Atheists Commenting On Theology!

[Edwardo Piet]

EvidenceVsFaith,

So you would never claim or suggest that theology isn't a proper area of study. All right then.

Well - I myself believe it is a load of nonsense until shown of any evidence that it's actually a proper area of study.

I might say it's simply "not", but that's just me disbelieving it. I would not be absolutist, unless only in jest.

Just as with God - I would never claim to absolutely know he doesn't exist, unless it was in jest...but I myself do believe that believing in God is believing in a load of nonsense until I'm shown of any evidence for God, just as with theology.

Just as I believe that it's nonsensical to believe in the FSM until I'm shown of any evidence for the FSM, or shown that the FSM Gospel is somehow divine or specially inspired, as with the bible.

If a belief is ever nonsensical, I believe those beliefs are. Until I know of evidence for them.

EvF

[Ryft]

Basically it is the two Ivory Tower argument. Scientist look stupid when they comment on theology and theologists look stupid when they try to comment on science. The towers will forever be separate and at odds.

I totally reject this, given the contradictory evidence which invalidates it. For one example, Dr. Francis Collins is a rather qualified scientist who does not look stupid when he comments on theology. For another example, Dr. Alister McGrath is a rather qualified theologian who does not look stupid when he comments on science. As I have said elsewhere, it is a matter of having qualifications appropriate to the field in question. When you don't possess such and disregard interacting with those who do, then you come across as stupid.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Basically it is the two Ivory Tower argument. Scientist look stupid when they comment on theology and theologists look stupid when they try to comment on science. The towers will forever be separate and at odds.

If I understand you correctly you are advancing/supporting the idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) which, to my mind, is (nearly) self-evident rubbish.

Are you (more data required)?

Kyu

[LEDO]

Basically it is the two Ivory Tower argument. Scientist look stupid when they comment on theology and theologists look stupid when they try to comment on science. The towers will forever be separate and at odds.

I totally reject this, given the contradictory evidence which invalidates it. For one example, Dr. Francis Collins is a rather qualified scientist who does not look stupid when he comments on theology. For another example, Dr. Alister McGrath is a rather qualified theologian who does not look stupid when he comments on science. As I have said elsewhere, it is a matter of having qualifications appropriate to the field in question. When you don't possess such and disregard interacting with those who do, then you come across as stupid.

That is one opinion.

[Goretti]

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

---

LOL , you guys gave me a goosebumps.. i just ask why are there athiests?

[Anto Kennedy]

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

Accept the Lord Jesus as Saviour.


sorry, had to do that.

[Edwardo Piet]

Where's the evidence, that that has any bearing on the reality of studying such a subject, whatsoever?

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

LOL , you guys gave me a goosebumps.. i just ask why are there athiests?

What a stupid question!

Kyu

[Ryft]

I totally reject this, given the contradictory evidence which invalidates it. For one example, Dr. Francis Collins is a rather qualified scientist who does not look stupid when he comments on theology. For another example, Dr. Alister McGrath is a rather qualified theologian who does not look stupid when he comments on science. As I have said elsewhere, it is a matter of having qualifications appropriate to the field in question. When you don't possess such and disregard interacting with those who do, then you come across as stupid.

That is one opinion.

Fortunately these gentlemen are public figures and published authors, which enables you to cite anything from their publications that undermines my statements.

[leo-rcc]

Right, so if a Greek mythologist goes to Uni, writes an essay on the wingspan of Pegasus he does not look stupid, just because he believes it to be true and studied up on it?