This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

RoryCalhone's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by RoryCalhone

ADH has criticized Edmund Standing for studying a subject which he had already thought worthless. Leaving aside the fact that we don't know whether maybe Mr Standing did not think it was worthless to begin with and only found this out after studying all this pointless drivel, it seems you completely miss the point of the article.

Standing was arguing against the point that some theists try to use the "that's not my religion" and "study some theology" defences against the new atheists. Here's a man who studied theology and says that actually, the new atheists got it right in what they were criticizing. Yet ADH says that this means nothing because he's an anti-theist. This just shows the poverty of theology when Standing is criticized for his anti-theist bias yet others can be encouraged for their pro-theist bias. Isn't this just another way of saying you can't criticize my religion? Theists can no longer hide behind the automatic respect they once got so they now say "you can only criticize my religion when you learn some theology", yet when you do learn some theology they say "you can only understand theology if you believe". If that is truly the case then Dawkins et al are right, Theology is bullshit.

EDIT: Oh and great article by the way

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:38:00 UTC | #82808