An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[FlatAssembler]

I don't think that theology has devolved over the centuries.

Theology as a whole perhaps hasn't. Apologetics obviously has.

While those of good theology have not.

So might an astrologist say that the premises of bad astrology have been refuted, but that the premises of good astrology haven't been. Having made more stuff up to evade falsification doesn't make you more credible, in fact, it makes you even less credible.

Galileo rejected the idea that the moon influences the tides despite huge amounts of empirical evidence, because he refused to accept the alchemical idea of "action at a distance."

That's not the same degree of wrongness as when Aquinas suggested that that with fire was a valid argument.

It has persuaded people in modern times -- including a guy I know who recently got his doctorate from the philosophy department of one of America's top-level universities.

Philosophers generally aren't the biggest experts in logic or physics these days, which is necessary to evaluate those statements.

Terms in metaphysics are often meant differently from physics, and you need training to know that.

How is that different from saying that the Bible has perhaps just been mistranslated? Look, maybe there is some language barrier going on here, but it's hard to deny that Lucretius got many more things right than Christian philosophers have.

Look, Belacqua, your responses here read like this:

Yes, the Earth is probably round. But the ships appearing to sink as they disappear over the horizon isn't a valid argument. But don't ask me why, I am not going to teach you the basics of plateogeology here. You need to study plateogeology to be able to refute it. Otherwise, you are just making yourself look arrogant and ill-informed.