Anti-theistic strawmen?

So when Stalin says that he was an atheist, you believe that he was a Christian?

This isn't an argument, though. This is just "atheists are bad people; anybody who's bad, therefore, is an atheist - including the people you think are Christians."Heard it. It's about three fallacies rolled up into one - poisoning the well, affirming the consequent, and "no true scotsman."

That's great, but until you deal with all the refutations of God, show how they're wrong, it's abundantly obvious that many can and have refuted God.That you refuse to believe that anyone can, even after so many have, is part of the problem Dawkins refers to in the God Delusion.

The existence of atheists proves that it's quite possible to establish to a reasonable person's satisfaction that there's no such thing as God.Getting theists to understand that there's abundant evidence against the existence of God may or may not be possible, until they're willing to approach their own beliefs with the same objectivity with which they came to disbelieve in Santa Claus.

You're just dropping names. I asked for a theology.If the reason that it's so irrefutable is because at no point are you willing to state what it is, then I think you're involved in a shell game. I don't think you've identified some theology Dawkins is afraid to address when you adamantly refuse to explain exactly what it is.Or is this actually it? The theology? That is, a "mature", "sophisticated" theology is just name-dropping? That's certainly the impression I get from you. Because there is no substance. If there were you'd be able to present it, and I would be gobsmacked or whatever by its brilliance, and that would be the end of that.Instead you're proving me right. The only "mature" theism is to keep it a secret. The only way it survives rebuttal is in seclusion.It's a shell game. What ideas? Your post contains none, at least in regards to the "mature" theology you've been on about. The only "idea" you've put forward is the idea that dropping names like Buddha and T.S. Eliot is an acceptable substitute for fleshing out an argument.It's not. It's just a confirmation of what a shell game the whole thing is. "Dawkins is wrong because he doesn't rebut my mature theology." Well, what's your theology? "I'm not going to tell you."Is that mature? It sounds childish, to my ears.

Why model reality via "Krishna" when it can be modeled via the laws of physics?There's a number of suitable ways to represent reality in a "mind-graspable" way that have nothing to do with gods; indeed, finding these models has been the occupation of science for the past 200 years. And we're fairly good at it. Sure. The map is not the territory. I prefer the sentiments of the Buddhas - the Path that can be explained is not the true path. Indeed, any model of the universe is arbitrary, an approximation of what is real in a way suited to the needs of our minds.But if all models are arbitrary, why not go with the one with the proven track record of making predictions about what's most likely to happen? Why go with the useless model called "Krishna"? To be a theology, it has to be about gods. See? It's right there in the word - theos. A theology is a belief about gods.Is yours? You seem to be making a statement about the nature of the universe and our ability to comprehend it. I don't see you making a statement about the existence of any god except to say that there's not literally any such thing as "Krishna", it's just a word you use to describe your understanding of the universe.You know, like I basically predicted you were doing a few messages back. So, you're not presenting theology at all. You're just presenting gussied-up atheism. The "mature theology" you think you've presented is no theology at all.So why on Earth does Dawkins have to refute you? You're already on his side. You're not a theist at all. Somebody who believes that the claims of religion are symbolic and not literal is an atheist, already. They're not under the delusion. They just like church music, basically.Well, nobody's saying that the end of faith means we have to burn down the organs, for God's sake. That's just another theistic strawman. Neither does it follow that Chagall's painting proves that its a good idea to believe something on the basis of no good evidence.Atheists aren't the ones burning literature and paintings, like you seem to suggest. Atheists aren't the ones who dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas. That's the soldiers of sectarian conflict, the root of which Dawkins is trying to get a handle on.And you think he's the bad guy, here?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Nothing. Atheism is not the abandonment of right action. What's your evidence that he stopped being Lutheran? Persecution of Jews is entirely consistent with Christian tradition and history.If you're using the fact that Hitler was a bad guy as "evidence" of his atheism, and then turning around and using Hitler as an example of a bad-guy atheist, that's circular reasoning.Hitler was a Christian. That's 100% certain. I'm sorry that's a fact you have a hard time dealing with, but to palm off the bad guys of your religion to the atheists is bigotry on your part, plain and simple. Everything Stalin enacted was a religious doctrine. Remember the slogans of the Soviet Union? "God is the state; the state is God." How is that not a religious doctrine? Lysenkoism? An attempt to explain biology through supernaturalism. How is that not a religious doctrine? I agree with you that any time a belief is based on wishful thinking, on the basis of no good evidence, we might very well call that a religion.Which is exactly the situation under the figures you've described. Religion, not atheism. Belief on the basis of no good evidence. I know how to pronounce Wagner, thank you. I was pretty sure you weren't talking about the lounge pianist.At any rate, I think it's been abundantly established that Hitler's views stemmed from the writings of Martin Luther. In that sense he was very much Lutheran.I repeat - no millions have been killed by an insistence that belief be supported by good evidence. Rather, as in the case of the Green Revolution, an insistence on evidence-based conclusions has saved 1.5 billion human lives.

