Friday, April 5, 2013

Atheists Demontrate the Vast Verity of Incredulity Argument

Here is an example of why one needs to read a lot of theology before one deems to criticize it. Let's take the op in the thread that titrated this as an example: thread by Skylurker about "what is theology good for." (from CARM)

So I put up a counter thread claiming that their only real argument based upon the one and only atheist argument, that of incredulity. it's just another version. Rather than "I refeuse to believe therefore it can't be true" they are saying 'I don't like this stuff and I refuse to learn about it, therefore it's not good for anything." See Metacrock's blog from today for an specific answers to the post above.

On CARM I put up an argument:

this is essentially the argument all atheist on this board make. Theology must be stupid and useless "becuase ti's about stuff what I don't agree with none of."

that is not a valid criticism. first of all most of you have read about one page of theology if you are rare and really trying to think..the vast majority haven't read that much. Two are three may have read one book.

none of you made any kind of valid criticism in the thread elegantly entitled 'whats theology good for?"

"it ant good for nothing cause I don't likes it." well you know them does like it thinks good. that is not a valid way to argue. There is not enough knowledge of theology on this board to mean a hill of beans.

The idea that it's no good becuase I don't believe in the thing it's about is just nuts. that is not a valid way to even think about things. that's like saying trigonometry is meaningless becuase I don't like what it's about; of cousre I know nothing about it but so what? it's useless to me to so it's useless.

O that's scinece, that is holy sacred mathematics it had to be true and good becuase the powers hat give me money say it is.

we are not engaging in a thought process when we think this way.

 Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist View Post
It's very difficult taking you seriously when the very first sentence in your essay is untrue.
My first sentence is abundantly true. The only argument any of you have made at all is "it' about something that I don't bleieve in so therefore it's no good."
if you think you another one let's hear it.t hat's the only I saw on that thread and I read most of it.

Ok you may be taken in by another form of the argument which says 'scinece is tangible and true and can be proved to be so by mathematics and expectant so forth. Theology is not."

that's essentially the same argument, it's going at it form the other side of speaking of what you believe in and then comparing it rather than saying the thing it's about is what I don't believe in.

In both cases you are assuming that you know what theology is about when you don't. in both cases you are assuming there's only one form of fieldwork if it's not science then it's no good.

clearly related because if you don't know what theology is about then can't understand the cocnept of other forms of knowledge.

 Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist View Post
This time, it's the second sentence that's untrue.
If you can make a point without gross exaggeration, I'll be more than happy to consider it.
There's only one way you can justify your statement and prove me wrong: show me an arguemnt that was made in that thread that's the same as what I said. you haven't even tried so far.

I think if you had the argument you would have made it. you don't have it.

 Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist View Post
Doesn't matter whether it's valid or not. The fact is that skylurker's quote shows your second sentence was false; demonstrably false.

Keep flailing away, Meatcorck.
Meta:I just demonstrated it's the same arguemnt. you haven't said anything different. you are confused by the fact it doesn't use the same language. When you don't think about the content of ideas you can often mistake the product for the package. a new package fools them every time.

what you mean it doesn't have to be valid? that's ludicrous. do you have a concept of argument?  Incredible they are so stupid they don't know why it's important to have a valid argument yet they keep finding people to join them!

 Originally Posted by SquareOne View Post
Strawman rant does not deserve the dignity of a proper response.
like the thread the thread I'm criticizing. like your arguments against theoloyg: all hot air. you don't know **** about theology and you just want to flap your gums. you can't even back it up enough to show another argument.
 Originally Posted by Dr Pepper View Post
People have recognized this in the past and even more so today with the use of special effects and rediscovery of our supernatural heroes. Superman, the green lantern, Harry potter, and the latest bible movies. WC Fields recognized this when asked what he thought about the bible and he said he didn't believe most of it but it had some good movie plotts. Also for the Stargate lovers out there the Ori series sure sounded like how religion has behaved in the past.

so what you are saying is "I can imagine that is not true so therefore it's not true." which is another way of saying 'I dont' like causes it's what I don't bleieve none of."

this is not profound. this is not a valid argument it's horse ****! you don't have the slightest idea what you are criticizing.

 ginally Posted by Pragmatic View Post
Theology is very important while you assume god exists. However, if god does not exist then theology is essentially only useful for making consistent science-fiction stories. This, of course, ignores the fact that religion is used to control societies.
you are assuming that theology is predicated upon belief in God. you can only that by not knowing anything about theology. You are going by what fundies say, what the encyclopedia says and what Wiki says and what atheist websites tell you all based upon 400 year old theology. you haven't actually read any so you don't know what it's about.

that means your argument is just exactly what I said. Look what you said above is just a more sophisticated way to expressed what I said: theology is no good cause it's about what I don't like.

Assuming god does not exist, as people in a religion controlled society grow wiser and more educated, the theology must also address this in order to keep its god consistent with their new knowledge and hidden protected by their ignorance. 
this is based on that same assigning premise. since you don't know anything about theology you are totally ignorant of the anti-God theologians. Again you just said the same thing in yet another way: it's about whut I don't likes, so it ant no good!

As for theology being useless or not: If it produces results then it is useful, if it does not produce results then it is useless. Going back to the science fiction point: I'd say theology would always be useful here.

how can you know if it does or not if you don't read it?

No comments: