you've assumed Gods existence and can't provide any logical defenses for it.
No, I have not assumed God's existence. I have yet to even present a case for why I believe what I believe. Add that to your list of obviously wrong statements.
My focus here has been pointing out your wrong assertions... and rather than acknowledge errors and correct... you double down and scream louder that God does not exist, because not proven.
Pathetic. A philosophy that is incapable of correcting obvious errors has no insight to offer on the topic of theology.
I can keep going, but a believe should be able to answer all these questions.
I agree that a believer should be able to answer all those questions.
Too bad such a set of rational answers would be wasted on you.
Actually your last point is wrong, God doesn't exist until shown otherwise and it's amazing that no one has ever been able to show otherwise. If you multiple all the evidence for God by a million, you're still left with nothing.
God's existence isn't contingent upon whether or not he "should" exist.
Whether or not mosquitos should exist (hate those bloodsuckers), they do - as can be plainly observed.
God's existence is pretty obvious... and your inability to see that is due to your inept philosophy rather than his actual non-existence.
If you don't want your religious belief to be mocked that back it up
You don't understand - I'm not upset that you believe the things you do; I'm surprised (well, a little bit) that it's so stupid.
I don't care if you mock my religious beliefs. You've demonstrated that your atheism is so intellectually vapid that it can only mock; it is incapable of a rational anti-theist position. If it doesn't have any intellectual substance, I don't care what it says about my beliefs.
Didn't your Christian upbringing teach you that it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?
if you can come up with a single reason why God should exist that I can't rebut.
Why are you looking for reasons that God should exist? God either exists or he does not, whether or not he should exist is irrelevant to that question of fact.
Yes it is.
Because if not, then my claim is there is no god and I don't have to have any burden of proof behind my claim that there is no such thing as God.
You need to separate "God's existence is unproven" from "God does not exist".
The former is a lack of knowledge; the latter is a claim of knowledge.
Replace the object of each statement and the distinction should be much clearer:
Your mis-quoting what I wrote, which was a direct quote from your citation. If you're going to pick and choose what parts of your own citation you're going to believe, you're no better than they hypocritical Xians who pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe.
You brought up flat earth beliefs first. This is what you wrote:
So, back when most people believed the world was flat, that made it right?
I disputed that most people believed in a flat earth; and as you made the accusation, you ought to have had evidence showing such.
And again, for the record, this is your failing to grasp that my argument is that a majority believes things for a reason. It may be a wrong reason, it be not be a very good reason, but it's still a reason. Bringing up wrong beliefs is irrelevant; you need to bring up popular irrational beliefs.
. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah.
"There is no god but Allah" categorizes Allah as a god, the only god according to Islam.
But then you said:
You say so, you might even believe it. But it is highly misinformed according to many Muslims I know, and also according to a much more popular interpretation of "La ilaha illillah". Allah is NOT god.
I've already elaborated that my argument is based on people possessing a belief that there is a god; not that they believe in the same god.
You want to take Muslims' belief that Allah is the only god, as disbelief in god (generic, any), so as to refute my position. But it can't, because that's stupid.
An irrational belief (for example, in god), is not a reason to do something fundamentally evil such as discriminate against people based on religion, sex, or sexual identity - it's just an excuse.
You said that only facts are reasons.
What fact is the reason that discrimination, or slavery, is evil?
Parents know when their kids are giving excuses rather than reasons.
No they don't. You just said the majority of the world is irrational. "Knowing" is a rational thing, not an irrational thing.
You have not supported that statement with any evidence. On the other hand, I've demonstrated that it's a myth; and that there is no record of that being a learned belief amongst scholars... which is also evidence against it being a misbelief of the common man absent evidence otherwise.
You refuse to try to understand any of my posts in this thread . Expected, since you hang out on Slashdot.
I diagree with you.
This could be because I would have agreed with you, but deliberately chose not to acknowledge your superior understanding...
Or, I could be disagreeing with you because your position is that stupid.
Muslims believe in a god, idiot. They call their god Allah. Their belief in Allah counts as a belief in god. It takes a real special kind of "intellect" to take two groups that believe in some sort of god, and conclude that everyone is an atheist on average.
You can't mock something who's basis rests on the ideals of childish, bronze age, superstition, which you kept to make sure the sun came up the next morning.
So you're so deluded that you think you're being nice as you mock religions by calling them superstitious, childish, and so on.
It doesn't count as mocking... because the target of your mockery is worty of mockery. Where in the definition of "mockery" is that condition listed?
I've studied Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, FSM, Pink Unicorn, Bacon and even made my own religion, trust my, they're all the same, at least FSM, Bacon, Unicorn and Docmur ( Mine), are funny and show the true stupidity of religious beliefs.
