What's God Up To Now?

[LAGC]

ATLANTA (AP) — Two children and a young man have died this summer from a brain-eating amoeba that lives in water, health officials say.

This month, the rare infection killed a 16-year-old Florida girl, who fell ill after swimming, and a 9-year-old Virginia boy, who died a week after he went to a fishing day camp. The boy had been dunked the first day of camp, his mother told the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Those cases are consistent with past cases, which are usually kids — often boys — who get exposed to the bug while swimming or doing water sports in warm ponds or lakes.
..
..
The amoeba — Naegleria fowleri (nuh-GLEER-ee-uh FOWL-er-eye) — gets up the nose, burrows up into the skull and destroys brain tissue. It's found in warm lakes and rivers during the hot summer months, mostly in the South.

http://news.yahoo.com/3-die-rare-brain-infection-amoeba-water-001505888.html

Geez God, thanks for showing us your "benevolence" with this wonderful new life-form you blessed into existence and shared with us. And why target the South? I thought that was the Bible Belt, your 'chosen' people as it were? Are you trying to say something?

What a weird sense of humor you have, ol' Deity... its almost as if you had nothing to do with it and this new life-form just happened to evolve into existence on its own, and nature really just doesn't give a damn about whether us humans live or die. But we know that can't be true, because we're special, created by You... so what gives, God?

[brendan120678]

1. Seriously?

You find this article, and decide that R/T is the absolute best forum to put it in?

This article has nothing to do with Religion, Theology, God, etc. It would fit in just as well in the Guns forum; so why not post it there?

Is the only purpose of putting it in here to mock?

[humankarenball]

2. Unrec. Asinine flamebait material.

And I'm a proud atheist.

[dmallind]

4. Sure it could have been made more artfully, but the point's worth making

Last week I saw a glurge story in the hotel breakfast area about some kid who was presumed drowned but was resuscitated. No credit and barely passing mention was given to the human divers who rescued him or human doctors who saved his life. No hint that drowning victims lose consciousness before death and that fully relaxed (i.e unconscious) people float - nope it was 100% God performing a miracle to hold back death. Perhaps understandable from fundy parents but both reporter and anchor made the same claim, without an ironic twinkle to be seen, in a bona fide major network news show.

Now as long as we see a huge majority of the American public, and editors and staff who use the public airwaves to inform us all, willing to claim that an omnipotent omniscient god can and does save individual kids from watery deaths, surely it is not just permissible for but incumbent upon the rationalists among us to point out that this must, by necessity, mean that God not only condemns kids to watery deaths by omission when he fails to save the hundreds of other drowning kids every week (why? Wrong denomination? Parents insufficiently pious?) but also kills them by commission when he puts a brain-eating parasite in exactly the same place as their nose when they snort water. If million to one nice events are to God's credit, then million to one nasty events must be his fault. You can't have one without the other, and I see no sign that claims of the former are decreasing or being ridiculed as they should be, so I think making the latter claim is fair game, only, and I must stress this, only to show how ridiculous, how logically and ethically bankrupt, claims of miracles are.

[trotsky]

5. Very well put. n/t

[humankarenball]

6. Original post is still flamebait

Which almost always buries any legitimate messaging or possible dialogue about the fallacy of miracles.

I do quite a bit of volunteer coaching for my local high school's speech & debate program. One of the first things I tell them every year is that proper debate consists of what you say AND how you say it. Also, that assertive expression/support of ideas is persuasive, but aggressive expression is not.

I don't see much of an on-topic, healthy debate emerging when the opening premise reads like so much poo-slinging.

[LAGC]

7. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[humankarenball]

10. Thanks

And for the record, if your OP had been worded more like #4's response to me, I'da rec'd the heck out of it. No hard feelings, I hope? :)

(I suppose I'm a product of my environment: I'm the black sheep atheist of my family, and I live in "Bob Jones U" country in SC. I'm frustrated a lot, obviously LOL. I've gotten a few people to listen to my ideas when I'm assertive and reasoned, but never when I get snarky. So this hit on, I guess I'd say, a personal pet peeve.)

