Ooooooopsie. You forgot to add "that we (Salyavin and I) know of."
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : Judy, I think Salyavin is trying to state the obvious, that there ARE no "strongest arguments" for Theism. There aren't even any "strong" ones. How can one "inform oneself" about that which does not exist? :-) From: "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:53 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous It really is astounding, Salyavin, how willing--almost eager--you are to flaunt your ignorance. See, here's the thing: If you want to make a credible argument against an idea (any idea), you need to address the strongest argument for that idea. That's just common sense. Now, if you don't even know what the strongest argument for the idea is, you are, to say the least, at a significant disadvantage in arguing against it. That's why philosophers of religion (many if not most of whom are a whole lot smarter and better educated than either you or I, or Curtis, for that matter) just laugh at Dawkins and the other ignorant New Atheists. If they can't be bothered even to inform themselves about the strongest arguments for theism, let alone address those arguments, there's really no reason to take them seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : You may want to massage this thesis a bit, Salyavin, because it doesn't make a lot of sense as you've written it. Although Curtis was a philosophy major at MIU (as I recall), he seemed to be missing a whole chunk of philosophical theology, as Dawkins is. Anybody who would use the "I just believe in one god less" gambit thinking it was a coherent defense of atheism did not have a complete philosophical education. Thanks for the tip. I'll file it under belief in fairies. Some people get intensely philosophical about those too.
