Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Tiberius]

How can you discuss theology when you deny it at the same time??

The same way you can discuss anything (astrology, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc) and still deny it. The whole point of discussion is to weigh in with your opinion. If we find no justifiable reason to believe theology is useful, then we can present our arguments against it in a discussion.

Would you honestly outlaw all discussion of things you deny? Can you imagine living in such a place?

[fr0d0]

I didn't start or become a member of a forum on a subject I deny though.

[Edwardo Piet]

So?

???

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

I didn't start or become a member of a forum on a subject I deny though.

You became member of this forum on atheism, didn't you?

---

Haha!

How can you discuss theology when you deny it at the same time?? Answer = you don't want to discuss it - you want to justify dismissing it and replace it with science which doesn't cover it. Ergo God can't exist because it doesn't fit scientific models.

A clear fallacy. It is not a prerequisite to believe in numerology to be able to discuss and study it. Someone who denies the validity of numerology may in fact have the most deep knowledge about it. And for 'numerology' you can fill in any subject.

In fact when theology is done from the perspective of a believer, it is likely to have elements of bias in it. The perspective of the believer therefore is less likely to give unbiased results.

---

The belief in Christianity, which promotes ideas like community, acceptance & forgiveness produces positive action more so than say, humanist belief which is largely ego centric would. Therefore christian theology is demonstrably beneficial.

This shows that you're not familiar with the basics of humanism. Central to it is not atheism (in fact a theist can be a humanist!) but it is a world view that places humans and human values central.

Of course with your (Purple Rabbit) examples you have to quote examples which go againt the theology to produce non beneficial results. This hardly counts.

The purple rabbit example (which I write in non-capitals to distinguish it from my name here on this forum) is just a thought experiment that only serves the purpose to pinpont the claim in theology and other religious views of anthropocentric purposefullness. If there is purpose in this universe we live in, as claimed by theology, then what's the evidence for this? Where does the difference with accidental creation (such as in the puple rabbit scenario) show? The proof of burden to show the claim of puposefull creation is on your shoulders, for the evidence in nature clearly indicates indfifference to human needs.

---

Quick point: I don't claim that Christianity is the only source of good at all. That's very gracious of you to credit it as you do.

Also, theology claims to have knowledge of absolute moral. This is part of moral dogma in theology. So,
claiming truth of theology is accepting chrsitian moral dogma.

[fr0d0]

I didn't start or become a member of a forum on a subject I deny though.

You became member of this forum on atheism, didn't you?

To discuss theology which interests me.

Haha!

How can you discuss theology when you deny it at the same time?? Answer = you don't want to discuss it - you want to justify dismissing it and replace it with science which doesn't cover it. Ergo God can't exist because it doesn't fit scientific models.

A clear fallacy. It is not a prerequisite to believe in numerology to be able to discuss and study it. Someone who denies the validity of numerology may in fact have the most deep knowledge about it. And for 'numerology' you can fill in any subject.

I didn't say you had to believe it. Otherwise why would I be here?

In fact when theology is done from the perspective of a believer, it is likely to have elements of bias in it. The perspective of the believer therefore is less likely to give unbiased results.

Agreed. However I'm interested in theology from the aspect of believer and non believer, and all poits in between

The belief in Christianity, which promotes ideas like community, acceptance & forgiveness produces positive action more so than say, humanist belief which is largely ego centric would. Therefore christian theology is demonstrably beneficial.

This shows that you're not familiar with the basics of humanism. Central to it is not atheism (in fact a theist can be a humanist!) but it is a world view that places humans and human values central.

I understand humanism to focus on humans and human values. I think that's consistent with what I said, and with the beliefs of Humanists I know.

Of course with your (Purple Rabbit) examples you have to quote examples which go againt the theology to produce non beneficial results. This hardly counts.

The purple rabbit example (which I write in non-capitals to distinguish it from my name here on this forum) is just a thought experiment that only serves the purpose to pinpont the claim in theology and other religious views of anthropocentric purposefullness. If there is purpose in this universe we live in, as claimed by theology, then what's the evidence for this? Where does the difference with accidental creation (such as in the puple rabbit scenario) show? The proof of burden to show the claim of puposefull creation is on your shoulders, for the evidence in nature clearly indicates indfifference to human needs.

I'm happy with the purple rabbit scenario, I wasn't referring to that, but statements in that post.

Quick point: I don't claim that Christianity is the only source of good at all. That's very gracious of you to credit it as you do.

Also, theology claims to have knowledge of absolute moral. This is part of moral dogma in theology. So,
claiming truth of theology is accepting chrsitian moral dogma.

I think absolute dogma isn't exclusive. Many moralists conclude the same thing. A moral truth could come from outside Christianity and serve Christianities purpose well.

[Purple Rabbit]

I didn't start or become a member of a forum on a subject I deny though.

You became member of this forum on atheism, didn't you?

To discuss theology which interests me.

The point made here is that this is a forum on the subject of atheism, not on the subject of theology. You clearly became a member of a forum on a subject (atheism) you deny.

