontation, deed and doctrine can be subdivided once more.

Deed into following OT law OR unconditional 'practical' love.

Doctrine into redemption (with a subclause of missioning) OR an all-loving and all-forgiving divinity without pricetags.

(There are other issues also, but that's beside the point now).

The redemption version, spurred by missionary zeal, has become the most outwards known part of the christianities, and my impression from almost a year on ATS is, that this kind of christianity basically is navel-gazing and very egotistically motivated. Sure, there's a lot of talk about loving this and loving that, but it's clear for me, that this is lipservice, sometimes you can almost hear the clenched teeth.

The important thing for them is to get a reservation in heaven.

And I believe, that contemporary mankind is beginning to see this sanctimonious spiel for what it is. Competition from more gentle religions or from science naturally starts comparisons in peoples' minds.

Finally getting around to thread topic, I believe, that a major factor in the decline of christianity is this more and more apparant hypocracy in it. The are more weird ideologies on the market (even science can be very SF-like these days), there are also more violent ideologies (in this period), but the falseness of missionary redemption christianity probably creates a feeling of repugnance in the modern 'seeker of truth and reality'. Like a corrupt politician or a salesman of excessively secondhanded cars would do.

I have come to expect that several layers of rhetoric, getting lost in bible-verses, angels on a pin and sometimes outright fabulations must be peeled away, before communication with such christians are possible at all (seldom happens).


The missionary redemption christians still live in the past, and has too late seen the changes (hence all the PR scandals none of them saw coming), and when confronted with this new challenge they react very primitively. Intensifying the already overdone doctrinal rhetoric, inventing pseudo-science arguments, being the slighted martyrs unused to opposition or OT angrily self-righteous aggressive (some of the really below-the-belt posts are from that type).

And still they don't learn. The confrontation is just intensifying into a negative spiral.

There must be fundies reading this, maybe frothing, maybe with a beginning of understanding. These guys in UK, public persons with experience of 'meeting the masses', saw that no amount of cosmetics could remove the basically ego-tripping aspects of 'ticket-to-heaven' mindsets. So they decided to lay low.

A few of our former agitators here have also done it. And presto, some communication can take place, without missionaries starting to think of blowing up the world, and harmless reductionist scientist aren't satan's imps anymore.

Everybody's happy, except for the few die-hards who would rather nuke everything to kingdom come just to be right.

reply to post by bogomil


You view evolution and creating as different. I don't. That's not even pseudo. That's human fact. Lots of people love creating speculative evolution and entire new worlds. It's a thought experiment and an artistic opportunity. It is quite simply to understand. What are you talking about and I don't understand seems to be your most common answer to anything just slightly out of human understanding but perfectly within range of being pulled it. To be honest, that's really sad. The heretics wrote about Jesus. That's what matters It doesn't matter if they disagreed or did differently. They wrote about a man whom many of which had seen themselves. Ergo, he had to exist, otherwise all these break off groups would not. Your only response to that is it proves nothing? Add more than bones to your arguments. No you're not relying on any well tested anything. You have made claims that you are, but you have not supplied how you use those methods to justify those claims. Still waiting on that. Yes. You prove something exists via using it and comparing it to other sources. Where is your "undeniably proof" that it's wrong? Again, still waiting. It is actually quite rational thinking and logical thinking. You just say I'm wrong and don't say why. Now I think I've explained myself over and over enough to just simply say you're not responding to it. So you are either just copy pasting your rhetoric or not even reading. In either case, that's not a rebuttal. And yes it actually does make it true in the scientific sense. The scientific view, which is right, is that man corrupts. The game telephone is a good example. Thus very soon within 1-2 generations of Christ, the Christians set about removing those changes they themselves had done. And how? Using the bible. They saw what was contradictory to the core message of Christ, looked up the guy who wrote it, and removed it. Now how that relates to Islam is simple. The Muslims did it sooner. And what do we see? Mohammad using the Bible as his sources. And not to mention local oral traditions and cultures that had been cut off from the Hebrews as additional sources. If these oral traditions had not changed within that much recognizable degree, and they'd been cut off for eons, and the Muslims recorded those traditions as being very similar to the biblical ones, it proves without a doubt that the words have not changed. IE, Islam's Noah lost his sons in the flood, but overall it goes along the same exact story without change. Islam's Abraham has one son switched with another, but over all it is the same exact story. Now that it is confirmed not to have changed, we can deduce that those whom have done wrongly claiming what is in the bible are wrong, not the religion. And if we continue down this line of logic, continuing with where exactly this religion came from, we come to the same conclusion. It's missing. This is actually the same argument creationists use for evolution. However, this is a God of the gaps argument. We have clear proof of scattered pieces of evolution painting a pretty clear picture of where each individual species came from. There are no mysteries. At least nothing big. The source for the Abraham tradition continues to elude us. Every other religion can be tracked back to traditions in India, and they can be tracked back to Africa. Abraham, however, is an isolated cell. He is his own first cell of the evolution of that faith. Which runs in direct contradiction to normal generated culture. You cannot have over 10,000 years of religion evolving, and have one religion that just popped out of no where, and overall, never changed. This is the proof. The fact that through the ages, it's the only religion to have stayed near its core beliefs and not change. it's like the closest star to a solar system with over a thousand planets. it's not suppose to just stick there forever while all the other orbits decay.

