I don't like either presidential candidate. I need to say that before I say this: using current rather than past political examples is playing with fire.

I can't really tell whether this is me failing to appreciate some aspect of human experience, or just that the way people tend to do things is stupid.

I wonder the same about myself all the time. Sometimes I feel less..., uh, "human" (?) for it. At those times, I ask myself, "would you rather be doing X?" and the answer is invariably that I would not. I seem to be happier for not doing these things because when I give in and do them, I get bored or annoyed.

Not to belittle KLF's achievements, but is that really the best example you can come up with?

I have studied two of the items on his list extensively: theology and literary theory. And I agree that they are worse than worthless.

Here's your evidence: what significant problems have these fields ever solved?

I too would be interested in doing this next year.

I too have noticed this. In fact, most of your post could have been written about me.

I actually didn't want to. It was more of an overwhelming evidence deconversion. But I was willing to look at that evidence because I had a strong desire to be a defender of light, to boldly face the philosophical abyss of unbelief--- for God.

Yet there was a key difference somewhere between what I did and what I see a lot of believers do. I read enemy texts, not just friendly texts on enemy ideas. Why did I, in that frame of mind, do that? That might be the thing to figure out and then articulate, as you put it.

No, you're right about that. They're not rejecting logic. They use it (selectively). They're just saying "I reject logic" as a tactic to stopsign any arguments in which they get cornered.

I like the idea of getting them to want to accept my beliefs. That's a rather large task though, isn't it? I'm not quite sure how I managed it myself. Sure, now I look back and say, "what a dreadful and frustrating perspective that was in comparison", and now the beauty of what we might achieve without a god, and the natural world, are overwhelming, but how to get that across?

That's a rather good point. I suppose I assumed that everyone (on some gut level) endorses logic, that it was just my failure to communicate my point clearly, not that they were viewing logic as external in the same way they did the other evidence.

Yet, I don't see where to go from here. Without getting some sort of commitment to logic, anything I say using any methodology can be rejected for no reason.

Perhaps I ought to use scriptures to show that God endorses logic? Hmm. What a twisted path that is.