Happy Blasphemy Day

[evmori 11]

Doctors do NOT agree on EVERYTHING.

 

They DO agree on SOME THINGS.

 

Theologians do not agree on ANYTHING. They can't even agree about any one single fact in their supposed "field of expertise," because it's all bunk. It's just people making up stuff, with no way to check if any particular statement is correct or not. They have zero facts.

 

Well the statement "Theologians do not agree on ANYTHING" is bogus so that makes the whole argument moot.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yah, Merlyn, like any uninformed outsider to a discipline, yeh don't know what da questions are that count, and form your judgments based on superficial things. That's bein' intellectually young.

 

It seems to me that "how many gods are there" is about the most basic question you can have in theology.

 

Got an answer that all theologians agree on? Well, no.

 

So do those many religions which you missed, which all have various versions of "first remove the log from your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the mote from your brother's".

 

I'm not talking about "religions," I'm talking about theology.

 

And you're still dodging the question. What's a fact in theology that all theologians agree on?

 

I can find a fact that everyone in the field of medicine agrees on.

I can find a fact that everyone in the field of geology can agree on.

 

Where's such a "fact" in theology? There isn't one. Theology has no facts.

 

And sorry Beavah, you can't drag in superstitious "medicine men" and claim that somehow means that modern medicine is as free of facts as "theology." I suspect most medicine men even agree that the heart pumps blood, and if they don't, they're WRONG.

 

That's another thing that real fields of expertise produce -- they can say someone is WRONG.

 

What can be pronounced WRONG in theology? Nothing, because it's all equally right, and equally wrong.

 

One god? Hey, you're right! Millions of gods? Hey, you're right TOO! No gods? Hey, you're right TOO!

 

There's no standard of right and wrong in theology. Heh, heh.

 

So Beavah, are you going to quit dodging the question and either:

1) produce a fact that all theologians agree on

2) admit that there are no facts in theology

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

Well the statement "Theologians do not agree on ANYTHING" is bogus so that makes the whole argument moot.

 

What is something (in the field of theology) that all theologians agree on, Ed? I keep asking Beavah, but he keeps dodging the question.

[evmori 11]

Well, Merlyn, I would say that all theologians agree there is a God. Now I know you will probably fire back with a self proclaimed theologian who states he/she doesn't believe there is a God. Then we get down to defining "What is a theologian?"

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

Well, Merlyn, I would say that all theologians agree there is a God.

 

Well, you're wrong Ed. Not all theologians agree on that.

 

Now I know you will probably fire back with a self proclaimed theologian who states he/she doesn't believe there is a God.

 

Not "self-proclaimed," there are theologians with degrees in theology just like theist theologians. They just became atheists.

 

Wikipedia has a category for atheist theologians, with 4 listed (2 living, 2 dead including Bruno Bauer, who taught theology at Bonn while an atheist)

 

There are also polytheist theologians, which, while they would agree that gods exist, would say there were more than one.

 

This points out a further problem with theology -- it's easy to use a "no true scotsman" fallacy against theologians that get degrees that another theology doesn't recognize as true. They, of course, can do the same in return. But then there's no way to determine who is a "real" theologian.

[skeptic 992]

While most realize that pointing something out to Merlyn is pretty much useless, I will anyway.

 

In every science you have a few really odd "experts", based on having gotten a degree anyway, with whom few others will ever agree because these "degreed experts" insist on completely unrelated or unproven "facts" they have invented or are the only ones who seem to see. They pretty much get ignored by anyone who is truly an expert in the field and do accept the basic building blocks within their field. And these generally acknowledged "kooks" within the field are often paraded by others outside the field to support their own uniformed or illogical premises.

 

In Theology there are a few more of these "experts" perhaps, but that is likely because the entire study is so much more ephemeral and requires intellectual ideas some just cannot fathom. The one thing that all the Theologians of any stature likely agree on is that there is "something greater than ourselves". And that is where all the permutations of study jump off. What is it? Is it multi-faceted? Is it in control? How will we "know"? These all will cause disagreements, and even have too often caused wars and individual violence, usually when extremists gain too much leverage. In the end, most of the far flung examiners of the "spiritual" within us and the world will also admit that at some point we will finally "see". What will happen then becomes another discussion of "infinite possibilities". And, most would say that even "atheists" will reach that point. What their reaction will be, or their final status will be (if there is a finality) who knows? Surely it would be interesting to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" at that point in time.

