By observation. By showing what is observable.
I wouldn't complain if priests are actually going out to the river and verifying it's safety.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theology/Theologies. Are they all harmful by default?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
By observation. By showing what is observable.
I wouldn't complain if priests are actually going out to the river and verifying it's safety.
firedragon
Veteran Member
You are absolutely wrong. Logic does not negate reality. You are mistaking reductionism to logic. I really dont know what kind of world we are living in.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So you think reality is whats observable. There is no point going in that direction.
Dont you see that this is just preaching? Just like a sermon?
No matter how many times one asks for evidence you are not providing anything. Just preaching. But you expect others to do so.
Can you show me "observable evidence" to what ever you are preaching? Consider it.
No, I think what is observable is reliable information. Especially after repeated observations.
Ok, take a round ball and set it down on a smooth 20 degree downward slope. Observe what happens.
We call this force gravity. Repeat this experiment as often as you wish.
Let me know when this observation becomes unreliable.
Last edited:
Maybe you should ask one that makes that claim. This is yet another atheophobic straw man from an atheophobic theist.
I'm about as atheistic and anti-theistic as I can be, but I don't make that claim ("theology-theologies-are-they-all-harmful-by-default").
Of course, who knows what you mean by theology. Whatever you mean, most atheists make no such claim. I don't know the theologies of most religions, and I see little or no harm coming from most of them, and thus have no opinion about them. It's mostly the organized, politicized Abrahamics that do the harm, with the Jews and Bahai's far behind the other two because they are much smaller religions.
What is Druid theology? What does the Celtic goddess Brigid think about abortion or same sex marriage? Don't know, don't care, and wish I could say the same for the Abrahamic gods. But I can say that I have no anti-theistic opinion about their religion. Why would I?
To be clear, what I mean by theology is the irrational and unsupported beliefs of theists completely divorced from empiricism. So, for Christianity, that would include things like whether one believes that Jesus was God or not, what day of the week to go to church on, whether a biblical day is 24 hours or not, whether to worship saints, whether to baptize by sprinkling or immersion, and the like. What I exclude is actual academic pursuits such as comparative religions, the Bible as literature, the sociological implications of Christianity and its impact on history, and the like.
But not the individual dogma. That's what I mean by theology in this context. It's ideas like homosexuals are an abomination, atheists are rebellious enemies of God, faith is a virtue, submit or go to hell, and the like, that are so destructive in the cultures where these theologies have hegemony. They damage lives. They damage communities.
I'm presently studying the TV show Seinfeld. I discovered a Facebook site full of people who have become experts on this show and like to discuss it. I've been a fan of the show for years now, and have seen every episode more than once, but I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about the show as some of these people. Only this year did I begin studying it, as in being able to name all of the movies named in the series, or all of the roles that have had two actors - things you don't realize just by watching.
Why? It's just as meaningless as theology, and just as nonacademic. But it serves me two ways. First, it is an excellent exercise in memorization, which I consider mental gymnastics. We memorize not for the information, just as we jog not to get anywhere or life weights to relocate anything, but because we are better at thinking (or more strong or fit) for the effort. Also, I laugh a lot and get a great deal of satisfaction out of finding something apt in one of the transcripts and bringing it to a group that I know will appreciate it. If I ever studied theology, it would have tobe for one of those reasons, as it is also arbitrary and nonacademic.
LOL. Do you know any atheists? Do you look at what they actually tell you, or are you only listening to other theists? We don't like authority? Who taught you that? Maybe what you are referring to is that we're uninterested in submitting to these theologies. There are no religious authorities.
Nor do we argue for anarchy. Where do you get these things? From a mosque? Is that what they teach you there? I saw Afghanistan. That was anarchy followed by authoritarianism. Maybe that's what you mean by authority.
But I can't argue with your last comment. That part is correct. These centuries old received moralities are brittle and insufficient. No book can keep up with reason applied to empathy. The more religious people are, the more primitive, brutal, and out of touch their moral codes are. You should see all of the hate speech about unbelievers in the Christian Bible. Their heads would spin off like they needed an exorcism if they read the same words spoken about them. Not my source of moral guidance. My conscience is.
How do you think an atheist should feel about your theology? Helpful or harmful? Is Islam making the world a better place by teaching what you just posted? Is maligning atheists a holy thing to do?
Nope. Abrahamic theists are the source of any aggressive blowback.to their religion. You're reading these words because of what you said about atheists not because of my disbelief. But it's never the theist's doing. It's always due to unsavory atheist and their impure motives. Your libelous characterization of atheists has nothing to do with the reactions you receive, right? Bad atheist! Immoral atheist! Aggressive atheist! Too rebellious, hedonistic, and undisciplined to submit to religious authority. Not interested in your morality therefore not interested in morality.
