Beyond Comprehension

[PsychoticEpisode]

Why is it when an argument gets real close to refuting God that He suddenly is beyond comprehension? How far into an argument must a non-believer be when the words, 'The Lord works in mysterious ways" come about.

Take killing people for instance....not ok for us but for God it's anything goes. I know there's been a million debates on that subject but at some point in each discussion, when it becomes abundantly clear that no defender of the righteous can explain divine atrocities involving death, then all of a sudden it's beyond anyone's comprehension of how God works.

In retrospect, it seems that if God does something that suits the believer then it is completely understandable. People don't seem to have a problem understanding God when He is supposedly up to some good.

Most believers tend to think that children are God's special gift but if a child is allowed to suffer for whatever reason then God is either in His mysterious mode or He's ok with it for a reason we can't have any comprehension of. If it becomes apparent that God is involved in some evil stuff then the conversation will turn to the right of the divine to be incomprehensible. There must be a law that states for everything that's good there is an understanding of God whereas for anything that is bad there is a misconception of how God works.... seems pretty cut and dried.

I think the Bible is a direct result.... not of God being beyond comprehension but the world itself. Plus how can a Bible be credible if its main character is incomprehensible? But could the Bible have been written any other way? Probably not. It is a book about two incomprehensibles, the world and its explanation. Scientific discovery is changing that balance and God is losing out. We are no longer satisfied or trusting with the incomprehensible and many leaving the flocks for atheism are realizing that there are explanations for things once thought beyond comprehension.

[XPsyrixX]

The problem is that you cannot prove God, but God cannot be disproven, either. Asking,"Why?" is foolish. If the president won't answer you, why would a God?

[PsychoticEpisode]

If the president won't answer you, why would a God?

When did they join the forum?

Asking,"Why?" is foolish

What?

[scorpius]

The problem is that you cannot prove God, but God cannot be disproven, either.
the way god is defined its impossible to be real
heres your disproof

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

or did you have a different god in mind

www.godchecker.com

[Betrayer0fHope]

God, by definition, is impossible. A great way to make those "god's plan"ers think is to present them with Betrayer's Challenge :)

[lightgigantic]

Why is it when an argument gets real close to refuting God that He suddenly is beyond comprehension? How far into an argument must a non-believer be when the words, 'The Lord works in mysterious ways" come about.

Take killing people for instance....not ok for us but for God it's anything goes. I know there's been a million debates on that subject but at some point in each discussion, when it becomes abundantly clear that no defender of the righteous can explain divine atrocities involving death, then all of a sudden it's beyond anyone's comprehension of how God works.

In retrospect, it seems that if God does something that suits the believer then it is completely understandable. People don't seem to have a problem understanding God when He is supposedly up to some good.

Most believers tend to think that children are God's special gift but if a child is allowed to suffer for whatever reason then God is either in His mysterious mode or He's ok with it for a reason we can't have any comprehension of. If it becomes apparent that God is involved in some evil stuff then the conversation will turn to the right of the divine to be incomprehensible. There must be a law that states for everything that's good there is an understanding of God whereas for anything that is bad there is a misconception of how God works.... seems pretty cut and dried.

I think the Bible is a direct result.... not of God being beyond comprehension but the world itself. Plus how can a Bible be credible if its main character is incomprehensible? But could the Bible have been written any other way? Probably not. It is a book about two incomprehensibles, the world and its explanation. Scientific discovery is changing that balance and God is losing out. We are no longer satisfied or trusting with the incomprehensible and many leaving the flocks for atheism are realizing that there are explanations for things once thought beyond comprehension.

2 quick points

1 - science sits smack bang in the middle of incomprehension

2 - Much like science, when one has sufficient comprehension on the subject, progress becomes possible .... I mean try teaching advanced physics to 8 year olds and see how far you get

[PsychoticEpisode]

2 quick points

1 - science sits smack bang in the middle of incomprehension

I should hope so. Comprehending our world is much different than comprehending an absent invisible Creator God. Clarity over blind acceptance is the rule.

2 - Much like science, when one has sufficient comprehension on the subject, progress becomes possible .... I mean try teaching advanced physics to 8 year olds and see how far you get

Religion has been trying that approach for thousands of years. As a result we've got you and your ilk to contend with, not easy.;)

Note: I have a lot of confidence in what an 8 year old mind can accomplish. If we could ever filter out some idiotic ideologies currently suppressing a young minds advancement, then who knows where it could go. Personally I advocate less time spent in such endeavors and letting the kids develop socially.

[superluminal]

2 - Much like science, when one has sufficient comprehension on the subject, progress becomes possible .... I mean try teaching advanced physics to 8 year olds and see how far you get
Oh brother... Strap in, sit back, and enjoy another ride on the qualifications roller-coaster. I'll just watch.

[Michael]

Betrayer's Challenge?

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode


2 quick points

1 - science sits smack bang in the middle of incomprehension
”
I should hope so. Comprehending our world is much different than comprehending an absent invisible Creator God. Clarity over blind acceptance is the rule.
gee, I wonder how much of science would be comprehended if it began from the premise that it was absent and invisible ...
:rolleyes:

“
2 - Much like science, when one has sufficient comprehension on the subject, progress becomes possible .... I mean try teaching advanced physics to 8 year olds and see how far you get
”
Religion has been trying that approach for thousands of years. As a result we've got you and your ilk to contend with, not easy.
I guess an easy way to can any claim to knowledge is to blindly advocate that it has no issues of comprehension to act as a foundation

Note: I have a lot of confidence in what an 8 year old mind can accomplish.
and is studying post graduate physics a major one?

[lightgigantic]

Oh brother... Strap in, sit back, and enjoy another ride on the qualifications roller-coaster. I'll just watch.

what can I say?
standard fallacious arguments require standard rebuttals.
:p

[PsychoticEpisode]

gee, I wonder how much of science would be comprehended if it began from the premise that it was absent and invisible ...
:rolleyes:

The trouble is, it isn't. If it was, then we could make it a God or something along those lines.

guess an easy way to can any claim to knowledge is to blindly advocate that it has no issues of comprehension to act as a foundation
That would make a nice disclaimer. However blind acceptance is the avenue of approach for religion. The Earth is flat by the way.;)

Note: I have a lot of confidence in what an 8 year old mind can accomplish. ”

and is studying post graduate physics a major one?

If religious philosophy can be grasped by a 4 your old then why tell him God is incomprehensible? I'd sooner teach the kid physics.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic Episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
gee, I wonder how much of science would be comprehended if it began from the premise that it was absent and invisible ...

”
The trouble is, it isn't.
and surprisingly enough, your suggestions on the nature of god suffer from the same flaw

“
guess an easy way to can any claim to knowledge is to blindly advocate that it has no issues of comprehension to act as a foundation
”
That would make a nice disclaimer. However blind acceptance is the avenue of approach for religion.
well welcome to the club, I guess
:o

The Earth is flat by the way.
and heliocentrism?
;)
(btw is that another antagonistic stab at xtianity in the name of deeply-dying-the-entire-length-and-breadth-of-all-that-is-claimed-under-the-banner-of-theism I see sprouting from your keyboard again .....)

“
Note: I have a lot of confidence in what an 8 year old mind can accomplish. ”

and is studying post graduate physics a major one?
”
If religious philosophy can be grasped by a 4 your old then why tell him God is incomprehensible?
its simple for the simple hearted
:)

I'd sooner teach the kid physics.
post graduate physics?
meh
poor kid

[PsychoticEpisode]

and heliocentrism?
(btw is that another antagonistic stab at xtianity in the name of deeply-dying-the-entire-length-and-breadth-of-all-that-is-claimed-under-the-banner-of-theism I see sprouting from your keyboard again .....)


Maybe, but it made me think. Which of all the religions is the easiest to poke a hole in? Should make it a new thread.

