WHY NOT SOME THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION

[Thats my opinion]

I joined D/U in hopes of finding a group interested in thoughtful discussion on a number of topics. I file in two or three places a week and
profit from the stimulation. Since one of my hats is that of a theologian, I assumed that this forum would be a fruitful place for intelligent conversation. Before I filed the first time I was warned not to because this was said to be the nastiest forum in the whole gamuts of topics, peopled basically by those who want to take cheep shots at religion, not by those interested in thoughtful conversation. Thus far those warnings have proved accurate. I find many who file here have developed the knack of searching for the worst fundamentalist religion has to offer and saying, "see, that's what religion is all about." Somebody says that tornadoes are God's punishment for something we have done, or Muslims ought to be killed, or some other stupid thing. --as if these sorts of irrational babble was what religion was all about. These straw men are easy targets, but taking on easy targets is hardly rational discourse. Let's discuss what those think who hold distinguished chairs in the best universities and seminaries. Let's look at philosophy, interfaith figures such as the Dali Lama, M. L. King, John Cobb, John Crossin, Bishop John Spong, on and on and on. I can find more stupid things than any of you can quote, because I probably know more about that sort of thing. But that is like assuming that the core of science is represented by somebody who claims to make gold out of lead, or claims evolution is a giant fraud. But those conversations would be as inane as laughing at stupid irrational religious rubbish.
that's my opinion

[MineralMan]

1. Why not start a discussion, then? That would seem to me to

be the best way to have one. I don't see any points to discuss in this particular post of yours.

There have been many excellent discussions in this forum. You must realize, though, that the people who post here represent a very wide range of opinions, and also includes people who are very well versed in the subject, so your discussion must begin by making sense. If it does, you'll get a good discussion. If it does not, you'll find out promptly.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. There are a ton of people here..

...for whom it is as if Voltaire had never lived and died, and certainly not over two centuries ago.

For them, blanket condemnation of religion is still edgy, transgressive, and a source of cred. Reflexive, vernacular Marxism may also play into this.

But it's a DU weak spot, to be sure.

And it doesn't have to be that way -- a large part of my politics came from my Jesuit education, where I read Michael Harrington, and met a Berrigan, and hero-worshipped Dom Hélder Câmara...

[xchrom]

4. +1

[Ninjaneer]

6. Intelligence and critical thinking will always be edgy and cool. n/t.

[struggle4progress]

14. I wouldn't sneer at Marxian readings of the Bible. Some of Vitezslav Gardasky's old

work seems quite insightful to me, as does some of Ernst Bloch's. I've profitably reread Miranda's Marx and the Bible several times

The orthodox fundamentalism of the Leninists and Stalinists has little to do with the analytic insights that a Marxian approach can provide

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. That's why I said "vernacular"...

....the third-hand, lowest-common-denominator Marxist analysis. Folks who only know the famous quotation from the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, and nothing else.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Hey, welcome. Don't give up yet. There are people of virtually every stripe here.

I've posted a number of Jim Wallis' comments here myself. I'm sort of a pagan Buddhist myself, but I'm fascinated by exploring all the various paths through the spiritual jungle.

[Thats my opinion]

112. exploring

Good, that's the name of the game in any field--theology or science. Name calling isn't/

[Ninjaneer]

5. Its hard to have a "thoughtful" and genuine discussion

on the topic of religion when people keep redefining religion and god every time they get debated into a corner. You are doing it right now with "as if thats what religion was all about".

Those who think that tornadoes are god's punishment are very much right within the context of religious texts. I take it you are familiar with the old testament or even the quran. Wiping people out and taking revenge is god's signature move. But of course, thats not "your" Christianity, or "your" Islam. You, in all your glory and wiseness, practice a different kind of Christianity (or whatever religion you are) and of course, yours is the right one.