Your position is refuted by noting that we also don't believe the Scientologists, but don't give them the time of day, much less the aggression you think unbelief leads to, since they only create problems for their own as far as I can see, so we have little interest in them.
I use a different kind of ignore that might be of interest to you. I've never put any RF poster on ignore, but there are many that I don't respond to once I recognize that they won't answer responsively. They write something, you rebut it, and they drop the ball, failing to say that they agree with the argument, or that they don't for the following reasons. You're lucky to even get an unsupported contradiction, which at least let's you know they saw the words even if they failed to address them beyond a wave of the hand.
Since conversation is impossible with that kind of poster, I don't really even try much any more. I just post ideas that I think others who can follow an argument will find interesting or useful as I am doing now. Can you detect the change in demeanor as I went from answering the theists to answering you? I expect you to be able to understand these words and consider them. If you respond to them, I expect that your answer will indicate whether you understood them and whether you agreed or not, and if not, why. This is based on your previous posting. You were actually in a conversation.
So feel free to simply disagree with the willfully obtuse and express your opinions of what you see from them without engaging them when they can't or won't do their part. I'm thinking of my wife and her childhood friend with whom they trade emails almost daily. Their emails are conversations. The paragraphs one writes are reflected in the responses from the other. And they actually make forward progress for this, completely unlike what we usually see here on RF, where only one side of each conversation is actually responding to the other's words.
I don't expect to get a single responsive reply to anything I wrote in this post before addressing you. Firedragon will either post "irrelevant" or "I wasn't talking to you" or "that's not what I mean by theology"- absolutely nothing that indicates that he understands that his central thesis has been challenged, and no effort to respond to what was written. So why write it? Apart from it being fun and helping me to practice writing, for those that do actually look at arguments and consider them - perhaps you.
But I'll never formally put any of these people on ignore. I just do it like I described.
And to the theists who do want to have a discussion rather than just preach and ignore, you know what you have to do. You have to read what is written to you and if disagree, give your reasons. If you can't or won't do that, there's nothing in it for your collocutor to continue addressing you rather than the gallery at large.
"Thou shalt not kill," unless for secular reasons. (I must have missed that part of the bible).
Was the war in Iraq "killing" or "murder?" The United States covert agencies (FBI and CIA, etc.) had access to intel that we didn't have. Chairman of the Join Chiefs, Colin Powell, outright lied to us (he knew better). He lied us into war. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was supposed to be the nation's top diplomat, and was supposed to peacefully resolve world conflicts. Instead, she said that we have to attack now before we lose our resolve. Tom Ridge (head of Homeland Security, and responsible for Orange Alerts) said, on the Paula Zahn talk show, that he didn't issue those Orange Alerts, but those came from higher up (W. Bush or Cheney). The Orange Alerts scared people into believing that North Korea had nukes and rockets capable of destroying California, which motivated the US to support wars using phony scare tactics. There was (and is) no evidence that Iraq was tied to terrorism.
W. Bush and Cheney asked Wilson to lie about Niger selling yellow-cake Uranium to Iraq, to start a war in Niger and take their resources. Wilson refused, so they outed his CIA wife, Valery Plame, resulting in the assassination of Plame's CIA fellow embedded agents.
Torture camps were hidden from Congress and the American people. An 8 year old and 13 year old were tortured, and interrogated for 7 years about the whereabouts of bin Laden , long after bin Laden was known to have moved. Prisoners were given yellow foul water tainted with bacteria to induce stomach cramps. Prisoners were water-boarded in ice-water until they got frostbite, gangrene, and amputations.
If there was a real reason for war, that would be killing. If there were only scare tactics and lies, that would be murder.
Nun uniforms are called habits. Force of habit keeps the flying nun in the air.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
How do they damage lives?
Other than the fictional TV show with Sally Fields, how many flying Nuns have you observed?
I don't make the claim.
However, the argument is available that my theology is bad for gods, indeed for the whole zoo of supernatural beings.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Reality says space womb plus cosmic blasting burning owned O God.
O planet earth. It's heavens
So science says it is not any thesis lying brothers. Just humans.
Pretty basic you are liars theists.
God he said. The O. Theo.
So O planet earth is one and first O circular Mass.
Mass.
Math.
O not man's circular O maths.
Man said planet earth.
Then he said I want science. Design by the cross.
