3 ms·

> ...that are very obviously not true This is a sweeping generalization both about what religious beliefs are (for hundreds of religions) and also about how co

> ...that are very obviously not true This is a sweeping generalization both about what religious beliefs are (for hundreds of religions) and also about how countless individuals uniquely interpret/feel about/understand those beliefs. I think that is very reductionist and incorrect position to hold. Is the bad stuff because of religion - or is it because humans? Humans have built up religion to what it is after all. > It's far from obvious that the good outweighs the bad It is also far from obvious that the bad outweighs the good. I never suggested anything about hand-holding.

jordanpg 9y ago
Well, they are very obviously not true, as obvious as any other supernatural claim that is patent nonsense. My point is exactly that religion gets special treatment in this particular context. Sure, we can debate the good/bad stuff, but only after it's acknowledged that the supernatural claims are false. After all, if the supernatural claims are true, that pretty much settles all the rest of the questions concerning religion.
threatofrain 9y ago
The core argument here is that religious people cannot discuss the falsity of their beliefs, but that's a problem in discussing other things, because religious people don't constrain their beliefs to the purely metaphysical. Can prayer help with stroke or not? Is Israel special to God's plans or not? Are other religions corrupting the souls of children with false idols or not? Does God generally regulate the affairs of the earth, including its ecology and climate, or not? Does God have prescriptions on medicine and biological contamination or not? Since the confidence of existence in supernatural interaction means that secular frameworks are ignorant, how are spiritually different groups supposed to discuss these issues?

3 ms·

> ...that are very obviously not true This is a sweeping generalization both about what religious beliefs are (for hundreds of religions) and also about how co

by rwcarlsen 9y ago

jordanpg 9y ago
Well, they are very obviously not true, as obvious as any other supernatural claim that is patent nonsense. My point is exactly that religion gets special treatment in this particular context. Sure, we can debate the good/bad stuff, but only after it's acknowledged that the supernatural claims are false. After all, if the supernatural claims are true, that pretty much settles all the rest of the questions concerning religion.
threatofrain 9y ago
The core argument here is that religious people cannot discuss the falsity of their beliefs, but that's a problem in discussing other things, because religious people don't constrain their beliefs to the purely metaphysical. Can prayer help with stroke or not? Is Israel special to God's plans or not? Are other religions corrupting the souls of children with false idols or not? Does God generally regulate the affairs of the earth, including its ecology and climate, or not? Does God have prescriptions on medicine and biological contamination or not? Since the confidence of existence in supernatural interaction means that secular frameworks are ignorant, how are spiritually different groups supposed to discuss these issues?