VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Steve|DATE|1366189414|CONTENT| [blockquote]Confronting the issues of the day, he brings his listeners extraordinary insight and for this he has found the perfect medium. [/blockquote] 

They believe that, these TFTDers, don&#039;t they. They believe that their special relationship with [select one of a thousand possible gods] provides a real insight. That&#039;s why what they say is completely free of arguments - they don&#039;t need them. When a normal person, or a politician, is trying to convince someone of something, they build to their conclusion via a set of arguments, hoping that if each argument individually stands up to scrutiny the conclusion will be persuasive. But religious thinking is reversed - the conclusion is correct whether or not, so why bother providing support for it?

I had always thought that it was the unquestioned nature of TFTD that led to the lack of arguments, but that&#039;s only part of it. Sacks et al have been brought up in a conclusion-first environment. The intellectual arrogance of that book blurb is disturbing. It says OUT LOUD that the &quot;perfect medium&quot; for &quot;extraordinary insight&quot; is a three-minute lecture, not a detailed debate, not question-and-answer, not a carefully structured argument. Thank god for secularism, I say. Thank god the country overwhelmingly ignores these fools.|IP-ADDRESS|10.0.119.138, 217.36.222.79, 10.37.30.201|MODERATIONFLAG|