I find it astounding that some atheists worry at all about theologians, they debate them, write blog posts about them, and generally treat them as if they had anything interesting to add at all.
But my question is, how serious should one take the breathless fapping and empty baseless rhetoric of these mostly elderly persons, who were “schooled” in the finesses of the naked Emperor’s clothes and garments, but whose whole theory, and the moral, social and ontological arguments derived thereof, are essentially based on a false premise, namely that there exists a supernatural entity who dictated his commandments and instructions to mostly illiterate Middle Eastern peasants, and just to spice things up a bit, dictated those instructions not only to one Stone Age tribe, but to 3 ? An omnipotent supernatural entity, mind you, whose instructions required interpreting.
Here’s a definition of theology from Merriam-Webster :
Definition of THEOLOGY
1
: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world
2
a : a theological theory or systemb : a distinctive body of theological opinion
3
: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary
My impression is that 3) is what theologians are mostly concerned with these days, the aquisition of a degree in hot air management and the Emperor’s fashion habits, one that pays the bills and occasionally gets one to pontificate about morality and epistemology from a presumed moral high ground that, as it turns out, is nothing but a hot air cushion. But like alchemists at the Chemistry congress, theologians keep coming back and delude themselves into believing they should have anything relevant at all to say about matters concerning the realm of reality, such as questions of morality for example, where their deluded arguments that are all based on flawed assumptions and premises about the makeup of the world we live in, are not in any way substantive or helpful in advancing our knowledge or understanding of the matter at hand.
The Gish Gallop employed by so-called “feared theologian debaters” like William Lane Craig is just the same empty fapping that one can witness from any average creationist or blind and fervent believer, from Hamza Tzortzis to Dembski to Behe to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
These people all start their arguments and axioms from a false premise, namely “my god exists”. We should not let them just fap away furiously, but keep on insisting that they first clarify for us what they mean by such words as “god”, and how they are going to prove that this premise they work from, and on which their whole theology rests, is in fact true and not just a figment of their imagination. Until then, theologians have nothing. Alchemists, essentially. Show me the gold !