Having an understanding *is* theology. It's possible to understand things you don't like.
And even here, you can't stop mocking religion by bringing up things like Spaghetti Monsters and Unicorns. So "nice".
You want two contradictory things - you want to call religion so irrational that even trying to understand it is a waste of time... yet you also want the prestige of understanding something so thoroughly you can refute it.
You logically can't take both of those positions simultaneously.. and yet here you are, claiming a logically self-contradicting position.
I didn't become an Atheist because and shed off the false beliefs because religion made sense, I did it because I finally noticed no one had answers, evidence, proof or any bleeping clue what reality was.
You're an embarassment to any atheist who claims rationality.
If you asked me clarify religious theology, I missed that, so to be blunt, religious theology is just clarifying what "field" of theology I'm talking about, it's the theology of religion or Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, FSM and etc..
Okay. You earlier said that it was clear that you were talking about religious theology, as opposed to theology in general.
What is a non-religious theology?
I use the term sky daddy to sound silly intentionally because I'm pointing out how silly the concept of God sounds to those who don't believe.
It's not really a rhetorical attack:
Reason doesn't deal with silly and non-silly. It deals with true or false. Using terms like "sky-daddy" is mockery, which is rhetorical, as opposed to dialectical. You are trying to trigger an emotional reaction instead of a logical one.
It's a rhetorical attack. Own it.
Hence you apply theology after you already believe in God. It's printed right on the screen, but clearly we disagree on this point.
You can study theology without believing in the god of that theology, you idiot.
A believer has to have at least some crude concept of who/what god is in order to believe in said god. That crude conception is a theology. Theological study sharpens that conception... but the conception must come before belief. Can't believe in something you don't know.
Anyway if we're not going to agree, we may as well move past this thread, but at least it's been interesting.
I'm not replying to you because I think you'll change your mind and agree with me.
It's because you're wrong, and I derive entertainment from correction. (Nerd, go figure)
It'd be nice if you changed your mind... but I don't expect reason from atheists.
You say so, you might even believe it. But it is highly misinformed according to many Muslims I know, and also according to a much more popular interpretation of "La ilaha illillah". Allah is NOT god.
Don't be stupid. Small case g "god" is a generic term for deity/supreme being.
Allah may not be the "God" that others worship; but he is a god that people around the world worship; and Muslims believe that he is the only true god amongst other false gods.
That puts Muslims into the group of people who believe in god, as opposed to the group of people who believe there is no god.
Trying to muddy those plain distinctions makes you foolish; and as far as you know better, a liar who deceives and obfuscates.
I am saying that popular disbelief* of Muslims in god makes belief in god wrong. And popular disbelief in Allah by Christians makes Allah wrong according the the wisdom of the crowds.
You are stupid if you think Muslim is a religion centered around disbelief in god. But since you can use a computer and hang out on Slashdot, that's not very likely.
That makes you a liar. Lovely.
"Allah is Great" celebrates the Muslim belief in zero gods, apparently.
I am saying that popular disbelief* of Muslims in god makes belief in god wrong. And popular disbelief in Allah by Christians makes Allah wrong according the the wisdom of the crowds.
Here, have a lollipop. Please don't talk with your mouth full.
The one thing I'll start off with, is we both have strong opinions on each side, which is a good thing as it generally shows intelligence, and to clarify, I'm not taking any attack at you personally, as this thread has gone on for some time, just want to make that clear;-).
Strong opinions are not a show of intelligence. A diehard fan cheering for the Patriots, or Year of Linux, or Xbox, is not showing any great intelligence. Intelligence is measured by clarity of thought and speech, not passion.
I wouldn't take any attack from you personally anyways, but I thank you for the thought.
"Religion is essentially 'I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science.'"
I use the term sky daddy to sound silly intentionally because I'm pointing out how silly the concept of God sounds to those who don't believe.
Mocking a serious topic does not demonstrate intelligence. It's a rhetorical attack appealing to the emotions instead of a rational attack appealing to the mind.
"Theology is even worse, take Islam:"
On my second sentence, I'm not backing down from Religious Theology, it doesn't matter which one you pick, I could of said Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, FSM, Pink Unicorn, Bacon, Church of the Dude or anything really, I could of invented one on the spot.
I have asked you twice to clarify what you mean with this "religious theology", and you have yet to provide an answer.
Combined with your regular use of rhetoric and constant appeals to your own personal experience... I'm guessing you don't have a rational answer.
You say theology is worse than religion.
Theology is not a subset of religion. Theology is an integral part of any religion. When the basic meanings of your words are different than the common definitions, what you think you are saying and what you are communicating are different things.
