rationalskepticism.org

Tracer Tong wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:What's wrong with the modern claim is that it's recycled nonsense originated by dumb-as-rocks goat-roasters. Where's your sensus bullshitatsis? Is it that you just like arguing with theists, picking apart their so-called claims?

Is this really your view?

Yes, it really is my view. What's your view of this subject matter? Do you see it as a metaphysically-oriented offshoot of psychology, or something? Party on!

Tracer Tong wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
You might try being more explicit about how it differs from theology and from sociology of religion.

It's a tricky distinction, which is probably why philosophy of religion seems mostly to be about dealing with the question of god's existence.

Yeah, I see how that could be. Perhaps the executive summary is that theology assumes the existence of god and then just describes what it assumes. The question I ask above is how the question of god's existence does not depend on recycling nonsense from ignorant goat-roasters. The question of god's existence would not come up but for them. Do philosophers of religion imagine they are breaking some new ground somewhere, on the existence of something they would not even have a name for except courtesy of the goat-roasters? You might as well ask if the universe has a purpose, but that's pretty much the same shit on a different day.