10 Things for Theists to Consider Before Posting

ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
10 Things for Theists to Consider Before Posting

10 reasons theists should not post on sites promoting atheism...well, maybe these are at least 10 things you should be aware of.


1.) You are generally outnumbered. Expect to be gang-banged.
2.) Not all theists believe the same thing, so you may spend as much time defending your own beliefs against other theists as you do atheists
3.) Unless the site is new, some theist has probably already posted your argument and atheists have purportedly ripped to shreds. And they have lots of practice too because there seems to be an endless supply of theists wanting to prove the existence of a god. So be kind, and do search before re-opening a can of worms.
4.) Atheists don't hang out on atheistic sites to necessarily talk about atheism or religion.
5.) Atheists will do a pretty good job making you feel an inch tall. If you do post, expect to be ridiculed.
6.) You may be violating copyright laws by copying and pasting text into forums from copyrighted sites. Besides, atheists have probably read more of it than you have.
7.) Gods are often compared to flying spaghetti monsters, a floating head smoking a pipe, and an invisible pink unicorn. If you can't take the blasphemy, you may be better off not posting.
9.) Atheists are generally well informed about science, so it may be good to take more than a high-school level physical science class.
10.) Lastly, if you do post, don't ask, "What if you're wrong?"...see #3 for details.
 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
   All of your

   All of your observations are spot-on ubuntuAnyone but you have forgotten that the Christian theist still possesses the one tactic that completely invalidates the atheists argument... 

 

  " TYPING THEIR REPLIES IN ALL CAPS AND USING LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS !!!!! "

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   All of your observations are spot-on ubuntuAnyone but you have forgotten that the Christian theist still possesses the one tactic that completely invalidates the atheists argument... 

 

  " TYPING THEIR REPLIES IN ALL CAPS AND USING LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS !!!!! "

Christian theists...Have you ever seen some of the more fundamentalist tracts? They use italics, bold, underline, ALL CAPS, mismatched fonts, etc....I find them hard to read.

PS...where did you get your avatar? That's freaking halarious!

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


foul5town
Troll
foul5town's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2009-09-01
User is offlineOffline
If I had a dime

Today I went to Burgerking, and I got the Tendercrisp chicken sandwich meal with a sprite. It's roughly 1300 calories altogether.


Ivon
atheist
Ivon's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-02-15
User is offlineOffline
foul5town wrote:Today I went

foul5town wrote:

Today I went to Burgerking, and I got the Tendercrisp chicken sandwich meal with a sprite. It's roughly 1300 calories altogether.

Perhaps you should have ordered a diet sprite... then you could have supersized guilt free.

Free your mind.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:4.)

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
4.) Atheists don't hang out on atheistic sites to necessarily talk about atheism or religion.

Yeah, some of them are there just because they're bored out of their minds. Some of them just want to argue. That's more entertaining than talking with other atheists. 

foul5town wrote:
Today I went to Burgerking, and I got the Tendercrisp chicken sandwich meal with a sprite. It's roughly 1300 calories altogether.

I went to Burger King today too! I got a double whopper, fries, and iced tea.

I can't believe they have the number of calories typed on their menu...

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
None of those reasons

None of those reasons concern me.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Any objection to me changing

Any objection to me changing the name of this thread to "10 Things for Theists to Consider Before Posting", ubuntuAnyone ?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Any

HisWillness wrote:

Any objection to me changing the name of this thread to "10 Things for Theists to Consider Before Posting", ubuntuAnyone ?

 

sure...I tried to change it bet could not figure out to edit the OP.... Sad

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps there are some things atheists should consider as well

I can tell you why I spend time here at this site.  I enjoy others questioning why I believe what I believe.  Perhaps you might ask questions that I have not thought of.  I enjoy reading and analyzing different point of views.  Since I started reading and posting on this site, my faith has not been weakened, but rather strengthened.  There is no doubt that some of the debates have simply a waste of time.  But I find your reasons for me not to debate here interesting.

1.    Do you think being outnumbered is anything we don’t experience all the time?  When I was in school, Christians were a minority and as I go through life, nothing is different.

2.    There is no doubt that many different Christians interpret passages differently, but it is also interesting that I have witnessed many “internal” fights among atheists as well. 

3.    Do you really believe that the arguments presented on this site are new?  Interesting.  I would encourage you to read more philosophy.  It is all the same arguments and theists have answered them over and over.  As you stated . . . they have been "ripped to shreds" by theists and yet the same old cans are being reopened by atheists.

