John Gray

[Belgian thought]

No offense intended, but considering the fact that you either can't or won't wrap your head around the concept of adjusting one's arguments to fit the audience I'm having trouble beleiving that. Not that I think you're lying--rather, I think you're mistaken about how closely your previous beliefs alined with those of most believers.

As stated I was in the audience so please do not make such statements of which you have no idea of my "previous beliefs" and whether they were indeed "alined with those of most believers" (sadly, in retrospect, I should add they were).

Pointing out? Perhaps. Belaboring? No. And it obviously doesn't get the ball rolling--we haven't moved an inch in this conversation, for example.

Again, there is no need for bullying or belaboring, but asking questions, causing one to question ones beliefs in an effective way works better by looking at the root. A child with Santa Claus understands much better the root problem of the argument, as they do with God i.e. "if there is a God, who created him/her/it?" "If there is a Santa, how can he be everywhere?" - I have seen this line of questioning from many children, my own included, and I uttered them too. If that is not the root. What is - again you would like to look at the leaves where the branches bring the juices, and the branches link to the trunk, which link to the roots? Where does the tree start?

Quote:
And since the Fallacy Fallacy and others apply to both religion and believers, we have to start from the beginning.

That's precisely what you're NOT doing. You're starting with your conclusions--at the end. I'm saying start with what they believe, and attack their reasoning as they believe it. Start with where the believer is now. And to do that, you have to know what the believer thinks.

And start from the root to where the believer got to. Dinwar, (if I may) supposed you met someone aged 45 at work who around December started shrieking and getting excited about the arrival of Santa Claus. In all honesty, how would you deal with this?

Quote:
Not at all - describe the plant and its root correctly, but remain honest in describing the plant to the holder of said plant, for, in most cases, s/he is sadly not the grower.

And how exactly do you intend to do that?

You refuse to educate yourself on what the believers believe--or at least, you're arguing against the suggestion that you should do so. So upon what are you going to base your knowledge of their beliefs? Remember, theism includes a huge variety of concepts, from New Age paganism to Catholicism to Islam to Native American beliefs to some others I don't even know the name for. Even within the Christ cults there's an enormous diversity, such that none of us can assume our upbringing qualifies us to comment on the entire subset of religions.

Like I said, there's only one way to know something without bothering to learn it, and that method will net you $1 million if you can prove you can do it. Until that happens, research is required.

At the root as discussed.

Re the money, I did not think the $1 million award is based on that, unless you are to supply a new offer.

Quote:
How dare you! I never saw the funny side of the FSM. I may have got the message wrong, but so it grows!*

Now have I now taken the wrong node in FSM? And if not me, someone else- what would be the solution for me or them?

Bad comedy aside, there are specific aspects of theology that the FSM lacks, such as any attempt to understand the nature of the FSM in a serious and rigorous manner (yes, theology attempts that--you may consider it a failed effort, but to say it doesn't exist is nothing but willful ignorance). Theology means much more, whether you're willing to believe it or not, than simply stating that your god exists.

You much earlier alluded to the census and Jesus etc.. - and intimated that social science being a weak but perhaps necessary tool of looking at theology, the founding of faith i would imagine etc..

FSM could be doing exactly the same i.e. a reaction to contemporary society. Do not diss it so quickly and disrespectfully.

Some earnest followers might get offended.

Who knows, in 800 years or more, (or Moore i.e. things will speed up it is to be hoped) , FSM will become part of serious theological discussion.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why is it so important that religious claims be amenable to scientific investigation?

Is science the only method of establishing reliable knowledge?

 

[Darat]

Why is it so important that religious claims be amenable to scientific investigation?

Is science the only method of establishing reliable knowledge?

Well it's The only one with anything like a proven track record of success so far.

 

[Darat]

Theology by the way (as the academic discipline) is about as far removed from what the vast majority of self identified religious folk believe and understand about their self identified religion as you can imagine.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well it's The only one with anything like a proven track record of success so far.

You mean, besides logic and mathematics?

