Will low IQ atheists ever recover?

>>24515273 (OP)
Right about what? He's an atheist, not a Christian. He has more in common with a reddit atheist than with a random Catholic grandma.

>>24515288
>Right about what?
About the meaningless of the question "Do you believe in God?" if you don't actually explicitly define every word contained in this question.

>>24515355
But if someone asks him "do you support Israel?" his reply would be an immediate and resounding "yes". He's simply beating around the bush because he doesn't believe in God.

>>24515355
This is the funniest defense of prevarication I've ever seen.
>Hey, do you know what time the reservation is for?
>Erm, what do you mean by "know"? Are you providing a justified-true-belief account or one in terms of causal chains? I can't answer that question unless you provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for what constitutes "knowledge".

I know this is bait, but there's literally nothing smart about clearly not actually believing God exists, then deciding that "God exists" means "believing in God has society wide benefits" just so you can say "God exists."

If you're going go down the noble lie route, just pretend you believe the resurrection arguments or something.

>>24515355
>the question is meaningless unless you define every term in this system of circular logic
no meaning to be found anywhere, then

presupped innit

>>24515273 (OP)
atheists won't recover from all this

>>24515517
Wrong

>>24515273 (OP)

>>24515648
holy shit

>>24515273 (OP)
I tire of jewish fairy tale nonsense. I'm surrounded by golems! Woe is me!

Peterson does believe the events of the Bible physically happened and owned up to it when talking to Alex O'Connor.
He's smart enough to know this is a really weak position that can be attacked by Dawkins and other materialists, so he has to obfuscate.

>>24515273 (OP)
No, he used a very primitive sophism to evade the discussion. Of course that kid wanted to use some 2-step trap but just evading it looked weak as fuck

>>24515648
Is that real?

>>24516960
I assume he said that in reference to the first testament? I figure it's pretty standard to interpret the first testament as myth.

>>24517028
>sophism
Stop using this word. There is nothing fallacious about his arguments.
He just doesn't say anything meaningful if you actually explore the semantic tree of his arguments.