[LAGC]

12. It's all good, I appreciate your feedback.

Maybe you're right, perhaps my tone was a bit too harsh and aggressive.

Stick around for awhile and when you feel comfortable, feel free to post some OP's of your own.

I think we all tend to consider ourselves to be at least amateur debaters, so it would be refreshing to see someone who does it as their profession show us how its properly done.

I dropped out of high school in 9th Grade and got my GED and started college early, so I never got to experience a high school debate team. I was never real fond of speech class or speaking in public, but that's the cool thing about Internet forums like this, it gives the voiceless a voice. (Like many here, I suspect, I'm never this vocal or aggressive in real-life, LOL.)

[humankarenball]

13. Oh it's not a profession

It's an avocation. I don't pretend to believe I'm an expert by any stretch!! And even if someone knows good debate fundamentals, it's still sometimes hard to employ them when it's a topic one feels really passionate about.

I'm guilty of getting snarky/flinging poo myself in heated discussions. It's just not usually my jumping off point :D

Nice to meetcha.

[cleanhippie]

9. So its all about the "tone" then?

[humankarenball]

11. All? Nope. A little? Yep.

Like I said, I think proper debate/discussion is what you say and how you say it. The "how" part isn't just tone, although it is an element. It's also argument construction, striving to avoid logical fallacies, good organization, etc. All those things facilitate good debate, IMO.

[darkstar3]

40. I feel that I need to address this, and here is as good a place as any.

You put "how you say it" on the same level as "what you say." You also write below that "aggressive isn't persuasive."

Please read this:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

[Goblinmonger]

19. Depends on the type of debate

I coached a very successful college policy team and "how" you say it really amounted to "quickly." And there is a place for aggressive expression. Perhaps not here but perhaps so.

Stick around. You'll like this place.

[humankarenball]

22. Ick, spreading. :)

(Forensics in SC has floundered so hard that policy isn't even offered as a competitive event for high schoolers. I coach LD primarily, PFD less often.)

I agree there's a place for aggressive expression at times. That doesn't negate my claim that aggressive isn't persuasive.

DU seems like an okay place so far. I've lurked for maybe 3 or 4 months, and I gather it's been a bit more chaotic and confrontational than usual lately? I've just been looking for a place where I can have conversations with (mostly) like-minded people. You see, I live in deeply red upstate South Carolina, where supporting the current President and being politically liberal tends to make one feel a bit isolated.

[Goblinmonger]

23. It has been tough in R/T the last couple months.

The other forums are cyclical, too.

I donated for a star for you (even though you are an LDer) so that you can now go and post to the Atheist/Agnostic group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=263

R/T has a lot of fights. A lot of good people, but you will notice the usuals going after it.

[humankarenball]

26. Wow very sincere thanks

For your generosity, Goblinmonger.

[cleanhippie]

28. Wow, Goblinmonger, what a nice gesture. And you did it despite your lack of belief.

:evilgrin:

[Goblinmonger]

29. I just got done eating a Christian baby

so I was in good spirits. :evilgrin:

[cleanhippie]

31. Ahh, well it all makes perfect sense now.

Any leftovers?

[Meshuga]

34. You are cheating

I thought you were vegetarian.

[tortoise1956]

59. Man, that is just evil!

unless, of course, you used the right steak sauce...

In case no one caught it - I AM being facetious.

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

25. Well then, welcome to DU.

And if you have been lurking, you probably noticed that while things can get a bit tense and personal, as long as you support the claims you make with evidence (not some "other" way of knowing), stay consistent, and reply to questions with straightforward answers instead of obfuscating and performing sophistic gymnastics, you will fit in just nicely.

Again, welcome to DU, and we look forward to reading your opinions on all thing R&T related.

:fistbump:

[humankarenball]

27. thanks cleanhippie :) n/t

[skepticscott]

35. In a formal debate competition that may be true

but did you also teach them that the attitude or demeanor of the person advancing a proposition has zero bearing on its likelihood of being true? If they go through life swallowing only the ideas that are expressed politely and dismissing the ones that aren't, they'll get a lot of things wrong.

[humankarenball]

36. I'm not their parent

I'm a volunteer debate coach.

Also, I never claimed that ideas impolitely expressed were inherently false, merely that they were not likely to be persuasive and weren't a good opening premise for constructive discussion.

[skepticscott]

37. The point of constructive discussion

is to discover the truth and winnow out falsehood, true? In the long run, does anyone remember whether the advocates of things now accepted as true were primarily polite or impolite? In the long run, evidence and logic win out over attitude, and only treating nonsense with politeness and deference allows it to endure.

And I would have thought you would have taught your young debaters at least the basics of what to consider in evaluating the truth of a proposition or argument.

[humankarenball]

38. You said it best

"In the long run, evidence and logic win out over attitude"

[skepticscott]

42. There are any number of people here

who think that attitude is more important that evidence. But fortunately, when evidence is on the same side as an undiplomatic attitude, evidence still does win in the end, and sometimes more quickly than if baloney is treated with respect it doesn't deserve.

[tortoise1956]

60. The biggest problem with attitude

is that BOTH sides tend to degenerate into meaningless noise. If you can keep your cool while your opponent loses his, you have a much better chance of convincing listeners that your argument is correct.

Besides, you don't have to holler and cuss to display your contempt for BS. (Although I agree that it is pretty damn tempting sometimes...):evilgrin:

[skepticscott]

64. Perhaps, but I think that tends more to apply

in judged competitions of limited scope, such as debate competitions or courtroom trials, where being more persuasive and getting the audience to vote your way is the primary goal, and getting at the truth only secondary (if that).

In the wide world of ongoing debate over contentious issues, however, there can be a definite detriment to appearing deferential to ideas that have been completely debunked and discredited. Treating such an idea as if it deserves respect instead of scorn may lead people not well educated on the subject to think "Hey, the people arguing against that don't seem too sure of themselves...maybe there's something to that."

[opiate69]

50. Local coverage offered up a pretty vivid image

This happened here in Washington State... one excerpt from the local paper really made it easy to picture the old saw "one pair of hands at work can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer"

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/08/11/1778459/girl-put-life-on-line-in-to-save.html

After hearing Dale's call for help Friday, Nicole immediately turned her boogie board toward deeper waters despite the objections of her father, who shouted over the crashing waves about the dangerous conditions. Nicole managed to reach Dale, who was struggling to stay afloat, and helped him onto the three-foot board. Together, the two youths struggled against the rip current that had turned an average day at a popular beach into chaos.
"When we were on that board, I kind of shouted out to myself: 'We're going to die. I can't die like this,'" Nicole recalled.
Dale, meanwhile, had offered words of assurance: "Keep paddling. We're almost there."
If only.
A rogue wave slammed into the pair, knocking them off the board. Nicole managed to get back up, but Dale disappeared back into the surf.
By the time rescuers had reached the beach, fellow members of the church group Dale had been traveling with were huddled in tears and prayer while some stood on trucks trying to get a vantage point to spot him.
Eddie Mendez, a volunteer water rescuer, was working his day job at a construction site when the emergency call came in. The 34-year-old immediately drove over to the beach and changed into a wet suit while his colleague launched two jet skis.

[Deep13]

54. No. If God made or directs everything...

...then he made that disease too.

[edhopper]

3. I get your point

and think it is entirely appropriate to post it here in R/T.
The loving God who gave us the cruel, random horrors of nature.

[rug]

8. Absent some overriding moral cosmology, where is the horror in algae?

Is a brain eating alga more horrible than a ladybug eating an aphid?

[Humanist_Activist]

14. If your going to criticize, get your biology right, amoebas aren't algae...

they are unicellular Eukaryote group that feed on other organisms for energy, algae are a Eukaryote group that photosynthesize to produce energy.

As far as an answer to your question, technically no, however, the fact is that the god you believe in supposedly created the rules of the universe, and the rules of predator and prey, accordingly, by sane people's standards, that god is a sociopath.