 

[Dinwar]

As stated I was in the audience so please do not make such statements of which you have no idea of my "previous beliefs" and whether they were indeed "alined with those of most believers" (sadly, in retrospect, I should add they were).

You are opposed to the idea of actually taking them seriously, and are convinced that simply telling them they're wrong will have some effect. I know I drifted into speculation a bit there, but given the evidence it's not unreasonable. NO theist I know will be convinced by someone who simply rants at them (and that's how they'll view your "starting at the beginning", which is really starting from the conclusions you wish them to reach).

Again, there is no need for bullying or belaboring, but asking questions, causing one to question ones beliefs in an effective way works better by looking at the root.

All of which you intend to do without actually bothering to understand the theist's standpoint.

Dinwar, (if I may) supposed you met someone aged 45 at work who around December started shrieking and getting excited about the arrival of Santa Claus. In all honesty, how would you deal with this?

Considering I knew a guy who used to get extremely excited about Christmas, I'd either ignore it or buy them decorations. If I wanted to convince them of anything, however, I'd talk to them, and learn what it is they believe.

At the root as discussed.

Re the money, I did not think the $1 million award is based on that, unless you are to supply a new offer.

You're missing my allusion. The only way to understand the theist standpoint without bothering to study theology is to be precognizant. Precognisence is a paranormal ability, and as such is a valid attempt at the Million Dollar Challange offered by the institution running this forum.

FSM could be doing exactly the same i.e. a reaction to contemporary society. Do not diss it so quickly and disrespectfully.

It could also be a steaming pile of donkey excrament. Once we start admitting potentialities, anything goes--this is no different than Jabba's attempts in the Shroud thread to dismiss C14 dating because something COULD have gone wrong.

The FSM isn't theology. We know that the FSM was developed to be a parody of theism. If that's the best you've got, you've got nothing to contribute to this discussion--and have demonstrated a deplorable understanding of theology. I've already stated one key difference between standard theology and the FSM, which I note you've decided to not address.

This entire argument boils down to the issue you refuse to address: How do you propose we convince theists of anything without understanding what they believe in the first place? What alternative do you propose, and what is its track record? What are the advantages and disadvantages? And why should anyone take you seriously once you've admitted you can't be bothered to become informed about the topic (which is precisely how your insistance that we need not look at theology looks to a theist)?

 

[A'isha]

Theology by the way (as the academic discipline) is about as far removed from what the vast majority of self identified religious folk believe and understand about their self identified religion as you can imagine.

Not always. Theology is an essential component of seminary and ministerial training for most branches of Christianity (as well as Islam), and since most religious folk tend to go with what is preached from the pulpit, learning about the same theology that seminarians study can give a lot of insight into the religion and its believers and so forms an important part of religious studies.

 

[Dinwar]

Theology by the way (as the academic discipline) is about as far removed from what the vast majority of self identified religious folk believe and understand about their self identified religion as you can imagine.

All the more reason to study it--it demonstrates that they don't actually understand their religion. If you can make them look ignorant regarding their beliefs, it's not going to hurt when it comes to convincing them they're wrong. You've already demonstrated that you know more about their belief then them; it's not hard to go from that to "...therefore I know the flaws in it as well".

This is a component of the mental make-up of the best scientists. Darwin did this exhaustively--he knew the opposing side's arguments better than they did, and was able to address them before they arose. We need to do the same thing.

 

[Belgian thought]

Am closing down soon - circular world and all that, (this roundness confirmed in all great holy books...)

Theology is an essential component of seminary and ministerial training for most branches of Christianity (as well as Islam)

Indeed, but as a criticism, it has to start off on the presumption that a creator/god/infinite being exits.

Theology could never have started if such a belief did not occur.

Now that this 'creator' is no longer certain in any way, shape, or magnanimous form, it remains to ask, why play with the leaves?

Goodnight.

 

[Belgian thought]

Am closing down soon - circular world and all that, (this roundness confirmed in all great holy books...)

Theology is an essential component of seminary and ministerial training for most branches of Christianity (as well as Islam)

Indeed, but as a criticism, it has to start off on the presumption that a creator/god/infinite being exits.

