Originally posted by whodeyMost of the theologians I have heard comment on Dawkins view him as a mental midget when it comes to theology
Most of the theologians I have heard comment on Dawkins view him as a mental midget when it comes to theology. After all, his expertise is in science.
Although I would agree with their assessment, I also understand in part some of the anger Dawkins vents towards religion. After all, they often do the same with science as Dawkins does with theology. In s ...[text shortened]... about which they have no real knowledge and try to convert the masses to their way of thinking.
They would, wouldn't they?
Consider what theology actually is and what theologians are actually expert in.
It is shocking that Universities still give out degrees in Theology. It is as meaningful a subject as Homeopathy or Astrology.
Originally posted by wolfgang59LOL. Nevermind the dog biting the man, the people who disagree with Dawkins attempt to poison the well because he disagrees with them. Fancy that. whodey attempts to compound their argumentum ad hominem with his own argumentum ad verecundiam with a bit of argument ad populum thrown in for good measure. Belongs on the Logical Fallacies Thread at Debates. 😵
whodey - Most of the theologians I have heard comment on Dawkins view him as a mental midget when it comes to theology
They would, wouldn't they?
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Consider what theology actually is and what theologians are actually expert in.
[b]Most of the theologians I have heard comment on Dawkins view him as a mental midget when it comes to theology
They would, wouldn't they?
Consider what theology actually is and what theologians are actually expert in.
It is shocking that Universities still give out degrees in Theology. It is as meaningful a subject as Homeopathy or Astrology.[/b]
It is shocking that Universities still give out degrees in Theology. It is as meaningful a subject as Homeopathy or Astrology.
Aye! can't add much more to this so I'll just say...Aye!!!
4 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneIn British slang, one who kips is one who sleeps.
ummmmm, what?
Explain this one to the slow Americans, please.
This has actually worked out better than I planned - my intention was to choose a rubbish joke myselfjust to suggest how incredibly rubbish was SumyDid's `joke' (since I said mine was much better)...It then turns out you americans aren't familiar with this piece of slang anyway! and so my own joke comes across to him as more rubbish than I'd first thought!!! 😵
Of course, I have to interject here and say, "Yes, there is one set of atheists that prays."
Buddhists pray to the 'icon' of Buddha, in the hope that they can make themselves like him, by ridding of impures desires, ridding of clinging to unnecessary 'things' and becoming internally clean.
Additionally, again of course, Buddha is not a God, but is an 'icon of his words and actions' in being pure and self-cleaning himself physically and psychologically.
It is to those ends that Buddhists do, indeed, pray.
But I would re-define the word 'pray' to more like a 'devotional meditation', as 'prayer' is usually automatically associated with a divine maker or a God.
However, meditation is a form of prayer in one sense or another...😉
-m.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneActually no I don't.
um, ok, so you have blind faith that what you say is true.
okay... Ironic, but, okay.
Much as you evidently want to claim otherwise.
What I said was, while I can't rule out the existence of their being a god or gods.
It is possible to rule out specific god concepts, based on evidence and rationality.
Thus making it not blind faith nor faith of any kind.
And actually the 'absurd and nonsensical' stuff about omnipotence is anything but.
If you really define your god to be omnipotent by the old meaning of being of unlimited
power who can literally do anything then your concept of god is logically flawed and impossible.
And thus can be ruled out and discarded as being a real possibility.
This doesn't mean that no god exists, but that the specific god you propose doesn't/can't.
Every version of interfering god (ie a god that actually pays attention to us humans as opposed
to a deist view of a god that created the universe but that otherwise doesn't mess with
what's inside it and may not even have spotted us in the vastness) I have ever come across
fails some logical or evidentiary test that indicates it doesn't exist.
Including the meta test that if some/all humans were sensitive to god and could receive divine
inspiration and their was a real god providing such inspiration then all religious experience would be
converging on the one absolute truth of the universe and gods meaning.
However the reality is that almost no two people with 'divine inspiration' completely agree on
what their god says to the extent that they often call each other frauds, and that the worlds religions
far from getting closer and closer together in fact fracture and split into ever more sects and denominations
and get further and further apart from one another.
This indicates that even if there is a god, it isn't the source of the 'divine' inspiration people claim to receive,
that cunningly always seems to support their own world view and ambitions, and thus none of the man made
religions around the world reflect any kind of truth or will of a real extant deity.
Unless there is a god, but its evil and just messing with us for the fun of it.