[ QUOTE ]
I said I don't believe anyone can believe '3=1' therefore I believe a religon that claims '3=1' is illogical. I could be wrong, maybe there are people who can believe '3=1' - what would that belief involve?
[/ QUOTE ]
It might involve this:
3=1
[ QUOTE ]
The existence of such a religon is not relevent to anything. People can say they believe it without actually believing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean to say that there will be NO ONE in that religion that truely believes his own religion?
[ QUOTE ]
I can create a game that is unplayable, market it well and sell it to loads of people who might say they love it - but they sure aren't playing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this analogy, since it doesn't matter at all if it's playable or unplayable according to YOUR definitions. To keep the analogy, we are clearly talking about games that people (by the billions!) do play. You are saying it is unplayable, they are saying it is. What can you do about it?
People believed and still believe in the most crazy and illogical things imaginable. How can you say this is not possible?
[ QUOTE ]
Are we heading towards a conversation about cruet sets with no holes?
[/ QUOTE ]
You call it "cruet with no holes", for someone else (or even for yourself!) it might serve as a very useful tool for some different purpose, or just as an art work he loves. Who knows? What is the sense in criticizing completely different uses, i.e, games?