Personally I don't mind the Xians, I actually don't think of them as the worst man has to offer. Their God on the other hand, well, He needs some work. Too weak to be a divinity of choice in my humblest opinion. Maybe that's why He has to be labelled incomprehensible, a prequisite for such a tag being He does or says so many ungodlike things that followers aren't given much choice.

[greenberg]

Which of all the religions is the easiest to poke a hole in?

Certainly not fire and brimstone Christiany. Because fire and brimstone Christianity is based on the assumption that fear and urgency can make the best decisions - and as long one is subject to aging, illness, and death, subject to change, subject to having wealth and losing wealth, subject to gaining status and losing status - this long one is subject to fear and urgency, not having transcended them.

To really - realistically, practically, not just intellectually - refute fire and brimstone Christianity, one would have to be beyond fear and urgency.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Fear is the root of evil.

[greenberg]

Fear is the root of evil.

How come?
Do explain.

[VossistArts]

The idea of a god might not be so hard to comprehend. A god is something that doesnt exist in any apparent way, but in concept it does exist and since its a concept without a firm definition, any imaginable conditions and attributes can be applied to it on a whim. It doesnt need to make sense like something that actually exists in the real world. Anyone can say anything they like about a god and it affects absolutely nothing more than conversation.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Anyone can say anything they like about a god and it affects absolutely nothing more than conversation.

Sounds so simple and yet I wish it were true.

Try being Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist.

[lightgigantic]

Maybe, but it made me think. Which of all the religions is the easiest to poke a hole in? Should make it a new thread.


new thread?
maybe you could call it "sciforums greatest hits" or "now for the thread that has always been on our minds - judging the religious genre by its worst possible stereotype"
:)

[PsychoticEpisode]

new thread?
maybe you could call it "sciforums greatest hits" or "now for the thread that has always been on our minds - judging the religious genre by its worst possible stereotype":)

That's good. I like the dual meaning of that last line. Subtle and close to being astute.

Are you saying that all religious people share a common bond and it isn't kosher for a person of one religion to ridicule another's religion?

[lightgigantic]

Are you saying that all religious people share a common bond and it isn't kosher for a person of one religion to ridicule another's religion?
I am saying that judging a genre by it's worst stereotype hardly warrants intelligent criticism

[PsychoticEpisode]

I am saying that judging a genre by it's worst stereotype hardly warrants intelligent criticism

Brother...that line is hard to let pass.

How is the worst religious stereotype identified?

Lg, you know that I put all religious philosophers in the same boat, good or bad, smart or dumb. Some medical practioners use modern science and some stir herbs in a wooden bowl but they're only trying to make you feel better.

Stereotyping the religious is like saying it's worse to die slowly rather than fast, but either way you're dead. When anyone religious criticizes your position do they in an intelligent manner? An atheist critiquing you is what?

[lightgigantic]

Brother...that line is hard to let pass.

How is the worst religious stereotype identified?

Lg, you know that I put all religious philosophers in the same boat, good or bad, smart or dumb. Some medical practioners use modern science and some stir herbs in a wooden bowl but they're only trying to make you feel better.

Stereotyping the religious is like saying it's worse to die slowly rather than fast, but either way you're dead. When anyone religious criticizes your position do they in an intelligent manner? An atheist critiquing you is what?
still it remains, atheistic criticism that appears in academic circles is somewhat different than what it appears in general on sci.
:o

[PsychoticEpisode]

still it remains, atheistic criticism that appears in academic circles is somewhat different than what it appears in general on sci. :o

Rather condescending remark from you.

I think you've seen plenty of good arguments from a lot of true atheists here. Atheists that aren't trying to sell a book or get on TV.

You're coming across like someone with a degree who thinks their shit don't stink. This is evident in your philosophy also. You are more apt to tell us what you know than give your own opinion. Remember, when I once marked papers, that was barely a passing grade.;)

Come on, just one opinion without referencing your library. I honestly think that if you must argue religion using references to ancient scripture then you don't have an opinion of your own or are afraid to post it.

[VossistArts]

Sounds so simple and yet I wish it were true.

Try being Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist.

I mean what is said by itself. Isnt it a choice to take whats said, or a stated concept, and make something of it? Like I can say god is in the sky all day every day for the rest of my life and it wont make a god be there.

[jb21]

logically, any brain could say that if god do allow pain than he cant allow joys, to me it is pur logic

who allow pain, consider joys being the power on pain, his joys
as who allow joys, consider pain being the force on joys, his pains

who accept the notion pain, is defintely a negative nature thant cant evolve positively
as who accept the notion joy, is a positive nature that cant evolve negatively

now for those religious as christians, they dont care for good to care for the lackness of good in god ways, they are opportunists of pains like him

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

1 of hundreds of people I've known or come across : Do you know Jesus (or some religious thing)?
Me : I have different beliefs.
1 of hundreds : Your beliefs don't mean Jesus doesn't exist.

It seems christians would be very unhappy to find there's no hell & there will be an end to suffering.

[greenberg]

I think you've seen plenty of good arguments from a lot of true atheists here. Atheists that aren't trying to sell a book or get on TV.

You're coming across like someone with a degree who thinks their shit don't stink. This is evident in your philosophy also. You are more apt to tell us what you know than give your own opinion. Remember, when I once marked papers, that was barely a passing grade.

Come on, just one opinion without referencing your library. I honestly think that if you must argue religion using references to ancient scripture then you don't have an opinion of your own or are afraid to post it.

You seem to think that a person's personal opinion must necessarily be different than what scriptures say; and that if it isn't, they are either witholding their opinion or don't have one.

If I am correct in this estimation of your approach, then please explain firstly, why it is necessary that one's opinion be different from scriptures; and secondly, why if it isn't, it isn't a valid input.

[rjr6]

Why is it when an argument gets real close to refuting God that He suddenly is beyond comprehension? How far into an argument must a non-believer be when the words, 'The Lord works in mysterious ways" come about.

Take killing people for instance....not ok for us but for God it's anything goes. I know there's been a million debates on that subject but at some point in each discussion, when it becomes abundantly clear that no defender of the righteous can explain divine atrocities involving death, then all of a sudden it's beyond anyone's comprehension of how God works.

In retrospect, it seems that if God does something that suits the believer then it is completely understandable. People don't seem to have a problem understanding God when He is supposedly up to some good.

Most believers tend to think that children are God's special gift but if a child is allowed to suffer for whatever reason then God is either in His mysterious mode or He's ok with it for a reason we can't have any comprehension of. If it becomes apparent that God is involved in some evil stuff then the conversation will turn to the right of the divine to be incomprehensible. There must be a law that states for everything that's good there is an understanding of God whereas for anything that is bad there is a misconception of how God works.... seems pretty cut and dried.

I think the Bible is a direct result.... not of God being beyond comprehension but the world itself. Plus how can a Bible be credible if its main character is incomprehensible? But could the Bible have been written any other way? Probably not. It is a book about two incomprehensibles, the world and its explanation. Scientific discovery is changing that balance and God is losing out. We are no longer satisfied or trusting with the incomprehensible and many leaving the flocks for atheism are realizing that there are explanations for things once thought beyond comprehension.


I can't quote much from the bible, as I am not an expert---but In the Bible it states somewhere "sins of the father will be visited on his offspring".
Taken alone, what is incomprehensible about this?

[PsychoticEpisode]

then please explain firstly, why it is necessary that one's opinion be different from scriptures; and secondly, why if it isn't, it isn't a valid input.

I didn't know philosophy was an exact science. Thanks for pointing that out.

If you do not have an opinion other than scripture then just say so. Greenberg, LG & I have developed some kind of spy vs spy arrangement. Lord knows I've seen enough little smilie icons from him that indicate sarcasm, condescending remarks and whatever. Little games within the game, all in an effort to outsmart the other guy. I quote no one. Would you rather have me quote from Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Dawkins, would it make you feel better?