This is quite scientific proof, because it's a scientific fact that evolution happens. Only the most primitive one liner life forms stay the same. Because they must remain for new life to go on. The most evolved go extinct and the least evolved generic life forms keep going. In terms of human religions, there's no difference. But the Christians have refused to move anywhere but back to their roots. Cultures from their homelands change and that pushed them away, but they always crawl back. This is a violation of the natural order of things. And from my beliefs, it's because God is not natural.

I actually have very good knowledge in scientific matters and thus far in my life have done very well on speculation projects and technologies and biologies. I hang out with evolutionary scientists, speculative biologists, and physicists. We have great conversations. I think you are just saying that because you can't honestly view it possible that a Christian literalistic would also believe in all of physics and evolution. And I can explain that very simply as well. God is not linear. His view of time is a big ball of wibbly wobbly lines. Jesus himself said his father never stopped creating. Because every time something is created he is there on that day of creation. And that is actually quite a scientific view of someone who is not bound by linear time progression. Being God sure would help him to do that. And it's all clued in the bible. God says he Am. Something that is not grammatically correct. Because he cannot say he is. He is was and will be all at the same time. Am.

reply to post by daggyz


How pathetic. All you do is argue semantics. If atheism is a "religion" then everything is a religion. Do you believe in santa? No? O thats a religion then. Dont believe in the tooth fairy? Religious you are. Vampires aren't real you say? O what a religious guy you are, you anti-vampian. Fine atheism is a "religion", then so is every other opinion no matter how scientifically backed up it is. So why the hell does it matter anyway? Just cause you wanna label atheism a religion isn't gonna bring us down to your level of believing in fairy tales with no factual evidence. Its pretty pathetic how christians try to argue atheism is a "religion" as if believing in ridiculous fire flinging angry "loving" gods is anywhere near logical as not believing in stuff that was just written down in some book by some dudes like all religions and fairy tales were, with no actual evidence to support its claims.

reply to post by The Djin


And how do you know what that means? Perhaps they were good people. Plus let's get the full version. AGain, you cut a small piece and use it as your source. This optimizes the ability to crush your whole argument, Just look at the whole piece. It often becomes clear.

... (looks it up)


Ah. Just as suspected. You're wrong because you cut off the rest. Classic.

The descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, the Kenite, went up from the City of Palms with the people of Judah to live among the inhabitants of the Desert of Judah in the Negev near Arad. 17 Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.[d] 18 Judah also took[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory. 19 The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. 20 As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. 21 The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

Nice there. But you're wrong. The Army could not defeat the chariots, because God was with them and did not allow it.



clap clap clap. Very good manipulation. 3.5 out of 5.

And Jesus died because you're human. You're violent and you wouldn't understand it any other way. The highest form of love is to lay your life down for another. That's why it was done that way.

reply to post by bogomil


well it would be extremely easy for me to fall away from christianity if i based my understanding of it, solely on what someone else told me. it's also pertinent to note here that alot of the skepticism regarding this and similar topics is based on the idea that literally NO ONE told the truth for the first 5500 years of history. this belief all happened back in the beginning of the enlightenment period. here's a brief overview:

the seat of the papacy and the most revered higher learning schools, were in germany at this point. higher criticism had developed as a scholarly attempt to prove papal interpretation of biblical texts, was the most accurate form of history available, bar none. as a result, higher critics (catholic professors, primarily ) of the time went forth to prove it. the first such example of note (for this topic) was freiderich wolfe, who in his critical text, homeric problem, stated that the ancient greeks could not write, when their annals, epics and histories were said to be written. he was wrong but it would take 40 more years and the creation of archaeology as a science, before he would be proven wrong.

as a result, the ancient greek histories, annals and epics, were tossed out and ruled unreliable, myths. this had a snowball effect. without the linchpin represented by the greek texts, other ancient texts from surrounding cultures, were missing substantiation that had originally been provided by the greek texts. so out they went too. soon, nothing else remained except the bible (and ancient egypt, sumer, and other lost sites, still primarily buried under sand).

students were encouraged to write critical texts as class assignments, and soon both the students and the critics noticed, that without the support of the rest of the ancient world (which had been ruled mythological), the bible was unsubstantiated as well. and so, what started out as a mistake, even before the advent of archaeology, ended with our institutes of higher learning ruling the history of the entire ancient world, mythology.

the discovery that wolfe had been wrong about the greek texts, was ignored, as too many men of learning had written theses on it, had added quotes from his work to their own documents, and had used his theory to discount other cultures. when the question was brought up about how wolfe's error had falsely impacted their other conclusions , they were asked if they wanted to go back to believing in fairies, spirits and gods. it also didn't hurt that most of europe was freeing itself from the clutches of the holy roman empire at this point, as the enlightenment moved forward. science had become the new "papal authority." the king was dead. long live the king.

these guys quoted those guys who quoted those guys who quoted those guys, and what you have now, is an exceedingly long paper trail about how every ancient text is a crock of poo poo but the new stuff, written since the enlightenment, is all factual and true, even though archaeology (a science they created, i might add!) has proven them wrong as regards the lack of historicity of the ancient data.

i think this has had a majorly negative impact on learning or even studying ancient history. if you suggest this ancient subject may be linked to another ancient subject (proving both subjects are at the very least, substantiating one another), and use etymology (the science of languages) and archaeology in conjunction with the ancient texts, people who have been detrimentally effected by the concept that the ancient world is a lie, freak out and think you're a basket case.

reply to post by undo


There's a book I read called "Great ages of Man Ancient America". They more or less showed Art in India and the Maya. It's almost indistinguishable in some cases. To me, that proves more credibility to the particular story in question (In this case, men hiding from water monsters. Noah? Who knows). I think what the guy doesn't get is that the more wide range a story is without being changed, the more credible that story is, because the more witnesses it must have had to get that far. And to get all the way to the Maya? It had to be big.

reply to post by Gorman91



no doubt.
also, i was watching penn and teller's video, "the bible is bull$hit" (i am not evading the bad word censor, that is the actual name of the video spelled with a dollar sign), he claims the story of the israelites in egypt is not substantiated at all, ignoring the entire story of the hyskos shepherd kings (who were the habiru (hebrews). it's pretty easy to tell it's them too. they gain favor while in egypt, they become pharaohs, they fall out of favor, they are enslaved and eventually are "chased out of egypt" by pharaoh Ahmose. (moses was named after him). i mean, it's right there in the egyptian texts.