But hey, that's your beliefs, not mine.

[rug]

17. Thanks for the pedantry.

But you haven't answered the question.

If there is no god, where is the horror of brain-eating amoebae? Or, do you find, in the absence of god, the world to be a place filled with the horror of predators?

[Goblinmonger]

20. As a vegetarian atheist

there is no horror in brain-eating amoebae any greater than any other horror of one being killing another. I mean it sucks that those kids die and I wish the parents never had to go through that, but people kill very high-functioning animals every day to eat them.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. How is the horror removed if your god exists?

The world is filled with predators, and yes, even horror, this doesn't change regardless as to whether your god exists or not.

Horror also doesn't have a moral component, neither does disease, but only if there is no god, if your god does exist, then he is responsible and accordingly, by our standards, he's amoral at best.

[edhopper]

15. Exactly

thanks for the argument that there is no God.

[rug]

16. Well, you can't have it both ways.

[edhopper]

18. Have what both ways?

[rug]

21. Blame god for what occurs in life while denying its existence.

[Goblinmonger]

24. If you aren't just pretending to be obtuse (which I think you are)

read post #4 so that you can get the point.

[rug]

30. It's not apropos.

I'll spare you my personal opinion of you.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Like I don't know? n/t

[edhopper]

32. Do you think if I used small words and explained it

slowly, would it have any impact?
Just wondering?

[rug]

43. Yes, please do.

[edhopper]

55. YOUR God

is supposedly a loving God. Yet nature is full of these cruel acts. So your loving God has created a nature that can be very cruel.
As an atheist I understand the randomness of nature and that these things are part of the natural process.
But as caring human I feel for the victims of these acts and hope we try to mitigate the pain that often comes with living in a natural world.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Meshuga]

39. He is probably yelling at his quality assurance team...

...for not catching these defects before releasing the brain-eating amoebas. The bad publicity can be damaging.

[struggle4progress]

44. If killer amoeba concern you, feel free to devote time/money in search of a cure

[LAGC]

46. Good idea, I might just do that.

Most of my volunteer contributions goes towards groups like the Center for Dementia Research, these days: http://cdr.rfmh.org/pages/aboutcdrpage.html

I'll admit its mostly out of self-interest, as I've had so many family members (especially women on my maternal side of the family) develop it as they age: my grandma, my great-grandma, my great aunt, and others. I worry a lot about my mom developing it, as she just turned 55.

But brain-eating amoeba kind of falls in that same category of neurological research, so yeah, if I come across any group dedicating itself to working on a cure, I'll definitely send a few bucks their way.

Kids ought to be able to swim and play in the water without fear of dying.

[struggle4progress]

47. The known annual fatality rate seems relatively constant at 3 per annum over an extended period:

... According to CDC data, 32 cases -- all fatal -- occurred between 2001 and 2010. From 1937 to 2007, there were 121 reported cases ...
Brain-Eating Amoeba Thrives in Warm, Fresh Water
By Jennifer Viegas
Thu Aug 18, 2011 04:15 PM ET
http://news.discovery.com/human/brain-eating-amoeba-110818.html

[LAGC]

48. True, there are definitely much bigger problems out there that need addressed.

I'm just afraid this thing might mutate/evolve and become much more deadly over time.

Sometimes its best to nip problems like this in the bud, before they become widespread.

[struggle4progress]

49. I didn't actually say that. Of course, it's true that a cost-benefit analysis might

suggest that limited dollars could be spent elsewhere with larger impact, but I'm not strictly bound to a cost-benefit view: an unnecessary/untimely death is first of all a death, which signifies a lost future and lost relationships, and the grief it causes can't really be monetized in my view. We all have finite lives, of course, and we all face the problem of deciding how to spend our time and treasure. I expect most of us are rather hypocritical in this regard: should I forego summer air-conditioning or my internet service or a daily afternoon cup of coffee, if I could save up for a donation that might help find a cure? Independent of whether or not one "believes" in any traditional deity, or dislikes or dislikes traditional religious rituals, I think such questions are "theological" -- in the sense that through such questions we are forced to examine "who we really are, and who we want to be, not just in theory but in practice, "

[LAGC]

51. Interesting perspective.

And you're right that we all struggle with such questions, regardless of our beliefs. But I'm not so sure such questions are "theological" in nature as much as they are "altruistic" in nature.