Why not thoughtful discussions? because religion and thought are antithetical to each other.

edit: spelling

[Thats my opinion]

113. thoughtful"

I'm talking about what goes on in every reputable seminary and university. There is ignorant science. There is ignorant religion. I would not accuse those in either field of assuming their worst represents the whole. Intellectual discipline is what the human mind is all about.

[Ninjaneer]

121. All of religion is "ignorant".

You label a portion of science "ignorant" (wrongfully, but lets move on) because you have successful science to give you a basis for comparison. There has never been any such thing as successful religion.

Nice try.

[humblebum]

122. "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Einstein nt

[Ninjaneer]

123. You really want to play that game?

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

--Albert Einstein, dated 24 March 1954.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
--Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

You have heard of the appeal to authority fallacy, yes?

Fail on your part.

[humblebum]

126. Sure, it's fun.

I'm absolutely not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things. - Einstein, 1930

[darkstar3]

127. Oh how the quotes paint a picture.

From God, to "Spinoza's God", to no gods at all as he gained more insight into the universe. Like so many others, Einstein lost his faith as he gained wisdom.

[humblebum]

132. It's pretty obvious that he was agnostic, not an atheist (assuming of course

that you differentiate between agnostic and atheist)"I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." From an interview with William Hermanns in the summer of 1954

"I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details. E. Salaman, "A Talk with Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955): 370-371

[darkstar3]

135. I don't.

It helps if you understand the difference between knowledge and belief, but of course that would do away with your claim to "other ways of knowing".

[Ninjaneer]

128. What Einstein believed has no bearing on this debate.

How about attempting to answer (in your own words) any of the dozens of valid points brought up against you throughout this thread?

Of course you'll ignore this post.

[humblebum]

133. Well since the title is "WHY NOT SOME THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION"

kinda leaves the field wide open. As far as "valid points", to what are you referring?

[Ninjaneer]

134. To what am I referring? you have got to be kidding me. eom

[cleanhippie]

124. Yeah? And?

Please, enlighten us all with your wisdom of what you think he meant by that.

[Ninjaneer]

125. LOL I just noticed something,

if you follow any of the sub threads in this thread to their respective conclusions, you'll find HB getting check mated and then disappearing. :rofl:

[cleanhippie]

129. Yeah, its pretty par for the course.

[MatthewStLouis]

7. 1. Don't be so judgemental about all of us. 2. Grow a thicker skin. 3. Please share...

...your enlightened conversation/posts. Many people here are tired of the way conservatives like to use religion as a tool for their own nefarious purposes. You can't blame people here for their knee-jerk reactions. Many of us feel that Christians should be enemies of the money changers and the party of greed (the GOP), friends of peace, and caretakers of God's earth...

[Thats my opinion]

114. of course

That is what many of us are all about

[trotsky]

8. The problem I've seen is that most people decrying the lack of "THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION"...

actually just want to hear choruses of "Amen, brother!" instead of any opinions to the contrary. Your behavior in other threads in your brief history here would seem to confirm that observation.

I see you are a donor. Great. Were you aware there are several protected Groups for the discussion of religion, where opposing opinions are not allowed? Perhaps you would feel more comfortable there, where you will not be exposed to people who think differently than you do.

Take your pick:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=428

[darkstar3]

9. When you post something actually meant for discussion in this forum, rather

than spam for your site, your blog, or your book, let me know.

[Sadena Meti]

10. What's wrong with taking shots at religion? Why should religion be spared?

[Thats my opinion]

115. taking shots

Yes! Of course religion cannot and should not be immune from taking shots.. bring em on.

[edhopper]

11. You are wrong

We non believers are always asking what believers actually believe. I just had a very long thread about the existence or non-existence of Moses.
We don't just ask for the most fundamentalist beliefs, but ask what evidence there is for any beliefs.
In fact, if you haven't yet, I would recommend you read Dawkins' The God Delusion, where he address this very topic.
We want to know what is the basis of your belief. But be warned, we will then explain our reasons for dismissing those beliefs. if you just want a sounding board, this is not the place.