Theology could never have started if such a belief did not occur.

Now that this 'creator' is no longer certain in any way, shape, or magnanimous form, it remains to ask, why play with the leaves?

Goodnight.

 

[Dinwar]

Now that this 'creator' is no longer certain in any way, shape, or magnanimous form, it remains to ask, why play with the leaves?

You are still equivocating between fabricating an argument that is convincing TO YOU and one that is convincing TO OTHERS. The parts in caps are where you and I disagree. You will note, if you care to re-read my posts, that I have never said that you are wrong in your conclusion that gods do not exist. We are not discussing that, however. We are discussing viable rhetorical tactics. I'm sorry, but "You're wrong about everything, here's why" simply isn't going to have any impact. It causes entrenchment, and people will cling more strongly to their world views. Worse, as I said before, your willful ignorance of theology leads you into situations where you sound like an uneducated moron yourself, in that since you don't know the arguments you don't know that many popular atheist arguments have already been addressed.

This is not complicated stuff. Sun Tzu knew it, as did whoever coined the term "Know they enemy". Ayn Rand advocated reading Kant and Marx and the rest. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" is a cliche at this point. I do not understand how this concept is problematic to people. If you want to argue against something, you have to know what it is you're arguing against, otherwise you will inevitably fail.

 

[A'isha]

Indeed, but as a criticism, it has to start off on the presumption that a creator/god/infinite being exits.

Theology could never have started if such a belief did not occur.

So?

Now that this 'creator' is no longer certain in any way, shape, or magnanimous form, it remains to ask, why play with the leaves?

I already know why I don't believe in a creator/god/infinite being. That's not why I study religion.

I study religion because other people do believe in a creator/god/infinite being.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Also, the question of the 'existence' of God is complex and has been debated by all the great theologians since Augustine. In the classical theological tradition (eg, Aquinas) God doesn't 'exist' because that would be assigning God a human predicate and God is beyond that. It was only with the later Scholastics (especially Scotus's 'univocity of Being') that God came to be seen by some as having an 'existence' like or equivalent to the existence of human beings or other empirically available things, and most theologians today would probably be closer to Aquinas's view.

Without knowing this sort of thing you're never going to be taken seriously by most theologians.

 

[tsig]

Not always. Theology is an essential component of seminary and ministerial training for most branches of Christianity (as well as Islam), and since most religious folk tend to go with what is preached from the pulpit, learning about the same theology that seminarians study can give a lot of insight into the religion and its believers and so forms an important part of religious studies.

Since I spent two years in a Catholic seminary I must be, according to you, more qualified than anyone else in this thread to discuss religion.


The straw man that's being beaten to death is that atheists refuse to learn about theology when the whole point is if you can't prove god exists then there's no theology to study.

Dinwar mentioned proofs of god but things that exist need no proof of their existence. Is there a proof the sun exists or water or air, yet god is supposed to be more real than any of those but he hides.

IOW the fact that we have to resort to word games to prove god's existence is a strong proof it doesn't exist.


tl;dr version:
Before we speak of god's attributes let's see if god exists.

 

[A'isha]

Since I spent two years in a Catholic seminary I must be, according to you, more qualified than anyone else in this thread to discuss religion.

It makes you qualified to discuss Catholicism.

(You were studying for the priesthood?!)

The straw man that's being beaten to death is that atheists refuse to learn about theology when the whole point is if you can't prove god exists then there's no theology to study.

God may not exist, but theology and religion and believers certainly do.

Before we speak of god's attributes let's see if god exists.

We're not saying you have to engage in theological discussions, but that you should learn about and understand what believers are saying when they engage in theological discussions.

 

[Dinwar]

The straw man that's being beaten to death is that atheists refuse to learn about theology

You demonstrated that this is not a straw man in the second clause of your sentence.

Dinwar mentioned proofs of god

Then you put words in my mouth again. Do not do that. Only I get to do that.

I said there were ARGUMENTS FOR the existence of God. Arguments are not proof, however.

but things that exist need no proof of their existence.

