The one theology book all atheists really should read

Seattle said:
You can't appreciate the philosophical underpinnings of Aladdin and his lamp and Alibaba and his flying carpet without understanding the theism behind them. It's too interwoven in our society to separate them.
Click to expand...
Well, sure ... and that is called literature studies. Funnily enough, on this site we also have numerous fan finction and sci-fi themed "science" threads, so I would argue what you are talking about exists more as a "science" thing than a "theological" thing.
 
Seattle said:
I think the biggest problem with atheists is that they just aren't as sophisticated as the average theist and just don't appreciate the nuance that is God.
Click to expand...
Poe's Law applies.
But on the off chance that I'm not spoiling a sendup: you need to check out the average theist a bit more carefully. This bad faith stealth fundie crap being posted in Sciforums is from above average theists - way above average.
 
Musika said:
Lol
You must have magical realist on ignore, which is probably a good move.
Click to expand...

Yes, sir, I do. I should do the same with Iceaura as well. As a matter of fact, I'll do that right now.

He'll be free to rant all he wants, and I won't have to suffer through the illogic and histrionics he spews on the table.

Thank you!
 
Musika said:
Theology is stacked to the hilt with philosophy, both in terms of history and culture and development.

IOW you cannot even talk about the development and existence of philosophy in any meaningful way if you bypass religion.

So when you speak like this, you are not actually challenging religious discourse, but rather challenging historical and philosophical discourse.

I believe the technicsl term is "speaking crap".
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone is getting abit emotional. I leave you to your own unwarranted assumptions.
 
Musika said:
Theology is stacked to the hilt with philosophy, both in terms of history and culture and development.

IOW you cannot even talk about the development and existence of philosophy in any meaningful way if you bypass religion.
Click to expand...
This is a false equivalence."IOW" dies not apply. The second does not follow from the first.

Religion may be stacked to the hilt with philosophy, but it does not necessarily follow that philosophy is stacked to the hilt with religion.


In the same way 'Astrology is stacked to the hilt with Astronomy', is not, IOW, 'Astronomy is stacked to the hilt with Astrology'.
 
Magical Realist said:
Sounds like someone is getting abit emotional. I leave you to your own unwarranted assumptions.
Click to expand...
When you want to transgress history in order to transgress philosophy, it just takes your discussion further away from credibility, rather than further towards it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
This is a false equivalence."IOW" dies not apply. The second does not follow from the first.

Religion may be stacked to the hilt with philosophy, but it does not necessarily follow that philosophy is stacked to the hilt with religion.
Click to expand...
I never said it was ... after all, one can form philosophical arguments that have no inherent theological substance or even arguments that are atheistic.

It was a response to a claim that theology bears no representation in philosophy. History, or least history on the planet earth (since we are talking about MR here) does not illustrate that claim.
 
Musika said:
When you want to transgress history in order to transgress philosophy, it just takes your discussion further away from credibility, rather than further towards it.
Click to expand...
Dibs on first identification of the bullshit "when" - a candidate for replacing the bullshit "if", which is beginning to smell funny.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes, you did. As the quotes show.


That's better.
Click to expand...
Massive difference between saying "one can launch a philosophical argument without religion" and "one can launch an analysis of philosophy as a category without religion".
 
Dr_Toad said:
Musika, are you using "transgress" properly? That didn't sound right to me.
Click to expand...
Of course not.
He also misused "philosophy", "religion", and "discussion".
He misuses about a third of his vocabulary in these posts, as a rough estimate, in a manner almost identical to Jan Ardena's and others of the ilk on this forum in the past - producing a characteristic overt Abrahamic theist's wordfog.

The function - if not the purpose, which is unknowable - is to forestall accountability for the assertions and innuendos and implications being communicated.
 
iceaura said:
Of course not.
He also misused "philosophy", "religion", and "discussion".
He misuses about a third of his vocabulary in these posts, as a rough estimate, in a manner almost identical to Jan Ardena's and others of the ilk on this forum in the past - producing a characteristic overt Abrahamic theist's wordfog.

The function - if not the purpose, which is unknowable - is to forestall accountability for the assertions and innuendos and implications being communicated.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, it is interesting that this is an approach taken, consciously or not, by several frequent posters on this forum (and not just in the religious forums).

Sometimes it's misusing words, sometimes it's using words in a way that might be technically correct but when they aren't commonly used that way, and sometimes it's just using words when a more common one would be clearer and make their posts easier to read.

There's also the post that is too long for the point that is being attempted to be made.
 
Musika said:
Massive difference between saying "one can launch a philosophical argument without religion" and "one can launch an analysis of philosophy as a category without religion".
Click to expand...
To paraphrase: You said that religion is filled with philosophy - "in other words" you can't discuss philosophy without referring to religion.

That is a non sequitur.

Giving it the benefit of the doubt, I'll say you're too smart for your own good. I observe that your style of elaborate delivery tends to mask dodgy sleight-of-hand tactics.

If I were less generous, I would instead classify you as Iceaura et al does: as a poseur.

Either way, it's hard to trust that you speak in good faith when you do this. Speaking more plainly would earn you more credence. If your cases are sound, that should not be a problem. Only if your cases are unsound would stripping away the finery be a problem.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Toad said:
Yes, sir, I do. I should do the same with Iceaura as well. As a matter of fact, I'll do that right now.

He'll be free to rant all he wants, and I won't have to suffer through the illogic and histrionics he spews on the table.

Thank you!
Click to expand...
I imagine that if Iceaura got burgled he would describe the appearance of the perpetrator to the police as "abrahamic".
 
Dr_Toad said:
Musika, are you using "transgress" properly? That didn't sound right to me.
Click to expand...
By "transgress", I was implying that one destroys the integrity of a system for the sake of lending creedence to or bolstering one's ego or vanity or party politics. I could have used "violate" , but I wanted to suggest that its failure reverberates at a systematic level rather than egoistic one.
For instance, if one insisted on studying philosophy on the express condition that it not touch any religious issues, that in turn would carry a fault into how history was approached, and then politics and so and so forth and so on. Destroying an entire system for the sake of floating a mere detail does not make the detail stronger. It makes it weaker because it is not strung between any of the traditional tensions or polemics that establish integrity.... kind of like the celebration of Kims artistic, sporting and intellectual capacity in North Korea.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...nating-facts-Kim-Jong-il-and-North-Korea.html

"According to his biography, he first picked up a golf club in 1994, at North Korea's only golf course, and shot a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one. Satisfied with his performance, he reportedly immediately declared his retirement from the sport."

Should he ever decide to come out of retirement, these anecdotes will not make his game better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top