Green sounds cat lace.
This comes with the problem of having to define the "God" or "Gods" you believe in,
You seem unable to differentiate between describing a belief accurately and believing said belief.
As an Atheist I can't decide to not pay my taxes because it's my belief, so why can a church?
So you want to be treated like a religion? But yours is not a religion?
OK, let me put it this way. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah. Believing in "god" gets you a reserved place in hell.
They call their god Allah. How are you not able to abstract that both crowds share a belief in a supreme being, even though their beliefs in the supreme being's attributes vary?
Yes, the religions disagree with each other. That doesn't cancel out and make all of them non-religious groups.
Also, your link only refers to what scholars believed. It even acknowledges that this probably wasn't the prevailing view among the peons:
You have no facts to support that the peons believed in a flat earth. You have "no reason" per your own definition to believe that the majority of people irrationally believed in a flat earth.
There's your problem - point one. No, it doesn't take a reason (in the sense of a fact) for the majority to believe something.
So you think only facts are reasons. Why does it take this many exchanges to get to this point?
The majority believed in slavery. They had their reasons (the bible, prejudice, personal profit, etc) to believe that slavery was justified. Didn't make them right. Same the the majority believing that the Earth was the center of the universe. Same as the majority believed that the housing boom wouldn't end ("this time it's different").
People don't believe in slavery. They believe that slavery is okay, or it's not okay.
Now, what fact provides the reason to believe that slavery is okay, or not okay?
If the "reason" or premise is false, any conclusions are highly suspect.
Duh. But "wrong reason" is not "no reason". Irrational is different than wrong.
And rational/irrational does not mean good/bad. An irrational love for one's friends and family is not somehow bad because of the lack of reasoning behind it.
There's a HUGE difference between a reason with no underlying rationale and a good reason.
Sure. But a wrong reason or "excuse" is still not the same as no reason.
You do realize I'm only arguing with your first two sentences, right? Because they're that embarrassing and nonsensical, and undermine any value in the rest of your post.
Atheism is the exact opposite of religion, it's saying there is no God and you can't show there is, the actual definition, to play fair is:
Your misguided religious fervor demonstrates otherwise.
Religion is the belief in God or Gods, hence Atheism is the exact opposite, there is no other side to this coin, it's a one way argument, Atheism is not a religion, just like not having cancer, isn't a new form of cancer.
Someone who mocks religion with "sky daddy" is not lacking belief. He has a strong belief that no gods exist, such that he thinks those who believe in god are foolish and deserve ridicule.
This is a theology on the nature of god (does not exist!) and man's proper relationship to that understanding (mock the believer!).
Which I never said, claimed or attempted to imply. Theology as I admitted has two meaning, you demonstrated that when you posted them and I'm not arguing that, it really does have two meaning.
1) Attempting to explain the nature of God.
2) A field of study.
Okay, I see now that you swapped the order of the definitions. I did not catch that.
Unfortunately, it still doesn't salvage the second sentence in your original post, because you can't generalize to "religious" theologies from Islamic theology. (What is a "religious" theology?)
Theology must come after religion, I already said if you disagree that's fine, but instead of accepting to bow out on that point you wanted to argue me, which doesn't change my original stance, it merely shows your impressive ignorance, which as you've already stated you believe in a God, was clear.
It's not ignorant. The belief in the nature of god comes before the religious practice.
"God is the universe, so clear mind and meditate to become one with nature."
"Gods are a group of squabbling deities, so sacrifice to them all and hope to not anger them."
"God is a single person, so worship him alone"
The theology of Christianity is summed up in The Bible, which on the very first line says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,", meaning you had to believe in God to accept that statement, there was and is no other way to approach it.
You do not need to believe in the Christian God to understand and accept that the Bible claims that God exists and is an intelligent creator, and that this the book is the basis of Christian theology. You do not believe the Christian religion yet you described Christian theology; you did not need to adopt Christian religion to have an understanding of the Christian God. You're disproving your own position.
On my second point, Religious Theology has to come after Religious belief.
No it does not. If someone decides to pray as the practice of a particular religion, they have adopted a belief of what god is
This is wrong, God is the creator, the -0 on the singularity of creation, that's it, there is no other way to think about God, God started everything, that's it.
A god is not the religion. Religion is the practice of people who follow a particular god. The practice of people who follow a particular god comes after they adopt a theology of who that particular god is.
One does not believe in something without some form of understanding. Even the belief that god is beyond human understanding is a form of understanding. That understanding of god is theology, and that is why religion, that is religious beliefs and practice, follows theology.