Richard Dawkins wrote in The Selfish Gene that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.

In a way, by helping out our fellow man, we are still being "selfish" in the sense that we are helping out ourselves, by hoping others will reciprocate our kindness if we are ever in need.

Kind of ties in to that whole "Social Contract" idea, getting along with our fellow man, because it benefits us as well.

[struggle4progress]

53. Dunno. Thirty-five or so years ago, I thought evolutionary arguments for altruism

were philosophically important and scientifically convincing. I thought that because (1) I was a materialist (2) with evolutionary views and (3) a distaste for the libertarian social-darwinist market-based views of my contemporaries, and (4) I hoped that philosophical and scientific arguments would prove decisive in ideological fights with the social-darwinists

But these arguments were not decisive with them. In fact, I realized to my horror that they adopted their views first and their philosophical justifications only in hindsight: they were social-darwinists simply because it suited them -- some did believe in evolution; some believed in evolution only insofar as it supported their social-darwinist views; others believed in social-darwinism but rejected evolution; and none were convinced by evolutionary arguments for altruism. Later, I began to think that most of us start with the "conclusions" that suit us, later providing arguments that we regard as decisive for "conclusions" that we had already reached -- and that this is a very difficult habit to break

I am still a materialist with evolutionary views and a distaste for social-darwinist views, and I still have some sympathy for arguments claiming an evolutionary basis for altruism. Such arguments make some sense. But I now regard them as ideological rather than scientific

Genes typically code for proteins, which means that they may be coding for something like cell building block precursors, or hormones, or enzymes. At present, modeling in detail how the genome produces any higher organism is beyond us. Presumably this might be accomplished at some forseeable future time with the worm Caenorhabditis elegans, and it will not be terribly simple to model, since the worm has something like 20K genes. One could then turn to the problem of modeling in detail how populations of a particular sexually-reproducing organism evolve under evolutionary pressure. The difficulty here is that, Dawkins notwithstanding, evolution involves not merely single genes but whole assemblies of interacting genes, some of which may be expressed only under certain environmental conditions. With humans, there is an additional complicating factor: perhaps in the last dozen or so millennia, cultural evolution has played an increasingly important role: we have climbed up on the shoulders of our ancestors who figured out how to make usable knives from flint. Now, there is no gene for "making knives from flint" anymore than there is a gene for "speaking Sanskrit" -- what enables such activities are complicated assemblies of genes that produce a certain hand and eye and brain, overlaid with some long cultural heritage. And similarly with the origins of "altruism." One can say, plausibly I suppose, that "altruism" flows from evolutionary pressure on our genes -- but until one can actually construct the model in great detail and find out what is wrong with it, it's not science: it's just a long-term research project -- and to carry out that project one has to be able to see things clearly from the biochemical level all the way up to the cultural level. I don't think we're anywhere near that

[LAGC]

56. True, we do still have a lot to learn in the area of genetics, genomics, etc.

And I agree with you that cultural factors certainly weigh in on altruism as a social trait, as well.

I'll even concede that various studies have shown that religious people tend to be more charitable than non-believers on average, even though much of that charity often comes with strings attached. I know Richard Dawkins had a big fund drive on his web-site for Haiti earthquake relief, but I don't think he raised anywhere near as much money as even some of the smallest religious outreach programs. So in that sense, altruism combined with ideology does tend to magnify the effect of giving (and volunteering time), something non-believers are too often sorely lacking.

But I still like to give both money (and my time, mostly to the ACLU lately) to various causes, just because I believe in their missions, not because I want to score brownie points with a deity in the after-life. Charity, to me, seems more rewarding when you do it when no one's looking, not necessarily expecting any reward in this life, or any potential after-life beyond.

