But we do have to keep in mind that there *are* Christians (or Muslims, or whatever) who do. They state God exists and people who say he doesn't are either lying or sadly deluded. They fall into the same category as atheists in this respect.
I agree that atheists ignore a possibilty which is there, and that they shouldn't do so, but the attitude you describe exists among the religious as well.</font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. The problem in that case is with the individual, not the belief system.

However, the problem I have is with the atheistic belief system itself, not with the individual per se.

Thanks for the reply Yorick and the explanation on the terminology here.

But still, the question stands;

An Atheist would by denying all possibilities of a god is kinda challaneging your reality by de facto. But wouldn´t all belivers of gods (not only christians) do the same by actually believing in god?? Since they take for granted there is a god that rules everything you put that values on the atheist as well?

DOn´t you see, if that is the case, then just by being a person you create a alienism towards each other.

OKI, I´m not an Atheist, that much I have concluded by this topic- I´m a no believer in that any word could alone possibly describe what I am or what I think. ;)

Hah! ;)

Theology IS a science.</font>[/QUOTE]Theology is NOT a science. It is a philosophy.

I’ll find another dictionary in that case.
It’s a contingent, not a necessary or absolute truth; In Fact, I think It may have reached Agrippa’s trilemma here.

I can go on giving reasons why theology is not a science forever and ever, using different sources to back that up each time,
I can just say, “Theology is not a science. Period” although of course that is dogmatic and people will scoff and small children will pursue me in the street banging pots and pans.
Or I could say that theology is not science because if it were a science it would be a science, But since it’s not a science it can’t be, but if it was a science it would be. Circular reasoning, and If I tried that I fear for the sanctity of my fridge.

[QB]</font>[/QUOTE]We're talking language Dramnek. Your opinion on what words mean holds no water. I've presented and used factual definitions. My definition and yours. Find another dictionary if you like and I will address that. AT the end of the day theologians will continue to use scientific method to reach their conclusions about a subject you have a problem with. THe METHOD not the SUBJECT is the issue, and this a point you seem reluctant to address.</font>[/QUOTE]TESTIFAH MA BROTHA!
Theology is not science, Sorry.
It’s a philosophy it seems.
Have you carried out scientific experiments to prove any of its presumptions?
Do theologians carry out scientific experiments to prove THEIR assumpumptions?
Please tell me when they do.
Do they for example test to see how powerful different types of praying are or similar?

TIA.HTH.

I just went to a seminar about this 3 weeks ago, given by a scientist whom by chance is a christian.
I wish I had the layout of his work, but as I said before Theology is not science in the imperical manner we eccept today, the abbility to test and retest ones theory and observations independently from the origanator. You can only test biblical text with prayer or faith (phylosophy). In a sense, I can understand a christians point in saying that god is provable by prayer, becouse I beleave the mind is a powerfull tool in any hoping, healing, loving, or any other emotion humans ocomplish. I guess I could even say that is the "inner god" as I've heard before.

[ 01-28-2003, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

Fair enough, I see what you mean. But I think that in this respect the two belief systems are similar. Many atheists do not think that Christians are deluded, many Christians do not think atheists are.

Anyway, on another point, it seems you guys are arguing a SINGLE WORD now, namely science. I think you'll just have to agree to disagree on the EXACT value of the word science and accept that a lot of words don't have an exact value (or literary critics would be out of a job [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
You are staring yourselves blind on this one definition because you think it holds implications for your personal view, but it's just a *word*. By most people's standards, my study (English Literature) is not a science, but it IS a social science. I don't mind which they call it, as long as they know what the study itself entails (which is often a problem for people ;) ).
So don't argue about a word, argue about content. What is theology in this modern age? What did it used to be?

From our world as it is now, I think we can deduct contemporary theology is a different thing from theology as practised for instance by Thomas Aquino.
Sorry LordK, going down to word level for a sec - one thing I know is that Theology is NOT a philosophy. That's just a completely different thing. They teach theology at my university, and while there is a specialiation course that educates people to be priests or ministers, the main course has nothing to do with people's personal beliefs. It STUDIES religion: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. It looks at parallels and differences, source texts, translations. Students are taught history, philosophy, languages. It is as much a science or as little as any other "social science". This is maybe not how theology was defined in the past, but it is the most logical sense of the word now. Possibly no science is 100% objective, because people come into it and people simply aren't objective. But that doesn't change the fact that Theology as taught today is NOT a philosophy (i.e. a way to look at the world, a way to regard and explain phenomena, a beliefsystem...).

That said, I really think you guys should get off the "Is a science is not is too" bandwagon. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. ;)
Some people define science in the narrowest definition of the word, thinking labs, experiments, calculation, hard evidence. Some of you define it in the broadest possible sense, as in "anything studied by humans". Something can be said for both but that's not the point. The point is that the little yes-no game isn't going anywhere, and you can pull out all the dictionaries you want, you're not going to sway the other side. Can't you just agree that in the narrow sense as described above, theology is NOT a science, and in the broad sense it IS? Or are you just enjoying being in each other's hair all the time for no good reason and I'm just interrupting a perfectly senseless debate? In that case, don't mind me, carry on... [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D ;)
Oh and uh...
HAND all of you

:D

[ 01-28-2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Well said Mel ! http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon14.gif [img]smile.gif[/img]

The etymology of the word "theology" comes from ancient Greek : "theos" = god, and "logos" = talking. Basically what theologists do is talking about god(s). [img]smile.gif[/img]

I believe this is part of the problem. There appears to be quite a few individuals who are not sure what they believe so they say they are atheist. If you are not sure, then by definition you are agnostic not atheist.

I posted this from page four so if someone else has said this I apologize.

For a bit more descriptions of what is what I found an interesting article as a sideline to this thread.

I hope that it is good reading for you who are interested in the differencies between an Agnostic and Atheist.

However, not knowing who this person who wrote it (the joy and danger of internet ;) ) I can´t say that this is ultimately true, or even politicly correct.

So take it for what it is. Enjoy:

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E...l/agnostic.htm

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

The statement, “there is no god” can, as you stated, devaluate the experience of others. I insert that the statement, “there is a god” dose exactly the same thing. There are, most likely, individuals who have had life experiences that prove, to them, that there is no god.

“The very fact that we are talking about god proves that he exists”. I do not agree with this statement. The only thing that is proven by the fact that we are able to discuss a word is the fact that the word exists, not the meaning behind it.