Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wads4 · 10-10-2006, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Who are you to decide what atheists should and should not study? This is like the preists who claim that no Christian should sully their hands with the works of Nietzsche. Such statements only make sense for people who have a weak position. I happen to think atheism is a stronger position than that.

I do not happen to think that theology is a non-subject. I think such a statement is made with the presumption that theology is simply the 'study of God', but theology has a much wider spectrum these days since eastern religions like Buddhism and Confucianism were incorporated.

Not all theological conundrums are nonsensical. Many of them actually caused people in this forum to deconvert. The 'problem of evil', for example, is a theological conundrum....

Apart from that, I generally agreed with you.

Alright perhaps I used the wrong words. Of course atheists, and everybody, can study what they like. I am an atheist and I study theology. What I mean to say is that it is inadvisable (not forbidden) for atheists, who by definition do not believe in the details of theological speculations,- to get dragged into arguing specific points like for instance what the Book of Revelations means ( in a mystical sense). Christians when they argue, always assume God as axiomatic. They do not understand that atheists do not do that, and therefore cannot and will not argue from that same premise.

Wads4 · 10-10-2006, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Who are you to decide what atheists should and should not study? This is like the preists who claim that no Christian should sully their hands with the works of Nietzsche. Such statements only make sense for people who have a weak position. I happen to think atheism is a stronger position than that.

I do not happen to think that theology is a non-subject. I think such a statement is made with the presumption that theology is simply the 'study of God', but theology has a much wider spectrum these days since eastern religions like Buddhism and Confucianism were incorporated.

Not all theological conundrums are nonsensical. Many of them actually caused people in this forum to deconvert. The 'problem of evil', for example, is a theological conundrum....

Apart from that, I generally agreed with you.

ps--as to whether Theology is a non-subject, that depends how one defines Theology. Buddhism (originally) was atheistic, and Confucianism likewise, so I would prefer to consider them under Philosophy or world-views.
I agree the problem of Evil is a theological conundrum,--but all this demonstrates is the deviant nature of theology itself, and how it has reified "Evil" by a slavish devotion to Plato's concept of Forms or Universals.
This has lead to all the abuses practiced by religion,--the casting out of evil demons by violence, torture and burning (and the consequent neglect of real practical medicine as the rational alternative). The problem of Evil has been dealt with philosophically, and shown not to be a problem at all, except in the distorted minds of believers.

Wads4 · 10-10-2006, 02:22 AM

Quote:

It must be remembered that religion isn't in its own bubble, completely unaffected by modernism. Modernism has affected all parts of life including religion and we can see in modern Christianity many claims to 'essentially knowable truth'. I would say that the Christian claims to truth are generally much less prepared to recognise their own subjectivity than atheists are. That's why liberal Christians are actually better than more orthodox Christians. They tend to be more likely to recognise that the Bible has not fallen from heaven and is thus open to historical and literary criticism.

But it seems as though liberal Christians have removed all the theology, apart from paying lip service to God, and Jesus as Son of God. So is there anything left except an anthology of interesting, if garbled history, wise aphorisms and homilies, and nice poetry and literature, (interspersed amongst the fanaticism); basically secular things, which we can all enjoy as atheists or theists?

fatpie42 · 10-10-2006, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

But it seems as though liberal Christians have removed all the theology, apart from paying lip service to God, and Jesus as Son of God. So is there anything left except an anthology of interesting, if garbled history, wise aphorisms and homilies, and nice poetry and literature, (interspersed amongst the fanaticism); basically secular things, which we can all enjoy as atheists or theists?

You speak almost as if the fact atheists can enjoy them too is a bad thing.

But yes, I think liberal Christians blur the line between atheist and theist to such a degree that a common position of 'Post-Christian' opens up. Most liberal Christians cannot be referred to as Post-Christian because they insist on keeping the old symbol system for their religious beliefs, but the patriarchal nature of these symbols and the death-obsession they contain means that I cannot accept them, no matter how secular, even if some atheists can.

Stacey Melissa · 10-10-2006, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

As Dawkins points out, Theology really is a non-subject, and atheist scientists should not sully their hands with it. They should not be enticed onto a battle-ground of a theist's choosing, where they are obliged to debate nonsensical theological conundrums by people who are better versed in nonsense than they are,- but rather should declare the whole topic epistemically void and without content, and refuse to have anything to do with it.