[humblebum]

22. There is certainly nothing to be feared from atheists around here.

Most of the atheist arguments, including Dawkins', are argued from the positivist's POV, which is narrow in focus and designed to ignore anything that is religious in orientation.

[edhopper]

23. Oh yeah

I forgot about those "other ways of knowing".
:sarcasm:

[darkstar3]

24. Funny thing about those other ways:

No one can tell me, or anyone who asks for that matter, what those "other ways of knowing" have yielded in the way of verifiable knowledge. No one can explain in any satisfactory way why these "other ways of knowing" are supposed to be equal or superior to scientific investigation. The question always receives an ad hom response.

Edit: Spelling

[humblebum]

26. Without those "other ways" you would not even have the Scientific Method.

And to say that your epistemology is the only one with any credibility is nothing but purposeful ignorance.

[darkstar3]

27. ^Case in point.

No answers, just ad hom.

[humblebum]

28. Then I am assuming that you agree with me since you did not elaborate. nt

[skepticscott]

67. And does that Scientific Method

operate only empirically? Yes or no?

[humblebum]

70. To be very specific - NO. It operates utilizing Logical Empiricism.

[skepticscott]

71. Well, if it doesn't operate

only by empiricism (by your claim), then it is not bound by the limitations of empiricism, (as you have also claimed).

You never get tired of chasing your tail, do you?

[humblebum]

78. A man of your stature should already know the difference between

Logical Empiricism and empiricism. The SM does operate within the limitations of empiricism (observation of evidence or pertinent data, using the senses), but it also has a rational component enabling it be inductive as well as deductive. I think you've pretty much gnawed your tail down to a stump by now.

[skepticscott]

80. I wouldn't expect a man of your intellectual stature

to know that the SM is fundamentally inductive, not deductive. Or that any deductive aspect cannot exist absent a "rational component". Or that if the SM operates within the limits of empiricism that those all-glorious other "ways of knowing" can't use it to take credit for transcending those limits (as you keep trying to help them do). But keep trying...you get funnier all the time.

[humblebum]

82. It's a good thing that you finally admit that there is a deductive component

involved. At one time you denied it. The rest of what you're trying to explain here is beyond me. Mindless babble, I think.

[skepticscott]

84. I'm not surprised that the notion

that the scientific method is basically inductive is beyond your comprehension. But at least you confess to it honestly (for a change). And you really should avoid the phrase "I think"..it doesn't become you.

And it also escaped you that I never acknowledged that the SM has a deductive aspect...only that if it did, that aspect could not exist absent rationality. You really don't grasp a thing, do you?

[humblebum]

85. I grasp that you are learning something, finally. nt

[laconicsax]

87. LOL!

skepticscott: "You really don't grasp a thing, do you?"
humblebum: "I grasp that you are learning something, finally"

:rofl:

[humblebum]

25. That's why there is nothing to be feared.

Until an atheist can prove to me that absolutely no life exists after death or proves to me that there is no diety, I will discount radical atheist rants as non sequitur.

[darkstar3]

29. Ah, the old "prove me wrong" canard.

So prove to me that you don't molest children.

[humblebum]

32. That "old 'prove me wrong' canard" is a common atheist rant that

you should be quite familiar with.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

88. A common atheist rant?

WTF are you even talking about? Do you not get that throwing out a statment followed with "prove me wrong" is a violation of logic?

How about if I accuse you of beating your wife, and then tell you that all you have to do to clear your name is prove me wrong?

[Goblinmonger]

30. Not my burden, but you know that.

You make the claim, you have the burden. I don't believe in any gods. Why do I have to prove anything?

[humblebum]

31. It is most definitely your burden when you are labeling someone as a liar

and you have no proven grounds for that charge.

[Goblinmonger]

34. Way to twist that into a positive position.

You say there is a god.
I tell you to prove it.
It is now my burden to prove there isn't because I am calling you a "liar"
Well, now it's your burden because YOU'RE calling me a liar for calling you a liar.

