Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Your thoughts on...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jerry Smith" data-source="post: 487008" data-attributes="member: 2568"><p>Judy's retort (to the common canard that atheists are angry with God - with the presumptious idea that atheists do in fact believe in God) serves well to show the idiocy of that particular platitude.</p><p></p><p>However, by giving Santa and Leprechaun some pretty standard theological properties, your statement that they can be empirically tested (and shown false), fails. For instance:</p><p></p><p>Give Santa the ability to work in mysterious ways (such as through your parents' shopping trips) & you can never prove that Santa wasn't responsible for your goodies last year. Anyone who says there is no Santa is just angry with him because they didn't get the new bike they wanted.</p><p></p><p>Make the Leprauchan's Gold only visible to those with spiritual discernment (or with a personal relationship with the Leprauchans), and you cannot prove empirically that there was no pot of it at the end of the rainbow. Those who pretend to be non-believers in Leprauchans are merely expressing their anger that they have not received the gifts of the Leprauchans - probably because they were never really open to it to begin with.</p><p></p><p>Theology is, at least in part, the removal of God from the realm of empirical observation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jerry Smith, post: 487008, member: 2568"] Judy's retort (to the common canard that atheists are angry with God - with the presumptious idea that atheists do in fact believe in God) serves well to show the idiocy of that particular platitude. However, by giving Santa and Leprechaun some pretty standard theological properties, your statement that they can be empirically tested (and shown false), fails. For instance: Give Santa the ability to work in mysterious ways (such as through your parents' shopping trips) & you can never prove that Santa wasn't responsible for your goodies last year. Anyone who says there is no Santa is just angry with him because they didn't get the new bike they wanted. Make the Leprauchan's Gold only visible to those with spiritual discernment (or with a personal relationship with the Leprauchans), and you cannot prove empirically that there was no pot of it at the end of the rainbow. Those who pretend to be non-believers in Leprauchans are merely expressing their anger that they have not received the gifts of the Leprauchans - probably because they were never really open to it to begin with. Theology is, at least in part, the removal of God from the realm of empirical observation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Your thoughts on...
Top
Bottom