[Deep13]

57. So why did our loving and all-powerful god create them in the first place? nt

[struggle4progress]

58. It seems to me there are various approaches to the natural world's evident indifference to us

I expect you ask that question, based on certain particular interactions you have had with certain particular people who hold certain particular views

But the question you ask does not interest me in the least. It seems to me meaningless for any purpose. I do not see how any purported "answer" to it would really inform me

Perhaps the question does not seem meaningless to you. Or (more likely, I think) you know other people who do not regard the question as meaningless: if so, you could discuss the question with them, if you like. On my view, you and they could have a discussion, or an argument, that I would regard as pointless -- though I suppose neither you nor they would regard the argument/discussion as pointless

A view I myself would want to hold instead is this: the problems of "evil" in the world are not most importantly abstract problems to be met by theorizing, but are rather problems involving our practical responses to those afflicted

[darkstar3]

62. A nice way to avoid closer inspection of your own beliefs.

[Deep13]

69. Facts are facts regardless of what one chooses to call meaningless.

That's a pretty convenient dodge. There cannot be an all powerful, loving god and still have the world the way it is. Those two conditions are mutually exclusive and no amount of selective consideration changes that. Your subject line actually explains everything: nature is indifferent to us. That's because there is no god, or at least none that have godly powers or else none that are good. In either of those cases, however, we are not talking about gods as anyone understands the term, but rather some other kind of supernatural being.

[struggle4progress]

71. Life is short. One must decide how to spend one's limited time. One can theorize

about the "significance" of the world's problems, or one can try to figure out how to respond. I think I should probably take the view that the first alternative is a waste of time and the second alternative is really better

[skepticscott]

73. A very funny response

coming from someone who spends endless time and effort cutting and pasting from Google searches in an attempt to frame the significance of problems caused by religion and religious beliefs.

[struggle4progress]

78. Could be. Have a nice day!

:hi:

[struggle4progress]

45. oops a dupes

[Thats my opinion]

61. What discredits.............

Science? Bad science

Politics? Bad politics

Theology? Bad theology


We may ridicule bad science, politics and theology,
but it makes no sense to disregard all science, politics and theology.
If I'm going to blast something stupid about any discipline, perhaps I am credible only if I know and can articulate what is healthy and solid about that discipline.

[darkstar3]

63. Some questions:

Which theology? Many of them are contradictory, and all have created splits and schisms at one point or another as students of individual theologies have come to diverging conclusions on the nature of every theological question.

So which theology is regular, and which of them are "bad"? And to follow that question, what objective criteria do you use to tell the difference? And to follow that one, why don't more people subscribe to your particular theology if your chosen one is "good" and theirs are "bad"?

(These same questions apply to politics, as well, when you think about it.)

[skepticscott]

65. The question of objective criteria is the key

Science has a largely objective basis for judging good science from bad, and telling scientific truth from falsehood. We test something against the world that we observe and see how well it fits. It's a gradual and not entirely perfect process, but it does eventually lead to an improvement in objective knowledge and understanding of the things science purports to study.

What criteria are used to distinguish "good" theology from "bad" theology is a complete mystery, even to theologians (though I expect our friend will say that "progressive" theologians are making great progress in that area, and that I don't understand what they do at all). I've asked over and over on this board, what do we know now that we didn't know 50 or 100 years ago, and what do we understand better than we did 50 or 100 years ago, because of theological inquiry? I have yet to see an even remotely sensible answer.

[Thats my opinion]

66. This and scott's questions deserve thoughtful answers,

if either of you are serious or just want something else to put down. But they are not simple questions that can be answered in a paragraph or a page. I have a written a couple of books about this and if you after really interested, look one of them up on Amazon. "Building a Biblical Faith" is probably the best or, "A Guide to Liberation Theology for Middle Class Congregations.

I'm not interested in giving you all some quick flip answers you can shoot down, but if these are serious questions, let me know and I'll get to work putting our a few pages which i will probably send to each of you in letter form.

