[Serious] Christians what would change your mind?

[Belacqua]

magic sky fairy

To have an honest debate, you have to be able to describe your opponent's position in terms that he would agree with. If you can't do that, then you aren't arguing against what he actually believes.

[The Grand Nudger]

You must mean a kind and uncritical debate. It's unsurprising when a person who believes in magic sky fairies objects to having them described as such, no matter how honest a description it is.

Find me a single christian, who, by their religious observances, does not hope for the promise of christ, and expect that promise to be fulfilled. Sure, some people think that christ's promise was more or less pregnant - but a person who doesn't believe in this at all is in no way a christian.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

magic sky fairy

To have an honest debate, you have to be able to describe your opponent's position in terms that he would agree with. If you can't do that, then you aren't arguing against what he actually believes.

Ok. Let’s change ‘magic sky fairy’ to ‘eternal, creative non-corporeal Being who can be swayed by the supplication of penitents to intercede on their behalf or on the behalf of others.’ It’s a cumbersome phrase, but is semantically equivalent to ‘magic sky fairy’. This is the picture of God held by the majority of Christians.

How will changing the term change the debate?

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

To have an honest debate, you have to be able to describe your opponent's position in terms that he would agree with. If you can't do that, then you aren't arguing against what he actually believes.

To have an honest debate you have to honestly state their position regardless they accept that description or not . So no you are honestly debate what the actually believe whether they will acknowledge that that is what they actually believe is irrelevant .  Coddling their egos and their delusions is not debate it's cowardice .

[Belacqua]

semantically equivalent to ‘magic sky fairy’

I don't agree that it is semantically equivalent. 

It is obviously meant to belittle and make light of what many Christians really believe, and therefore has a meaning which the longer definition does not. Semantics includes the obviously intended insult. 

The term "President Obama" isn't semantically equivalent to the term "President Fuckface Obama," even though both terms refer to the same person.

As for what Christians believe, yes of course many people believe dumb things. To announce that all Christians believe the same thing, and that this one thing is the essence of Christianity, is incorrect. It is a useful oversimplification made by people who want to insult.

[brewer]

magic sky fairy

To have an honest debate, you have to be able to describe your opponent's position in terms that he would agree with. If you can't do that, then you aren't arguing against what he actually believes.

Bel gets to decide/determine "honesty" for someone else. Sounds about right.

[Silver]

Bel gets to decide/determine "honesty" for someone else. Sounds about right.

Well, you know, all sheep do think the same.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I don't agree that it is semantically equivalent. 

And we don't care 

It is obviously meant to belittle and make light of what many Christians really believe, and therefore has a meaning which the longer definition does not. Semantics includes the obviously intended insult. 

No it's an honest opinion . If theists get offended by it that's their problem .

The term "President Obama" isn't semantically equivalent to the term "President Fuckface Obama," even though both terms refer to the same person.

No equivalent sorry 

As for what Christians believe, yes of course many people believe dumb things. To announce that all Christians believe the same thing, and that this one thing is the essence of Christianity, is incorrect. It is a useful oversimplification made by people who want to insult.

Nah it's an honest assessment that Christians get their panties in a twist over because they know how silly their beliefs sound when put in perspective .

[John 6IX Breezy]

magic sky fairy

To have an honest debate, you have to be able to describe your opponent's position in terms that he would agree with. If you can't do that, then you aren't arguing against what he actually believes.

I agree. When describing a religious opponent's ideas an atheist has an incentive to pick the least charitable one, the least logical one, the least persuasive one, or represent their ideas as such, because doing so makes those ideas easier to reject. That's what the phrase magical sky fairy is designed to accomplish.

It's a behavior often described as nut-picking, as opposed to cherry-picking. Every community is statistically bound to have individuals and ideas at the fringes that are strange or confusing. Nut picking is essentially looking for the ideas that are two or three standard deviations away from the mean, such as the man curing his baldness with water.

When we want to learn about a group it's important to go to them first. Listen to their beliefs in their most persuasive form; the form in which they themselves believe them. Not the form that's easiest to reject.

I think that the person that is unable to speak good of opposition, and represent their ideas in the most logical or persuasive form, does so out of fear of being persuaded.

[Silver]

God does not exist, however, despite the theist believing that he does exist.

A therapist does not engage a patient on his terms by agreeing that the delusion exists, after all.