>So the context of this post is less about religion itself, and more about an overall cluster of ways that rationalists/skeptics/etc could still use to improve their own thinking.
At best, this line sounds like arguing that this thing that looks like fish is not a fish because of its evolutionary history, method of giving birth, and it has this funny nose on top of its head through with it breathes makes it a mammal, thus not fish—in a world where the most salient definition of fish is functional one, “it is a sea-creature that lives in water and we need boats to get to them”.
However, I do not grant that argument holds. I believe what we have here is more of a shark than a whale, which despite the claims to contrary, are today still called fish. Instead of imparting any lessons, it reads more like argument concerning factuality and history of Judaism and Christianity … because most of all its words are spend talking about specific claims about Judaism, Christianity and their history. A comment answering newcomer wondering about “it seems to me that this article is about fishes in water, I’d like to point out something on that matter” with a claim “welcome to forum! this totally-not-a-shark is actually a whale, which is not a fish, so whatever you pointed out is out of context” feels like … incorrect way to defend it.
Incorrect enough why I think it is worth pointing it out 3 years later. But such things happen when 14 year old posts are rotated as recommendations on frontpage.
>So the context of this post is less about religion itself, and more about an overall cluster of ways that rationalists/skeptics/etc could still use to improve their own thinking.
At best, this line sounds like arguing that this thing that looks like fish is not a fish because of its evolutionary history, method of giving birth, and it has this funny nose on top of its head through with it breathes makes it a mammal, thus not fish—in a world where the most salient definition of fish is functional one, “it is a sea-creature that lives in water and we need boats to get to them”.
However, I do not grant that argument holds. I believe what we have here is more of a shark than a whale, which despite the claims to contrary, are today still called fish. Instead of imparting any lessons, it reads more like argument concerning factuality and history of Judaism and Christianity … because most of all its words are spend talking about specific claims about Judaism, Christianity and their history. A comment answering newcomer wondering about “it seems to me that this article is about fishes in water, I’d like to point out something on that matter” with a claim “welcome to forum! this totally-not-a-shark is actually a whale, which is not a fish, so whatever you pointed out is out of context” feels like … incorrect way to defend it.
Incorrect enough why I think it is worth pointing it out 3 years later. But such things happen when 14 year old posts are rotated as recommendations on frontpage.