Failing that, they could read my thing about how your approach differs from angry anti-theism. http://helenpluckroseblogs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/the-conflicting-approaches-of-david.html …
-
-
Perhaps I misread your blogpost. I had the impression you were discussing the dialectic between religionists & atheists & how both succumb to a tribally identified dogma.
-
Not remotely, no.
-
Not remotely?
-
You can read it and discover it's a comparison of two different arguments about atheism and dealing with religion in society by atheists or you can not. Your call.
-
Right. And your conclusion seemed to accept the argument from the side that seemed to say, from my reading, that the atheist owes the religionist a fair hearing of their beliefs. An argument I hear all the time & do not support. Just saying.
-
That isn't even close to the argument. Nor did I say anything which could give that impression.
-
The argument that we need to have a better grasp of the psychological basis for the religionist’s faith is well & good but some of us, in the laity, are tired of making the effort & don’t see why we shouldn’t enjoy the same glib & overweening sense of self-identified purpose.
-
Same as with all social justice issues. Depends if you want to actually address inequalities strategically and reasonably or if you want to form a tribe and shriek at your oppressors.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.