4.    As I stated before . . . I do not always come here to write about the gospel.  I sometimes address social issues and other things as well.  Our worldviews are quite different which shapes how we view all the issues in which we encounter.

5.    I have met both atheists and theists who seem to have “thin” skin.  This really is not much of a warning.  Scripture encourages us to endure in the face of persecution.

6.    Amazing.  First of all I suppose atheists never copy and paste.  Interesting that you assume that atheists have read more.  An unverifiable and presumptuous statement at best.

7.    You called this one correct.  Blasphemy is rampant on this site.  I believe all will answer for this, but not to me, so say what you want.  You believe you have nothing to fear.  One day you will see.

8.    Again, quite a lot of arrogance here.  First of all, is the subject science or God?  It really doesn’t matter because there are well read, well informed, and well educated men and women on both sides of this debate, AND YES, even scientists (Francis Collins) who are theists.  There are many atheists who know nothing of science.  I do not debate in the area of science because that is not my field of study.  What is interesting is to see the incredible amount of ignorance demonstrated by atheists concerning theology when they have never had one day of formal training.  You warn theists to have more than a high school level physical science class and yet have you ever taken even a lower level systematic theology class????  I read over and over uneducated Greek and Hebrew translations on this site.  I have asked Rook Hawkins many times for his credentials and yet none are forthcoming.  He is listed as the “Ancient Text Expert” and yet he has made very simple mistakes.

You make many false and baseless claims in your list.  I thought you guys were so versed in the field of science.Where is your empirical data to back up some of your statements?  None is given nor possible in much of what you have written.  

I am not attempting to start an argument, but if a theist were to write these things . . . you would not allow them to make such statements.     

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:You make many

REVLyle wrote:

You make many false and baseless claims in your list.  I thought you guys were so versed in the field of science.Where is your empirical data to back up some of your statements?  None is given nor possible in much of what you have written.  

I am not attempting to start an argument, but if a theist were to write these things . . . you would not allow them to make such statements.     

I'm certain that most of these could be reversed for an atheist posting in a forum promoting theism. And again, these are not hard and fast, but general statements, and I hope I qualified them as such. These are observations having read multiple threads on this and other forums speaking more or less about the posters in the forurms, not experts. These are spun in such way to be controversial to generate discussion. If I would have made them soft...well, odds are you would not have made this post.  So...here is a respun list for atheists posting on theistic sites.

1.) You are generally outnumbered. Expect to be gang-banged.
2.) Not all atheists have the same reasons for disbelief or will agree with you.
3.) Unless the site is new, some atheist has probably already posted your argument and theists have purportedly ripped to shreds. And they have lots of practice too because there seems to be an endless supply of atheists wanting to show that belief in a god is irrational. So be kind, and do search before re-opening a can of worms.
4.) Theists don't hang out on theistic sites to necessarily talk about religion.
5.) Theists will do a pretty good job making you feel an inch tall. If you do post, expect to be ridiculed.
6.) You may be violating copyright laws by copying and pasting text into forums from copyrighted sites.
7.) Atheists are labeled as blasphemers, heretics, irreverent, irrational, among other things. If you can't take the heat, you may be better off not posting.
9.) Theists  are generally well informed about theology, so it may be good to take more than a cursory read of theology a theological text.
10.) Lastly, if you do post, don't ask, "What if I'm right?"...see #3 for details.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:None of those

Ciarin wrote:

None of those reasons concern me.

Good.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:REVLyle

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

REVLyle wrote:

You make many false and baseless claims in your list.  I thought you guys were so versed in the field of science.Where is your empirical data to back up some of your statements?  None is given nor possible in much of what you have written.  

I am not attempting to start an argument, but if a theist were to write these things . . . you would not allow them to make such statements.     

I'm certain that most of these could be reversed for an atheist posting in a forum promoting theism. And again, these are not hard and fast, but general statements, and I hope I qualified them as such. These are observations having read multiple threads on this and other forums speaking more or less about the posters in the forurms, not experts. These are spun in such way to be controversial to generate discussion. If I would have made them soft...well, odds are you would not have made this post.  So...here is a respun list for atheists posting on theistic sites.

1.) You are generally outnumbered. Expect to be gang-banged.
2.) Not all atheists have the same reasons for disbelief or will agree with you.
3.) Unless the site is new, some atheist has probably already posted your argument and theists have purportedly ripped to shreds. And they have lots of practice too because there seems to be an endless supply of atheists wanting to show that belief in a god is irrational. So be kind, and do search before re-opening a can of worms.
4.) Theists don't hang out on theistic sites to necessarily talk about religion.
5.) Theists will do a pretty good job making you feel an inch tall. If you do post, expect to be ridiculed.
6.) You may be violating copyright laws by copying and pasting text into forums from copyrighted sites.
7.) Atheists are labeled as blasphemers, heretics, irreverent, irrational, among other things. If you can't take the heat, you may be better off not posting.
9.) Theists  are generally well informed about theology, so it may be good to take more than a cursory read of theology a theological text.
10.) Lastly, if you do post, don't ask, "What if I'm right?"...see #3 for details.