I calculated first. Add.+ His cross.
God one O never owned any cross.
So O one planet by mass converted. All life destroyed. Man's math science.
Archaeology proved artefacts human fusion machine parts instant snap freeze. No ice.
O one planet one season became O one planet one hot humid season. No ice. Dinosaurs giant beasts. Cold blooded.
Then O one earth had another huge reaction conversion destruction snap freeze.
Most dinosaurs destroyed.. some frozen.
+ New cross inherited four seasons. Invented by men of science.
+ Holy Cross they said four followed the God saviour ice.
Four seasons. Earth instantly reactive was snap frozen.
Men in science now claim what does it matter if we get one God back. By unholy cross thesis?
Only one season!
Instant one God earth God as one mass theories to react convert. Said so by human men in science.
Planetary conversion. O one whole body.
Won't matter if ice melts he says.
No ice no snap freeze either.
Theist today I want my origin science machine thesis. From cosmic direct to earth heavens.
As if no science had yet been practiced. Back in time to man and his first machine.
It ended up held snap frozen inside earths one mass fusion.
Is his answer.
Theist claim. Once we lived in one season as dinosaurs evolution to a man. We should survive he says. As dinosaurs.
O planet earth. It's heavens
So science says it is not any thesis lying brothers. Just humans.
Pretty basic you are liars theists.
God he said. The O. Theo.
So O planet earth is one and first O circular Mass.
Mass.
Math.
O not man's circular O maths.
Man said planet earth.
Then he said I want science. Design by the cross.
I calculated first. Add.+ His cross.
God one O never owned any cross.
So O one planet by mass converted. All life destroyed. Man's math science.
Archaeology proved artefacts human fusion machine parts instant snap freeze. No ice.
O one planet one season became O one planet one hot humid season. No ice. Dinosaurs giant beasts. Cold blooded.
Then O one earth had another huge reaction conversion destruction snap freeze.
Most dinosaurs destroyed.. some frozen.
+ New cross inherited four seasons. Invented by men of science.
+ Holy Cross they said four followed the God saviour ice.
Four seasons. Earth instantly reactive was snap frozen.
Men in science now claim what does it matter if we get one God back. By unholy cross thesis?
Only one season!
Instant one God earth God as one mass theories to react convert. Said so by human men in science.
Planetary conversion. O one whole body.
Won't matter if ice melts he says.
No ice no snap freeze either.
Theist today I want my origin science machine thesis. From cosmic direct to earth heavens.
As if no science had yet been practiced. Back in time to man and his first machine.
It ended up held snap frozen inside earths one mass fusion.
Is his answer.
Theist claim. Once we lived in one season as dinosaurs evolution to a man. We should survive he says. As dinosaurs.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Natural history says the lizard man's UFO alienation theory that once possessed his thoughts.... before.
Re emerged again in his psyche as humans holy life cell and holy red blood is changing.
A belief that a cold blooded dinosaur was your blood cell heritage.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nice. Thanks.
firedragon
Veteran Member
firedragon
Veteran Member
If you read the OP, it is only about those who make that claim. You have taken it upon yourself ready call fallacy.
Cheers.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats a completely different thing. You were talking about reality, now it has become reliable information, and you are referring to scientific experimentation.
AlexanderG
Active Member
Logic and reason can tell you that your baby exists. They can tell you what actions will achieve the goals that you value, such as feeding your baby if you love it and want it to live. But they can never tell you what goals you should value, or whether you should feel the moral intuitions that you feel, or why a bachelor is defined as an unmarried man. So no, of course logic is not the "only criteria."
I think you're confusing me for a logical positivist. Reason, logic, and particularly evidence can indicate whether or not a god or anything else exists in the real world, but these would have no bearing on how we should feel about something that exists. Values, faith, hopes, desires, are all based on subjective preferences. These things can motivate us, but I agree with you that we don't "prove" them. I can't prove to you that I like chocolate ice cream, by logic or any other method, but since I am describing the content of my own thoughts, I am the sole and ultimate authority for such things and you either have to take my word for it or not.
Note also that the content of my thoughts does not affect the external world; my imagining, preferring, or hoping that something is real does not make it so in reality. This is all getting to the analytic/synthetic distinction in philosophy, which is what you're maybe confused about.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"Evil" is about harm and injustice to sentient beings.
Not about what some perceived authority declares without any underlying moral reasoning.
Evil also isn't white and black. There's a lot of gray and gradation.
A white lie to spare someone's feelings is not on par with murdering somebody.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
97% of statistics on interweb forums are invented on the spot.