On a side of interest what sect of religion do you subscribe to?
Isn't it funny how the atheist is more blatant about his lack of faith than the believer about his faith?
Like I said, your practice is too close to religion for me to consider it not.
So, back when most people believed the world was flat, that made it right? Or that the sun and stars revolved around the earth? How about the people who voted for George W Bush the second time - like they couldn't even learn from their mistakes? The voters who weighted that last pig sure got it wrong!
You still don't get the argument. Here are the logical steps:
1. It takes a reason for the majority to believe in something
2. The majority believes in god
3. The majority believes in god for a reason.
That's all. It's not saying that people believe in god for the right reason. It's not saying that the majority are right, or must be right.
Rather than address the argument, you've attacked arguments not made, you've repeated a myth, insulted Americans; anything but support your original claim that people believe in god for no reason.
That's not how rational people behave, "Barbara". But then, rational people don't believe they can change their sex/gender, either.
No I don't say that at all. In fact the reason why they believe in god doesn't matter for this statement at all. I'm saying they believe mutually incompatible things, so "wisdoms of the crowds" are canceling each other.
So because two crowds each believe in god...
Their beliefs cancel out and the crowd has no particular belief one way or another on whether god exists.
I think you're going to have to break down the logic for me.
By the way - the Wisdom of Crowds example of weighing a pig involves each individual guessing a specific number that contradicts everyone else's guess. It's not about agreement, it's about averaging out errors.
To address your points, out of order, Atheism is not a theology, at least the way I was implying, which is religious theology.
What do you think is a non-religious theology? Whatever you wanted to imply, I'm taking issue with what you said - which if taken as written is nonsense.
Atheisms says there is no God because there is no proof, and indeed, no proof has ever been found, discovered or granted.
The default position on any truth claim in the absence of evidence is "I don't know", not "it must be false".
I don't see how you can expect anyone to rationally become an atheist when you can't even get the basics of knowledge right.
This entire thread is about religion, not about fields of study, and hence only the first definition should apply here.
You just dug into an indefensible position. You want to stand by the statement: "The problem with Theology as a field of study is that Islam [insert criticism]"
That's as stupid as saying, "The problem with physics as a field of study is that Newton's model of gravity is incomplete."
The criticism of the specific item (Islam, Newtonian gravity model) within the set does not generalize to the overall set (theology, physics). The word cannot be used the way you used it. It makes nonsense. Whatever you find wrong with Islam is not an indictment on the field of study of god.
On my second point, Religious Theology has to come after Religious belief.
No it does not. If someone decides to pray as the practice of a particular religion, they have adopted a belief of what god is (some higher being able to answer prayer), and how man relates to said god. (prayer, etc) That is a theology.
The person may not put it into words so neatly, but the theology (system,form) plainly exists before a theologian comes along to put it in a neatly categorized bin.
I know all about religious practices, and I know all about what they represent, the problem is when you start with a flawed assumption, why should anyone take you seriously?
Don't care what you think. You were unable to properly distinguish between religion, theology, and theologies, and not only are you not bothered by this fundamental error, you're trying to stand by nonsense.
I can't say I'm surprised by the outcome... but it's still disappointing.
Now the common parts are demonstrably non-existent. Large number of people think Mohammed was greatest of all prophets, and belief otherwise is seriously wrong. Another large number of people believes that Jesus was the last of the prophets - he will come back but no one else except people peddling false gods. While simultaneously believing that belief otherwise is seriously wrong. History centric religions are mostly contradict each other.
You say that people who believe in god do so because they believe a particular historical person is a prophet, that is, a messenger of god. You have just listed a reason why people believe in god.
This contradicts the other poster who claimed that there is no reason to believe in god. That you disagree with those religions' reasons is an entirely different thing than the reasons not existing.
"They have no reason to believe; they are irrational" is a different argument than "the reasons they use to believe in god are wrong". Confusing the two arguments and using them interchangeably is sloppy thinking and unbefitting a rational position.
So no conclusion can be drawn from these large groups of people.
You confirmed my conclusion. Independent groups of people believing in god is evidence that people believe in god for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words you can't and want an excuse.
Don't need an excuse. Your delusions about "nice" and "rational" are reason enough.
you've assumed Gods existence and can't provide any logical defenses for it.
No, I have not assumed God's existence. I have yet to even present a case for why I believe what I believe. Add that to your list of obviously wrong statements.
My focus here has been pointing out your wrong assertions... and rather than acknowledge errors and correct ... you double down and scream louder that God does not exist, because not proven.
Pathetic. A philosophy that is incapable of correcting obvious errors has no insight to offer on the topic of theology.
