Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[fr0d0]

You have no developed thought (although I believe you do, you just deny it. moral choices for example.) to differentiate harmful superstition from beneficial theology. You may adopt reasoned standpoint entirely by chance, because the contemplation of a component part of human nature is off limits to you. Science proves itself to be an inadequate comfort blanket when confronted with such problems. Perhaps that is why this forum exists. There's a vacuum to be filled.

That's your problem (one of them, anyway), you see a monopoly for christianity as the keeper of impeccable moral dogma. I do not deny that christianity has shown to be able to converge morally beneficial actions. It has been a container for such. But you cannot claim it to be the only source of good. Buddhism and humanism provide that also. And on the other hand christianity has been a container for the morally abject (inquisition, HIV policy, silent condonement of holocaust in WWII). There is no basis to claim monopoly on good moral by christianity or by theology. So what are these uniquely theologian benefits you suggest? Can you name a few? What has theology done for society?

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.

Somewhat too quick, it seems. You forgot to read. Never mind, just take your time.

That theology is not beneficial in any way, stands unrefuted.

Like I said in another post, the world does not have a scarcity of resources problem but it does have a distribution problem. There are practical solutions that do not need a god backing to be beneficial.

Rhizo

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.

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.

There is no reason to suspect that science, at least potentially, is unable to answer questions about any aspect of our universe. You are doing exactly what Dawkins says you and your kind do ... claiming religion has a get-out-of-jail-free card ... I do not accept that any religious POV deserves that and you have yet to justify that it does.

I don't think there is a get out of jail free card. Of course Dawkins doesn't understand the point of theology, so you're in good company. Theology already has the answers but you'd rather trust in the unknown. Sounds more like superstition than science.