It's the cabinet art from the early boxes of Frogger. I assume "fact" to be the exclusive product of methods that draw conclusions on the basis of evidence, not wishful thinking. Indeed, it's a justifiable assumption. No fact has ever been established by wishful thinking.Your painting might be pretty, but it doesn't establish a fact. I'm comfortable with its existence as art, which is a form of human communication.You seem to believe that you can extend the painting beyond its purpose; that the painting itself is every bit as probative as evidence-based inquiry. That assertion is meaningless. The existence of a painting doesn't corroborate the existence of Krishna. The fact that you can point to a painting doesn't make your "theology" any more mature; indeed you're just proving it to be the hippie-granola sophistry that I suspected it was. The Buddhas, for one. Your buddy in the Bhagivad Gita. Laozi. Easy, chief. Buddhism draws from the Daode Jing (or I guess what you spell as the Tao Te Ching), too. Try not to pretend like rigid borders can be drawn between the panopoly of Asian religions. Your ignorance is showing, a bit. I'll say "provisional" when it's what I mean to say, thank you. You have enough trouble actually grappling with my points without having to re-write them to serve your purposes, I think.All models are arbitrary - unless we're going to talk about the verifiable models, the models that we privilege because they're supported by evidence and are useful for making predictions about the behavior of things in the universe.Your "Krishna" model isn't one of them. It's just something that you made up, partially; partially something others made up and then you read about. Evidence-based model testing was never a part of it. Except that you haven't. A strawman is a position your opponent isn't arguing. Rather, you're arguing precisely the position that I predicted you would - that you wrap up your feelings about the universe, the moral lessons and philosophy you've come to understand, and stuff it into a box labeled "God", or in your case, "Krishna", the name of a god.Instead of identifying a strawman, you've proven my argument correct. Where, of course, your own theology is "adult" and everyone who disagrees with you is "immature." Funny how you never, ever run into anybody who claims that their own theology is the immature theology, except after they've started to believe something else.It's a shell game, AO. The objection about "naive theology" is nonsense. It's meaningless. All theology is equally immature, to the extent that it's all about the belief in things on the basis of no good evidence. The only mature theology is to recognize that all theology is vapid, content-free, and naive. Indeed. It's no surprise that most atheists are as familiar with Eastern religions as with Christianity. It's no surprise that the truest parts of all religions turn out to be essentially atheistic - because atheism is, most likely, true. According to you, "theism" seems to contain all ideas. Even atheism. It's hard to imagine, therefore, exactly how "theism" could be anything but meaningless. That which explains everything, in truth, explains nothing at all.

Atheism is the lack of belief about God, or the position that there isn't a God.Agnosticism is atheism without courage, and the word literally means "no knowledge." See? It's right there in the middle - A + gnosis.My point is that you can't hand me your recipe for granola bars and tell me that it's your "theology", because that's not what it is at all. You can't hand me your thoughts on art and poetry and tell me that it constitutes a theology, because then everything is a theology, and therefore nothing is.It just goes to show the intellectual bankruptcy that underpins all theology, regardless of how "mature" (read: vapid) the theology is supposed to be. I think it's long past time that theology's defenders met a burden of proof that there's actually any content in what they study. Otherwise theology is about as relevant as a degree in Dungeons and Dragons.

I wasn't attempting to define the word, but simply to make a point that you've completely ignored - calling a recipe for ham salad a "theology" doesn't make it one.The statement "I like art" isn't theology. "Some symbols are meaningful to me" is not a theology. Almost nothing that you offered as an example of theology actually is one, which means that the much-bally-hooed "mature theology", supposedly the unassailable Holy Grail of religious defense, has yet to be presented.