Can Theology Rebut the Attacks of the 'New Atheists'?

[Khandro]

Urged on by the likes of Richard Dawkins and others, telling the audience to "dare to use its common sense", the modern theologian and layman theist has to ask them to listen to some very large and strange ideas, and attempt to show that this issue is both interesting and resistant to simplistic certainties. Showing for example, that the God attacked by atheism is a modern construct produced by Enlightenment rationalism, and that previous theism remains untouched by such concepts.
Descartes being the key initiator of this modern conception which implies that God is an object of thought: a being who exists in the same way as other things exist. For pre-modern theology God was not a 'thing' at all, but as expressed by Aquinas ; God is transcendent, beyond our categories, something of which we can have no understanding.
With the insights of postmodernism, is not this earlier conception, not a freer one from the 'Idol-God' of the Enlightenment ?

[vetuste_ennemi]

7 out of 10 from me, Sandy. It's certainly funnier than Khanzo's question.

[jomifl]

v_e ..
Philosopher 1...'why don't you give that book a rest and come for a walk'...'
Philosopher 2..'err no thanks I always put Descartes before dehors.'
OK I'll keep working on it.

[Khandro]

The 'raison d'etre' of A.B. (AB Editor please note) is for someone to ask a question and seek, if not an answer, at least intelligent reply. I'm afraid that this is something singularly lacking on this topic, on which I have been accused of lying, (proved to be completely unfounded) of presenting 'cut and paste' philosophy (ditto). I have had my identity unnecessarily exposed on another site, by "birdie", and I am now receiving strange, anonymous emails. I shall resign from this site, and change my identity on others. I leave you with one thought, an old Spanish proverb; "Talking about bulls, is not the same as being in the bull ring", - chatter on! adiós!

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Naomi; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes is that what you mean.//

No, it isn't that. I want to work out why the author claims, with no supporting evidence, that Moses died in India and was buried there. In the circumstances that would have been something of a feat.

[RATTER15]

Bye!!

[naomi24]

Khandro, I've just read your last post and it's rather alarming! What do you mean you're receiving strange, anonymous emails and why do you suspect they're connected to this site? Who here has your email address?

[RATTER15]

He appears to be blaming Birdie, Oh well, another one bites the dust.

[Stevee]

Khandro's profile is still active - so looks like a flouncer.

He outed himself. If he lies about one thing why not another oh sorry lying "proved to be completely unfounded" or how dat?

Can't fight his corner, trying to be to clever for his own good which if it was his own question he wouldn't be.

Makes me think of the Fast Shows Jed Thomas

[naomi24]

Ratter, I'm sure no one in this section would do that. Why would they? And who has his email address? I've never seen in posted in full - at least not in R&S.

[naomi24]

Correction: I've never seen his email address posted in full anywhere on AB.

[RATTER15]

Ive never seen it either, He is saying that Birdie exposed his identity, maybe this is how someone got his email address.
I am not suggesting Birdie is guilty of this in any way I hasten to add as I have no idea what has gone on!

[naomi24]

Ratter, Birdie hasn’t exposed his identity. Birdie simply said that Khandro’s question had been copied and pasted from here:

http://forums.philoso...w-atheists-52785.html

Khandro then claimed to be the author of the question on that website. Nothing else has happened.

[birdie1971]

I accused Khando of copying and pasting a question from another website. Indeed he did – but it turned out to be his own question, posted under a different identity. He openly admitted as such in his post of 08:19 Fri 09th Mar 2012 where he stated, “... Birdie, I hate to blow my own cover, but you leave me no alternative; I am also "DonLorenzo"...”.

Khandro - I apologise for wrongly accusing you of plagiarism. I was wrong and I'm more than happy to admit that.

[vulcan]

So Khandro has asked the same question on two sites under two names.How is that "blowing his cover" exactly ?

[birdie1971]

Khandro blew his own cover on AB. I think he's upset because I appear to have blown his cover on the the 'Philosophy Forums' website. For that, I apologise.

[naomi24]

Well said Birdie. I do hope you guys will put this behind you now and that Khandro will accept your apology, Birdie, and rethink his decision. I’m still reading the book he recommended, so his disappearance from AB would do no good at all! :o)

Khandro, as far as the book goes, I think it’s a shame the author has a pre-existing spiritual agenda. I’d much prefer the subject be explored from a purely investigative viewpoint because many of the issues he raises appear to be clouded by his own pre-judgement of the information at our disposal – which doesn’t include the texts he bases his claims on. For example, he declares that certain quotes from the Gospels can be authentically ascribed to Jesus, but I know of no source that can verify that. I strongly suspect that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and I do think it entirely possible that he ended his days in India, but my conclusions have been reached via a very different route to that employed by the author, and I find separating the possible fact from the probable fiction in this book rather a laborious task. That’s always a problem with books that have been written by people with pre-conceived ideas. Just as those who claim the Bible and the Koran contain the ultimate truth, rather than assess the naked facts, such authors attempt to bend the available information in order to make it appear to fit the story they WANT to believe. Nevertheless, it’s a fascinating subject – and one that is, in my opinion, well worthy of Miss Marple’s undivided attention – and so I will continue to read. :o)

[Khandro]

I would like to state, that birdie and I have privately reached an amicable understanding, and that I in no manner hold him responsible for any form of wrong doing, and that we both now consider the matter closed.

[vetuste_ennemi]

So Khandrobluff was you, Birdie; I thought it was Naomi.
PF is. perhaps, more academe than hustings, but the quality of debate on the DonKhandro question isn't significantly higher, just longer words. If you've checked the site you'll have liked the guy/gal from Minnesota, Naomi. PF has a private e-mail facility, but the sender would be attributed.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Vale atque ave, Khanzo.
I feel somewhat slighted that my reply to your Charlie Chan jibe about open-mindedness has been dismissed as unintelligent. Please explain why disbelieving in Baal is a respectable rational position, but disbelieving in Yahweh makes one a blinkered bigot.

[naomi24]

Vetuste, //I thought it was Naomi.//

Just to be clear, it’s not my style and it wouldn’t occur to me.