I can keep going, but a believe should be able to answer all these questions.
I agree that a believer should be able to answer all those questions.
Too bad such a set of rational answers would be wasted on you.
Actually your last point is wrong, God doesn't exist until shown otherwise and it's amazing that no one has ever been able to show otherwise. If you multiple all the evidence for God by a million, you're still left with nothing.
God's existence isn't contingent upon whether or not he "should" exist.
Whether or not mosquitos should exist (hate those bloodsuckers), they do - as can be plainly observed.
God's existence is pretty obvious ... and your inability to see that is due to your inept philosophy rather than his actual non-existence.
If you don't want your religious belief to be mocked that back it up
You don't understand - I'm not upset that you believe the things you do; I'm surprised (well, a little bit) that it's so stupid.
I don't care if you mock my religious beliefs. You've demonstrated that your atheism is so intellectually vapid that it can only mock; it is incapable of a rational anti-theist position. If it doesn't have any intellectual substance, I don't care what it says about my beliefs.
Didn't your Christian upbringing teach you that it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?
if you can come up with a single reason why God should exist that I can't rebut.
Why are you looking for reasons that God should exist? God either exists or he does not, whether or not he should exist is irrelevant to that question of fact.
The universe is amoral. It has zero sense of good and evil. THAT is a fact.
So ... calling discrimination or slavery immoral is irrational then.
One doesn't need an excuse, then, or even a reason to discriminate or enslave, according to your position. It's not even wrong.
Yes it is. Because if not, then my claim is there is no god and I don't have to have any burden of proof behind my claim that there is no such thing as God.
You need to separate "God's existence is unproven" from "God does not exist".
The former is a lack of knowledge; the latter is a claim of knowledge.
Replace the object of each statement and the distinction should be much clearer:
"The existence of gold in China is unproven."
"There is no gold in China."
Your mis-quoting what I wrote, which was a direct quote from your citation. If you're going to pick and choose what parts of your own citation you're going to believe, you're no better than they hypocritical Xians who pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe.
You brought up flat earth beliefs first. This is what you wrote:
So, back when most people believed the world was flat, that made it right?
I disputed that most people believed in a flat earth; and as you made the accusation, you ought to have had evidence showing such.
And again, for the record, this is your failing to grasp that my argument is that a majority believes things for a reason. It may be a wrong reason, it be not be a very good reason, but it's still a reason. Bringing up wrong beliefs is irrelevant; you need to bring up popular irrational beliefs.
Wrong. At least according to a popular theory which you are too stupid to understand.
So according to this popular theory you assert exists, Allah is not a god. What is he, then? Just "Allah"?
So, supreme being with authority over humanity, creator of the universe ... but not god. Just Allah.
Why would a non-Muslim categorize Allah as something other than "god"?
It is not disagreement when straw men are being invoked in your every post.
You said:
. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah.
"There is no god but Allah" categorizes Allah as a god, the only god according to Islam. But then you said:
You say so, you might even believe it. But it is highly misinformed according to many Muslims I know, and also according to a much more popular interpretation of "La ilaha illillah". Allah is NOT god.
I've already elaborated that my argument is based on people possessing a belief that there is a god; not that they believe in the same god.
You want to take Muslims' belief that Allah is the only god, as disbelief in god (generic, any), so as to refute my position. But it can't, because that's stupid.
An irrational belief (for example, in god), is not a reason to do something fundamentally evil such as discriminate against people based on religion, sex, or sexual identity - it's just an excuse.
You said that only facts are reasons.
What fact is the reason that discrimination, or slavery, is evil?
Parents know when their kids are giving excuses rather than reasons.
No they don't. You just said the majority of the world is irrational. "Knowing" is a rational thing, not an irrational thing.
You brought up "most believed in a flat earth".
You have not supported that statement with any evidence. On the other hand, I've demonstrated that it's a myth; and that there is no record of that being a learned belief amongst scholars ... which is also evidence against it being a misbelief of the common man absent evidence otherwise.
You refuse to try to understand any of my posts in this thread . Expected, since you hang out on Slashdot.
I diagree with you.
This could be because I would have agreed with you, but deliberately chose not to acknowledge your superior understanding ...
Or, I could be disagreeing with you because your position is that stupid.
Muslims believe in a god, idiot. They call their god Allah. Their belief in Allah counts as a belief in god. It takes a real special kind of "intellect" to take two groups that believe in some sort of god, and conclude that everyone is an atheist on average.
You can't mock something who's basis rests on the ideals of childish, bronze age, superstition, which you kept to make sure the sun came up the next morning.
So you're so deluded that you think you're being nice as you mock religions by calling them superstitious, childish, and so on.
It doesn't count as mocking ... because the target of your mockery is worty of mockery. Where in the definition of "mockery" is that condition listed?
I've studied Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, FSM, Pink Unicorn, Bacon and even made my own religion, trust my, they're all the same, at least FSM, Bacon, Unicorn and Docmur ( Mine), are funny and show the true stupidity of religious beliefs.
Having an understanding *is* theology. It's possible to understand things you don't like.
And even here, you can't stop mocking religion by bringing up things like Spaghetti Monsters and Unicorns. So "nice".
You want two contradictory things - you want to call religion so irrational that even trying to understand it is a waste of time ... yet you also want the prestige of understanding something so thoroughly you can refute it.
You logically can't take both of those positions simultaneously .. and yet here you are, claiming a logically self-contradicting position.
I didn't become an Atheist because and shed off the false beliefs because religion made sense, I did it because I finally noticed no one had answers, evidence, proof or any bleeping clue what reality was.
You're an embarassment to any atheist who claims rationality.
I've been nice
Insulting religious people everywhere by mocking their religion is not nice.
And mockery of god and religion is exactly what you intended. Delusional much?
but like a typical religious believer you've failed to grasp even simple concepts.
I'm not the one who has problems understanding the relationship between theology and religion.
If you asked me clarify religious theology, I missed that, so to be blunt, religious theology is just clarifying what "field" of theology I'm talking about, it's the theology of religion or Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, FSM and etc..
Okay. You earlier said that it was clear that you were talking about religious theology, as opposed to theology in general.
What is a non-religious theology?
I use the term sky daddy to sound silly intentionally because I'm pointing out how silly the concept of God sounds to those who don't believe.
It's not really a rhetorical attack:
Reason doesn't deal with silly and non-silly. It deals with true or false. Using terms like "sky-daddy" is mockery, which is rhetorical, as opposed to dialectical. You are trying to trigger an emotional reaction instead of a logical one.
It's a rhetorical attack. Own it.
Hence you apply theology after you already believe in God. It's printed right on the screen, but clearly we disagree on this point.
You can study theology without believing in the god of that theology, you idiot.
A believer has to have at least some crude concept of who/what god is in order to believe in said god. That crude conception is a theology. Theological study sharpens that conception ... but the conception must come before belief. Can't believe in something you don't know.
Anyway if we're not going to agree, we may as well move past this thread, but at least it's been interesting.
I'm not replying to you because I think you'll change your mind and agree with me.
It's because you're wrong, and I derive entertainment from correction. (Nerd, go figure)
It'd be nice if you changed your mind... but I don't expect reason from atheists.
You say so, you might even believe it. But it is highly misinformed according to many Muslims I know, and also according to a much more popular interpretation of "La ilaha illillah". Allah is NOT god.
Don't be stupid. Small case g "god" is a generic term for deity/supreme being.
Allah may not be the "God" that others worship; but he is a god that people around the world worship; and Muslims believe that he is the only true god amongst other false gods.
That puts Muslims into the group of people who believe in god, as opposed to the group of people who believe there is no god.
Trying to muddy those plain distinctions makes you foolish; and as far as you know better, a liar who deceives and obfuscates.
I am saying that popular disbelief* of Muslims in god makes belief in god wrong. And popular disbelief in Allah by Christians makes Allah wrong according the the wisdom of the crowds.
You are stupid if you think Muslim is a religion centered around disbelief in god. But since you can use a computer and hang out on Slashdot, that's not very likely.
That makes you a liar. Lovely.
"Allah is Great" celebrates the Muslim belief in zero gods, apparently.
I am saying that popular disbelief* of Muslims in god makes belief in god wrong. And popular disbelief in Allah by Christians makes Allah wrong according the the wisdom of the crowds.
Here, have a lollipop. Please don't talk with your mouth full.
The one thing I'll start off with, is we both have strong opinions on each side, which is a good thing as it generally shows intelligence, and to clarify, I'm not taking any attack at you personally, as this thread has gone on for some time, just want to make that clear ;-).
Strong opinions are not a show of intelligence. A diehard fan cheering for the Patriots, or Year of Linux, or Xbox, is not showing any great intelligence. Intelligence is measured by clarity of thought and speech, not passion.
I wouldn't take any attack from you personally anyways, but I thank you for the thought.
"Religion is essentially 'I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science.'"
I use the term sky daddy to sound silly intentionally because I'm pointing out how silly the concept of God sounds to those who don't believe.
Mocking a serious topic does not demonstrate intelligence. It's a rhetorical attack appealing to the emotions instead of a rational attack appealing to the mind.
