Something can be a waste of time without being wrong. More precisely, if you think writing in support of belief X is a worthwhile use of your time, but your peers do not, this is not particularly strong evidence that belief X is false—but it is decent evidence about your belief “writing about belief X is a good use of my time” is false.
Be that as it may, your original comment can reasonably be interpreted as:
You sure are trying really hard to justify your belief. Are you sure that you aren’t trying to deceive yourself about your true beliefs?
Whatever the merits of that analysis, it asserts you know the mental processes of the speaker better than the person living the processes, and is not engaging with the speaker. It’s quite presumptuous to interact with someone with engaging with them.
In short, you are getting push-back because you are being rude.
Any god worth believing in shouldn’t need libraries worth of apologetics is my point.
Perhaps I’ve got low standards with respect to gods. I’ll accept a god that needs libraries worth of apologetics so long as she gives me immortality and catgirls.
My standards are even lower than yours… though maybe what my God/god/gods/things give me is ultimately better than immortality and catgirls, it’s really hard to tell.
once you have the catgirls and immortality, in what sense does she need the apologetics?
Whatever sense she likes (in addition to whatever sense you were talking about). If the nature of existence (and possibly the machinations of a rival god) are such that anyone who does not spend three hours in the apologetics library will end up not believing in her (and lose the benefits of affiliation) then I’ll spend three hours a day in the boring library. If she actually physically requires the presence of the apologetics library in order to sustain her existence then I’ll fight to the death to defend it. (The temporary death. Because I’m immortal. With catgirls.)
Something can be a waste of time without being wrong. More precisely, if you think writing in support of belief X is a worthwhile use of your time, but your peers do not, this is not particularly strong evidence that belief X is false—but it is decent evidence about your belief “writing about belief X is a good use of my time” is false.
Any god worth believing in shouldn’t need libraries worth of apologetics is my point.
Be that as it may, your original comment can reasonably be interpreted as:
Whatever the merits of that analysis, it asserts you know the mental processes of the speaker better than the person living the processes, and is not engaging with the speaker. It’s quite presumptuous to interact with someone with engaging with them.
In short, you are getting push-back because you are being rude.
You’re right. I should’ve been less rude
Perhaps I’ve got low standards with respect to gods. I’ll accept a god that needs libraries worth of apologetics so long as she gives me immortality and catgirls.
My standards are even lower than yours… though maybe what my God/god/gods/things give me is ultimately better than immortality and catgirls, it’s really hard to tell.
once you have the catgirls and immortality, in what sense does she need the apologetics?
Whatever sense she likes (in addition to whatever sense you were talking about). If the nature of existence (and possibly the machinations of a rival god) are such that anyone who does not spend three hours in the apologetics library will end up not believing in her (and lose the benefits of affiliation) then I’ll spend three hours a day in the boring library. If she actually physically requires the presence of the apologetics library in order to sustain her existence then I’ll fight to the death to defend it. (The temporary death. Because I’m immortal. With catgirls.)