I have to sit down--I'm dizzy from that "logic."

[humblebum]

36. The point of contention isn't that there is or isn't a god, but that

you would be claiming that I am lying. To charge someone, you need to be able to provide proof. As a Christian, I do not claim objective proof of God. It is a matter of faith for most based on subjective enquiry. As a matter of fact, an atheist cannot get anywhere nearer to proving the nonexistence of deity either, no matter how much they try to say otherwise. And that is the reason you cannot call someone a liar for their belief.

[Ninjaneer]

35. Actually, the fact that

you refuse to produce proof for your own statement, that is grounds enough to declare the statement false. The logical conclusion is that the source of the statement is at best misinformed, and at worst a liar.

[humblebum]

37. But we do not claim objective proof. It really is a matter of faith.

If you bring charges of fraud against someone you are required to prove same, otherwise you are guilty of making a false charge. It is not the believers fault that atheists usually follow the line of reasoning that "If you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch/feel something, then it does not, or cannot, or probably doesn't exist."

[darkstar3]

40. You should have stopped before your last sentence.

There's your lie, right there. You are blatantly, repeatedly, and purposely mischaracterizing atheism. It's that lie, that straw man, that gets you repeatedly called out.

[humblebum]

48. If it's this phrase that bothers you:

"If you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch/feel something, then it does not, or cannot, or probably doesn't exist." - which is empiricism; then if you tell me that you do not use empiricism I most certainly am wrong. But empiricism refers to gathering data via the senses, which implies observation. In other words, "If you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch/feel something, then it does not, or cannot, or probably doesn't exist." is a very apt definition.

"Empiricism then, in the philosophy of science, emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."

[darkstar3]

54. Empiricism =/= atheism

You need to work on your boundaries.

[humblebum]

57. Where did I say empiricism = atheism?

[darkstar3]

58. #37, which is just a repetition of the same straw man you've been called on time and again.

You're caught. Run in circles 'till you get tired, I don't care.

[humblebum]

64. Nowhere in there did I say that empiricism = atheism. Now who is lying?

Believers use empiricism also as a component, but certainly not as objective proof.

[cleanhippie]

76. YOU ARE! You gave the definition of empiricism and stated that atheists all follow it.

Not wiggling out of this one, no fucking way.

[laconicsax]

77. C'mon, cleanhippie. You know that where we see contradiction, it sees confirmation.

:crazy:

[cleanhippie]

91. Of course. What WAS I thinking?

:eyes:

[humblebum]

79. Be so kind as to show me where I said ALL atheists used it.

However, I did say that "Most of the atheist arguments, including Dawkins', are argued from the positivist's POV." You're kinda stretching the truth again like when you told me you weren't going to respond to me anymore.

[darkstar3]

81. You're broad brushing with a shitload of generalisms that you can't back,

and you know it, too, which is why you keep spinning so hard. The fact that you didn't use the word "all" doesn't excuse your generalizing, STFU & GTFO.

[humblebum]

83. "Most" does not equal "all", did you know that?

And no amount of spin on your part is going to change that fact. BTW,you are the KING of the ad homs.

[cleanhippie]

92. Ohhhh, the "I know you are, but what am I?" Defense. Well played, sir, well played.

Well played if we were in third grade.

:nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl: :nuke: :rofl:

[cleanhippie]

41. Ok, great, its a matter of faith. There ends the debate, so stop making claims.

[humblebum]

52. And what claims would you be referring to?nt

[cleanhippie]

56. Every one you have made. You take it on faith, not proof. Fine. We understand your position.

[Ninjaneer]

43. Wrong definition of atheism aside,

I can agree with the rest. As long as you understand (and it sounds like you do) that religion/god will lose to logic every time.

