Lumifer comments on Talking Snakes: A Cautionary Tale - Less Wrong

107 Post author: Yvain 13 March 2009 01:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (226)
Tags: religion

Comments (226)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 06 May 2016 02:29:15PM 0 points [-]

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".

I don't see how that follows from your previous comment. And in any case, I continue to disagree with that statement.

what exactly is your point in this thread?

Let's go upthread. That was my first comment and I still stand by it.

Comment author: gjm 06 May 2016 03:05:30PM -2 points [-]

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.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit