How to see the other side?

[Wootah]

I feel I understand both sides of the atheist/Christian debate. But if I am allowed to mind read I don't think any atheist would say Wootah understands atheism.

And I don't feel any atheist understands the Christian side of the debate. Are there atheists who think they are steelmanning Christianity and fighting only the best version?

I feel it is like the matrix movie.

How to see the other side?

[TRANSPONDER]

Are there non-Christians who think they are steelmanning Christianity and fighting only the best version?

There's a best version of Christianity? What would that be and how was it determined to be so?


Tcg

You've used the term 'Steelmanning' a few times. It's unfamiliar to me. I can get the context, but what does it mean to you? 'Non Christians' will work, but it covers Muslims and Hindus, d'ye see? They are not atheists. Best version? Who is to say? I'd say the 'Best' version of Christianity is Jesus as a Jewish teacher of morality rather than organised (and corrupt) religion. A man, and not God, and at best a messiah - as -teacher chosen by God. Not resurrected, and ..no, no heaven, hell or resurrection. But you would probably not regard that as Christianity at all, and it is belief in the Resurrection, not Morality, that is the basis of Christianity. So it is rather mainstream (most prevalent) Christianity or indeed Theism (so we debate Islam, too) rather than the Best Christianity we start by debating. Responsibility falls on the Christian to clarify where they differ from the mainstream, rather than them doing 'Ha Ha! Atheists were wrong about the Dogma that my version of Christianity believes'. And I have to mention the inherent attempt to wrongfoot atheists by taking the optimum version of Christianity we assume when starting a debate, renaming it 'Best version', swinging the equivocation 'Best to debate' becomes 'Best kind of Christianity' and demanding how we claim to know which Christianity is the Best?

We never even mentioned it. And I'm sure you would never have intended to pull a dirty polemical trick like that.

[Purple Knight]

There's a best version of Christianity? What would that be and how was it determined to be so?

Consistency, intuitiveness, and forthrightness.

So the ideal version of the Christian lore must be: 1) Logically consistent; not self-contradict 2) not fly in the face of what we understand innately about morality and 3) mean what it says and say what it means. In other words, yes, the Bible says don't be gay (well, don't do male homosexual acts), so that's what it says, and versions which try to polish the altar until the words are rubbed out are non-ideal.

So to get the ideal version, when we aren't 100% sure, we give charity until the answer is as ideal as possible. Now, that's a lot of charity. And you may well run into problems between 2 and 3, where if you give enough charity to the religion's teachings so that it passes the moral smell test, the original words are so far disturbed that they no longer say what they say. And that's not ideal because once you can make something say the opposite of what it says for good reasons, you can also do so for the wrong reasons.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #12]

Damn' I'll be awake all night thinking about that one.

And I'm already still wondering what Steelmanning is.

"A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of "the other person's argument [(the steel man argument)], even if it's not the one they presented".

interesting. That's a new one on me. But that's a Good thing isn't it? If one can construct an even more robust version of a point being argued (1) and it still fails, then the more sloppy version will also fail, yes?

If the idea was to make such a 'strong' form (extreme, perhaps?) of the argument as to be a misrepresentation, that would actually be a strawman, as it would be easier to attack and Knock Over (what a strawman argument is).

P.s. In fact the 'Steelman' argument might even be a strawman of the strawman argument. To pretend that athesplaining of the Theist point is 'steelmanning' it and therefore an attempt at discrediting of the atheist argument. In fact I may have seen this in the "I didn't use those words" apologetic. cue discussion of 'metaphorically True means 'not true at all'.

(1) I have at time, I recall, taken a sloppy apologetic and cast it in a more robust form. It is of less value to knock over a bad argument than a good one.

[Difflugia]

If the idea was to make such a 'strong' form (extreme, perhaps?) of the argument as to be a misrepresentation, that would actually be a strawman, as it would be easier to attack and Knock Over (what a strawman argument is).

I see the term used when one's opponent presents a flawed, but easily corrected argument. Rather than addressing the easy flaw, one corrects the argument on the opponent's behalf and then addresses that.

[Purple Knight]

If the idea was to make such a 'strong' form (extreme, perhaps?) of the argument as to be a misrepresentation, that would actually be a strawman, as it would be easier to attack and Knock Over (what a strawman argument is).

I see the term used when one's opponent presents a flawed, but easily corrected argument. Rather than addressing the easy flaw, one corrects the argument on the opponent's behalf and then addresses that.

Right. And if somebody tries to win after I do this with, "I didn't say that!" then honestly I give up on the conversation.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

I feel like I understand both sides because I have been on both sides. Naturally, though, I am going to have a bias toward the side I am on.

[TRANSPONDER]

If the idea was to make such a 'strong' form (extreme, perhaps?) of the argument as to be a misrepresentation, that would actually be a strawman, as it would be easier to attack and Knock Over (what a strawman argument is).

I see the term used when one's opponent presents a flawed, but easily corrected argument. Rather than addressing the easy flaw, one corrects the argument on the opponent's behalf and then addresses that.

Right. And if somebody tries to win after I do this with, "I didn't say that!" then honestly I give up on the conversation.

Well, it is valid to correct misunderstanding or misrepresentation, Quotemining being one of the more common, and there was a nice example of either or both in claiming a cosmological paper supported an intelligent creator (of life, the universe and everything) when it did nothing of the kind. but you are on the money when it comes to the far from uncommon effort of 'I di not use those exact words" especially when one 'Steelmans' - takes a sloppy, weasel-worded or misconceived argument and athesplains what it actually says and what it logically or factually Should say.

Google translate now has 'Theist - English.