[humblebum]

45. I wasn't defining atheism, I was defining logical empiricism and

about "As long as you understand (and it sounds like you do) that religion/god will lose to logic every time." - that will ONLY hold true if you restrict your logic to empiricism or more precisely Logical Empiricism. Using other epistemologies, a strong argument can be made for a creator.

[darkstar3]

46. Now you're back to #24.

Closing the circle so soon?

[humblebum]

49. No, you are back at #24. You have never been able to admit that

other epistemologies do indeed exist and are used extensively. You narrowly focused method will ALWAYS to advance no farther than its limitations.

[darkstar3]

53. Because you can't answer the questions mentioned in #24, and offer only ad hom in resopnse.

[trotsky]

47. Yes we've established that, h-bum.

As long as everyone agrees you get to make stuff up and not have to provide any evidence for it whatsoever, a very strong case can be made for a creator.

[Ninjaneer]

59. Let me get this straight

Post #37 "we do not claim objective proof."

Post #45 "(your statement) will ONLY hold true if you restrict your logic to empiricism or more precisely Logical Empiricism. Using other epistemologies, a strong argument can be made for a creator."

You admit you have no objective proof in #37, but in #45 you state that "other epistemologies" prove a god. If these "other epistemologies" are not grounded in objective reasoning, why should anyone care? pretty disingenuous to imply the atheistic world view is myopic when according to your own words you're just making shit up as you go along.

[laconicsax]

61. +1

[humblebum]

65. First of all, I never anywhere said that other epistemologies PROVE

the existence of God or diety or at least not "objective" proof. I said a "strong argument". And saying that I'm making things up only points to your ignorance in that I haven't said a thing that is not covered in basic philosophy courses.

[Ninjaneer]

66. Okay, other epistemologies allow you to make a "strong argument" then.

Since you have no objective proof, what is your basis for judging the strength of said argument? and my original question stands, If these "other epistemologies" are not grounded in objective reasoning, why should anyone care?

[humblebum]

68. "why should anyone care?" Well,

I'm sure that could be answered differently by different people. But as for myself, I have around long enough and experienced and seen enough that I believe that we will be held with at least some measure of responsibility for how we live our lives now. Why should you care? That's a choice you will need to make for yourself.

[Ninjaneer]

72. So, to sum up:

You used "strong" completely arbitrarily. In fact, you used the word "argument" completely arbitrarily. You have no proof about anything that is grounded in any sort of valid reasoning ("I thinkZ iZ lyk DIS!!!11" is not reasoning, of ANY kind). Every time you said the atheistic world view was limited because it relies on empirical evidence, you actually meant you dislike that the atheistic world view requires brain activity. It is very telling that you cite judgement day for your reason for caring. Anyway, I know you will ignore most of this post. Most likely you will pick one line to respond to, some triviality to comment on. Already know it, I've given up expecting anything of substance from you.

I must confess though, I stand in awe of your bullshitting skills sir. I thought I had met some masters of the art throughout my college career, but you sir, you belong on top of a Tibetan mountain.

[cleanhippie]

75. DAY-um, ninja! Not only did you nail it perfectly, you summed up the entire

method of, ahem, "reasoning" he uses all the time.


Well done and welcome aboard.

[Ninjaneer]

89. Thanks cleanhippie,

glad to be here. Couldn't let you morally bankrupt heathens hog all the fun :fistbump:

[cleanhippie]

39. That is quite possibly one of your MOST dishonest posts yet.

God would be proud, I'm sure.

[humblebum]

50. So you are saying that if you accuse someone of lying or fraud

or murder or being a child molester, then the burden of proof is on the one being accused? I think not.

[cleanhippie]

55. No, I am saying that that was one of your most dishonest posts ever.

Why do you insist on trying to put words in my mouth?

[edhopper]

44. Here is the proof

If God existed there would be some evidence of his existence. Since there is no evidence of his existence, and much evidence to the contrary, we must assume he does not exist until any viable opposing evidence is presented. QED

[humblebum]

51. There again your so called "proof" is based on your narrow

epistemology, which equates to "If I cannot see,hear, smell, taste, or touch/feel evidence of diety, then it does not exist." You just PROVED my point that your reasoning has limitations.

