= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yvain comments on Recent de-convert saturated by religious community; advice? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (158)
Good to know. I have been entertaining that idea as well and started trying to make it real at my blog.
This is extremely appealing. While further debate might arise later, I think this would quite defuse the situation and avoid the pitfalls of on-the-spot debates (especially since person-to-person discussion almost always lacks the ability to provide sources).
Interesting tactic! I'll have to ponder this one. In my circles, the Lewis trilemma is still thought to hold and they don't think very fondly of the Jesus-as-great-teacher crew.
Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand what overwhelmingly strong points you might bring up that your opponent might agree with. Would this be something like priest scandals? Or not having your prayers for understanding answered?
Another interesting strategy I'll think further about. I'm tempted to think I've already adopted this sort of strategy, though more so through being overly "hazy." Earlier, I would go into far more details, whereas now I've found that if I just say that "I'm not convinced," and offer as few supporting details as possible, I do end up at your example destination: person shrugs, presents puppy-dog stare of pity/compassion (fine line...), and says they'll pray for me.
Thanks for the response; there are some great points to ponder here and perhaps this is the encouragement I need to finally write my "summary of non-belief."
The one I mentioned about the Holocaust would be my go-to example. But really what's important is that it's not something completely intellectual they're going to have a cached response for.
On a side note, I've never understood people who use priest scandals as evidence for atheism. It seems totally ad hominem - "some of the guys who talk about this God stuff are bad people, therefore it's wrong". I guess you could get there by saying that if God existed He wouldn't allow such evil among His followers, but the only possible response to that would be "And where have you been for the past five thousand years?"
If I'm accustomed to people arguing for theism from authority (e.g., "I know God wants me to perform these rituals in this way, because my priest said so"), impugning the credibility of the authority figure (e.g., "Oh yeah? Well, your priest molests children!") is an understandable response.
But you're right, of course, that it isn't itself evidence for or against much of anything.
Thanks for the response. The note re. not having a cached response is helpful.
I don't find priest scandals to say much of anything about the existence of god any more than I find the rote bringing up of Mao or Pol-Pot as evidence against atheism. Bad people exist. They tend to be tied to various ideologies. Get over it :)
Now, I will say, that when someone begins to tread on the ground that thinks the Pope has some incredible moral elevation on the rest of us, it's then I think it can employed as a bring-one-back-to-earth tactic.
I also do find it a bit odd for someone to say that one should just disregard everything bad that comes out of Rome while insisting that the encyclicals or whatever else are nearly revealed wisdom.