[PsychoticEpisode]

I can't quote much from the bible, as I am not an expert---but In the Bible it states somewhere "sins of the father will be visited on his offspring".
Taken alone, what is incomprehensible about this?

Please, in your own words.....explain that quote.

[rjr6]

Please, in your own words.....explain that quote.

It is not a quote. You stated that theists defend "evil" things done to "good" people, i.e children, by saying God is incomprehensible. In the bible it says, I am paraphrasing, that the sins of the father will be visited upon his offspring. What about that statement, with all due respect, do you not understand?

[JDawg]

It is not a quote. You stated that theists defend "evil" things done to "good" people, i.e children, by saying God is incomprehensible. In the bible it says, I am paraphrasing, that the sins of the father will be visited upon his offspring. What about that statement, with all due respect, do you not understand?

He probably wants to know how you can think that such a practice is moral. Granted, it probably served as a pretty decent deterrent back then...but probably not.

Do you believe if I murder a man tomorrow, my children should have to continue my sentence after I die? Or that they should be punished in any way for my actions?

[rjr6]

He probably wants to know how you can think that such a practice is moral. Granted, it probably served as a pretty decent deterrent back then...but probably not.

Do you believe if I murder a man tomorrow, my children should have to continue my sentence after I die? Or that they should be punished in any way for my actions?

It is not about what I believe. Theistic doctrines address issues of "bad things happening to good people", is my assertion.

[JDawg]

It is not about what I believe. Theistic doctrines address issues of "bad things happening to good people", is my assertion.

Ah, so you have no opinion on the matter. Blind follower, are we?

[rjr6]

Ah, so you have no opinion on the matter. Blind follower, are we?

Your asking my opinion of your statement of your dad murdering someone?

[JDawg]

Your asking my opinion of your statement of your dad murdering someone?

I'm curious as to what makes you OK with the idea of you being punished for your dad's mistakes.

[PsychoticEpisode]

It is not a quote. You stated that theists defend "evil" things done to "good" people, i.e children, by saying God is incomprehensible. In the bible it says, I am paraphrasing, that the sins of the father will be visited upon his offspring. What about that statement, with all due respect, do you not understand?

It was you I didn't understand but now I think I get what you're saying. You're refuting my suffering children remark by saying God does that on purpose but it's not His fault. Perfectly understandable.

You're ok with that? I mean God causing suffering to children for something their father did in the past.

This is what I'm talking about. I not talking about comprehending the scripture, I'm talking about comprehending God. Please tell us why God does this so we can all understand.

[rjr6]

I'm curious as to what makes you OK with the idea of you being punished for your dad's mistakes.

Not sure where to start. My being "OK" with a theistic doctrine will not get the OP closer to an answer to his question. Also, sins aren't neccessarily mistakes.

[rjr6]

It was you I didn't understand but now I think I get what you're saying. You're refuting my suffering children remark by saying God does that on purpose but it's not His fault. Perfectly understandable.

You're ok with that? I mean God causing suffering to children for something their father did in the past.

I am not "saying" anything, other than referring to a passage in the bible that addresses the human condition of suffering without apparent cause. I purport that this explanation is not incomprehensible.

[rjr6]

It was you I didn't understand but now I think I get what you're saying. You're refuting my suffering children remark by saying God does that on purpose but it's not His fault. Perfectly understandable.

You're ok with that? I mean God causing suffering to children for something their father did in the past.

This is what I'm talking about. I not talking about comprehending the scripture, I'm talking about comprehending God. Please tell us why God does this so we can all understand.

My opinion is my own and not very rich in experience or knowledge, but since you demand it I have question. You state "the suffering of children", could you be specific?

[PsychoticEpisode]

I am not "saying" anything, other than referring to a passage in the bible that addresses the human condition of suffering without apparent cause. I purport that this explanation is not incomprehensible.

I'm not disagreeing. As I said earlier, it's not about understanding scripture but understanding the god who said it. Can you make sense of God's actions in this case, why would he make little children suffer for their father's sins??

Can you come to some understanding of God by those words?

[rjr6]

I'm not disagreeing. As I said earlier, it's not about understanding scripture but understanding the god who said it. Can you make sense of God's actions in this case, why would he make little children suffer for their father's sins??

Can you come to some understanding of God by those words?

You assume alot, with all due respect. God did bequeath us free will, but when children suffer, it's his fault? If a child is born with a deformity or condition that was enviormentally or socially caused because of our fathers abuse of the land or sin, your posistion is that God should step in and save the child in all cases? So we rape the land and commit sin, but there should be no negative consequences?

That is incomprehensible to me.

[PsychoticEpisode]

You assume alot, with all due respect. God did bequeath us free will, but when children suffer, it's his fault? If a child is born with a deformity or condition that was enviormentally or socially caused because of our fathers abuse of the land or sin, your posistion is that God should step in and save the child in all cases? So we rape the land and commit sin, but there should be no negative consequences?

That is incomprehensible to me.

I asked if God's actions in this case make you understand Him better? Is this your way of saying, 'No, God is incomprehensible?' or "it is beyond human comprehension to try to figure out why'?

[rjr6]

I asked if God's actions in this case make you understand Him better? Is this your way of saying, 'No, God is incomprehensible?' or "it is beyond human comprehension to try to figure out why'?

I have a better understanding of your question now. My apologies. The reason you run up against this wall with theists, in my mind, is because of the sin of pride.

I speak only for myself, but the more I searched for a way to explain it to you, it began to border on defining God. This does not lead to understanding, IMO. Most theists, I think would in some way feel this way in some degree.

So to answer your OP, IMO, that is why you have trouble getting someone to explain it the way you want. Your asking the person explain something in a way that does not lead to understanding.

Is my understanding of God, in this case, made better?Yes.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I have a better understanding of your question now. My apologies. The reason you run up against this wall with theists, in my mind, is because of the sin of pride.

I speak only for myself, but the more I searched for a way to explain it to you, it began to border on defining God. This does not lead to understanding, IMO. Most theists, I think would in some way feel this way in some degree.

So to answer your OP, IMO, that is why you have trouble getting someone to explain it the way you want. Your asking the person explain something in a way that does not lead to understanding.

Is my understanding of God, in this case, made better?Yes.

I think most people would agree, theists and atheists alike, that if God were to cause children to suffer for whatever reason then that behavior would be completely ungodlike for a loving god. Now it may be possible that an evil god would do such a thing.

When we were discussing your scriptural paraphrasing, the thought that God might be evil never entered the conversation.

Rationally speaking, does it not seem more logical for an evil god to do such a thing? This is much more comprehensible. So it seems that for some reason, god's imcomprehension arises from the premis that He is good and is unable to commit dispicable acts. The only way He can do so is to be incomprehensible.

Monotheists cannot rationalize evil behavior by a good god. Polytheists have no such problem.

[rjr6]

I think most people would agree, theists and atheists alike, that if God were to cause children to suffer for whatever reason then that behavior would be completely ungodlike for a loving god. Now it may be possible that an evil god would do such a thing.

When we were discussing your scriptural paraphrasing, the thought that God might be evil never entered the conversation.

Rationally speaking, does it not seem more logical for an evil god to do such a thing? This is much more comprehensible. So it seems that for some reason, god's imcomprehension arises from the premis that He is good and is unable to commit dispicable acts. The only way He can do so is to be incomprehensible.

Monotheists cannot rationalize evil behavior by a good god. Polytheists have no such problem.

Can you give an example of "a dispicable act of God?" I infer from your post that when there is suffering in this world of innocents, it is God's will. Though he is the creator of all things, and could wink this world from existence, do you think he causes suffering?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Can you give an example of "a dispicable act of God?" I infer from your post that when there is suffering in this world of innocents, it is God's will. Though he is the creator of all things, and could wink this world from existence, do you think he causes suffering?

