Faith and communication

[fpb]

Unless you take it AS A FACT, and act upon it, that the Christian doctrine is factually true, you are not a Christian. However, when addressing a member of another faith, it is not only legitimate but proper to use, as the basis of your approach, this proposition: "This is the theory upon which I act, and which I take to explain life and the

Comments

[fishlivejournal]

This all makes sense - but frankly, after many long arguments with angry athiests, I've come to the conclusion that most of them *do* believe that Christ is true, and that's why they're so angry. (Not adherents of other religions of course. Laid back athiests, not so much. But definitely the angry athiests).
Especially given how many times athiests will unthinkingly use an argument that requires a religious belief. Consider this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Here Dawkins says in multiple variants: "If you'd beeen brought up in another time and place" - sorry? How? Who? If I don't have a soul, *what* is being brought up another time and place? My current genetics? I won't have that if I'm a Dane or Indian. My upbringing? His argument is that this will be different. He could not have said anything in this clip unless he at some level believed that we have an existence that does not depend on our body/environment - a soul.

[fishlivejournal]

(oh, you've misspelt 'understaNDing' in the tags)

[fpb]

thanks

[fpb]

corrected, and thanks again.

[fpb]

That goes without saying, almost. But it is always better to treat them as though they meant what they said; that way they can also be shown not to understand their own premises.

[fishlivejournal]

True enough...(this just agreeing with each other is boring, we need something to argue about! :P

[fpb]

Aw, man,don't jinx it!