here they are
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/1f3a4ce12d4e113a.jpg[/atsimg]

origins of the hyksos
en.wikipedia.org...


he also completely skips over the flood tablet from the epic of gilgamesh, and quotes an alternate flood story that has alot fewer details and can't be substantiated as to the time of its writing vs. the writing of the epic. i don't get it. why go to all the trouble to criticize it if you're not going to give it your best effort? he's going to lose even non-believers who know the various texts, by doing that kind of thing.

epic of gilgamesh tablet IX (flood tablet)
www.ancienttexts.org...

reply to post by undo


If you's like my own timeline, I honestly don't have one, but I've been meaning to go look up history and link pieces together. The one you mentioned has some credibility but there are also those whom would say it isn't. Without enough looking into it I cannot agree nor disagree.

I can state some knowledge I have on the subject however. This is very off topic however, so I'll have to bring it back on topic at the end. Egypt was a very modern society in its ancient times. You see people on here worshiping geometry and figures as well as symbols as if they have power. This is just signs of ignorance over what they really mean. Egypt's ancient past is arguably an early example of modernism. They're buildings were semi-representative with extreme levels of embodiment. Indeed architects such as Zaha Hadid derive their method of design from similar processes. I will use the pyramids as an example. They are en embodiment of the universe according to Egypt. A pyramid is surrounded by deserts, often walled off. Their axis are South-North and East-West, the flow of death and the flow of life. The Nile and the sun. These two cataclysmic forces that governed their society. The walls for Egypt were the deserts surrounding them. The Pyramid's mortuary crawls to the river, like a desert flower springs from the Nile. Most pyramid complexes themselves look like flowers from the sky. Just like how we put flowers on the dead. There is no decoration. There is no desperation. Just simple moves embodying it's purpose: funeral. Now this is extremely complex thought for the time. But it did change over time. However, after the pyramids were built, the empire collapsed. We're still not exactly sure. but I can tell you this. It is recorded traditionally within a few decades of the year of the flood. After this collapse, we see a sudden change in Egyptian society. It takes a long time to get out of the collapse, but what comes out is a far less philosophical and knowledgeable people. Over the years they get back some of what they lost, but the fact that this corresponds to the year of the flood is something to take note in.

Now how to bring it back on topic? The Bible has these complex thoughts present. God states a Noun, then he makes it a verb. This is the genesis story. He creates the world and then gives it verbs to occupy. These are simple moves. It's almost an instruction's manual to modernist design. It's too complex for it's time period. These are stories from desert people whom had no real civilization until they entered Egypt. It's to "out there" to be made by man. Now some may argue that they learned to be that smart to write it that way when they were in Egypt. But like I said before. Egypt's former glory was gone when the Jews cam by. The intellectual level of Egypt had collapsed quite some bit by that time. And one cannot argue this. Egypt was coming out of it's own apocalypse. And very few men actually even remotely understood how things were done in the past.

That's why I'm not really ashamed to be called a Christian. I have a God and a book that both are aliens to their time periods. That's just not seen in other religions.

you might like this video. it kinda gives you an idea why people like penn and teller, don't have to do much research to just toss out whole chunks of history

reply to post by undo


Yep I've seen his work. Interesting that the 2nd collapse of Egyptian society correlates to the Hebrew's time there, as well as these so-called Hyksok.

I don't know about you, but it's kind of funny how we picture them making pyramids, when in fact the pyramid era of Egypt had been dead for roughly 1000 years. They built temples at that time. But yea, this does reinforce it's validity. I can't really see that much connection by chance. But I'm not going to put my lot into supporting it until I've sat down and read as much as I can.

reply to post by darkest4


I would argue that Santa and vampires and all that are religious entities of their own right. And that's why I don't like them and don't celebrate "american Christmas" which is really just worshiping the dollar. Weather people realize they are part of a religion or not is irregardless of if it is or not.