"Theology is even worse, take Islam:"
On my second sentence, I'm not backing down from Religious Theology, it doesn't matter which one you pick, I could of said Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, FSM, Pink Unicorn, Bacon, Church of the Dude or anything really, I could of invented one on the spot.
I have asked you twice to clarify what you mean with this "religious theology", and you have yet to provide an answer.
Combined with your regular use of rhetoric and constant appeals to your own personal experience ... I'm guessing you don't have a rational answer.
You say theology is worse than religion.
Theology is not a subset of religion. Theology is an integral part of any religion. When the basic meanings of your words are different than the common definitions, what you think you are saying and what you are communicating are different things.
Green sounds cat lace.
This comes with the problem of having to define the "God" or "Gods" you believe in,
You seem unable to differentiate between describing a belief accurately and believing said belief.
As an Atheist I can't decide to not pay my taxes because it's my belief, so why can a church?
So you want to be treated like a religion? But yours is not a religion?
You are confused.
OK, let me put it this way. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah. Believing in "god" gets you a reserved place in hell.
They call their god Allah. How are you not able to abstract that both crowds share a belief in a supreme being, even though their beliefs in the supreme being's attributes vary?
Yes, the religions disagree with each other. That doesn't cancel out and make all of them non-religious groups.
Also, your link only refers to what scholars believed. It even acknowledges that this probably wasn't the prevailing view among the peons:
You have no facts to support that the peons believed in a flat earth. You have "no reason" per your own definition to believe that the majority of people irrationally believed in a flat earth.
There's your problem - point one. No, it doesn't take a reason (in the sense of a fact) for the majority to believe something.
So you think only facts are reasons. Why does it take this many exchanges to get to this point?
The majority believed in slavery. They had their reasons (the bible, prejudice, personal profit, etc) to believe that slavery was justified. Didn't make them right. Same the the majority believing that the Earth was the center of the universe. Same as the majority believed that the housing boom wouldn't end ("this time it's different").
People don't believe in slavery. They believe that slavery is okay, or it's not okay.
Now, what fact provides the reason to believe that slavery is okay, or not okay?
If the "reason" or premise is false, any conclusions are highly suspect.
Duh. But "wrong reason" is not "no reason". Irrational is different than wrong.
And rational/irrational does not mean good/bad. An irrational love for one's friends and family is not somehow bad because of the lack of reasoning behind it.
There's a HUGE difference between a reason with no underlying rationale and a good reason.
Sure. But a wrong reason or "excuse" is still not the same as no reason.
Lets go back to my original post:
You do realize I'm only arguing with your first two sentences, right? Because they're that embarrassing and nonsensical, and undermine any value in the rest of your post.
Atheism is the exact opposite of religion, it's saying there is no God and you can't show there is, the actual definition, to play fair is:
Your misguided religious fervor demonstrates otherwise.
Religion is the belief in God or Gods, hence Atheism is the exact opposite, there is no other side to this coin, it's a one way argument, Atheism is not a religion, just like not having cancer, isn't a new form of cancer.
Someone who mocks religion with "sky daddy" is not lacking belief. He has a strong belief that no gods exist, such that he thinks those who believe in god are foolish and deserve ridicule.
This is a theology on the nature of god (does not exist!) and man's proper relationship to that understanding (mock the believer!).
Which I never said, claimed or attempted to imply. Theology as I admitted has two meaning, you demonstrated that when you posted them and I'm not arguing that, it really does have two meaning.
1) Attempting to explain the nature of God.
2) A field of study.
Okay, I see now that you swapped the order of the definitions. I did not catch that.
Unfortunately, it still doesn't salvage the second sentence in your original post, because you can't generalize to "religious" theologies from Islamic theology. (What is a "religious" theology?)
Theology must come after religion, I already said if you disagree that's fine, but instead of accepting to bow out on that point you wanted to argue me, which doesn't change my original stance, it merely shows your impressive ignorance, which as you've already stated you believe in a God, was clear.
It's not ignorant. The belief in the nature of god comes before the religious practice.
"God is the universe, so clear mind and meditate to become one with nature."
"Gods are a group of squabbling deities, so sacrifice to them all and hope to not anger them."
"God is a single person, so worship him alone"
The theology of Christianity is summed up in The Bible, which on the very first line says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,", meaning you had to believe in God to accept that statement, there was and is no other way to approach it.
You do not need to believe in the Christian God to understand and accept that the Bible claims that God exists and is an intelligent creator, and that this the book is the basis of Christian theology. You do not believe the Christian religion yet you described Christian theology; you did not need to adopt Christian religion to have an understanding of the Christian God. You're disproving your own position.
