Religion

LTX

(1,020 posts)

38. Since the examples

Tue May 7, 2013, 06:33 PM

May 2013

I have provided do not suffice to demonstrate that tom-foolery "isn't unique to theology," I concede. You win by assertion. Human reasoning, and a rudimentary appreciation of cogency, cannot be brought to bear on the nonsense that is in the o/p. It is theology, after all. And theology has contributed nothing to human understanding or reasoning. Free at last. (No references to ignorance, you'll note. I hope you appreciate that.)

But just as an aside, the common human sensation of the divine is not subject to "proof." It simply is. I have no non-subjective evidence of god. Nobody does. All I have are a plethora of questions about the ubiquity and power of the immaterial. And my cultural history. I find these things both puzzling and meaningful.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would any of our Sophisticated Theologians™ here at DU care to comment on this? [View all] cleanhippie May 2013 OP

I guess this hits too close to home for our resident Serious Theolgians. cleanhippie May 2013 #1

I guess the words are just too big for me. hrmjustin May 2013 #2

There are some posts by another here who espouses "serious theology", you should read those. cleanhippie May 2013 #3

I tried reading this and it made my brain hurt. hrmjustin May 2013 #4

Ha! Iggo May 2013 #6

Now you know my pain!!!! cleanhippie May 2013 #8

Nacirema rug May 2013 #5

I'm not a Calvinist and don't understand their thinking, so I can't comment struggle4progress May 2013 #7

I've visited their campus, and can recommend the slots. n/t dimbear May 2013 #9

Well, none of our Serious Theologians want to respond, but they DO want to hide it! cleanhippie May 2013 #10

An alert was sent for this post. A jury voted 4/2 to Leave It Alone Sekhmets Daughter May 2013 #11

Yep. I guess our Serious Theologians would rather hide it than respond. cleanhippie May 2013 #12

I'm going to have to remember to use ™ the next time I need to wind someone up here muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #13

Do you think it's because they are illegally using the trademark Serious Theologian? cleanhippie May 2013 #14

I'm surprised they haven't trademarked skepticscott May 2013 #15

Don't you mean "Solid Post"? cleanhippie May 2013 #16

Need funding first goldent May 2013 #17

Funding? "Serious Theology" is like homeopathy. cleanhippie May 2013 #18

Not only that, but wrong answers are often defunded. The list is long, dimbear May 2013 #19

Word Salad Dorian Gray May 2013 #20

You do understand that's the point, right? n/t Goblinmonger May 2013 #21

Of course Dorian Gray May 2013 #39

Would any of the Sophisticated Scientists here at DU care to comment on this? LTX May 2013 #22

A humorous spoof of a scientific paper, written by Isaac Asimov... trotsky May 2013 #23

Oh. You mean like the Alan Sokal paper, LTX May 2013 #24

Asimov purposely wrote it as a spoof, so it should be no surprise. trotsky May 2013 #25

Well, I guess you're right. LTX May 2013 #26

Just so you know, you're attempting to change the subject. trotsky May 2013 #27

"A fraud is not the same as a hoax." I'll have to remember that one. LTX May 2013 #28

Thank you LTX. thucythucy May 2013 #31

Good, you should remember it. trotsky May 2013 #32

Perhaps we can agree that LTX May 2013 #33

Quite simply, "replicating word salad" is not the same as falsifying research. trotsky May 2013 #34

And here is a test for you. LTX May 2013 #35

Many artists' statements are equally dense. okasha May 2013 #36

For the record, you are the one to use the term "ignorant." trotsky May 2013 #37

Since the examples LTX May 2013 #38

I didn't win, you just failed to prove your point. trotsky May 2013 #40

Well played! Jim__ May 2013 #30

bwahahahaha.... mike_c May 2013 #29