Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
Indeed. Despite being my third attempt at a measured reply, I still wasnt able to get past "...his environmental influences were predominantly christian and that's probably why he's a Christian (wonder if he's ever applied his impressive intellect to THAT little nugget)".
Dont post angry...
The thing is is that he (boosh) does have a nugget of truth in there. Most people don't really think too deeply about what they've been taught. I, for one, blindly believe that having high cholesterol is bad. I don't worry about checking to see what cholesterol is, whether it might be something that doesn't really matter, or whether it might be good. I just trust that when the doctor says something about mine being high and that the cure is to eat a diet of nasty foods, he is right.
That is the state of most people in most things. That is as it should be. I don't have the time to worry about every little aspect of my life.
The huge problem with his line of thinking is that he doesn't recognize that a Christian apologist doesn't count as someone who hasn't examined their beliefs. They have. By definition.
He should learn how to be a better arguer against their positions if he wants to make a difference. Knowing that I have a scientific background and stating that that is why I am scientific doesn't have anything to do at all with whether I should be scientific.
He also neglects the data that some people are born into very religious households and eventually come to reject religion and that others do the opposite. That some people change religions. A few change religions nearly as often as they change hair styles. If everyone was only believing because of their upbringing, this could never ever ever ever happen. Since it does happen, it happens.
Also, if it were just a matter of what he thinks it is, he should be rejecting his own ideas. They are not his own, and are unreasonable by his own arguments.