Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed writes: Well, Merlyn, I would say that all theologians agree there is a God. Well, you're wrong Ed. Not all theologians agree on that. Now I know you will probably fire back with a self proclaimed theologian who states he/she doesn't believe there is a God. Not "self-proclaimed," there are theologians with degrees in theology just like theist theologians. They just became atheists. Wikipedia has a category for atheist theologians, with 4 listed (2 living, 2 dead including Bruno Bauer, who taught theology at Bonn while an atheist) There are also polytheist theologians, which, while they would agree that gods exist, would say there were more than one. This points out a further problem with theology -- it's easy to use a "no true scotsman" fallacy against theologians that get degrees that another theology doesn't recognize as true. They, of course, can do the same in return. But then there's no way to determine who is a "real" theologian.

Ed writes: Well the statement "Theologians do not agree on ANYTHING" is bogus so that makes the whole argument moot. What is something (in the field of theology) that all theologians agree on, Ed? I keep asking Beavah, but he keeps dodging the question.

Yah, Merlyn, like any uninformed outsider to a discipline, yeh don't know what da questions are that count, and form your judgments based on superficial things. That's bein' intellectually young. It seems to me that "how many gods are there" is about the most basic question you can have in theology. Got an answer that all theologians agree on? Well, no. So do those many religions which you missed, which all have various versions of "first remove the log from your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the mote from your brother's". I'm not talking about "religions," I'm talking about theology. And you're still dodging the question. What's a fact in theology that all theologians agree on? I can find a fact that everyone in the field of medicine agrees on. I can find a fact that everyone in the field of geology can agree on. Where's such a "fact" in theology? There isn't one. Theology has no facts. And sorry Beavah, you can't drag in superstitious "medicine men" and claim that somehow means that modern medicine is as free of facts as "theology." I suspect most medicine men even agree that the heart pumps blood, and if they don't, they're WRONG. That's another thing that real fields of expertise produce -- they can say someone is WRONG. What can be pronounced WRONG in theology? Nothing, because it's all equally right, and equally wrong. One god? Hey, you're right! Millions of gods? Hey, you're right TOO! No gods? Hey, you're right TOO! There's no standard of right and wrong in theology. Heh, heh. So Beavah, are you going to quit dodging the question and either: 1) produce a fact that all theologians agree on 2) admit that there are no facts in theology

No Ed, you aren't using my logic. You can't understand. I already explained twice now. Doctors do NOT agree on EVERYTHING. They DO agree on SOME THINGS. Theologians do not agree on ANYTHING. They can't even agree about any one single fact in their supposed "field of expertise," because it's all bunk. It's just people making up stuff, with no way to check if any particular statement is correct or not. They have zero facts.

John-in-KC, you're stacking the deck by ignoring all the Hindu, Wiccan, Shinto, Buddhist, etc theologians. It's easy to find a subset that agrees on anything, because you can just select that subset using it. However, in a real field of knowledge like medicine, EVERYONE agrees that the human heart pumps blood. It doesn't matter if they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Shinto, Buddhist, or atheist. But theologians? Nope. They can't even agree on how many gods exist. You can cherry-pick a subset that agrees, and I can cherry-pick another subset that says there are millions of gods. And they're all "experts." So all doctors agree on everything? No Ed, I already explained that, but I see you can't understand. Doctors do NOT agree on EVERYTHING. They DO agree on SOME THINGS. Like whether the human heart pumps blood. If you find one that doesn't agree with that statement, I suggest you do not use his or her services. So, what causes cancer? We don't know, OGE, that's still being investigated. It's the cutting edge of medical knowledge. But notice there's no debate on whether the human heart pumps blood or is the source of bodily humors or is the source of human emotion. We've figured that much out. It's known and settled, even though it wasn't known at one time. That's how a field of expertise expands on what it knows. Now, find one factoid in the field of theology that has complete agreement like "the heart pumps blood" does in medicine. There ISN'T one, because theology is basically people making up whatever they imagine. There is no way to check who is right, so there is NEVER any agreement or advancement. Let me demonstrate a bit more. The earth is round. This was disputed long ago, but it isn't now. Find any similar "fact" in theology that is not disputed by literally millions of people. There are millions of monotheists and millions of polytheists and millions of atheists. None of these groups even agree on how many gods EXIST, much less on what properties they may possess. REAL fields of expertise have a few FACTS associated with them. That's how you get to be an expert in that field, you learn lots of facts and lots of theories on how things work in that field. But there's NOTHING like that in theology. There's no single fact to even start building on.

Yeh think economists all agree on everything Of course not, but that isn't what I said, if you bothered to read what I wrote. (or anything) Yes, actually, they DO agree on some things. Physicians? They certainly agree on lots of things. For example, all of them agree that the heart pumps blood through the circulatory system. Because medicine is a REAL FIELD OF EXPERTISE. People investigate things, and they COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON HOW THINGS REALLY WORK. They BUILD ON EARLIER KNOWLEDGE. There is NOTHING like this in "theology." There is no agreement on ANYTHING. There is NEVER ANY PROGRESS. Yeh really are pretty young. Especially when yeh think lawyers or professors actually get things done. I'm 52, and you continue to dodge the question. What do "experts" on "gods" agree on? Nothing. There is no field of expertise where gods are concerned. There is no built-upon body of knowledge. To borrow a phrase from Gertrude Stein, there is no there there.