[Ninjaneer]

60. Your "reasoning" may not have the limitations the atheists' does,

but it doesn't have much reason in it either. See #59.

[edhopper]

63. And you can't even define your proof

let alone define God, other than saying you "know in other ways".

[humblebum]

69. Where did I ever claim to prove anything, at least objectively?nt

[Ninjaneer]

73. Translation:

"Where did I claim to say anything of any substance or worth anyone's time or attention?"

Drat, you did not sir. I made a fool of myself by assuming people only speak when they want to communicate something.

You win this round.

[edhopper]

74. You claim

to "know" that God exists, and demand we prove he doesn't.
Always disregarding that those who make the claim have the burden of proof.
But you keep telling us God exists without offering any evidence.

[humblebum]

86. " demand we prove he doesn't." - where did I demand that?

I demanded proof for being accused of lying.

[Ninjaneer]

90. You did so in post #25:

"Until an atheist can prove to me that absolutely no life exists after death or proves to me that there is no diety (sic), I will discount radical atheist rants as non sequitur."

Man, don't you hate debates on the interwebs? so much easier to BS in real life where every word isn't being recorded.

Edit:
I'm turning this into a drinking game. Every time you ignore a point made, I'm doing a shot. Now if everyone hops aboard this game, the tide of this debate should turn in your favor within your next few posts :D

[laconicsax]

93. Don't do it. You'll die of alcohol poisoning. n/t

[humblebum]

95. I demanded nothing from post #25. I merely pointed out that

the atheist case against the existence of deity is no stronger than the case for a deity. Simple as that. I will repeat my claim that "atheists usually follow the line of reasoning that "If you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch/feel something, then it does not, or cannot, or probably doesn't exist."

Notice that it does not say "ALL atheists", nor does it say "all the time."

[darkstar3]

96. The all is implied when you refer explicitly to the group, and "usually" is a weasel word.

Your generalizaion is worthless.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

98. Repetition and rule-breaking will get you nowhere. Your generalization is still worthless.

[humblebum]

99. Get me nowhere? Why not? They work for you all the time. nt

[cleanhippie]

102. Nice, more of the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense.

So childish.

[humblebum]

104. Gee, maybe if i would flood the page with a bunch of those little

militant atheist guys laying on their backs laughing, it would help my image.

[laconicsax]

105. Paranoia much?

If you're seeing "militant atheists" in animated emoticons, you might consider seeking professional help.

LOOK OUT! Here comes an entire company of militant atheists on their way to mock religion!
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

OH NO! They called in for reinforcements! Here comes a battalion of reserve atheists!
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[humblebum]

106. Cute little fellers, aren't they? nt

[cleanhippie]

107. I doubt it. After this thread, your image is permanently tarnished.

Militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...Militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...Militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...Militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...Militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...Militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...Militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...militant atheist...skip...

[laconicsax]

108. You cannot tarnish a rusty blade. n/t

[cleanhippie]

110. Come on! Blade is too kind of a descriptor.

rusty or not. More like a decomposing club, if you ask me.

[humblebum]

101. The truth is sometimes hard to handle. I generalized nothing, but was

actually being quite specific. Atheists, such as certain schools of buddhism, have a much broader perspective of existence.

[Ninjaneer]

109. Just out of curiosity,

what is your game? the only thing you bring to the table is "I can't tell you why you atheists are wrong, but you just are". Surely you must know that anyone with an ounce of sense, religious or not, is not going to buy what you're selling. So...what are you trying to accomplish? I hope you'll answer honestly.

[darkstar3]

111. Getting off on disruption.

[Starboard Tack]

136. "If God existed there would be some evidence of his existence"

Who or what are you referring to when you use the word "God"?

