Onther one bites the dust...
Michael Gray
ranks of the faitheists & godly-coddlers.
Caspar Melville, editor of the New Humanist is whining bittelry about
we Gnu Atheists, and backing up his rant with, well, nothing at all in
the way of facts.
Sample garbage:
"If, as Norman also argues, New Atheism can be over-generalising and
crude in its response to religion, this is because it is a response to
crude and nonspecific articulations of religiosity – what could be
less specific than bombing a skyscraper, or cruder than Biblical
creationism? . .
But in another interview, this time with a fierce critic of New
Atheism, Terry Eagleton says: “Imagine someone holding forth on
biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British
Birds and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard
Dawkins on theology.” Put this way, Eagleton seems right. I agree with
him, too."
Jerry Coyne writes more on this tragedy:
<http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/another-one-bites-the-dust/>
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" - Hitchens
Christopher A. Lee
Eagleton is too stupid to understand just how irrelevant theology is
outside his religion.
Michael Gray
It is even irrelevant inside his religion.
Theology is the study of nothing.
Mike Jones
[...]
> Theology is the study of nothing.
Love it! Ha! :)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
Michael Gray
<lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>Responding to Michael Gray:
>
>
>[...]
>> Theology is the study of nothing.
>
>
>Love it! Ha! :)
'Tis yours to keep.
Mike Jones
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:48:24 +0000 (UTC), Mike Jones
> <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Responding to Michael Gray:
>>
>>
>>[...]
>>> Theology is the study of nothing.
>>
>>
>>Love it! Ha! :)
>
> 'Tis yours to keep.
Open source! I insist!
Let the meme run free!
The Chief Instigator
>
>
> [...]
>> Theology is the study of nothing.
>
> Love it! Ha! :)
Now *that* is concise...and truthful.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@prismnet.com) Houston, TX
www.prismnet.com/~patrick (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 9 at Oklahoma City, 7:05
Mike Jones
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:48:24 +0000 (UTC), Mike Jones
> <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>> Responding to Michael Gray:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>> Theology is the study of nothing.
>>
>> Love it! Ha! :)
>
> Now *that* is concise...and truthful.
Possibly obvious follow-up, but...
If a theist studies "nothing", then an a-theist studies "something"?
Given the in-depth knowledge and perception of many related topics
demonstrated by the average atheist, compared to the regularly acted out
futile fuckwittery of the godbots we encounter so often, I'd suspect
there is weight to my suggestion.
The problem here is that this then means that "a-theist" can't be as
simple a description as "not-a-something", but now actually means "a-
something-else", and can even techically leave the theist, the supposed
self-claimed "something", with nothing at all.
Weird, huh? %)
Michael Gray
<lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>Responding to The Chief Instigator:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:48:24 +0000 (UTC), Mike Jones
>> <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>>> Responding to Michael Gray:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Theology is the study of nothing.
>>>
>>> Love it! Ha! :)
>>
>> Now *that* is concise...and truthful.
>
>
>Possibly obvious follow-up, but...
>
>
>If a theist studies "nothing", then an a-theist studies "something"?
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
Fallacy of the false sylogism.
--
Mike Jones
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:51:58 +0000 (UTC), Mike Jones
> <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Responding to The Chief Instigator:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:48:24 +0000 (UTC), Mike Jones
>>> <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Responding to Michael Gray:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Theology is the study of nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Love it! Ha! :)
>>>
>>> Now *that* is concise...and truthful.
>>
>>
>>Possibly obvious follow-up, but...
>>
>>
>>If a theist studies "nothing", then an a-theist studies "something"?
>
> Fallacy of the excluded middle.
> Fallacy of the false sylogism.
Awwww! No fair! 8(
Mumble mumble mumble...
Brian E. Clark
ca...@optonline.net says...
> Eagleton is too stupid to understand just how irrelevant
> theology is outside his religion.
Eagleton has written countless essays describing the
emperor's new clothes, so like the other courtiers he must
deride anyone who cannot see them.
But even if theology weren't circular reasoning in gilded
vestments, the sheer dishonesty of the Eagletons and
Melvilles and their ilk would be suffocating. Manifestly,
the God of the philosophers and of the ivory tower
theologians is not the God of the majority of theists. It
is puerile to complain that Dawkins fails to address the
carefully defined (and all but irrelevant) gods of the
would-be heavy thinkers; Dawkins accurately describes the
God most people actually believe in.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark