A very clearly-written article (or letter...whatever), and informative to those of us who have not dissected the concept of belief to that degree.
But given something as subjective as religion, doesn't this seem a bit like these two gents are just splitting hairs and debating for the sake of debate? Replier says: "I would hesitate to say that a rock is atheistic...," but the hair-splitting nature of this debate leads you unwaveringly to a very clearly defined example of atheism...in this case, a rock, which I think is perfect. When you begin qualifying instances of belief or disbelief you start to get into subjectivity...not only in beleif systems, but in terminology as well, which is where I think this argument breaks down into strictly argumentative banter.
Yeah, the part I enjoyed the most was the silliness of certain parts of the debate. Sometimes it is useful to get into the minutae of a topic, but I thought these guys tended to take it a little far.
Comments 2
But given something as subjective as religion, doesn't this seem a bit like these two gents are just splitting hairs and debating for the sake of debate? Replier says: "I would hesitate to say that a rock is atheistic...," but the hair-splitting nature of this debate leads you unwaveringly to a very clearly defined example of atheism...in this case, a rock, which I think is perfect. When you begin qualifying instances of belief or disbelief you start to get into subjectivity...not only in beleif systems, but in terminology as well, which is where I think this argument breaks down into strictly argumentative banter.
Interesting to read, nonetheless :D
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment