Could you expand on this? I’m not sure I understand what overwhelmingly strong points you might bring up that your opponent might agree with. Would this be something like priest scandals? Or not having your prayers for understanding answered?
The one I mentioned about the Holocaust would be my go-to example. But really what’s important is that it’s not something completely intellectual they’re going to have a cached response for.
On a side note, I’ve never understood people who use priest scandals as evidence for atheism. It seems totally ad hominem—“some of the guys who talk about this God stuff are bad people, therefore it’s wrong”. I guess you could get there by saying that if God existed He wouldn’t allow such evil among His followers, but the only possible response to that would be “And where have you been for the past five thousand years?”
If I’m accustomed to people arguing for theism from authority (e.g., “I know God wants me to perform these rituals in this way, because my priest said so”), impugning the credibility of the authority figure (e.g., “Oh yeah? Well, your priest molests children!”) is an understandable response.
But you’re right, of course, that it isn’t itself evidence for or against much of anything.
Thanks for the response. The note re. not having a cached response is helpful.
I don’t find priest scandals to say much of anything about the existence of god any more than I find the rote bringing up of Mao or Pol-Pot as evidence against atheism. Bad people exist. They tend to be tied to various ideologies. Get over it :)
Now, I will say, that when someone begins to tread on the ground that thinks the Pope has some incredible moral elevation on the rest of us, it’s then I think it can employed as a bring-one-back-to-earth tactic.
I also do find it a bit odd for someone to say that one should just disregard everything bad that comes out of Rome while insisting that the encyclicals or whatever else are nearly revealed wisdom.
The one I mentioned about the Holocaust would be my go-to example. But really what’s important is that it’s not something completely intellectual they’re going to have a cached response for.
On a side note, I’ve never understood people who use priest scandals as evidence for atheism. It seems totally ad hominem—“some of the guys who talk about this God stuff are bad people, therefore it’s wrong”. I guess you could get there by saying that if God existed He wouldn’t allow such evil among His followers, but the only possible response to that would be “And where have you been for the past five thousand years?”
If I’m accustomed to people arguing for theism from authority (e.g., “I know God wants me to perform these rituals in this way, because my priest said so”), impugning the credibility of the authority figure (e.g., “Oh yeah? Well, your priest molests children!”) is an understandable response.
But you’re right, of course, that it isn’t itself evidence for or against much of anything.
Thanks for the response. The note re. not having a cached response is helpful.
I don’t find priest scandals to say much of anything about the existence of god any more than I find the rote bringing up of Mao or Pol-Pot as evidence against atheism. Bad people exist. They tend to be tied to various ideologies. Get over it :)
Now, I will say, that when someone begins to tread on the ground that thinks the Pope has some incredible moral elevation on the rest of us, it’s then I think it can employed as a bring-one-back-to-earth tactic.
I also do find it a bit odd for someone to say that one should just disregard everything bad that comes out of Rome while insisting that the encyclicals or whatever else are nearly revealed wisdom.