This is certainly a fair reply.  I had already done the exact thing, but figured it would be taken wrong so I did not post it.  Thank you for reading and replying.

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote: Do you really

REVLyle wrote:
Do you really believe that the arguments presented on this site are new?  Interesting.  I would encourage you to read more philosophy.  It is all the same arguments and theists have answered them over and over.  As you stated . . . they have been "ripped to shreds" by theists and yet the same old cans are being reopened by atheists.

I have yet to get a decent refutation of my contention that there's a dichotomy when describing gods. Either:

1) the description is internally incoherent, or

2) the description is so vague as to not actually describe anything.

That one hasn't been ripped to shreds yet, but I invite criticism here.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:This is

REVLyle wrote:

This is certainly a fair reply.  I had already done the exact thing, but figured it would be taken wrong so I did not post it.  Thank you for reading and replying.

No prob. Odium theologicum is an interesting phanomenon to me...people usually avoid such like a plague, or they or are extremely passionate about it. But this is of course a generalization as there are some who dabble in such things.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3392
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:What is

REVLyle wrote:

What is interesting is to see the incredible amount of ignorance demonstrated by atheists concerning theology when they have never had one day of formal training. 

i've actually had quite a fair amount of theological training.  i have a BA in religion from centre college in danville, ky, with most of the focus on judaism and christianity.  the three professors i studied with the most were a reform jew who was an expert in semitic languages and the hebrew bible, a lutheran who was an expert in the history of christian theology and an archeologist at sepphoris during the summers, and a presbyterian who was an expert in the new testament and the new testament period.  i took two semesters of ancient greek, the second of which was wholly focused on the new testament, and one semester of biblical hebrew.  i would hardly call myself conversant in either, but i can sometimes recognize "very simple mistakes." 

i did my senior thesis on the connections between eschenbach's parzival and rhenish mysticism (eckhart, et al.).  i got a b+, which was the highest you could get from my department without making a revolutionary discovery.  i was then accepted to the mdiv program at yale divinity with a damn good scholarship, but ended up turning it down to get married and settle down in slovakia.  i would like to continue my religious education one day.  in the meantime, i still regularly read religious books, both scholarly and otherwise, my favorite writers being hans kung, thomas merton, gershom scholem, and daisetz suzuki.

i've also been exposed to more than my fair share of wayne grudem, josh mcdowell, john piper, dwayne gish, etc., mostly through a certain parachurch organization i used to be involved with who forced me to take their "graduate level" courses.  i have to say, after years of hans kung, william plocher, marcus borg, n.t. wright, martin buber, norman cantor, richard mcbrien, elaine pagels, jonathan z. smith, jon d. levenson, adin steinsaltz, jacob neusner, etc., i wasn't too challenged or impressed by "systematic theology."

so, yeah...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:REVLyle

iwbiek wrote:

REVLyle wrote:

What is interesting is to see the incredible amount of ignorance demonstrated by atheists concerning theology when they have never had one day of formal training. 

i've actually had quite a fair amount of theological training.  i have a BA in religion from centre college in danville, ky, with most of the focus on judaism and christianity.  the three professors i studied with the most were a reform jew who was an expert in semitic languages and the hebrew bible, a lutheran who was an expert in the history of christian theology and an archeologist at sepphoris during the summers, and a presbyterian who was an expert in the new testament and the new testament period.  i took two semesters of ancient greek, the second of which was wholly focused on the new testament, and one semester of biblical hebrew.  i would hardly call myself conversant in either, but i can sometimes recognize "very simple mistakes." 

i did my senior thesis on the connections between eschenbach's parzival and rhenish mysticism (eckhart, et al.).  i got a b+, which was the highest you could get from my department without making a revolutionary discovery.  i was then accepted to the mdiv program at yale divinity with a damn good scholarship, but ended up turning it down to get married and settle down in slovakia.  i would like to continue my religious education one day.  in the meantime, i still regularly read religious books, both scholarly and otherwise, my favorite writers being hans kung, thomas merton, gershom scholem, and daisetz suzuki.

i've also been exposed to more than my fair share of wayne grudem, josh mcdowell, john piper, dwayne gish, etc., mostly through a certain parachurch organization i used to be involved with who forced me to take their "graduate level" courses.  i have to say, after years of hans kung, william plocher, marcus borg, n.t. wright, martin buber, norman cantor, richard mcbrien, elaine pagels, jonathan z. smith, jon d. levenson, adin steinsaltz, jacob neusner, etc., i wasn't too challenged or impressed by "systematic theology."

so, yeah...

