<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:51 PM, spike <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net" target="_blank">spike66@att.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:46 PM, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> ?Why is it OK to criticize somebody's beliefs about anything EXCEPT<br>
</span>>> religion no matter how brain dead dumb it is? ...<br>
<br>
<br>
>...There is also a fundamental problem with lack of tools for criticism.<br>
How many can make a good theological argument these days? ...<br>
--<br>
Anders Sandberg<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
Meeeeeee, I can. I have been an atheist for over 30 years now, but I still<br>
remember how to do theological synthesis from my misspent youth. I still<br>
know the lines of reasoning, the basic assumptions, the tools of the trade.<br>
<br>
I did observe something interesting from the old days: those who can do the<br>
most effective theological synthesis (creating novel lines of reasoning in<br>
theological matters (there are such things)) are those who are not<br>
themselves believers.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
spike<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">I don't think we have to make any theological arguments. All we have to do is to say that we are empiricists, so show me some concrete evidence of angels and all the rest. As one cannot prove anything in religion, as it is outside the realm of empiricism, then I'd say the two cannot argue at all intelligently.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">To me, and maybe this is really overly simplistic, epistemology breaks down into:<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">Rationalism, Intuitionism, Empiricism, and <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">Authoritarianism. </div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">Each can hold truths that are false or simply not applicable in any other system. Rational theological arguments are meaningless in empiricism.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">Right? Spike?<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);display:inline">bill w<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>