Beavah, there are ZERO experts on gods. There are lots of pretenders that claim they're experts, but unlike EVERY OTHER FIELD OF EXPERTISE, they don't agree on ANYTHING. You never see this in any other field, because other fields actually need to get things done. It's impossible to be ignorant about a "field" that has no data of any kind. Oh, by the way Beavah, if there are "experts" in theology, name something these experts agree on regarding gods (note that I am not referring to religions, I'm referring to gods). Experts in other fields actually get to a point where they agree on things, so what do theologians agree on? They can't even agree on how many gods exist.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Beavah, absolutely nobody has a leg up on what god or gods exist, or the slightest bit of information about them, contrary to your ridiculous implication. But there are plenty of ignorant people who are ready to tell you exactly what their god thinks and wants, even if that contradicts what other ignorant people say their god thinks and wants. And they're all "experts" on gods. But it's humans all the way down.

Feynman wasn't talking about religion or religiosity, he was talking about god. I don't see any reason to think that anyone is more 'expert' than anyone else when it comes to commenting on gods.

. . . I just don't see how blasphemy = progress. I look at it more like freedom to blaspheme = progress.

So you're saying you want a president that bribes officials?

The US doesn't have any because of the first amendment, but as I cited at the start of this thread, Ireland has a blasphemy law with a 25,000 Euro fine, Pakistan has the death penalty, and there are Muslim groups lobbying the UN to make "defamation of religions" a crime (the UN passed a non-binding resolution a year ago).

HICO_Eagle lies: Merlyn, 'fess up. You want Pope Benedict in prison because 1) he's the Pope (which goes against your pro-atheist agenda) and 2) he stands firm on the Catholic stance against active homosexuals, don't you? No. I want the pope in prison for his part in covering up molesters in the Roman Catholic Church. I already explained that.

Or perhaps its due to your general defense of all things religious. You even say you wouldn't be surprised if he helped cover up sexual abuse....!?? You wouldn't be surprised if the Pope helped cover up sexual abuse? What kind of standard is that? And, of course, a member of the RCC can help cover up crimes in the US by writing instructions to priests to not report allegations and move abusive priests instead of going to the police. There also is a qualitative difference between being the actual rapist and covering for the rapist after the fact. Yes, the person covering up the rapist is often WORSE. The rapist/molester will often rationalize their own behavior or be emotionally unable to resist acting out abusive behavior; the person who covers it up has no such excuse, helps perpetuate the abuse far longer, and might even be thwarting the abuser who "wants to be caught." (rephrased a bit better)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

And that's kind of the point (or A point) of Blasphemy Day, packsaddle; it should be possible to discuss religious ideas on the same basis as any other ideas, without laws that give "special rights" to religious ideas to be free from criticism or even outright loathing. "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"

"Cake or death?"

He's been accused of covering up sexual abuse by priests while he was a Cardinal. While Pope, he was named in a Texas lawsuit but got diplomatic immunity, so there's not much chance there will ever be any trials.

I'd have no problem with both Polanski and Pope Benedict in prison.

Nobody can ever take away what God has given I disagree; if you are, say, executed for blasphemy, that takes away your right to blaspheme (and also your right to live). Declaring that some right can't be taken away doesn't make it so, and can lead to a false sense of security.

It's today! http://www.blasphemyday.com 25,000 fine in Ireland, death in Pakistan "gods are myths"

I think the word you're searching for is "uppity." That's an old favorite to describe people who force their own government to obey the constitution.

As far as I can tell, yes, they really DO want everyone else to adhere to at least some of their beliefs. If the BSA allows gay members, every LDS unit can still reject all gays as members because the BSA has always allowed individual units to set additional joining criteria, such as a church unit requiring church membership or Christianity to join, or be a leader, etc. So if gays could join, no LDS unit would be required to have gay members. But that wasn't good enough, apparently.

BadenP, did you have anything to add to this discussion, or are you just going to whine about how sad it is that public schools can no longer discriminate against atheists by chartering cub scout packs?

It's a mix of both Ed; people quoting BSA policy (assuming bsalegal.org can be taken as official policy), plus people's opinions on what it actually means. But since SCOUTS-L doesn't permit 3G discussions, it ended, so I thought I'd bring it up where it could be hashed out more.

I think you're reading too much into the 1993 and 2004 policy statements Some of the people on SCOUTS-L seem to think it's an actual policy change. The 1993 policy says pretty clearly that avowed gays can't be leaders or members, but the 2004 policy says "In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position." That doesn't sound like he loses his membership. If he's supposed to lose his membership, why isn't that even mentioned?