Or "mysterious". What is the mystery, if all is explained by science, the telescope and the microscope? He even refers to "conscience" and makes frequent thunderous denunciations of various evil actions.

Such use of vaguely-silly [referents] belongs to the Bait/Switch School of Meta-confusion Generation. A 'fine' example of the way in which most such putative 'debates' are early-on led down the primrose path of digital this <-OR-> that-think, and on into chaotic (but first: petulant) sound bites, signifying the usual Nothing-at-all.

Such faux-'debates' are modeled after Karl Rove's, G\ufffdbbels's perverse talent sets - those of ensuring that there can be no light shed on any topic, in which the propagandist has already an agenda.

('The Mystery' that there is Anything at all: shall be with us perpetually, no matter the pterodactyl-bytes of gum flapping, now downloadable, too. Buy lots of TB drives.)

But those who refuse to do their own examinations, with effort sustained over years; those who settle for early childhood inculcations of the corporate stories designed to obvious agendas:

This majority shall continue the easy worship of finely-crafted "reasurances about 'My-condo-after-death'"
(the McGuffin of every one of these crafted fairytale constructs.)

The above? Not worth rebuttal - not one! [referent] employed so didactically: means the same to any Other two master-debaters (or even - between just these two.)


Pshaw,

Carrion