Completely wrong, and demonstrative of a deplorable lack of understanding of science. I suppose you think the K/Pg impact crator is self-evident? How about black holes? Why do detectives spend so much time working on crime scenes?

SOMETIMES the proof can be direct observation. Other times, that simply doesn't work. Science is full of concepts that can only be proven indirectly. In this, you commit precisely the same error as the crowd that shouts "Where you there?" at paleontologists.

Furthermore, many theists believe they DO have direct observations. They saw God. Or heard Him. Or experienced Him in some way. To them those experiences are just as real as you looking at the Sun. Dismissing those arguments out of hand is, to the theist, a dismissal of evidence every bit as real as your evidence for the Sun.

tl;dr version:
Before we speak of god's attributes let's see if god exists.

Yet again, you ignore the bloody point. I don't care why you believe what you believe. If you wish to have any hope of convincing ANYONE ELSE, however, you need to take their beliefs into account.

I've asked your side numerous times to explain how to convince people without knowing what they believe, and how to know what they believe without actually learning it. You've all been strangely silent on that point, preferring instead to fabricate arguments my side has never presented and to pretend that we're arguing something entirely different than we are. Are you willing to actually discuss the topic at hand? If not, there's no point in continuing. And if your next post is yet another mere assertion that you've no obligation to learn theology since you know gods don't exist, you're answering my question with "No, I'm not willing to discuss this topic".

 

[tsig]

It makes you qualified to discuss Catholicism.

(You were studying for the priesthood?!)



God may not exist, but theology and religion and believers certainly do.



We're not saying you have to engage in theological discussions, but that you should learn about and understand what believers are saying when they engage in theological discussions.

Yes I am a spoiled priest*.


Summa Theology

God exists

God likes me when I follow his rules

Here are the rules of god.> Koran, Bible, BoM, ect., ect., ect.

*common term for a seminary dropout.

 

[tsig]

Of course not. I have never argued against people standing on soap boxes ranting and raving about anything. It's entertaining, and it gives you something to watch on a lazy afternoon.

It is not, however, useful in any way. You will never convince anyone of anything with such tactics. And you will certainly make yourself look foolish, because your refusal to learn what the other side is saying will inevitably lead to you arguing against things that side considers nonsensicle. Many of the supposedly slam-dunk arguments presented on this forum against theism were addressed in the Middle Ages. At the point where Medieval monks can demonstrate that you're talking nonsense, you are hurting the cause you are advocating.
You also can't pretend that's not what you're doing. Your logic is precisely on par with those "preachers" on street corners: "I don't care what you believe, I'm going to say my beliefs and demand you accept them."

Many theists believe what they believe for what are, to them, very solid reasons. AT MINIMUM you must demonstrate those reasons to be flawed in order to convince them that their conclusions are wrong. I've yet to hear any skeptic, atheist, Objectivist, or anyone else opposing theism explain to me how to do that without learning what the opposition says. There's only one way, and it'll earn you a million bucks if you can prove you can do it.

Depends. Do you want to dismiss it in your own mind, or actually convince others? If you simply want to dismiss it in your own mind, no, you don't need to know what the other side is saying. If you want to change minds, on the other hand, you need to know where they're starting from. Without that, you've got nothing upon which to base your arguments. That's why Dawkins is so annoying at times: he acts like no theist has ever thought of these ideas, despite a vast literature of theist analysis fo the problem. He ends up attacking, if not straw men, then certainly corpses of arguments that the theists have long since buried. They react the way any of us would if someone told us we hold beliefs that were dismissed back when broadswords were, please excuse the pun, cutting-edge technology. (Before you ask, I have already linked to an article discussing these arguments.)

You demonstrated that this is not a straw man in the second clause of your sentence.

Then you put words in my mouth again. Do not do that. Only I get to do that.

I said there were ARGUMENTS FOR the existence of God. Arguments are not proof, however. Completely wrong, and demonstrative of a deplorable lack of understanding of science. I suppose you think the K/Pg impact crator is self-evident? How about black holes? Why do detectives spend so much time working on crime scenes?