 

I like the idea that you need to spend years being indoctrinated at the college level before you can really understand theism.  It is so clear now, it doesn't make sense unless you know Hebrew and Greek!

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3392
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: I like the

mellestad wrote:

 

I like the idea that you need to spend years being indoctrinated at the college level before you can really understand theism.  It is so clear now, it doesn't make sense unless you know Hebrew and Greek!

 

forget it.  it's best to learn chinese, for almost every reason you can think of.

if i had a chance to go back and tell my parents what to blow about $150,000 on, i would ask them to send me to roshi's zen monastery at mount baldy, ca, for the rest of my life.  i would be celibate, quiet, underfed, and living in a cabin without utilities.  thus, knowing everything i know now, utterly happy. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I'm a big fan of #8 in

I'm a big fan of #8 in particular.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:iwbiek

mellestad wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

REVLyle wrote:

What is interesting is to see the incredible amount of ignorance demonstrated by atheists concerning theology when they have never had one day of formal training. 

i've actually had quite a fair amount of theological training.  i have a BA in religion from centre college in danville, ky, with most of the focus on judaism and christianity.  the three professors i studied with the most were a reform jew who was an expert in semitic languages and the hebrew bible, a lutheran who was an expert in the history of christian theology and an archeologist at sepphoris during the summers, and a presbyterian who was an expert in the new testament and the new testament period.  i took two semesters of ancient greek, the second of which was wholly focused on the new testament, and one semester of biblical hebrew.  i would hardly call myself conversant in either, but i can sometimes recognize "very simple mistakes." 

i did my senior thesis on the connections between eschenbach's parzival and rhenish mysticism (eckhart, et al.).  i got a b+, which was the highest you could get from my department without making a revolutionary discovery.  i was then accepted to the mdiv program at yale divinity with a damn good scholarship, but ended up turning it down to get married and settle down in slovakia.  i would like to continue my religious education one day.  in the meantime, i still regularly read religious books, both scholarly and otherwise, my favorite writers being hans kung, thomas merton, gershom scholem, and daisetz suzuki.

i've also been exposed to more than my fair share of wayne grudem, josh mcdowell, john piper, dwayne gish, etc., mostly through a certain parachurch organization i used to be involved with who forced me to take their "graduate level" courses.  i have to say, after years of hans kung, william plocher, marcus borg, n.t. wright, martin buber, norman cantor, richard mcbrien, elaine pagels, jonathan z. smith, jon d. levenson, adin steinsaltz, jacob neusner, etc., i wasn't too challenged or impressed by "systematic theology."

so, yeah...

 

I like the idea that you need to spend years being indoctrinated at the college level before you can really understand theism.  It is so clear now, it doesn't make sense unless you know Hebrew and Greek!

 

No one said it didn't make sense without Greek or Hebrew.  Please use quotes and show me where I stated as such.  I simply pointed out that there is an individual on this site who uses Greek and Hebrew to prove his point, and yet; there are some very simple mistakes that he makes . . . and yet he is listed as an ancient text expert. 

Do people have to spend years being indoctrinated at the college level before one can understand evolution????  Your argument makes no sense.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the reply . . . but you missed the point

I believe you missed the point.  I was addressing a generalization with another generalization.  Certainly it is not true that only atheists have higher level study in the sciences and I do not believe that only theists have higher level study in theology.  Bart Ehman is a prime example of someone who is extremely educated in religious studies, and yet; he is an agnostic.

I am not sure what point is made by exposing your professors' resumes.  Most who study in college and beyond have professors who are qualified to teach.  It makes no sense for us to write about past professors.

SO . . . . there was a para-church organization that FORCED you to take classes????  And this para-church's "graduate" classes that you were forced to take were accredited????  I was not aware of "forced accredited graduate classes" in this country.  Interesting.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:I believe you

REVLyle wrote:

I believe you missed the point.  I was addressing a generalization with another generalization.  Certainly it is not true that only atheists have higher level study in the sciences and I do not believe that only theists have higher level study in theology.  Bart Ehman is a prime example of someone who is extremely educated in religious studies, and yet; he is an agnostic.

