5 ms·

You completely missed the point. When talking about religion, you can do it in two different ways: - Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You belie

• zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > - Childish talk. For an atheist it will be "Haha! You believe in fairy tales and fiction books", for a Christian it will be "You are going to burn in Hell, and I will laugh at you from Heaven". I don't really subscribe to the categories "childish" vs. "grownup". The former is a pretty accurate summary, the latter a sign of delusion. Saying the former to a believer might not be productive, and in that sense childish--but this is obviously not a forum necessarily for talking to believers, so there is nothing wrong with expressing this perfectly rational assessment of the situation. > My argument is objective: a contradiction between A and B is still a contradiction, even if you think B is false. Moreover my argument does not require faith to be understood, and answers to mathw's original question. Yes, but you are still missing the point (unless I am misinterpreting their question). The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true" (and maybe by extension: what could one possibly do to to get them away from such epistemologically damaging behaviour)? Explaining what the doctrine is simply is not an answer to the question that's being asked.
  • zakk 9y ago
    > The former is a pretty accurate summary, the latter a sign of delusion. No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief. Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level. On the other hand, I think that the right thing to do, is to bring the discussion on a physical (rather than metaphysical) level, so we all can contribute. > The question is not really "what precisely is their doctrine", the question is "why would they accept that doctrine as true" Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this: > I haven't asked him for details [...] But it worries me, because as far as I can tell Pope Francis is quite keen on being nice to people, and showing mercy and forgiveness. I thought those were central tenets of Christian teaching. It turns out, as I showed, that there is something more central.
    • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > No, both sentences rely on a metaphysical belief. > Unless you can demonstrate with absolute certainty that there is no God, then the first and the second sentence are to be treated on the same level. No, that's probably just a confused interpretation on your part. When I say "Harry Potter is a work of fiction", would you object that that relies on a metaphysical belief and unless I can demonstrate with absolute certainty that Harry Potter does not exist, then that is to be treated the same as "We are being controlled by reptile overlords"? Presumably, you won't. And why not? Presumably because you recognize that "Harry Potter is a work of fiction" is not to be taken as a statement of absolute certain fact. You recognize that this is an expression of a tentative albeit pretty likely to be true rational conviction. That is how people use language. Unless you are specifically talking about the philosophical intricacies of epistemology, that is precisely what that kind of sentence means, and there is no problem of the kind that you seem to be seeing. > Then I was replying to a different question. I was commenting on this: Well, who knows, maybe I am misreading what they are saying, but generally I would expect most atheists making such a statement to be well aware that all those horrible things are also part of christian teachings, and this being more of a slightly sarcastic comment on the fact that Christianity generally gets the reputation of being a "religion of love", despite the overwhelming evidence pointing in the opposite direction.