Here's the discussion continued from
How Can We Decide Who is Wrong?Face it John, chapters 2 & 3 in The Christian Delusion
are just as true about atheists as they are about Christians. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. It’s not about science. It’s about your conscious & subconscious choices. When you wrote this: I really think that given the way you are forced to argue your case above (very lame) that you are blind. The reason we cannot agree is because you are not willing to be consistent nor can you allow yourself to even consider that you are living in a cult group surrounded on every side by many other Moonies...
...you could just as easily be talking about atheists as well as Christians. I say you’re blind, you say I’m blind. I say you’re inconsistent, you say I’m inconsistent. I say your sources are weak, you say my sources are weak. I’m willing to say it’s an intellectual stalemate, but you believe you have intellectual superiority. If the answers were as obvious as either of us thinks they are, this issue would have been settled during the Enlightenment.
My response:
It is emphatically NOT an intellectual stalemate!
Not even close. Not a chance. You lose. It's a done deal given chapters 2 & 3 in TCD.
Given chapters 2 & 3 we should all be agnostics. It's the default position. Don't you get it?
Again, for emphasis. Given chapters 2 & 3 we should all be agnostics. It's the default position. Don't you get it?
Or do you really think that given chapters 2 & 3 your god hypothesis wins over the many others? Do you not see that a Muslim or Christian Scientist, Moonie, or Mormon could say the same things you do. A Moonie could say to me: Face it, chapters 2 & 3 in TCD are just as true about atheists as they are about Moonies. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. It’s not about science. It’s about your conscious & subconscious choices...
...you could just as easily be talking about atheists. And then he could declare a stalemate like you do and go on believing he is correct about his religious faith.
IT DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT!
No affirmative or positive claim about religious faith (as opposed to a denial) can be taken seriously without passing the Outsider Test for Faith given chapters 2 & 3.
What has intellectual superiority is agnosticism. That's what has the superiority.
Metaphysical naturalism is NOT what I argue for, although I am a metaphysical naturalist.
John