Istvan

Davis wrote:
Misrepresenting other people’s views is a very bad habit best avoided.

Tell me about it. I start a Hi-how-are-you thread and all of a sudden I’m being accused of not only being a closet theist but also an apologist for slavery and oppression.

I think I’ve seen enough of your Crank Tank here. If you ever wonder why people don’t t…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

It didn’t work very well for those who enjoyed slavery, sanctioned by that religion. It didn’t work very well (and currently doesn’t in some of the world’s quarters) for 50% of the population (women) who had/have negligible say/control, suppression/inequality and a fairly large dose of the misery that came with it. It didn’t…

[Read more]

Okay, so you’ve decided to

jakelafort wrote:
Yeah Istvan it is working out well for the pedophiles who find sanctuary for their peculiar practices.

Hey, so you decide the most appropriate way to typify religious believers throughout history is the pedophile priest. Congratulations on having no qualms whatsoever about arranging the premises to…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

Ironically, this is the same blind spot that many atheists have toward what we call reality. To my way of thinking, if someone can’t deal with metaphor or ambiguity, they’re mistaking the finger for what it’s pointing to.

This is post-modern rhetoric. If a metaphor cannot be explained, then it is poetry and should be enjoyed as somet…

[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
“To my way of thinking, if someone can’t deal with metaphor or ambiguity, they’re mistaking the finger for what it’s pointing to.”

Care to elucidate without ambiguity?

Okay. If we’re going to dog fundies for being literal-minded, we should avoid being similarly literal-minded. That’s all.

jakelafort wrote:
If it is not literal then it is not true. It isn’t real.

Ironically, this is the same blind spot that many atheists have toward what we call reality. To my way of thinking, if someone can’t deal with metaphor or ambiguity, they’re mistaking the finger for what it’s pointing to.

Autumn wrote:
Admittedly, the cross section of Christians I meet is far from statistically significant, but despite some metaphysical claims that are way too out there for my tastes, there appears to be a growing contingent that isn’t all that strict about biblical literacy and generally is on board with science despite sprinkling a little s…

[Read more]

Davis wrote:
However, when you no longer hold a certain number of core claims as literal, you can no longer be a meaningful adherent of a religion or ideology.

I don’t see why not. Daniel Dennett observed that from the point of view of the religion, there’s no difference between a Muslim who prays five times a day because he literally believes in…[Read more]

Religion isn’t about generating reliable knowledge, it represents things like meaning, identity, authority and community. And I’d never deny that that can be a bad thing as well as a good one, but it’s important to take it on its own terms.

Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!

All I meant by the New Atheist reference is that I’m not an antitheist anymore. I don’t see religion as a set of literal claims about the world that can be judged true or false the same way as claims about natural phenomena or history. I don’t claim that my worldview is a matter of “following the evidence”…[Read more]