[darkstar3]

68. This is a discussion board with no apparent limit on the length of posts,

and many people here have offered up 3-4 page posts in the past, laden with facts and links for anyone who was interested in reading. This medium does not prevent you from answering the three questions I posted.

I find it to be extremely poor behavior to strike up an argument on a discussion board and then tell participants that they should pay to read your responses in book form.

Rest assured that I am also not stupid enough to share my personal address with a random person from the internet.

If you have serious answers to these questions, then you can post them here. If you are interested only in shilling for your books or finding more addresses for your direct mail campaigns, you will find me unwilling to participate.

[skepticscott]

72. Sorry, but it's hard to see your response

as anything but stalling and dissembling. My question IS simple and can be answered simply. Just give us 5 or 10 examples of things that we understand better now than we did 100 years ago as a result of theological inquiry. If I were answering the question for science, I could give that many examples and more very easily, and in as many lines. I'm not asking for a detailed account of how that knowledge was arrived at, just the end results. Pages and pages, or reference to a book-length work, are not required, and I can only think that in claiming otherwise you either don't understand the question, or that you understand all too well that answering it honestly will undermine the position that theology provides any objective knowledge or understanding of what it purports to study and that it's possible to distinguish "good" from "bad" theology.

So let's have your list of examples, and we'll go from there.

[cleanhippie]

67. I agree on two of your three points. What discredits theology, however, is the lack of evidence

to support it.

[Deep13]

70. Define good or bad theology.

What discredits politics are bad results, public policy that works against the people. What discredits science are conclusions not based in fact. So how can you tell if theology is good or bad? There is no test to verify its claims. Theologians are just guessing and not guessing very well at that.

[Thats my opinion]

74. It's on the way in a few days

There are a number of question lately that can be boiled down: " What is good and bad theology, and what are the evidences that good theology has had a positive affect?" I think many of you honestly would like to l hear an answer. Some just want something else to attack. We all know the difference when it appears in r/t. I want to discuss the questions for those who would like to hear a response. I'm not interested in agreement, nor am I interested in just putting out something to be dismantled with no intention even to hear what is said. My response will take a few days, and I will file it as an original post instead of here. (I do have a couple other deadlines for stuff I publish elsewhere) Patience, I am not dissembling or dodging, but giving careful attention to those asking an honest question.

[skepticscott]

75. As I mentioned above

an honest answer to my questions would take five lines and two minutes, if you really knew the subject and if it really was an answer and not just pages upon pages of obfuscation and deflection from the simple core issues (which is what I suspect we'll get, if you even answer at all). I see you've already attempted to dishonestly reframe and limit the questions to suit your preconceived answers. But if obfuscation and more dissembling is all it is, yes it will be torn down. What else do you expect in an open discussion forum?

[Thats my opinion]

76. For every complex question

there is a simple answer--that is usually wrong.
scott, you don't want a thoughtful answer. You want something to attack, and since you don't have it yet, you are content to attack me. Nothing new here. So I guess that nothing I say will make any difference. But there are those who are curious, and are not waiting either to be convinced or to attack. They are just curious. And curiosity without qualifications is what the best scientists are all about. Any scientist who knows the answers before the questions are even put is a drag on science.

[skepticscott]

77. You've declared without proof

that the questions that have been posed are complex to begin with, apparently because that's the only way you can think of to avoid answering them (that, along with the not-unexpected playing of the poor persecuted victim card). Science is a complex and difficult area of inquiry, wouldn't you agree? And yet we both know that my questions could be answered accurately for science in a very simple and easy way. If theology is an equally legitimate field of inquiry about things that are not merely products of the inquirer's imaginations, the burden is on you to show why my questions cannot be answered just as simply for theology, regardless of how complex and difficult you might claim that field is.

And I have told you exactly what you need to provide that will make a difference in showing us that you know what you're talking about. I have also never claimed to know the answers to my questions. I merely stated that I have asked these questions any number of times on this board and elsewhere, and never received even an attempt at a legitimate answer. Why are you dishonestly implying otherwise?

I can see that your deflector mechanism is already in full operation, so I don't hold out much hope that you'll live up to your promise of providing those answers.