[rrneck]

137. Prove a negative...? nt

[Thats my opinion]

117. Dawkins,

Right, Dawkins just represents another type of fundamentalist

[Thats my opinion]

116. discussion stopper

"You are wrong" is a perfect one

[skepticscott]

138. When unaccompanied by reasons why, perhaps.

But that's not the case here, now is it? Some things simply ARE wrong, and if someone advances a notion that is demonstrably so, then the discussion SHOULD stop.

[Deep13]

12. All right, lets take them one at a time.

"Since one of my hats is that of a theologian, I assumed that this forum would be a fruitful place for intelligent conversation. Before I filed the first time I was warned not to because this was said to be the nastiest forum in the whole gamuts of topics,..."

Not true. That's the gun forum.

"...peopled basically by those who want to take cheep shots at religion, not by those interested in thoughtful conversation."

I can't speak for everyone, but asking for certain threshold matters to be established before speculating on the details of theology is not a cheap shot. You have no right to insist that anyone else accept your basic premise without evidence.

"I find many who file here have developed the knack of searching for the worst fundamentalist religion has to offer and saying, "see, that's what religion is all about." Somebody says that tornadoes are God's punishment for something we have done, or Muslims ought to be killed, or some other stupid thing. --as if these sorts of irrational babble was what religion was all about."

For many people, those things ARE what religion is all about.

"These straw men are easy targets, but taking on easy targets is hardly rational discourse."

The views of fundamentalists are at least as cannonical as those of liberal believers and usually more so since they ignore much less of their foundational documents than liberals do. What is more is that fundamentalists understand that their assertions are questions of fact. Simply put, either Jesus is divine or else he is not. Either the Koran is the final, revealed word of God, or it is not. At best, only one religion's pronouncements can be right.

"Let's discuss what those think who hold distinguished chairs in the best universities and seminaries."

Why do they know any better? It's all guessing. Theology alone among scholarly pursuits is not required to produce an iota of independent evidence for its conclusions. An expert in literature must rely on what the authors actually wrote. A historian must rely on the written record of those involved in events. Scientists must rely on experimental evidence. Theology alone is allowed to rely on fairy tales.

"Let's look at philosophy,..."

Let's. Philosophy involves critical examination and has enriched human thought. Theology on the other hand involves fancy ways of saying "god did it" and stifles human thought.

"interfaith figures such as the Dali Lama, M. L. King, John Cobb, John Crossin, Bishop John Spong, on and on and on."

Spong reduces the concept of god to such a degree as to define him out of existence. The Dali Lama pedals his trite greeting card philosophy to Hollywood dupes while scheming to return to absolute fuedal power over the powerless peasants of Tibet. I am much more familiar with MLK's actions than with his theology and it is his actions that count.

In any event, pointing out the virtues of a select group of believers has no bearing on the veracity of their beliefs. They can be the best people to ever have lived and still be 100% dead wrong about god.

"I can find more stupid things than any of you can quote, because I probably know more about that sort of thing."

On this, we agree. Religious belief in the veracity of this or that dogma is supposed to be the world's panecea. Yet not only has it failed to solve anything, belief is itself an engine of misery.

"But that is like assuming that the core of science is represented by somebody who claims to make gold out of lead, or claims evolution is a giant fraud."

Actually, there is a critical difference. Science has actual achievements it can point to to demonstrate the soundness of its methods. We know evolution is real because of the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered by science. No analogous proof exists for theology. It remains just guesswork.

[skepticscott]

13. You start

Since you're a theologian, enlighten us as to what knowledge the human race has gained solely through theological inquiry. What do we understand better now than we did 100 years ago because of the work of theologians? Convince us that theology advances in knowledge and understanding, as all legitimate fields of inquiry do.

Or are you just going to run away like a puppy that's had his nose whacked because you haven't been treated politely and deferentially enough?