I am not sure what point is made by exposing your professors' resumes.  Most who study in college and beyond have professors who are qualified to teach.  It makes no sense for us to write about past professors.

SO . . . . there was a para-church organization that FORCED you to take classes????  And this para-church's "graduate" classes that you were forced to take were accredited????  I was not aware of "forced accredited graduate classes" in this country.  Interesting.

You are correct, I should not have made a generic (if true) statement about theism and apologetics that did not directly respond to your post.  Carry on!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:I'm a big fan of

jmm wrote:

I'm a big fan of #8 in particular.

 

I was wondering when someone was going to catch that. Smiling

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3392
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:I am not sure

REVLyle wrote:

I am not sure what point is made by exposing your professors' resumes.  Most who study in college and beyond have professors who are qualified to teach.  It makes no sense for us to write about past professors.

i didn't know resumes could be "exposed."  just go to the college's website.  and it makes damn good sense to write about past professors if one admires them, which i certainly do.  i also wanted to make it clear that all my professors came from eclectic backgrounds with different viewpoints of the bible.

REVLyle wrote:

SO . . . . there was a para-church organization that FORCED you to take classes????

yep.  it's called campus crusade for christ.  and while they didn't actually put a glock to my head, they did make it a matter of keeping my job (for which i raised all the money anyway).

REVLyle wrote:

And this para-church's "graduate" classes that you were forced to take were accredited????

at some certain fundy schools, yes, like dallas theological i believe.  crusade runs a series of courses every year which they refer to as the "institute of biblical studies."  all staff members are required to attend them, and buy all the useless books for them, even if you would rather see your donors' money go to more practical ends.  not to mention i had to buy a whole new suitcase to haul them home in. 

most of said "books" are actually binders of photocopied materials written by ibs "professors."  i remember i had to take a new testament course with materials written by the teacher, who proudly had DR. displayed in front of his name.  it was only later i found out his doctorate was in engineering or something like that.  i think he was in the process of completing his master's at some seminary.

another course i was forced to take used a 90-page devotional by john piper as its "textbook."

so yeah, this passes for accreditation at some seminaries.  most undergrad freshmen would laugh at them.  hell, i've had sunday school classes more challenging.

REVLyle wrote:
 

I was not aware of "forced accredited graduate classes" in this country. 

i'm sure there are plenty of things you're not aware of, friend.

REVLyle wrote:

Interesting.

not really.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:2.) Not

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

2.) Not all atheists have the same reasons for disbelief or will agree with you.

I know of only 2.

1. there is no evidence of the thing theists call god

2. some claim to be an atheist just for the shock value without an understanding of why the theist arguments for a god are false

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:my faith has

REVLyle wrote:

my faith has not been weakened, 

Faith in what?

But yea, you can increase your belief to the point of no return and then only risperdal will help you.

Let's examine faith in the terms you are describing, strength. Faith is nothing but confidence that an idea is true regardless of whether any evidence exists. Confidence is  nothing but a feeling. So in order that anyone could strengthen their faith is by increasing their feelings that their belief is true.

It sort of like a child believing really really really hard that Santa will bring her that special present she really really wants

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:ubuntuAnyone

aiia wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

2.) Not all atheists have the same reasons for disbelief or will agree with you.

I know of only 2.

1. there is no evidence of the thing theists call god

2. some claim to be an atheist just for the shock value without an understanding of why the theist arguments for a god are false

1.) Lack of evidence

2.) Lack of compelling evidence

3.) The problem of evil

4.) No exposure to theism

5.) Shock value

6.) God talk is meaningless

7.) Logical problems with perfect being theology

8.) No cogent arguments for the existence of a deity

9.) Strife among religions

10.) Strife caused by religion

11.) Lack of internal consistency in any given religion

Maybe there's more...I dunno

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Any system of argument or

Any system of argument or discourse, no matter how extensive, elaborated, long-established, even if thoroughly internally consistent, is only as valid as its initial core assumptions/axioms.

Since Theology is based on the assumption of the validity and coherence of the God concept, it is inherently worthless and studying it is a waste of time, except to provide insight into the more pathological and obsessional variations of the Theist mindset.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

BobSpence1 wrote:

Any system of argument or discourse, no matter how extensive, elaborated, long-established, even if thoroughly internally consistent, is only as valid as its initial core assumptions/axioms.

Since Theology is based on the assumption of the validity and coherence of the God concept, it is inherently worthless and studying it is a waste of time, except to provide insight into the more pathological and obsessional variations of the Theist mindset.

 

 

 

I can't agree with this more. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.