Re Gorman91

Quote: ["The heretics wrote about Jesus. That's what matters It doesn't matter if they disagreed or did differently. They wrote about a man whom many of which had seen themselves. Ergo, he had to exist, otherwise all these break off groups would not. Your only response to that is it proves nothing?"]

If you'd been familiar with rational thinking, you would have been able to draw some reasonable conclusions yourself.

Quote: ["No you're not relying on any well tested anything"]

I'm not here to teach you your way of the mental maze you seem to be in, and lead you by the hand towards scientific methodology. Acquire some basic knowledge of it through education.

Quote: ["You just say I'm wrong and don't say why."]

Have already done that a couple of times, and if you'd known anything on scientific methodology, you've would have caught on immediately.

Quote: [" The scientific view, which is right, is that man corrupts."]

This speaks for itself.

Quote: ["The source for the Abraham tradition continues to elude us. Every other religion can be tracked back to traditions in India, and they can be tracked back to Africa. Abraham, however, is an isolated cell. He is his own first cell of the evolution of that faith."]

Maybe he was talking to himself. Maybe he was an early example of a politician creating religion for social engineering purposes. Maybe a devil/ET/hyperdimensional whispered in his ear.

For other options of very early religion Undo seems to have sound knowledge.

Quote: [" You cannot have over 10,000 years of religion evolving, and have one religion that just popped out of no where, and overall, never changed. This is the proof. The fact that through the ages, it's the only religion to have stayed near its core beliefs and not change."]

This could have been an interesting working hypothesis on absolute 'truth', if your data had been correct, which they are not. Christianity has changed.

Quote: ["I actually have very good knowledge in scientific matters and thus far in my life have done very well on speculation projects and technologies and biologies."]

It doesn't shine through in your posts.

Quote: ["I think you are just saying that because you can't honestly view it possible that a Christian literalistic would also believe in all of physics and evolution."]

Yes, with a sufficient amount of rhetoric it could produce some cottage-industry science-imitation. Just as your posts manifests.

Quote: ["Because every time something is created he is there on that day of creation. And that is actually quite a scientific view of someone who is not bound by linear time progression."]

Real science has been working with non-linear phenomena app 100 years. Arriving at considerably more coherent results than you (and you alleged 'god').

Quote: ["And it's all clued in the bible. God says he Am. Something that is not grammatically correct. Because he cannot say he is. He is was and will be all at the same time. Am."]

And what does THAT 'prove' this time?


I have no problems with you having your own faith and your own way of acquirering/organizing information. But it's waste of time both for you and me to communicate on the assumption, that your system has the slightest similarity with real science and logic.

reply to post by undo


Given this library of information you have built up Undo, you should be fully aware that no mass exodus of 600000 to 2 million bonded slaves occurred.

This popular bible claim is complete nonsense and totally unsupported, given the types of "research" you claim to do should you support the claim then you're being deceitful as there is no evidence for this.

Adding to the problem of lack of evidence is conflicting evidence which is quite stark and myth destroying.

An example, The Egyptian population estimated to be possibly 3 million could not possibly have supported up to 2 million slaves.

600000 slaves were alleged to have been tough armed fighting men yet another logistical nightmare for a population of barely 3 million, who ran away from the Egyptian army !!!

The problems go on and on Undo and you know it yet you still choose to believe that yawhe and jesus are one and the same being the creator of "everything that is, was, and will ever be ".