[GernBlansten 10]

I view religious experts like I do art experts.

Some have studied various forms and become familiar with different expressions of it and practices. Some have dedicated their entire existence studying a single aspect of it, ignoring all others. I would call those experts to some degree. But none can really say without a doubt what is art and what is not. You will never get universal agreement. Because that is only relevant to the individual beholder.

 

You can't apply the same argument effectively with the sciences. There are some universal truths that must be accepted in science before you can become an expert.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

In Theology there are a few more of these "experts" perhaps, but that is likely because the entire study is so much more ephemeral and requires intellectual ideas some just cannot fathom.

 

I'd say it's because it's all made up. The Lord of the Rings has a complex theology, too. So does World of Warcraft. Since they both contain Orcs, does this establish Orcs as actually existing?

 

The one thing that all the Theologians of any stature likely agree on is that there is "something greater than ourselves".

 

I wouldn't even agree with that, but even if I granted that, it's an incredibly vague "fact."

 

And that is where all the permutations of study jump off.

 

I would describe it as "that's where people start making up stuff."

 

In the end, most of the far flung examiners of the "spiritual" within us and the world will also admit that at some point we will finally "see".

 

Wake me when that happens. Future predictions based on zero knowledge are pretty useless in my book.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

To build on what Gern said

 

What is Beauty? How is it defined, does it exist?

What is Courage, Bravery, Passion

 

Do these things exist? DO "experts" agree what defines them?

 

 

[evmori 11]

You do realize, Merlyn, the Wikipedia is not an infallible source, don't you?

 

And I guess it's time for this - What is a theologian?

[sherminator505 10]

Merlyn's faith is admirable, if sadly misplaced.

 

It really takes a lot of blind faith to be an athiest.

 

To be an atheiest, you have to believe that every little thing that happens, merely happens.

 

You have to be able to dismiss the development of human intellect as a natural anomaly.

 

You have to believe that the placement of the Earth at the precise distance from the sun to support life to be random chance.

 

You have to believe that the fact that ice floats (when other solids tend to sink in their molten form) is just a coincidence arising from chemistry. Fish survive through the winter because of this.

 

You have to overlook what most of us consider to be miracles as random happenstance, no matter how fortuitous or otherwise improbable.

 

You have to view the wonderful planet we live on as a random polyglot of rocks, gases, and organic material that simply came to be and somehow just works.

 

Yes, it does indeed take an enormous amount of blind faith to be an athiest.

 

Sorry, I'm not falling for that one, either.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, Wikipedia isn't perfect, but they give references you can check about these atheist theologians, and you can even write to two of them.

 

Sherminator, you don't even know what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who is not a theist.

 

To be an atheiest, you have to believe that every little thing that happens, merely happens.

 

Wrong. There is nothing in atheism qua atheism that requires that, since gods are not the exclusive source of meaning. You might think that, but that's an assumption on your part, and atheists have no reason to follow your personal assumptions.

 

All of your other observations are similarly wrong. Nothing that you've asserted is required to follow by the absence of gods.

 

Maybe you should be a theologian. They're good at starting from an assumption and building elaborate, complex systems of thought around it.

[sherminator505 10]

"There is nothing in atheism qua atheism that requires that, since gods are not the exclusive source of meaning."

 

Wow. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your comment, but you seem to be describing a defined belief system. Please, elaborate.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Atheism is not a belief system, just as not believing in leprechauns is not a belief system.

 

Atheists don't believe gods exist. That's all it means. Notice this is not a belief system, it's simply a statement that the person does not believe in gods. They can believe in ghosts, reincarnation, magic, past lives, fate, kismet, lucky numbers, and Republicans, and that still doesn't make them "not atheists." Nor does it establish a "belief system."

 

I'll assume you don't believe Zeus exists as an actual god. My absence of belief that your god exists is probably similar to your own belief that Zeus does not exist. Not believing in Zeus is not a belief system, and not believing in your god (or any other) is not a belief system, either.

 

If I'm wrong about Zeus, feel free to substitute another god you don't believe in, like the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you are some sort of pantheist that believes all gods exist, then it will be a bit harder to form an analogy using your own beliefs.

[sherminator505 10]

"They can believe in ghosts, reincarnation, magic, past lives, fate, kismet, lucky numbers, and Republicans, and that still doesn't make them "not atheists." "

 

So, are you saying then that athiests can acknowledge a spiritual world alongside our own without acknowledging any responsibility beyond one's self?