:shrug:
What have we be talking about for the last 2 hours? Unless you think its a good thing for God to make little children suffer for their father's sins.

Oh, how about in Genesis, God kills some guy for either whacking off or for deliberately not impregnating his brother's wife.

As for suffering.... you just said he 's the creator of all things.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

WHY do people think a god could not be evil??? If somehow I find there is a god then I'd need to know something of its character, motivations & morals.

[greenberg]

I didn't know philosophy was an exact science. Thanks for pointing that out.

If you do not have an opinion other than scripture then just say so. Greenberg, LG & I have developed some kind of spy vs spy arrangement. Lord knows I've seen enough little smilie icons from him that indicate sarcasm, condescending remarks and whatever. Little games within the game, all in an effort to outsmart the other guy. I quote no one. Would you rather have me quote from Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Dawkins, would it make you feel better?

You didn't reply to my inquiry.

What exactly do you think is wrong with quoting, what exactly do you think is wrong with naming one's references?

I could easily put a position forward as "my opinion" - even though I would actually be paraphrasing or even directly quoting a text originally written by someone else. And if you don't know that text - and chances are you don't know everything that has ever been written - you could easily be mislead to think I actually posted "my opinion".

As for your "quoting no one" - that's nonsense. You are putting forward a pretty standard kind of atheism that I have seen many many times before. Perhaps you aren't directly quoting anyone, but you are certainly not putting forward an original position either.

Just because you don't quote anyone or don't name your references does not make your position one bit more unique or personal. It just means you are relatively skilled in a particular brand of creative writing, that's all.


So, again:

You seem to think that a person's personal opinion must necessarily be different than what scriptures say; and that if it isn't, they are either witholding their opinion or don't have one.

If I am correct in this estimation of your approach, then please explain firstly, why it is necessary that one's opinion be different from scriptures; and secondly, why if it isn't, it isn't a valid input.

[JDawg]

Not sure where to start. My being "OK" with a theistic doctrine will not get the OP closer to an answer to his question. Also, sins aren't neccessarily mistakes.

So you're being intentionally vague now? OK. I see that you don't have an opinion on this. Figures.

[lightgigantic]

Rather condescending remark from you.
accurate, however

I think you've seen plenty of good arguments from a lot of true atheists here.
basically there are about 4 standard atheist arguments offerred




You're coming across like someone with a degree who thinks their shit don't stink. This is evident in your philosophy also. You are more apt to tell us what you know than give your own opinion. Remember, when I once marked papers, that was barely a passing grade.;)

Come on, just one opinion without referencing your library. I honestly think that if you must argue religion using references to ancient scripture then you don't have an opinion of your own or are afraid to post it.
my point is why bother to lodge an argument against theism that doesn't even comply with theistic standards?

[PsychoticEpisode]

accurate, however

Ooooh, a somewhat tasty helping of ambiguity. Excellent.

basically there are about 4 standard atheist arguments offerred
Never counted them but thanks for doing so.

my point is why bother to lodge an argument against theism that doesn't even comply with theistic standards?

Ummm, because I'm an atheist. Why squawk about atheism then? You know what I think of arguing something that we, logically speaking, need not bother with. I reiterate.... We do not know anything about god or even if He exists. Yes or no and leave it at that. As an atheist I'd be happy to do that.

[Simon Anders]

Why is it when an argument gets real close to refuting God that He suddenly is beyond comprehension? How far into an argument must a non-believer be when the words, 'The Lord works in mysterious ways" come about.
1) I think you are assuming you are winning the argument when this happens.
2) I have trouble attributing motives to my wife all the time and I am sure she has that problem in relation to me. Why is 'I don't know' assumed to mean that the whole edifice must fall?
3) How far into an argument must you go before you say 'I don't know' ?

Frankly the problem I have with most theists is that they do think they know and do have explanations for why God does things.

It seems rather likely that it would be hard to understand such an entity in its entirety.

[PsychoticEpisode]

So, again:

Originally Posted by greenberg
You seem to think that a person's personal opinion must necessarily be different than what scriptures say; and that if it isn't, they are either witholding their opinion or don't have one.

If I am correct in this estimation of your approach, then please explain firstly, why it is necessary that one's opinion be different from scriptures; and secondly, why if it isn't, it isn't a valid input.

If a theist wants to argue that god is comprehensible by quoting scripture from an entity that they consider incomprehensible to us mere mortals then yes, I have a problem with that. A theist does have a mind of their own, no? Then let them speak without the aid of text. Why is that so difficult?

[lightgigantic]

Ummm, because I'm an atheist. Why squawk about atheism then? You know what I think of arguing something that we, logically speaking, need not bother with. I reiterate.... We do not know anything about god or even if He exists. Yes or no and leave it at that. As an atheist I'd be happy to do that.
My point is that (polished) atheism never (directly) launches an attack on theism by redefining the state of affairs of theism (eg - "we do not know anything about god therefore -yada yada yada .....")

[greenberg]

Ummm, because I'm an atheist. Why squawk about atheism then? You know what I think of arguing something that we, logically speaking, need not bother with. I reiterate.... We do not know anything about god or even if He exists. Yes or no and leave it at that. As an atheist I'd be happy to do that.

Why don't you "leave it at that" then?

If you are so sure you know the truth about God, then why do you keep discussing these topics about God and knowledge of God?

You certainly give me the impression that
either
1. you are not so sure you know the truth about God after all,
or
2. you want to convince other people to quit talking about God or to quit arguing against atheists.

Regarding no. 2, your approach with creative writing in the brand of philosophy in order to convince other people to quit talking about God or to quit arguing against atheists - that approach of yours is an insult to human intelligence.

[greenberg]

If a theist wants to argue that god is comprehensible by quoting scripture from an entity that they consider incomprehensible to us mere mortals then yes, I have a problem with that. A theist does have a mind of their own, no? Then let them speak without the aid of text. Why is that so difficult?

What you are saying above implies a particular metaphysics about how human thinking and deciding exists. And it is this metaphysics that needs to be cleared first, before we can successfully proceed to other points of the discussion at hand.
Namely, the particular metaphysics that states something to the effect of "Every person has a mind of their own that can be completely under the person's own control and making."

Now, is it true that people's minds are like that?
How does a person exist?
How does a person's mind exist?
What can truly be called one's own?
What can a person truly control?

Answer these, and we'll see what next.

[greenberg]

Frankly the problem I have with most theists is that they do think they know and do have explanations for why God does things.

This is my first reaction too - and I have a similar reaction to anyone who either is more advanced than myself (in a particular area (like running, or business) or in general ("as a person")), or who simply claims to be superior to me.

So I think this resentment or being displeased with theists who think or claim they know God and about God, is actually part of a broader and more general cognitive/emotional/ethical/philosophical phenomenon. And that as such, it might require a broader and more general approach to be resolved.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Faith is the insult to human intelligence.
Regardless of how much people can control themselves, it's obvious we can influence each other.

This is my first reaction too - and I have a similar reaction to anyone who either is more advanced than myself (in a particular area (like running, or business) or in general ("as a person")), or who simply claims to be superior to me.

So I think this resentment or being displeased with theists who think or claim they know God and about God, is actually part of a broader and more general cognitive/emotional/ethical/philosophical phenomenon. And that as such, it might require a broader and more general approach to be resolved.

That is a serious common problem but realizing that is often the case shouldn't mean applying it to people too easily. You could be influenced by the very phenomenon you think affects him.
The point of this thread is much simpler than that tho. Some just can't admit it.

[greenberg]

Faith is the insult to human intelligence.

Really? So you take insult at your getting up in the morning and leaving for work?

It does take faith to do anything, to go to work, you know, we don't actually know whether the workplace is actually still there before we arrive at it.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Really? So you take insult at your getting up in the morning and leaving for work?

It does take faith to do anything, to go to work, you know, we don't actually know whether the workplace is actually still there before we arrive at it.

Absurd blathering that's been logicly refuted several times in the 5 weeks I've been posting here.

[PsychoticEpisode]

My point is that (polished) atheism never (directly) launches an attack on theism by redefining the state of affairs of theism (eg - "we do not know anything about god therefore -yada yada yada .....")

Why do you refer to it as an attack?

It's time for a change. I don't believe I should be polished, which I am thinking means practice a little detente or something close to it. I'm someone who doesn't believe in God, I don't have to play the game. This is too much fun.

If I am an atheist and I stake my claim that God doesn't exist then there is nothing wrong when I say He has never been here. I'd say I'm more atheistic than your more polished opponent.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Why don't you "leave it at that" then?

If you are so sure you know the truth about God, then why do you keep discussing these topics about God and knowledge of God?

You certainly give me the impression that
either
1. you are not so sure you know the truth about God after all,
or
2. you want to convince other people to quit talking about God or to quit arguing against atheists.

Regarding no. 2, your approach with creative writing in the brand of philosophy in order to convince other people to quit talking about God or to quit arguing against atheists - that approach of yours is an insult to human intelligence.

Sorry you feel that way.

Is writing in a creative style offensive to you? Green, I am no where near biblical scribes in that regard.

If you think that you have deduced my ramblings correctly and you feel it insults intelligence then don't read my posts, put me on ignore if it suits you. Don't get yourself all worked up just to be insulted, seems kind of dumb. Why don't you just leave it at that then?

The fact is this is a forum. You read, you agree or disagree, and sometimes it totally gets under your skin. Hooray...that's what it's all about. I'm not going to take you down the garden path by the hand. Hell NO!!! Let's walk along the cliff's edge. Enough coddling the opposition, time to see what they've got.

We're talking Beyond Comprehension in this thread and why God is seen as such. LG gives me a quoted scripture and it's supposed to make sense. IOW he comprehends it as he thinks God means it. What does that sound like to you? Well either God is only incomprehensible to atheists or all believers uinderstand each and every quote as if they told God to say it themselves. I could consider that an insult to the human race but I don't because there are mitigating factors that I won't get into right now that make believers think in such ways.

Now if I were to counter, raise a point that hadn't occurred to them, and if theists answer by claiming God is incomprehensible then it just makes everything they thought they knew about God, worthless utter tripe. You can't have it both ways.

[lightgigantic]

Why do you refer to it as an attack?
because when you get down to brass tacks, atheism and theism are diametrically opposed

It's time for a change. I don't believe I should be polished, which I am thinking means practice a little detente or something close to it. I'm someone who doesn't believe in God, I don't have to play the game. This is too much fun.
I guess a certain class of atheist has more at stake

If I am an atheist and I stake my claim that God doesn't exist then there is nothing wrong when I say He has never been here. I'd say I'm more atheistic than your more polished opponent.
I would say that you are an atheist who feels they are at liberty to discard conventional limits of logical discussion (ie sentimental) ... I'm not sure how this makes you a more challenging opponent

[PsychoticEpisode]

because when you get down to brass tacks, atheism and theism are diametrically opposed

Are you suggesting then that this is a good reason to attack?

I guess a certain class of atheist has more at stake

Subtle but cute:D

I accept that I can't prove, I make a decision, I stand firm and I defend. However if you can offer up just one logical argument for God then I will acquiesce. I am totally open for reform, just have to convince me. Meanwhile I'll back atheism 100%.

I would say that you are an atheist who feels they are at liberty to discard conventional limits of logical discussion (ie sentimental) ... I'm not sure how this makes you a more challenging opponent

How could I ever decide for you? I dunno, ask God for guidance.

[Simon Anders]

Meanwhile I'll back atheism 100%.
Since this issue is so important on another thread, I just thought I would check given your wording.

Are you saying that you back a lack of belief 100% percent?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Since this issue is so important on another thread, I just thought I would check given your wording.

Are you saying that you back a lack of belief 100% percent?

Why do I feel like I'm being set up?

I believe as an atheist that I am bound to the notion that God does not exist. I made a choice and I'll back that choice, shouldn't everyone who chooses do the same, including believers. Call it what you may but I think 'no belief in' falls under 'lack of belief in'. It can only be 100% for a true backer.

[Simon Anders]

I understand your feeling that it might be a trap. I just thought it was an odd way to describe a lack of belief, if it was one in your case. That's all. If you had said yes, I would have said 'odd'. (odd to back a lack 100%, which implies effort or commitment or something, off the top of my head and can one really be committed to an absence, etc.) If you said no, it is not simply a lack of belief, then I would know that you were what I would call a strong atheist and another example of one here.

I can't really determine from your answer which it is, but I've been off topic enough as it is, so I'll drop it. I am often impulsive in my posts.

[PsychoticEpisode]

It might be more odd to say I back a lack of belief 0%. I'm 100% in favor of Atheism, sound better?

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
because when you get down to brass tacks, atheism and theism are diametrically opposed
”
Are you suggesting then that this is a good reason to attack?
it means at a certain point the views are irreconcilable - what results after that depends on time place and circumstance.

“
I guess a certain class of atheist has more at stake
”
Subtle but cute

I accept that I can't prove, I make a decision, I stand firm and I defend. However if you can offer up just one logical argument for God then I will acquiesce. I am totally open for reform, just have to convince me. Meanwhile I'll back atheism 100%.
the task of convincing one about the validity of god's existence is something this whole cosmic manifestation is geared up for - basically it will continue to fatigue us(practically for eternity) until we take up the initiative. IOW, long story short, its not my job description - everyone flies their own airplane.
:D
As far as atheistic defense (or offense) goes, making absolute negatives defeats the cause of logical argument. Perhaps it might be more convenient to act from the position of fully fledged (heart and soul?) atheism as a metaphysical value judgment more so than a culmination of logic (basically certain acts or states of being become "logical" according to the experiences of the person- for instance it may not be logical for a theist to be an atheist, given their experiences, and vice versa for an atheist .... and of course the material world keeps on keeping on with the same just desserts)

[greenberg]

PsychoticEpisode -


I can't say I can relate to you.

I suppose you are just being true to your screen name. :o

They say that trying to make sense of insanity would make one insane, too.

[Carico]

Why is it when an argument gets real close to refuting God that He suddenly is beyond comprehension? How far into an argument must a non-believer be when the words, 'The Lord works in mysterious ways" come about.

The only ones who think God's punishment of mankind is mysterious are those who don't read or believe the bible. God makes it crystal clear all through the bible how and why he will punish people who mock him ignore him and curse him. Nevertheless, people again ignore him and think "There is no God. He won't call me to account." Then they wonder why God punishes them. :eek: that's no different than a criminal defendant who runs from the law his whole life then only when he's caught wants a free pardon. :D But God is no fool. He sees through the ploys of lawbreakers. ;)

[Jan Ardena]

This is what I'm talking about. I not talking about comprehending the scripture, I'm talking about comprehending God. Please tell us why God does this so we can all understand.

Trying to understand God without understanding the scripture is a poor move.
Every action we perform/undertake is in relation to nature. If you put your hand in fire it will cause an unpleasant reaction, a very obvious observation. But what of the actions we perform which do not have such an obvious and instanteneos reaction. Do they go unnoticed by the same law? What happens if we build up a hangar load of subtle reactions. Do they go unnoticed by the same law?
How do we know what our every action permits in the course of time?
If reincarnation is true, then what is its purpose, if not to reap the fruit of our actions?

jan.

[PsychoticEpisode]

If reincarnation is true, then what is its purpose, if not to reap the fruit of our actions?

If reincarnation is true then it may be natural. Do we need a God for naturally occuring events? There is no mystery, this is it, our one reality. What happens, happens because it can. I see no need to bring God into it but because we can, we do. We endow God with several unnatural talents because we can.

As well, certain things cannot happen, because they can't. However God doesn't manifest Himself because He can't, but because He isn't there. It simply cannot happen. We can do everything the universe allows us to do except make God do His tricks. So we give Him credit for stuff no one can verify, because we can.

[PsychoticEpisode]

the task of convincing one about the validity of god's existence is something this whole cosmic manifestation is geared up for

That is a standard assumption....the philosophy of there's got to be more to life than this. If you believe it then you are gravely mistaken.

I look at a simple gnat not knowing if it possesses a mind. If it does then I can't comprehend it, can you? A gnat's mind and God's are both incomprehensible from a human perspective you might say. Could a gnat and God be the same thing? If not, why not?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

The only ones who think God's punishment of mankind is mysterious are those who don't read or believe the bible. God makes it crystal clear all through the bible how and why he will punish people who mock him ignore him and curse him. Nevertheless, people again ignore him and think "There is no God. He won't call me to account." Then they wonder why God punishes them. :eek: that's no different than a criminal defendant who runs from the law his whole life then only when he's caught wants a free pardon. :D But God is no fool. He sees through the ploys of lawbreakers. ;)

God makes it crystal clear in The Holy Babble it is an arrogant egoist bully who doesn't play well with others.

Trying to understand God without understanding the scripture is a poor move.
Every action we perform/undertake is in relation to nature. If you put your hand in fire it will cause an unpleasant reaction, a very obvious observation. But what of the actions we perform which do not have such an obvious and instanteneos reaction. Do they go unnoticed by the same law? What happens if we build up a hangar load of subtle reactions. Do they go unnoticed by the same law?
How do we know what our every action permits in the course of time?
If reincarnation is true, then what is its purpose, if not to reap the fruit of our actions?

jan.

If we find the soul exists, that is no indication of gods.

[PsychoticEpisode]

My guess is that Jan doesn't have a clue about the universe she lives in but seems to know more about a place no one has ever seen or even if it exists.

[Medicine*Woman]

That is a standard assumption... the philosophy of there's got to be more to life than this. If you believe it then you are gravely mistaken.

I look at a simple gnat not knowing if it possesses a mind. If it does then I can't comprehend it, can you? A gnat's mind and God's are both incomprehensible from a human perspective you might say. Could a gnat and God be the same thing? If not, why not?
*************
M*W: Your post was interesting. I think all living things have an energy field, a biophysical energy that I believe leaves the body upon death. I'm not calling it a soul, but I believe what people call a soul is just this energy.

All things have molecules to a different degree, even a rock. We just can't determine when and if rocks die, at least I can't, because I've never tried.

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I think it's the biophysical energy that doesn't actually die but may be returned somehow to the universe. In that respect, I believe energy is relative to the object. Where this energy goes, I cannot figure that out, but I tend to think that energy doesn't die, it just moves on, and it's possible that it becomes part of all creation. I don't want to get into a religious meaning, because that's so ridiculous. It has more to do with physics than with religion. Physics, however, was not my favorite subject. I wish I had learned more.

[Medicine*Woman]

If we find the soul exists, that is no indication of gods.
*************
M*W: Yes, that's right. I just tried to explain my opinion in my reply to PsychoticEpisode.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Not certain why this comes to mind. Most people who experience NDEs report being told we're here to learn but they're also told that spiritual realm is nothing but peace, love & joy. Now I'm not saying whether the perception of that experience is valid but I have to wonder. WHAT are we here to learn??? How to be selfish, fearful, nasty & mean?

[PsychoticEpisode]

I can't say I can relate to you.

I suppose you are just being true to your screen name. :o

They say that trying to make sense of insanity would make one insane, too.

Greenberg, all I can say is ..... this is the friggin' internet, not the real world. Do you really believe the persona I carry on this forum is the true me?

Insults are pointless. You can't insult me. Any insult, derogatory comment, snide remark or condescending language directed at someone is intended to show everyone else who reads it that you are at minimum, intellectually superior than the target. I see through this thin veil but I do it too (I try it for humor).

I've adopted the psychotic approach as an experiment. I couldn't act psychotic in the real world if I tried. What am I testing? Now I can't give that away because I need to keep it kind of hush hush for now. Then again, maybe I am psycho. :D

[PsychoticEpisode]

*************
M*W: Your post was interesting. I think all living things have an energy field, a biophysical energy that I believe leaves the body upon death. I'm not calling it a soul, but I believe what people call a soul is just this energy.

Thanks MW, all I was trying to say is that for us, things can only happen in this world or reality. There is no need to bring in Creatures or powers from some other reality no one can prove exists. I can understand early civilized man doing so but today I can't understand why people still need this unnatural realm. It boggles my mind.

[Carico]

Fear is the root of evil.

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." So all those who don't fear God suffer for eternity. But that's their choice. ;)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

How do you love, feel loved by, trust, worship & rely on someone you fear?
You do not know what is & isn't my choice.

[swarm]

XPsyrixX: The problem is that you cannot prove God, but God cannot be disproven

There is nothing to disprove.

Just as there is nothing to disprove about unicorns, tooth fairies, Santa Claus, etc.

Just try it on for size. Disprove that Santa Claus ate your god.

Can't do it? Ooo, must be true! Too bad.

[swarm]

OK. enough beating around the bush. The question is simply "is it moral to punish children for the transgression of their fathers [in making god jealous] even down to the forth generation as god does here:

Exodus 34:7 - Yet He does not leave the guilty unpunished; He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.

and here:

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them [idols], for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me

and here:

Num 14:18 The Lord is slow to wrath and great in mercy, overlooking wrongdoing and evil, and will not let wrongdoers go free; sending punishment on children for the sins of their fathers, to the third and fourth generation.

So is that moral and good? what would you think if some one did that to your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren.

Are you ok with it? Does it seem fair?

[Simon Anders]

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." So all those who don't fear God suffer for eternity. But that's their choice. ;)
It will really be a breath of fresh air when your type of smug theist stops trying to make other people feel bad.

[Carico]

How do you love, feel loved by, trust, worship & rely on someone you fear?
You do not know what is & isn't my choice.

Well, let's see, you can deny God and go to hell or you can accept Christ's forgiveness and go to heaven. So even though you are powerless to make that choice, it will be made for you one way or the other because you will either go to heaven or hell. It's that simple.:o

[greenberg]

It will really be a breath of fresh air when your type of smug theist stops trying to make other people feel bad.

I can relate ...

Really, the way some theists preach is to the effect of telling a beggar "Well, go buy yourself a villa and a private jet and half a dozen fancy cars! What, you won't? Too bad, your choice ..."
It's frustrating.

There is a saying - "People come into our lives for a reason, a season, or for a lifetime." So seen that way, perhaps those theists come into our life for a reason - for example, for us to work out a rational argument against blind faith.

[jb21]

you want to live from the illusion of being above another, so you are saying that you would tell another that he should accept god as his boss, and you would accept that the other would make doubt about your perfection, that is the share of power you accept to let him answering you

what if you just love your god without caring of others and yourself being ? love is presupposes that you are over being as existing, what do you care for telling others knowing better instead of living better ?

[lightgigantic]

That is a standard assumption....the philosophy of there's got to be more to life than this. If you believe it then you are gravely mistaken.
if you are satisfied with mortality (or perhaps more likely, fail to properly recognize the inevitability of it) you are insane

I look at a simple gnat not knowing if it possesses a mind. If it does then I can't comprehend it, can you? A gnat's mind and God's are both incomprehensible from a human perspective you might say. Could a gnat and God be the same thing? If not, why not?
one way to know a said phenomena (like say "mind") is to know it by it's symptoms - if you don't know whether a gnat has a mind or not, and whether god would be in the same category, that simply indicates a poor fund of knowledge on your behalf

[PsychoticEpisode]

if you are satisfied with mortality (or perhaps more likely, fail to properly recognize the inevitability of it) you are insane


I am satisfied that whatever happens upon my death will not resemble anything that is proclaimed in any religious text anywhere. But if you think the text contains the absolute truth then you are not only insane but you have wagered an entire life on it, a complete and utter waste. Wasting your life away chasing rainbows is the real sin.

one way to know a said phenomena (like say "mind") is to know it by it's symptoms - if you don't know whether a gnat has a mind or not, and whether god would be in the same category, that simply indicates a poor fund of knowledge on your behalf

So by the preponderance of evidence, a gnat has no mind? The same circumstantial evidence that says God exists I suppose. The 'I guess it must be so because I'm human with a self conscious brain' syndrome.

[lightgigantic]

psychotic episode


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you are satisfied with mortality (or perhaps more likely, fail to properly recognize the inevitability of it) you are insane
”
I am satisfied that whatever happens upon my death will not resemble anything that is proclaimed in any religious text anywhere.
given that you are unlikely to be familiar with all religious texts anywhere, it seems you are talking about a chip you have on your shoulder

But if you think the text contains the absolute truth then you are not only insane but you have wagered an entire life on it, a complete and utter waste. Wasting your life away chasing rainbows is the real sin.
ascribing eternal values to temporal objects is a waste of time


“
one way to know a said phenomena (like say "mind") is to know it by it's symptoms - if you don't know whether a gnat has a mind or not, and whether god would be in the same category, that simply indicates a poor fund of knowledge on your behalf
”
So by the preponderance of evidence, a gnat has no mind?
what on earth makes you say that?

The same circumstantial evidence that says God exists I suppose. The 'I guess it must be so because I'm human with a self conscious brain' syndrome.
:confused:

[PsychoticEpisode]

given that you are unlikely to be familiar with all religious texts anywhere, it seems you are talking about a chip you have on your shoulder

There you go again, religious text, religious text...deja vu all over again. Honestly, do you have them taped to your forehead? This is not an argument for you, no argument is. You demonstrate time and time again that you wish to display that which you know of religious texts. Can you offer me a tidbit without stroking your ego?*

*(Note to Greenberg, no more lectures please)

ascribing eternal values to temporal objects is a waste of time

I'm in one reality...you appear to believe there are several. It's the only way it can work for you. M theory.... God style.

what on earth makes you say that?

Seems so apropos for you to say that. You even ask questions like your sitting with God in His other wordly dimension:D (spooky)

Let's say a gnat has a mind. My little gnat doesn't dictate his thoughts to a waiting scribe thus making its mind beyond our comprehension. God has penned His thoughts, right there for everyone to see, yet He is also beyond comprehension. God could very well be that little gnat.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
given that you are unlikely to be familiar with all religious texts anywhere, it seems you are talking about a chip you have on your shoulder
”
There you go again, religious text, religious text...deja vu all over again. Honestly, do you have them taped to your forehead? This is not an argument for you, no argument is. You demonstrate time and time again that you wish to display that which you know of religious texts. Can you offer me a tidbit without stroking your ego?*
its quite simple

you said you are confident that after death you will not have an experience as dictated by any scripture anywhere
I indicated that you are not even close to being familiar with scripture

well?
:o




“
ascribing eternal values to temporal objects is a waste of time
”
I'm in one reality
hardly
we yearn for life, pledge words of eternity, are spontaneously drawn to the persistent and over arching principle of anything ..... yet our molars rot



“
what on earth makes you say that?
”
Seems so apropos for you to say that. You even ask questions like your sitting with God in His other wordly dimension (spooky)
I guess it's one of the luxuries of approaching scripture without a chip on one's shoulder
;)

Let's say a gnat has a mind. My little gnat doesn't dictate his thoughts to a waiting scribe thus making its mind beyond our comprehension. God has penned His thoughts, right there for everyone to see, yet He is also beyond comprehension. God could very well be that little gnat.
I see

Kind of like there is water in the ocean and there is water in my hand basin. Since there are no octopuses, whales, sharks, fish or crustaceans in my hand basin, it is evidence that all those books about the ocean explaining how it is brimming with such things are obviously false. (You would have thought they could have at least mentioned about the plug at the bottom of the ocean, which, when removed, will drain the whole lot .....)
:D

[PsychoticEpisode]

Psychotic episode


its quite simple

you said you are confident that after death you will not have an experience as dictated by any scripture anywhere
I indicated that you are not even close to being familiar with scripture

well?
:o/QUOTE]

Yes it is simple, I don't think as highly of scripture as you do. I could read a thousand pages of it and not be impressed. What's your point?

[QUOTE]I guess it's one of the luxuries of approaching scripture without a chip on one's shoulder

I want you to keep that thought. Whether its true or not I'll let you decide. Sound familiar?

Kind of like there is water in the ocean and there is water in my hand basin. Since there are no octopuses, whales, sharks, fish or crustaceans in my hand basin, it is evidence that all those books about the ocean explaining how it is brimming with such things are obviously false. (You would have thought they could have at least mentioned about the plug at the bottom of the ocean, which, when removed, will drain the whole lot .....)


Lame...on 2nd thought...stick to scriptures...YOWZA!

[swarm]

I must admit I'm bemuzed by people who wave their favorite bronze age myths around as if therein is to be found answers which we cannot find for ourselves.

Those people had no special insight we lack and lack a significant amount of information we have.

Most of us gave up using myths centuries ago because we found better ways to understand the reality around us.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

How do you love, feel loved by, trust, worship & rely on someone you fear?
You do not know what is & isn't my choice.

Well, let's see, you can deny God and go to hell or you can accept Christ's forgiveness and go to heaven. So even though you are powerless to make that choice, it will be made for you one way or the other because you will either go to heaven or hell. It's that simple.:o

Absurd blathering for the 2nd question. Not even that for the 1st.

Do you preach to animals?

[lightgigantic]

PsychoticEpisode

Yes it is simple, I don't think as highly of scripture as you do.
obviously

I could read a thousand pages of it and not be impressed. What's your point?
that you are simply giving air to your values




Lame...on 2nd thought...stick to scriptures...YOWZA!
Using your limited experience as an absolute yardstick for making absolute statements is lame

[PsychoticEpisode]

Using your limited experience as an absolute yardstick for making absolute statements is lame

If you only knew...... snicker, snicker.

First you assume I am scripture challenged then with your second thought you assume that I would use scripture if I wasn't. Think about it, if I rant against scripture usage then why would I? I'm no hypocrite.

[greenberg]

If you only knew...... snicker, snicker.
...
I'm no hypocrite.

You can't be trusted, look what you said earlier:


I've adopted the psychotic approach as an experiment. I couldn't act psychotic in the real world if I tried. What am I testing? Now I can't give that away because I need to keep it kind of hush hush for now. Then again, maybe I am psycho. :D

[PsychoticEpisode]

You can't be trusted, look what you said earlier:

Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode
I've adopted the psychotic approach as an experiment. I couldn't act psychotic in the real world if I tried. What am I testing? Now I can't give that away because I need to keep it kind of hush hush for now. Then again, maybe I am psycho.


I also said.....


Greenberg, all I can say is ..... this is the friggin' internet, not the real world. Do you really believe the persona I carry on this forum is the true me?

Nobody can be trusted my friend, including you. No matter how you slice it

[swarm]

PsychoticEpisode Nobody can be trusted my friend, including you.

Could you move on to the hot make up sex next?

[greenberg]

Greenberg, all I can say is ..... this is the friggin' internet, not the real world. Do you really believe the persona I carry on this forum is the true me?

It's your choice, if the persona you carry on this forum is the "true you" or not.
But the fact is that even if you merely carry a persona here, enacting a "psychoting episode" - then this is still an action done by you, and as such testifying of your "true you".


Nobody can be trusted my friend, including you. No matter how you slice it

Suit yourself.

[PsychoticEpisode]

PsychoticEpisode Nobody can be trusted my friend, including you.