I am totally staggered that someone who claims to do research does nothing of the sort, but scours text grabbing at any piece of information that may appear to be mailable enough to support a bogus tale.

reply to post by bogomil


I'd consider my extraction very reasonable. If this was a bunch of shadow brookers conspiring to corrupt men and women into their new religion to make a penny off it, they would not have broken off. They would have lived with the differences and stayed together despite their differences, a la every single other cult out there. But they did not. They were do devote to the things they saw that they would rather break off and make their own way of what they think they saw over staying with others whom they felt different. Stuff like that is not a myth. Stuff like that is because somebody saw something traumatic and unexplainable. The most one can outdraw from this is 3 possible logical answers. He was a time traveler with advanced technology, he was an alien, or he was really the Son of God. Beyond that faith comes into play, and I have faith he was the son of God. I have no means to scientifically say how he was not an alien other than assuming based off human intelligence and examples on Earth. Of which, for an alien, is simply not enough to make a deduction to say he was not one, and for a time traveler, opens way to many possibilities to even have any discussion of. Thus my faith in this man is that he was the son of God as he proclaimed, However, to call him a myth or nonexistent, simply has no scientific backing. The most unbiased answer is that he was a man with power not seen by humans before. That is all one can draw from it.

Actually, if you wish to continue the discussion, you are. if you are here just to say people are in mazes and offer no alternative, you are again failing your side of the argument. Once more, we await your proof.

Indeed, it is far more likely that an alien was there than to say he was telling a lie or social engineering. Social engineering? To who? The man, at his height, was a local leader of a people numbering bellow a few hundred. He was surrounded by nations with thousands of soldiers and thousands of weapons. If the man was going to socially manipulate, he's need a society to do the manipulating. For which he had none. Like I said, if one views it unbiased in a purely secular manner, one cannot prove it is myth. One can only come to three possible solutions I already listed above. Crazy people never found societies. They can only steal them. And if anything, they're not going to found a society that lasts to the modern era. Especially not in the valley between regional superpowers at the time. Please do actually look up the time period you are talking about.

Again. provide proof to your statements. You've yet to do this. For this whole time I have supplied references to real people, real events, real sources, and real things. Your whole argument's source has come from your fingers typing and nothing more. If you wish to argue, bring more than your rhetoric to the board.

reply to post by The Djin


Considering that the Jews were an immigrant populations storming in and were breeding a lot more than their civilized Egyptian brethren, it is very possible. Also considering that the second collapse of Egyptian society occurred around the same time, it again makes sense. Indeed half the population cannot get up and leave without a nation collapsing. And that's just what Egypt did.

reply to post by The Djin


as i have indicated many times now, i don't believe the text is entirely correctly translated, (translation bias, translation bias, TRANSLATION BIAS) nor completely divine in nature (meaning human error is evident). i've also indicated that i don't take it as if every word is applicable to today, nor straight from the mouth of god.. i've also indicated that it suggests all manner of other types of beings, in addition to the god(s) it references. i also indicated, and you seem to ignore this in favor of the position of blaming me for crap i never did or even thought, that i treat the other ancient texts besides the bible, with similar respect. i don't assume they are lies, just translated bits of data, seen thru the lens of the translators, which contain bias as a result, but truth as well. i don't know why this offends you but you can rest assured that your attitude will not stop me from researching. i love to research! I.AM.SORRY, i just do. gimme a book and my nose is in it.

Re Darkest4

Well done.

Ofcourse 'atheism as a religion' is a semantic trap, and can be dissolved quite easy. Except for the sad fact, that practically none of those using it have any idea of semantics or logic, and in any case don't acknowledge it, so a counter-argument in the form of an semantic unravelling would be ignored, and 'atheism as religion' pops up again a few days later.

Fundies don't think like other people. They have this closed, self-explaining system, from where it's completely legitimate to start from the answer and then invent/twist 'facts' along the way as 'proof' for the predetermined answer.

Only half-liners, very compressed, information passes through their filters, and it's completely meaningless to try communication on co-sensus common sense or scientific/academic basis.

Extensive rational explanations are percieved as being 'rhetoric', because that's the way these people have learned to function.

Looking at some of my recent answering posts here, you'll see such fundie-mindsets at work.