Reductio ad absurdum is my favorite tool to use against theists. How am I supposed to use it if I can't accept their premises for the sake of argument? Sure, theology is epistemically void nonsense, but I like to show that even if it weren't, it would still be false.

I suppose people with busier schedules, like Dawkins, might tackle things differently, though.

Wads4 · 10-10-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

You speak almost as if the fact atheists can enjoy them too is a bad thing.

But yes, I think liberal Christians blur the line between atheist and theist to such a degree that a common position of 'Post-Christian' opens up. Most liberal Christians cannot be referred to as Post-Christian because they insist on keeping the old symbol system for their religious beliefs, but the patriarchal nature of these symbols and the death-obsession they contain means that I cannot accept them, no matter how secular, even if some atheists can.

Yes I agree absolutely, though don't quite understand your interpretation that its bad for atheists to enjoy bits of the Bible. I love David's Lament,-in the KJV anyway. "How are the Mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished". Great stuff.

Wads4 · 10-10-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacey Melissa

Reductio ad absurdum is my favorite tool to use against theists. How am I supposed to use it if I can't accept their premises for the sake of argument? Sure, theology is epistemically void nonsense, but I like to show that even if it weren't, it would still be false.

I suppose people with busier schedules, like Dawkins, might tackle things differently, though.

Yes very true,-I like reductio arguments as well, though I am not sure some believers are capable of understanding the irony of it;--it is well worth trying though. As you see in the final sentence in your Wikipedia definition of Reductio, -the problem is in getting believers to agree that the final conclusion is in fact absurd,--and as Christians glory in the absurd and relish paradox,--this cannot be taken for granted; the doctrine of the Trinity surely illustrates that;--it is absurd for 3 to be the same as 1,--but as far as a Christian is concerned--who cares?

Djugashvillain · 10-12-2006, 12:30 AM

Dawkin's isn't able to disprove the existence of any type of supernatural entity. That's a logical impossibility. He would, and does, agree with Russell's 'atheist in practise but agnostic in reality' statement (which I have paraphrased). But what Dawkin's is perfectly able to do is disprove those particular supernatural entities that make scientific claims, e.g. the age of the earth and spontaneous creation.

Presumably, McGrath wants to argue pure theological abstraction; as such, Dawkins might, and probably has, decided that debating him would be meaningless, as neither of their fields converge.

wordy · 10-12-2006, 04:23 AM

Atheists should pick their fights wisely. religionists use emotions to win even if they intellectually lose. For Dawkins to talk to him could backfire. Dawkins too easily lose temper and get very angry. People don't like such lack of control. atheists comes through as angry grumpy old men. We lose instead of win cause the religionists have a double agenda. Selling emotions using intellectual smokescreens as front.

jayh · 10-12-2006, 03:35 PM

The only good debates are written. In a live debate (regardless of the field) the person with least respect for truth has the advantage.

intellectual: the evidence supports X

jerk: oh yeah? what about (made up fact 1) and (distorted fact 2)? They prove you're wrong

Intellectual: I don't know the details about those claims

jerk: see, you don't know what you're talking about

Where people cannot research answers, the subject cannot be analysed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-12-2006, 12:30 AM	#38
Djugashvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 1,281	Dawkin's isn't able to disprove the existence of any type of supernatural entity. That's a logical impossibility. He would, and does, agree with Russell's 'atheist in practise but agnostic in reality' statement (which I have paraphrased). But what Dawkin's is perfectly able to do is disprove those particular supernatural entities that make scientific claims, e.g. the age of the earth and spontaneous creation. Presumably, McGrath wants to argue pure theological abstraction; as such, Dawkins might, and probably has, decided that debating him would be meaningless, as neither of their fields converge.

10-12-2006, 04:23 AM	#39
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	Atheists should pick their fights wisely. religionists use emotions to win even if they intellectually lose. For Dawkins to talk to him could backfire. Dawkins too easily lose temper and get very angry. People don't like such lack of control. atheists comes through as angry grumpy old men. We lose instead of win cause the religionists have a double agenda. Selling emotions using intellectual smokescreens as front.

10-12-2006, 03:35 PM	#40
jayh Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 4,606	The only good debates are written. In a live debate (regardless of the field) the person with least respect for truth has the advantage. intellectual: the evidence supports X jerk: oh yeah? what about (made up fact 1) and (distorted fact 2)? They prove you're wrong Intellectual: I don't know the details about those claims jerk: see, you don't know what you're talking about Where people cannot research answers, the subject cannot be analysed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.