The fact is that almost any belief can be comforting and consoling, even ones that seem unpleasant. Nihilism can be comforting because it justifies not trying all sorts of things. Now, to be clear, it need nto be comforting, but it can be. He would likely say that his nihilism is unpleasant, but that does not mean he is not avoiding things that scare him. It might not or it might.
So it’s just boring ad hom stuff. He is suffering so his beliefs are not based on consolation. We seem to be suffering less, so our beliefs must be based on consolation. Snore.
How does this all related to discussing God and Religion?
It relates because the religious and atheists alike love to go for ad homs. If we are speaking generally.
And that doesn’t seem to be very practical as far as either group’s goals. At least the one’s they generally proclaim.
I think a real discussion between theists and atheists would have it’s form very dependent on the goals. And the goals would likely not be mutual.
If the atheists want to push forward epistemological concerns, then it behooves them to join in the practices of the theists in question. If the theists want to compel the atheists to believe, then they are going to have to suggest this also, but further understand that such processes would necessarily be long. and also understand that the atheists may not be interested. Hence a gap in experience. Gaps in experience, huge gaps, make certain kinds of discussion extremely limited. And either side pretending they know what the other person’s experiences really are, or mean, is making psychic and epistemological claims that I think are week.
So, given the most atheists won’t participate in practices and community, how does the discussion happen
given the gap.
Depends on the goal.
What’s the goal?