Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
"No doubt", huh? You make a lot of baseless assumptions. You actually could not be further off on this one. Go ahead and convince yourself you know what I would say to any given point you raise. You have been quite universally wrong up to this point. You are lumping me in with your perceived stereotype of Christians; a stereotype clearly born of theological ignorance mixed liberally with a good deal of prejudice.
Actually, I think I have adequately demonstrated elswhere that my mind is open to "both" answers. You have demonstrated quite convincingly that yours is not. You divide the "theological" from the "common sense" while readily admitting you don't know one hell of a lot about the theological. You debate a subject in which you have admitted limited knowledge. I guess that doesn't keep you from having well-formed opinions about it, though.
I think I'm gaining some measure of additional insight into what makes the common atheist tick. If you are any example, it appears to be the same thing that makes the common Christian tick. A less than cursory understanding of the basic tenets of "the other side". A somewhat more complete understanding of the basic tenets of "your side", although falling well short of the recognized "experts". An unwillingness to explore "the other side", because you already feel as though you know enough about it to make an informed choice. A respected "leadership" on your side that says the other side is bad. You can't understand all of their justifications for their claims, but you buy into them none the less. Granted, there are those on both sides whose knowledge of both their own and the other side's arguments are either greatly above or below the norm, but I'm addressing the "average Joe". The similarities are remarkable.
Again, if you would like to speak intelligently about theology, like any other somewhat complex topic, it would behoove you to do one thing first. Go learn about it. It is very frustrating to try to carry on a conversation with one who desires to discuss subject matter with which he is not familiar. It really bogs down the whole process. You are making incorrect assumptions, basing challenges upon your own missunderstandings, and finally holding fast to some very unfortunate stereotypes. This topic seems to interest you. Follow that interest and explore it.
|
First, the “you have not been chosen” comment was really directed at Doug. He is the major proponent of that argument, not you. Sorry, I got my posts and threads mixed up, and was probably replying to two posts at once, at least in my mind.
The rest of your post was a major attempt at discrediting me, and I don’t really appreciate that. If anything “bogs down the whole process” it’s that. I also detect a lot of anger, but maybe that’s just because it is Monday morning. Are you really angry? Why? Did I touch a nerve?
You say I have been quite universally wrong up to this point. That is not even remotely true. For one thing, this is a topic that is ripe for personal opinion. Look at all the opinions from the believers. They are all over the map, from people like you, far removed from mainstream Christianity, to those who take every word in the bible literally, and everything in between. You say to study theology, but what aspect of it? Yours? The “bible is literal” approach? Something in the middle? From my perspective, there are many different theological answers to any given question.
This is what I see from my perspective. Take the theological question, “why doesn’t god heal amputees?” I see many theological answers to this. First, the miracle is in the abilities of the physicians. Another answer was “why would he want to” or god gave the physicians the brains to learn the skills in medical school or prevented the physician from getting hit by a bus. Someone else says the miracle is in the removal of the limb in the first place, which saved the persons life. There are more and more along the same lines. If you check youtube, you can see responses to the video. There are literally dozens of answers to this question. Why so many theological answers, and which is the correct one? Because there are so many answers, to me, they are all wrong. To me, the simplest, most common sense answer is the correct one. There is no god.
Yes, it is just my opinion, but it seems really absurd to say that a physician is able to heal a patient because god prevented the physician from getting hit by a bus. It just seems absurd that god won’t help school children because we have separation of church and state. The people who take the bible 100% literally just seem absurd to me.
No, I am no theological expert, but every theological answer I see just seems absurd. The correct theological answer seems to be whatever works for the person making it. Perhaps they are not theological experts either. It is just so much simpler if you “unplug” from the matrix, take the red pill, and realize that there is no god. None of this complex theological stuff is required.
To sum up, whenever I see a theological answer, there is always, and I really mean always, a common sense answer that doesn’t require a god.