= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ZeroBlacktip comments on Navigating disagreement: How to keep your eye on the evidence - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (72)
Yes, but the point of this paper was rational discussion. People who refuse to research their own religion are not rational, yes? So why are we including them as candidates for rational debate? Call me a cynic, but I would rather debate with a reasonable Xtian that has a solid theological grounding than argue with an unreasonable one who hasn't bothered to learn his bible.
And rock is a metaphor, as well as a play on words for his name. Doesn't make him the pope, could just be saying that his faith needed to be emulated. Jesus was sort of known for metaphor, but not for supporting rigid belief structures designed to bilk their followers.
My original point was that atheists make one simple claim, without absolute certainty, and are accused of being overconfident; most varieties of Christian make many complex and a-priori unlikely claims, with certainity, and are not accused of being overconfident.
I wasn't talking about what Jesus said. I was talking about what Catholics believe. (Not singling them out as any kind of implicit comparison to Protestants, BTW.)