That isn't even close to the argument. Nor did I say anything which could give that impression.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShineboxHukster @GodDoesnt and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt and
There are legions of secular defenders of the legacy of religious institutions. Whether Peterson on Christianity or regressives on Islam. Again, religion gets de facto forgiveness while an assertive unbeliever is denigrated as a matter of course by institutional representatives
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShineboxHukster @GodDoesnt and
Both authors agree that religion has undue social privilege. They differ on how to address this & decrease its influence and grip on people. I really don't know what you're arguing against but it doesn't seem to be either of them. Shall we leave it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt and
Certainly. Let me just give one more try. I thought you were too sympathetic to Lindsay’s thesis to the detriment of the unbeliever posistion in the polemic between religionist & secularist. That was all I meant to address. I’m defensive in support of unbelief.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShineboxHukster @GodDoesnt and
OK, but you haven't said why you think Silverman's approach will help reduce religious privilege and Lindsay's won't. That is the key issue here. My piece was an argument for why I think differently.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt and
Open discourse is the solution to moving antiquated ideologies out of the role of institutional authority. It’s not about eradicatiing spiritual aesthetic. Its fine to understand the pyschology behind motive from a clinical role but religious doctrine is too frail to protect
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ShineboxHukster @GodDoesnt and
But neither is arguing for protecting religious doctrine. I really am going to leave it here now.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt and
It’s in the subtext. I can see it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, you couldn't more wrong and there is zero point in arguing against what you think someone else really means rather than what they say.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.