Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

[trestres]

sapphi_snake said:

GameOver22 said:

If thats how you feel, then I do not think there is any way to change your mind. I will point out that many definitions and explanations operate in this manner. When you find something that conflicts with an idea or definition, you often attempt to further clarify the definition in order to eliminate the ambiguity or inconsistencies. This is true for many definitions or ideas and is not reserved to religious questions. You will find that atheism has undergone drastic changes as it has become apparent that atheistic conceptions of the universe did not mesh with science. The same goes for redefining science as it became apparent that classical definitions did not agree with developments in quantum physics.

Point being, it is not that the definitions change because they wish to cover up inaccuracies. They change becuase it becomes apparent that past definitions were inaccurate or inadequate. The definition of omnipotence has changed because the idea has evolved, and the term has become more refined as philosophers recognized the absurdities that result with the idea of an all-powerful being that can cause contradictions (a further understanding of logic forced them to clarify the defintion). The main point is that changing the meaning of a term is not a bad thing. Just because a term had some meaning in the 6th century does not mean that defintion is the right definition. The definition could just be inaccurate or be in need of further clarification given recent developments (one scientific example being the evolution of the term "atom").

I think you're making a massive mistake by comparing the way science self corrects itself, with what we were t5alking about. Science evolves because new discoveries are made, it's ridiculous to assume that at any given point scientists know all the secrets of the universe.

By comparison religion claims to hav absolute knowledge, so a correction would just prove the opposite of that. Also, religions are fabricated, they're not based on observation (like science) and have no connection to reality, so the "corrections" you tal kabout are made to save face, and are more often than not influenced by fields outside the religion (philosophy, science etc.), rather than from whithin (due to the fact that religions claim to have absolute knowledge, and challenging the canon is viewed as heresy, yet changes happen when the irrationality of religion is exposed, as to not lose followers).

He never brought up religion...

He's going by the philosophic study of God. Someone doesn't necessarily need to be religious to believe in God. I agree with you though that religions are fabricated, but he never brought up religion, you did.

Theologians aren't necessarily religious either.