Vlad,
Your definition doesn't fit.
Here it is.o
Dawkins. Theology is Utter bollocks
Well you haven't studied theology and what you have said about it shows ignorance.
Myers. He doesn't have to study it to know its bollocks.
Problem The King was naked. Prove theology is bollocks.
They could see with their wee methodological materialist eyes that the King was naked.........How does Dawkins know theology is bollocks?
Do you know, to this day I still have never worked out whether you have just enough intelligence to understand some arguments at least but choose to lie about them nonetheless, or whether you simply cannot grasp even a simple point in logic and so post this type of gibberish because you think you save face that way.
Either way I corrected your mistaken/dishonest OP back in Reply 8 and still you’ve shown no sign of understanding it, let alone of trying to argue against it. It’s simple though, even for you:
1. Various foundational arguments are attempted to demonstrate that “god(s)” exist(s). You do not need to be a theologian to make those arguments, and nor do you need to be a theologian to falsify them. And, so far at least, all such arguments – the kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the fine tuning argument, the objective morality argument etc are trivially easy to dismantle. In other words, on the basis of the arguments attempted to justify the claim ”god(s)” made so far, the equivalent to “but the Emperor is naked” is a legitimate response.
This isn’t theology though; it’s just the functional application of reason and logic.
2. There are also though theologians from all faiths who make their various claims and assertions about the characteristics of the various gods in which they happen to believe: whether and how they intervene in response prayer and to sacrifices; whether they’re cruel or kind or vengeful; that they care about about who goes to bed with whom and with what they do when they get there etc.
3. For ease reference, let’s call the former set of foundational arguments “Category 1 arguments", and the second set of attributional arguments “Category 2 arguments”.
Still with me? Good.
4. Now sometimes what happens is that, when reasoning people falsify correctly the Category 1 arguments, certain other people will say that their reasoning is inadmissible not because of anything do with the Category 1 arguments they've falsified, but rather – and you might want to hang on to your hat here if the lightbulb does finally go on – because they’re insufficiently versed in the Category 2 arguments
even though the Category 2 arguments have absolutely fuck all to say to the validity or otherwise of the Category 1, foundational arguments for the initial claim “god(s)”.And that Mr slipperier than a Swarfega bath of eels Vlad is what the Courtier’s Reply is
actually about.
So there you go. You now have no excuse whatsoever to evade, lie about, misrepresent, duck and dive or generally fuck around as is your standard MO whenever the Courtier’s Reply is raised again.
You’re welcome.
