"Bigots never foster, part deux" or "What the Court really said"

[pw201]

I've got some links about this queued up in the link blog, but it seemed worth a proper post as well as the silly one about frogs.

What the Court really said

So, what happened in the recent case of Owen and Eunice Johns is that both sides (the Johns and Derby Council) asked the court for a ruling on an abstract point. Contrary to what you've read

Comments

[ext_453096]

I dont no man, i guess all i have to say is thats why its called faith. thats how (faith)u now believe in no god and i still believe what u no longer can understand. yes i know its not reasonable to believe but i will never understand how u cant. good luck, i believe u will need it.

What?

[pw201]

Please speak English when responding on my blog.

Re: What?

[ext_453096]

not english ole chap. i think what i noted above is plain and simple. if u like i can rewrite it in another way but it will mean the same thing. again, i do wish u all the best.

Re: What?

[pw201]

Here's my attempt at a translation into English:I don't know man, I guess all I have to say is that's why it's called faith. Faith is how you now believe in no god and I still believe what you no longer can understand. Yes, I know it's not reasonable to believe but I will never understand how you can't. Good luck, I believe you will need it.
OK, so you think it's not reasonable to believe things on faith but you don't understand why I can't?

Suppose I believed in fairies at the bottom of my garden and said it was faith and that I couldn't understand how you didn't believe in fairies (I'm assuming you don't: if you do, pick something else you don't believe in and imagine I believe in that). Would you be impressed by that argument? If not, why do you think I should be impressed by someone saying the same thing about gods?

The bit about how my own position is also "faith" is a bad argument I've dealt with before, here.