Are theists atheists too?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

that is exactly the point I am making too.

Stupid point, and Dawkins is stupid for making it one. He's been called on it, too, but he's too arrogant to admit such statements make it obvious he's out of his league.

How is it stupid? He was only stating the obvious.

[Reflex]

Stupid point, and Dawkins is stupid for making it one. He's been called on it, too, but he's too arrogant to admit such statements make it obvious he's out of his league.

It's actually quite a good point. I think you may be the one out of their league.

LOL! Dawkins also said God is complex. He's a theological moron -- completely ignorant of classical theism. But, hey, if that's the kind of idiocy you want to base your opinions on, go for it.

[Reflex]

that is exactly the point I am making too.

Stupid point, and Dawkins is stupid for making it one. He's been called on it, too, but he's too arrogant to admit such statements make it obvious he's out of his league.

How is it stupid? He was only stating the obvious.

He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.

You have the mental illness of religion and he doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand him.

[Reflex]

He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.

You have the mental illness of religion and he doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand him.

If Dawkins doesn't have a mental illness, why does spout so much nonsense thinking he's being profound or clever? But, hey, if you want to think the idiot is some kind of profound genius, that's your business. Bear in mind, however, it doesn't reflect very well on you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.

You have the mental illness of religion and he doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand him.

If Dawkins doesn't have a mental illness, why does spout so much nonsense thinking he's being profound or clever? But, hey, if you want to think the idiot is some kind of profound genius, that's your business. Bear in mind, however, it doesn't reflect very well on you.

He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.

[Reflex]

He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.

Meh. Suit yourself. But since when is calling straw man argumentation rational rational?

Edit: Are we witnessing the beginnings of a new religion here? Dawkins-ism?

[attofishpi]

I was having a discussion with Nick_A and it occurred to me that the only difference between the absence of belief of a theist and an atheist is in the number of Gods each doesn't believe in. Theists have a complete absence of belief in all Gods except one.Atheists have an absence of belief in all Gods without exception. So just as one theist can have a complete absence of belief in Vishnu or Brahma or Ahura Mazda,an atheist has a complete absence of belief in Vishnu, Brahma, Ahura Mazda and the God of the concerned theist. So as far as any other religion is concerned, every theist is an atheist too.

Comments?

All monotheists ultimately believe in the same God.

Yeah like the one that ploughed with a truck through 80 people in France last night.

God had nothing to do with it. Fools did this...and they will become our food...turned into the beast.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

All monotheists ultimately believe in the same God.

Yeah like the one that ploughed with a truck through 80 people in France last night.

God had nothing to do with it. Fools did this...and they will become our food...turned into the beast.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in your god does there? I mean, he doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.

Meh. Suit yourself. But since when is calling straw man argumentation rational rational?

Edit: Are we witnessing the beginnings of a new religion here? Dawkins-ism?

You don't know what a 'straw man' is. He was simply stating a fact. What's there to disagree with???"

[Reflex]

He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.

Meh. Suit yourself. But since when is calling straw man argumentation rational rational?

Edit: Are we witnessing the beginnings of a new religion here? Dawkins-ism?

You don't know what a 'straw man' is. He was simply stating a fact. What's there to disagree with???"

I answered that in a previous post: "He's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism."

Do you know what I mean by "ontologically distinct"?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Do you know what I mean by "ontologically distinct"?

I care about truth, and pretentious bullshit. I love truth. You love pretentious bullshit.

[Harbal]

LOL! Dawkins also said God is complex. He's a theological moron -- completely ignorant of classical theism. But, hey, if that's the kind of idiocy you want to base your opinions on, go for it.

I don't care what Dawkins said, the point I was referring to was made by sthitapragya. The fact that Dawkins has made the same point is hardly surprising. I am not basing my opinions on it, I just happen to agree with it. If, however, I did want to base my opinions on some kind of idiocy I think I would choose Dawkins', rather than yours, he's a lot cleverer than you.

[Reflex]

Do you know what I mean by "ontologically distinct"?

I care about truth, and pretentious bullshit. I love truth. You love pretentious bullshit.

If you cared about truth, you'd answer my question or do some investigating. You'd ask yourself, "What does this guy mean by 'ontologically distinct'? What ideas does classical theism embody that makes it immune to Dawkins' comments?" You'd ask yourself, "What are the implications and ramifications of the statement, "God does not exist, but is existence itself?'"

But no. You'd rather waste your time attacking the kind of gods I reject. Is that supposed to make any sense, any sense at all? Below is an excerpt of a review of a book written by David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God:

Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of 'intelligent design', for example – for whom Hart reserves plenty of scorn – and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too. But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up this second version better than I can:

… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

God, in short, isn't one very impressive thing among many things that might or might not exist; "not just some especially resplendent object among all the objects illuminated by the light of being," as Hart puts it. Rather, God is "the light of being itself", the answer to the question of why there's existence to begin with. In other words, that wisecrack about how atheists merely believe in one less god than theists do, though it makes a funny line in a Tim Minchin song, is just a category error. Monotheism's God isn't like one of the Greek gods, except that he happens to have no god friends. It's an utterly different kind of concept.

Since I can hear atheist eyeballs rolling backwards in their sockets with scorn, it's worth saying again: the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case that's usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say why. And unlike for the superhero version [Dawkins's version], scientific evidence won't clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which things exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on what it depends.

Now, it's your prerogative to call it "pretentious bullshit" without looking into the matter yourself, but that makes you no different than the church official who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because he already knew "the Truth." I can think of no other way to describe this attitude other than to call it willful ignorance.

[Harbal]

I can think of no other way to describe this attitude other than to call it willful ignorance.

Nick_A has another way of describing it: BLIND DENIAL!