Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[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.