This comes from another thread and countless previous discussions where, as far as I can tell, theists (notably our resident theist, Frodo) have said or inferred that as an atheist who has no religious belief system cannot validly comment on the claims made by theological philosophers. I believe in this they are using a fallacy referred to as the No True Scotsman which, in context, means one cannot comment on the theological issue in question (for example the existence of a given god) unless one has experienced the presence of that god and, more mystifyingly, even previous status as that specific believer type is not sufficient to overcome this because one is no longer a true Christian ™.

Rather than go through the rigmarole of trying to find these instances (and the expected, "You said it" followed by the theist in question's denial that that was what was said) I think it would be fair to have the theists tell us precisely what it is they think we (as atheists) can comment on and why.

My first question is to ask theists what areas of theology we non-believers are no qualified to comment on.

My second question is to ask how it is we go about gaining the required qualifications.

Kyu

1. For me, anyone can comment on absolutely whatever they like. They are entirely entitled to without reservation.
2. You need no qualifications whatsoever. You can be corrected if your question is illogical or irrelevant.

I would expect the same treatment you would extend to me on subjects I'm ignorant in. With me it's science, not that I don't fully respect science and sit in awe at it.

Ok. So why should I believe theology is a genuine subject of study? What substance does it have?

EvF

(July 19, 2009 at 7:32 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Ok. So why should I believe theology is a genuine subject of study? What substance does it have?

EvF

Argument from incredulity. For those who study it an use it their daily lives,probably as much,even greater relevance than philosophy.I see theology being to philosophy as astrology is to astronomy. BUT that's just my opinion.

BUT never get into an argument with a Jesuit. He'll hand you your head.


An an anecdote from the 1950's: Some genius at the BBC (radio) in London thought it would be a great idea to have real debate between an atheist and a Christian.They chose Bertrand Russell and a top Jesuit. (Copleton I think,but I'm not sure) The debate never took place,neither would accept any premise proposed by the other.


PS: Our Hobbit it is no theologian. Although I think Arcanus has had some training,or may just be a very bright autodidact...

How is that the argument from incredulity? I'm not saying it's false because I know of no evidence. I'm saying I don't believe it because I know of no evidence. So I'm asking for some.

EvF

(July 19, 2009 at 7:49 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How is that the argument from incredulity? I'm not saying it's false because I know of no evidence. I'm saying I don't believe it because I know of no evidence. So I'm asking for some.

EvF

Oh,perhaps I misunderstood (have I mentioned I'm just a poor old pensioner,and easily confused?)

I read you to mean; "I don't understand/see what use theology can have,therefore perhaps it doesn't have any,and is a waste of time"

There people who use exactly that argument against the entire body of disciplines called "The Arts" in Universities,declaring only science has any value.

My position is that not only am I not in any position to judge. Also, I have no right to judge what others chose to study or how they spend their lives,as long as they obey the law and stay out of my face..

The study of history has been one of my hobbies for over 30 years.I have no practical application for what I've learned,and that's OK. I'm under no obligation to meet the expectations of others nor they mine.(or yours)

Hehe. Well I never argue like that, I'm agnostic about everything. So no such absolute incredulity was implied in my statement (from my POV anyway!)

I'm saying I'm not at all bothered with it until I have a reason to believe. If I consider it a waste of time because I know of no evidence and see the whole thing as absurd untill shown otherwise...that is different to claiming to know that it is a waste of time.

I.e. Similarly: Just because I don't want to go around searching for celestial teapots (which is an example of something I consider to be a waste of my time, lmfao) - that doesn't mean I am claiming such teapots are all absolutely disproven.

EvF

(July 19, 2009 at 7:32 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Ok. So why should I believe theology is a genuine subject of study? What substance does it have?

In order to prove the force of padraic's point, answer the following question: "If you do not see that theology has any real substance, what does that do to its status as a genuine subject of study?"

(July 20, 2009 at 5:48 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'm saying I'm not at all bothered with it until I have a reason to believe.

You continually ask questions of a theological nature.

(July 20, 2009 at 7:32 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 20, 2009 at 5:48 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'm saying I'm not at all bothered with it until I have a reason to believe.

You continually ask questions of a theological nature.

If that is so, then declaring the creation of the universe to be a divine act is like answering cosmological questions from a discipline with zero credentials on the subject. What properties of the universe has the theologian answer us provided with? Did it make a prediction on the energy denity of our universe? If so provide it here. It would be a lot of fun.