Mick wrote:
In the case of my last link, it's an atheist philosopher who uses the term. Do you wish to say that he his guilty of this, or perhaps conclude along with me that you don't know what you're talking about?

I could add a clarifaction to this, namely that if "a-theology" means "a lack of theology" then it is a quite redundant terminology, since the lack of theology is in fact just an empty space (whether real or epistimological) where theology isn't. A subset of nothing is still nothing, and we already have a word for that.

Mick wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:This doesn't in the least detract from the fact that people have to make shit up, in order to sound as though they have some startling wisdom to present that somehow legitimises their wishful thinking. If you can't see how "atheology" falls into that category, then I suggest you spend some time studying reality instead of metaphysical navel fluff.

In the case of my last link, it's an atheist philosopher who uses the term. Do you wish to say that he his guilty of this, or perhaps conclude along with me that you don't know what you're talking about?

Well first of all, I'd like to see some actual evidence, that the people in question aren't engaging in the very activity Nietzsche castigated so many "philosophers" for, namely making shit up and then pretending that the universe rearranges itself to conform to their made up shit. Because in the absence of any real empirical evidence supporting the assertions in question, that's basically all that these people are doing. But then I notice how quite a lot of supernaturalists are fans of this process, because it allows them to go on believing that they can somehow wish their fantasy magic entities into existence. You might like to ask yourself why this approach isn't accepted in physics, for example. Which has provided a hell of a lot more evidence for exotic entities than mythology has done.

tldr.

Mick wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Mick wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


No one's seen God, Mick.

What would that have to do with my point?

Umm maybe where you wrote:

Mick wrote:It's perfectly possible that someone can be an atheist or (an a-momist?) because they have not seen God.

Yes, and? What's that have to do with my point?

I never said it was anything to do with your point, it was to do with my point, which is why I posted it. But nice evasion, all the same.

Well, you quoted me. Whats your point? Why mention it at all

Mick wrote:Well, you quoted me. Whats your point? Why mention it at all

It's called a comment, Mick, and a perfectly self-explanatory one at that. You could equally engage the same notion for yourself: why bother responding if you don't have anything to say?

Mick wrote:tldr.

Oh look, another example of the modus operandi we've come to know and love so much - "I have no answers to the above question, therefore I'll post a snide, condescending one-line dismissal and pretend that the question doesn't actually exist".

Speaking of unanswered questions, there's those two I've been waiting for you to acknowledge the existence of, let alone attempt to answer, in at least two other threads. Namely:

[1] What real evidence do we have, allowing us to treat that bit in Matthew about the zombie pub crawl in Jerusalem as anything other than made up shit, bearing in mind that none of the other authors of the so-called "gospels" bothered to mention it, and the occupying Roman forces apparently didn't think it was worth mentioning either, despite having left behind evidence that they committed far more mundane happenings to writing?

[2] What "facet of reality" is being described by that guff in Genesis 30:37-39 about the mutagenic properties of coloured sticks, this being, of course, your assertion in the relevant thread, that this guff purportedly describes a "facet of reality"?

I'd really like to see you even acknowledge that these questions exist, Mick, as opposed to pretending that this is somehow "beneath" you, because it doesn't genuflect before the fantasies about a magic man that you keep trying to tell us all are real. Since several people here have exercised diligent effort responding to posts of yours with vastly inferior content, the least you can do is reciprocate in kind, even if you don't like getting your hands dirty with real arguments. care to do that, or shall we all conclude, upon seeing a subsequent absence of response to this post, that you have nothing of substance to present in this matter?

Problem being, of course, that since that post was longer than the one that was allegedly 'tl:dr', he won't read that either. Indeed, I'll be surprised if he bothers to read this one!

I'm not holding my breath on this one. It simply provides a neat means of exposing the inadequacies of his modus operandi not to mention those of his apologetics.

Mick wrote:Even if this were true, I don't think that'd be a strawman. It's unfair, I suppose, but it's not a strawman. Strawmen concern misinterpreting or mischaracterizing arguments so that theyre easier to address, not implying that someone or some group is ignoring blatantly obvious evidence.

What "obvious evidence"?