How can you discuss theology when you deny it at the same time?? Answer = you don't want to discuss it - you want to justify dismissing it and replace it with science which doesn't cover it. Ergo God can't exist because it doesn't fit scientific models.

A clear fallacy. It is not a prerequisite to believe in numerology to be able to discuss and study it. Someone who denies the validity of numerology may in fact have the most deep knowledge about it. And for 'numerology' you can fill in any subject.

I didn't say you had to believe it. Otherwise why would I be here?

You said that you didn't become a member of a forum on a subject you deny. This is in contradiction with your membership here. I do not deny you the right to discuss atheism here and that is clearly what you do. Likewise anyone on this forum has the right to discuss theology arguments that are brought forward in the discussion. Shielding of argument with an authority claim, such as by saying theology is to difficult for me to onderstand and without presenting real arguments, is a logical fallacy, not a valid argument.

The belief in Christianity, which promotes ideas like community, acceptance & forgiveness produces positive action more so than say, humanist belief which is largely ego centric would. Therefore christian theology is demonstrably beneficial.

This shows that you're not familiar with the basics of humanism. Central to it is not atheism (in fact a theist can be a humanist!) but it is a world view that places humans and human values central.

I understand humanism to focus on humans and human values. I think that's consistent with what I said, and with the beliefs of Humanists I know.

You asserted that egocentrism is central to humanism. This is the opposite of what humanism itself is striving for. Just read up about it. It's all over the internet. Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems--for both the individual and society--and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities. Among the modern adherents of Humanism have been Margaret Sanger, Albert Einstein, who joined the American Humanist Association in the 1950s, and Bertrand Russell, who joined in the 1960s. Examples of proponents of christian humanism through the ages are Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Erasmus and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Quick point: I don't claim that Christianity is the only source of good at all. That's very gracious of you to credit it as you do.

Also, theology claims to have knowledge of absolute moral. This is part of moral dogma in theology. So,
claiming truth of theology is accepting chrsitian moral dogma.

I think absolute dogma isn't exclusive. Many moralists conclude the same thing. A moral truth could come from outside Christianity and serve Christianities purpose well.

I agree with you here in the sense that absolute moral is also claimed outside christianity and even outside religion. I haven't heard of any rigorous argument for these claims.

[fr0d0]

I didn't start or become a member of a forum on a subject I deny though.

You became member of this forum on atheism, didn't you?

To discuss theology which interests me.

The point made here is that this is a forum on the subject of atheism, not on the subject of theology. You clearly became a member of a forum on a subject (atheism) you deny.

There's very little to Atheism I'm constantly told. The thrust of discussion is primarily theological.

How can you discuss theology when you deny it at the same time?? Answer = you don't want to discuss it - you want to justify dismissing it and replace it with science which doesn't cover it. Ergo God can't exist because it doesn't fit scientific models.

A clear fallacy. It is not a prerequisite to believe in numerology to be able to discuss and study it. Someone who denies the validity of numerology may in fact have the most deep knowledge about it. And for 'numerology' you can fill in any subject.

I didn't say you had to believe it. Otherwise why would I be here?

You said that you didn't become a member of a forum on a subject you deny. This is in contradiction with your membership here. I do not deny you the right to discuss atheism here and that is clearly what you do. Likewise anyone on this forum has the right to discuss theology arguments that are brought forward in the discussion. Shielding of argument with an authority claim, such as by saying theology is to difficult for me to onderstand and without presenting real arguments, is a logical fallacy, not a valid argument.

The forum title me be atheist but the subject is theology. I never say theology is too hard to understand. I interjected in a recent conversation of yours stating that a childish understanding is more than enough.

The belief in Christianity, which promotes ideas like community, acceptance & forgiveness produces positive action more so than say, humanist belief which is largely ego centric would. Therefore christian theology is demonstrably beneficial.

This shows that you're not familiar with the basics of humanism. Central to it is not atheism (in fact a theist can be a humanist!) but it is a world view that places humans and human values central.

I understand humanism to focus on humans and human values. I think that's consistent with what I said, and with the beliefs of Humanists I know.

You asserted that egocentrism is central to humanism. This is the opposite of what humanism itself is striving for. Just read up about it. It's all over the internet. Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems--for both the individual and society--and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities. Among the modern adherents of Humanism have been Margaret Sanger, Albert Einstein, who joined the American Humanist Association in the 1950s, and Bertrand Russell, who joined in the 1960s. Examples of proponents of christian humanism through the ages are Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Erasmus and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

I stand corrected.

[Rhizomorph13]

So when are we going to be done "Welcoming" Arcanus to the forum?

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

So when are we going to be done "Welcoming" Arcanus to the forum?

Rhizo

LMAO

Lets start again! ...welcome Arcanus!

[Edwardo Piet]

So when are we going to be done "Welcoming" Arcanus to the forum?

Rhizo

Some time next year maybe ?? If we're lucky lol.

EvF