(November 30, 2017 at 10:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: Back on topic, circling round from the above. I don;t think that christianity is best "debunked" by books specifically debunking christianity. Those have always existed. They never worked. I think it's best done by exposing people to a vast array of myth and culture and narrative tradition. The heritage that was literally destroyed out of fear by the nascent christian religion. They knew, even then, that they could not compete for hearts and minds against all of this. Repeated every time christian civilization conquered a new people. The first order of business was eradication of their culture and normative application of christian ideology to children. Here in the us, it was done to the natives..and then to slaves. It's an effective means of disempowerment and control.
Anecdotal, but, my own kids have already heard too much myth for me to expect them to grow into believing christians. My daughter actually asked us why people put plus signs on the side of the road. If you ask her about jesus..she'll tell you that The God™ needed his blood to make The People™. A seamless convergence of many of the myths and fairy tales she knows. Christianity can't survive, intact, in a mind like that. She's beginnuing to be confronted by the traditional christian bigotries here in rural Murica...and her response is predictable bemusement. She thinks her peers, now sharing the product of their indoctrination and beginning to self and socially identify as such..are silly. She knows the real stories.
Dawkins...Hitchens, Sagan...none of them can hold a candle to that. She did that. It's her head, she decides what goes in.
A very thoughtful post.
And btw, I have gone over our discussion about moral naturalism and (after much thought and reflection) I have concluded that I was not question-begging with my proposal that science can't assign values. If you really think that there is circularity in my reasoning, we need to bring in a third party or something because I disagree. Anyway, it seemed to me that you did not like my refutation of moral naturalism, but you had one of your own.
So let's hear it.