SOMETIMES the proof can be direct observation. Other times, that simply doesn't work. Science is full of concepts that can only be proven indirectly. In this, you commit precisely the same error as the crowd that shouts "Where you there?" at paleontologists.

Furthermore, many theists believe they DO have direct observations. They saw God. Or heard Him. Or experienced Him in some way. To them those experiences are just as real as you looking at the Sun. Dismissing those arguments out of hand is, to the theist, a dismissal of evidence every bit as real as your evidence for the Sun.

Yet again, you ignore the bloody point. I don't care why you believe what you believe. If you wish to have any hope of convincing ANYONE ELSE, however, you need to take their beliefs into account.

I've asked your side numerous times to explain how to convince people without knowing what they believe, and how to know what they believe without actually learning it. You've all been strangely silent on that point, preferring instead to fabricate arguments my side has never presented and to pretend that we're arguing something entirely different than we are. Are you willing to actually discuss the topic at hand? If not, there's no point in continuing. And if your next post is yet another mere assertion that you've no obligation to learn theology since you know gods don't exist, you're answering my question with "No, I'm not willing to discuss this topic".

Medieval monks refuting atheist arguments aren't proofs?

You know instead of berating me for my ignorance you might enlighten us about some of these theologies that you're so familiar with.

 

[Dinwar]

Medieval monks refuting atheist arguments aren't proofs?

You know instead of berating me for my ignorance you might enlighten us about some of these theologies that you're so familiar with.

I've always considered proofs and arguments to have different implications; proofs being the more absolute of the two (I've generally only seen the term used in mathematics, and by the more vapid schools of philosophy). I may have misspoke, however, and can agree to use the terms as synonymous for the purposes of this discussion (assuming, of course, the discussion actually starts).

I've never claimed to know, or even be familiar with, theology. So yet again you are putting words in my mouth. And yet again you are dodging the issue. But since you ask, I'm mostly familiar with Medieval monasticism and the works of the more famous Benedictine monks (the SCA is weird). That's one of the things that demonstrated the error of the view that you don't need to know theology to me--if someone like me, who doesn't pretend to be knowledgeable on the topic, can point to arguments that disprove common atheist arguments, the arguments aren't worth the paper they're written on.

But that's really all beside the point. Last chance: Are you willing to discuss the topic at hand, which is whether or not it's necessary to be familiar with theology IN ORDER TO CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE?

 

[Humes fork]

They can be, depending on reason and context. However, they aren't at all comparable to the study of religion in general or theology in particular.

The vast majority of people on the planet don't make belief in the Loch Ness Monster a central feature of their lives, after all.

I think you are confusing the subjects here. The study of religion is a legitimate field of study like the study of any other phenomena. However, say, Islam theology is not a dispassionate study of Islam. It already assumes that Islam is true, and tries to resolve various matters such as inheritance, given that the Quranic instructions don't add up, or which infidels that are acceptable as dhimmis and which infidels that get to choose between Islam and death.

I've read both in translation, and Mein Kampf in the original back when my German was stronger. I don't feel I know enough about Marxism to comment robustly, but I am one of the most active posters in the Holocaust Denial thread here (arguing against the Deniers, of course), and in order to do so I've not only read social and military history of the period and the historiography of the Holocaust, but also as much of the material actually written by Deniers as I can get my hands on.

It's proven quite useful, allowing me to do things like instantly recognize an argument presented by a Denier purportedly debunking a captured Nazi document regarding gas vans as being lifted wholesale from Santiago Alvarez's The Gas Vans: A Critical Examination.

Sure, but would you agree that reading Mein Kampf in another language is ok too?

This I why I also feel that it's vitally important for even atheists to read what theists (of whatever religion) are writing, saying, and arguing, including (and especially) works of theology.

Well it depends. If you want to argue about the existence of God, knowledge of theology isn't really necessary (Quranic arguments are all the argument from design anyways). You just have to know what the arguments are and how to refute them.

Yes. And this is where Dawkins fails miserably.

Dawkins is primarily interested in if there are good reasons to believe in God, not why people do so. They are not the same question.