On my second point, Religious Theology has to come after Religious belief.
No it does not. If someone decides to pray as the practice of a particular religion, they have adopted a belief of what god is
This is wrong, God is the creator, the -0 on the singularity of creation, that's it, there is no other way to think about God, God started everything, that's it.
A god is not the religion. Religion is the practice of people who follow a particular god. The practice of people who follow a particular god comes after they adopt a theology of who that particular god is.
One does not believe in something without some form of understanding. Even the belief that god is beyond human understanding is a form of understanding. That understanding of god is theology, and that is why religion, that is religious beliefs and practice, follows theology.
On a side of interest what sect of religion do you subscribe to?
Isn't it funny how the atheist is more blatant about his lack of faith than the believer about his faith?
Like I said, your practice is too close to religion for me to consider it not.
So, back when most people believed the world was flat, that made it right? Or that the sun and stars revolved around the earth? How about the people who voted for George W Bush the second time - like they couldn't even learn from their mistakes? The voters who weighted that last pig sure got it wrong!
Why are you repeating the flat earth myth?
You still don't get the argument. Here are the logical steps:
That's all. It's not saying that people believe in god for the right reason. It's not saying that the majority are right, or must be right.
Rather than address the argument, you've attacked arguments not made, you've repeated a myth, insulted Americans; anything but support your original claim that people believe in god for no reason.
That's not how rational people behave, "Barbara". But then, rational people don't believe they can change their sex/gender, either.
No I don't say that at all. In fact the reason why they believe in god doesn't matter for this statement at all. I'm saying they believe mutually incompatible things, so "wisdoms of the crowds" are canceling each other.
So because two crowds each believe in god ...
Their beliefs cancel out and the crowd has no particular belief one way or another on whether god exists.
I think you're going to have to break down the logic for me.
By the way - the Wisdom of Crowds example of weighing a pig involves each individual guessing a specific number that contradicts everyone else's guess. It's not about agreement, it's about averaging out errors.
To address your points, out of order, Atheism is not a theology, at least the way I was implying, which is religious theology.
What do you think is a non-religious theology? Whatever you wanted to imply, I'm taking issue with what you said - which if taken as written is nonsense.
Atheisms says there is no God because there is no proof, and indeed, no proof has ever been found, discovered or granted.
The default position on any truth claim in the absence of evidence is "I don't know", not "it must be false".
I don't see how you can expect anyone to rationally become an atheist when you can't even get the basics of knowledge right.
This entire thread is about religion, not about fields of study, and hence only the first definition should apply here.
You just dug into an indefensible position. You want to stand by the statement: "The problem with Theology as a field of study is that Islam [insert criticism]"
That's as stupid as saying, "The problem with physics as a field of study is that Newton's model of gravity is incomplete."
The criticism of the specific item (Islam, Newtonian gravity model) within the set does not generalize to the overall set (theology, physics). The word cannot be used the way you used it. It makes nonsense. Whatever you find wrong with Islam is not an indictment on the field of study of god.
On my second point, Religious Theology has to come after Religious belief.
No it does not. If someone decides to pray as the practice of a particular religion, they have adopted a belief of what god is (some higher being able to answer prayer), and how man relates to said god. (prayer, etc) That is a theology.
The person may not put it into words so neatly, but the theology (system,form) plainly exists before a theologian comes along to put it in a neatly categorized bin.
I know all about religious practices, and I know all about what they represent, the problem is when you start with a flawed assumption, why should anyone take you seriously?
Don't care what you think. You were unable to properly distinguish between religion, theology, and theologies, and not only are you not bothered by this fundamental error, you're trying to stand by nonsense.
I can't say I'm surprised by the outcome ... but it's still disappointing.
Now the common parts are demonstrably non-existent. Large number of people think Mohammed was greatest of all prophets, and belief otherwise is seriously wrong. Another large number of people believes that Jesus was the last of the prophets - he will come back but no one else except people peddling false gods. While simultaneously believing that belief otherwise is seriously wrong. History centric religions are mostly contradict each other.
You say that people who believe in god do so because they believe a particular historical person is a prophet, that is, a messenger of god. You have just listed a reason why people believe in god.
This contradicts the other poster who claimed that there is no reason to believe in god. That you disagree with those religions' reasons is an entirely different thing than the reasons not existing.
"They have no reason to believe; they are irrational" is a different argument than "the reasons they use to believe in god are wrong". Confusing the two arguments and using them interchangeably is sloppy thinking and unbefitting a rational position.
So no conclusion can be drawn from these large groups of people.
You confirmed my conclusion. Independent groups of people believing in god is evidence that people believe in god for a reason.