= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Talking Snakes: A Cautionary Tale - 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 (226)
And..? So what? I am not sure I see the point.
So the presence of the talking snake in the story is evidence against the rightness of the religion, for reasons that can be (albeit needlessly rudely and uninformatively) expressed as "ha ha, your religion has talking snakes, how ridiculous".
Just to be clear, what exactly is your point in this thread?
I don't see how that follows from your previous comment. And in any case, I continue to disagree with that statement.
Let's go upthread. That was my first comment and I still stand by it.
While we're restating our positions: I (1) agree that the talking snake is a long, long way from being the best reason for thinking that Christianity-as-traditionally-understood is badly wrong, but (2) think "conditional on sufficiently strong magic" misses the point, because the talking snake is not portrayed as talking on account of any sort of magic.
And I suggest that we leave it there rather than engaging in further rounds of clarification and/or nitpicking.