[Thats my opinion]

118. Solely?

None, It is only one way to look at reality. It is to be included in the whole of intellectual and action-oriented approaches to life. Talking with all these disciplines: history, science, philosophy, "the wise," the non-religious on and on and on, is what I call "the great conversation."
To pick any one of them as "solely" the path to knowledge is the mark of any fundamentalist.

[skepticscott]

130. One could name thousands of things

that we know and understand better solely because of scientific inquiry, without any help from theology. Far more than you're worth the time for, in fact. And you can't name ONE thing on theology's side of the ledger, after 2000 years of trying? Sheesh. And you wonder why it's so easy to dismiss as useless.

[dimbear]

15. Why would we attack the worst of them?

We are like physicians who go among the sick, or teachers of the law who go among the publicans. We go where we are needed most. We hear them crying out.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

17. First, you have to define those terms

I'd like your definitions of "thoughtful" and "discussion".

My guess is that to you "thoughtful" means "without questioning my religion" and "discussion" means "an echo chamber of your beliefs". I could be wrong, though.

[Thats my opinion]

119. yes, you are really wrong

Thoughtful means open to truth wherever you find it--or it finds you.
Discussion involve hearing one another. I always come out of a thoughtful discussion other than where I went in. And that includes DU.in.

[skepticscott]

139. So you're backpedaling

on your post 116?

And you seem to have trouble distinguishing "thoughtful" from "open minded". As far as "discussion", if all that goes on in the discussions you value is listening, they must get pretty dull. A worthwhile discussion involves an exchange of different viewpoints and arguments, back and forth, to refine them and, hopefully, to get closer to the truth. But you have proven unwilling to engage in such a thing, despite your claims. As soon as you hit a rough patch, you take your ball and go home (or in your case, start a new thread).

Would you really have us believe that you've avoided serious engagement and responding to criticisms of your posts because your claims haven't been treated politely enough? Is that how you argued your positions when you were such a fighter in the civil rights movement? Did you only try to make your case back then to people who largely agreed with you and who treated your position with unfailing courtesy? Or did you roll up your sleeves and not run away from a vigorous debate against people who violently disagreed with you?

[PassingFair]

18. There are groups here if you want an echo chamber.

R/T is a "topic forum".

And reading Bishop Spong helped lead me
to atheism when I was 12....

[Angry Dragon]

19. Some good responses here to your post

If you were to answer them you might just receive that which you desire..........

[skepticscott]

20. You're assuming that the OP

is something more than the smug puffery that he claims to decry in others. If he actually engages honestly on any of the points raised here, I'll be very much surprised.

[Angry Dragon]

21. Just offering them the chance to participate

their response or non-response will be the telling.........

[Thats my opinion]

120. take a look

It is probably easier for you to be judgmental. But you might take a look at some of my respones in this web of things. hope you are surprised

[skepticscott]

131. I have

and so far I find them shallow and inadequate, hardly reflecting what you claim to be a lifetime of deep and careful thought.

[cleanhippie]

38. WHY MAKE A SINGLE POST IN ALL CAPS THEN NOT RETURN TO REPLY?

Trollish flamebait.

[trotsky]

42. Drop a turd and run.

This is what theologians do.

[Ninjaneer]

62. he's probly busy doin that bhook lurnin'

that makes him a (self proclaimed) authority on the subject of theology.

[Iggo]

94. WHY DON'T YOU YELL SOME MORE!!!!

[edhopper]

100. almost 100 replies

and the OP doesn't seem to want to take part in any discussion, thoughtful or otherwise.
Just an observation.

[laconicsax]

103. Maybe it isn't loud enough.

MAYBE IF WE ALL REPLY LIKE THIS, THE OP WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR THE RESPONSES!!!

[skepticscott]

140. Still waiting on your promises

to respond. Did you mean them, or not?

[Ninjaneer]

141. Pretty sure he's gone for good. eom

[skepticscott]

142. He keeps popping up

every few days with more whiny self-promotion.