Could you move on to the hot make up sex next?

I don't want God feeling bad because I'm feeling good.

[PsychoticEpisode]

It's your choice, if the persona you carry on this forum is the "true you" or not.
But the fact is that even if you merely carry a persona here, enacting a "psychoting episode" - then this is still an action done by you, and as such testifying of your "true you"

I could easily discern from your recent discourse that you do not favor my style. You are endeavoring to find something to pin on me, a contradiction or an absolutely false statement. Hey that's ok. I'm not here to be loved or coddled by anyone. I've made those errors before and will continue into the future.

You sound like a low key, laid back type of person, a lover but not a fighter. Let's for the sake of argument say that you are. Someone makes you angry and you lash out, totally out of character. I happen to walk by at that moment and witness this behavior. My response might be to think that you are an asshole and from that moment you will always be so in my mind, the 'true you' that you speak of. What do I have, nothing more than an impression.

After a movie, do you talk about the characters and what you just witnessed, as if they and it were real? I don't but many do.

If I said I am only allowed on the computer during certain hours of the day, what would you think?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Well, I'm here to be loved & coddled!!!!!!!!

[swarm]

PsychoticEpisode I don't want God feeling bad because I'm feeling good.

See my theory is the last time god had sex he got nailed to a tree and this has naturally left him a bit messed up.

He needs to come out of his shell and stop dating uptight xtians who hate sex or like to snort meth off their gay prostitute's ass crack.

I think a night of mutual coddling with StrangerInAStrangeLa would do god a world of good.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Maybe so but don't wish that on me!!!!!!!!!
Ugggghhhhh

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Do gods laugh at animals?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Don't worry, He doesn't. "For God laughs at the wicked because he knows their day is coming." ;)

He must have been rolling on the floor laughing His ass off when the Jews were being exterminated in WWII. He probably can hardly contain Himself when a baby is raped. What are we, Comedy Central?

[Carico]

He must have been rolling on the floor laughing His ass off when the Jews were being exterminated in WWII. He probably can hardly contain Himself when a baby is raped. What are we, Comedy Central?

Actually, if you've read the bible at all, God caused the punishment of the Jews. He tells us all over the OT that he will scatter the Jews among the nations where they will find no rest. He will make the nations abhor the Jews since they repeatedly turned away from him and sacrificed their children in the fire to the god Ba'al. God made his existence known only to the Jews so they of all people should know who He is. So he has made an example of them to the nations.

In fact, the treatment of the Jews is proof positive that God exists. There is no earthly reason to persecute someone just because he's Jewish. The Jews are individuals just like the rest of us. They do things right and wrong just like the rest of us. All they want to do is live quiet lives. So the reasons that people give for hating and persecuting them are totally irrational. They only do it because God is causing them to do it. So God makes his existence known through both his love and his wrath on the Jews. ;)

[PsychoticEpisode]

Actually, if you've read the bible at all, God caused the punishment of the Jews. He tells us all over the OT that he will scatter the Jews among the nations where they will find no rest.....So God makes his existence known through both his love and his wrath on the Jews. ;)

Is that not the same as saying God exists because the Bible says so?

[Carico]

Is that not the same as saying God exists because the Bible says so?

Once people actually read the bible and research it, and most importantly understand Christ's words, they see how true the bible is. Only then can one say "Because the bible said so." ;)

[PsychoticEpisode]

Once people actually read the bible and research it, and most importantly understand Christ's words, they see how true the bible is. Only then can one say "Because the bible said so." ;)

I'm convinced:rolleyes:

By the way, wasn't Christ a Jew? They wrote some of your Bible.

Carico
He will make the nations abhor the Jews since they repeatedly turned away from him and sacrificed their children in the fire to the god Ba'al. God made his existence known only to the Jews so they of all people should know who He is. So he has made an example of them to the nations.

Glad to hear the Holocaust takes the Germans off the hook. I guess you won't be surprised when Hitler meets you at the Pearly Gates. If God laughs at the wicked then during the attempted extermination of the world's Jewry He was laughing at the Jews?

[rjr6]

:shrug:
What have we be talking about for the last 2 hours? Unless you think its a good thing for God to make little children suffer for their father's sins.

Oh, how about in Genesis, God kills some guy for either whacking off or for deliberately not impregnating his brother's wife.

As for suffering.... you just said he 's the creator of all things.

Your concept of God being in control of everything is at once true and at the same time perverse. I cannot grasp this model that you are trying to create. What I understand from your explanation of your belief is you want God to create a perfect world in which humans live without consequences. If this is not the case, than God is evil. I don't get it.

God does control everything and is the creator of everything and knows every hair on every human's body that have lived. But you would have a world without consequences?

Is God allowing innocents to suffer or is man allowing it?

You would have God step in and intervene, in an apocalyptic sense, or come done as a physical healer or spiritual leader?

[Carico]

Glad to hear the Holocaust takes the Germans off the hook. I guess you won't be surprised when Hitler meets you at the Pearly Gates. If God laughs at the wicked then during the attempted extermination of the world's Jewry He was laughing at the Jews?

Sorry but since the Nazis had no clue that God was using Satan to harden their hearts, then God used their wickedness to punish the Jews. So no, the Nazi's aren't off the hook one iota. ;)

[greenberg]

I could easily discern from your recent discourse that you do not favor my style. You are endeavoring to find something to pin on me, a contradiction or an absolutely false statement. Hey that's ok. I'm not here to be loved or coddled by anyone. I've made those errors before and will continue into the future.

This is a discussion forum and we are having discussion. How do you propose that a discussion take place, other than by examining eachother's positions (which includes finding the weak spots of those positions)?


You sound like a low key, laid back type of person, a lover but not a fighter. Let's for the sake of argument say that you are. Someone makes you angry and you lash out, totally out of character. I happen to walk by at that moment and witness this behavior. My response might be to think that you are an asshole and from that moment you will always be so in my mind, the 'true you' that you speak of. What do I have, nothing more than an impression.

You seem to think that a person can "in reality" be only either one or the other - either the proverbial angel or the proverbial devil. And anyone who exhibits sometimes angelic and other times demonic behaviors is a hypocrite.
I find this odd.

I think people are complex, with complex behaviors - sometimes, in some circumstances they behave one way, and in some other circumstances, they behave another way. I do not see why this should be considered "hypocrisy".

How can anyone "act out of character"? It's not like people are robots, set to behave the same way regardless of circumstance.

Moreover, from what I seen, the people who are concerned about "who one really is", have always taken the lowest and the most negative behavior a person exhibits to be "proof of who they really are" - like your example above with the angry lashing out. As if the occasional angry lashing out would be "the true me", but that whenever I behave nicely, I am "merely faking".

Odd, really odd.

[swarm]

So Carico. Why can't god get laid and chill out on the smiting for a while?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Moreover, from what I seen, the people who are concerned about "who one really is", have always taken the lowest and the most negative behavior a person exhibits to be "proof of who they really are" - like your example above with the angry lashing out. As if the occasional angry lashing out would be "the true me", but that whenever I behave nicely, I am "merely faking".

Odd, really odd.

Totally out of context my dear fellow. All I suggested was that a 1st impression is really important. People pass judgment on 1st impressions, sometimes for life. However.....

I'm not really concerned about who you are but you seem fixated on me. Sounds personal, maybe it isn't, but I don't really give a shit about you. You see what you want and more power to you. Why worry about the debater?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Sorry but since the Nazis had no clue that God was using Satan to harden their hearts, then God used their wickedness to punish the Jews. So no, the Nazi's aren't off the hook one iota. ;)

So who was more wicked, the Nazis or the Jews. Did God laugh at one more than the other?

You said God is punishing Jewry for worshipping some other god. It does seem like your God considers worshipping other gods a more dispicable deed than Satanic induced genocide. Technically speaking it sounds as if the Nazis weren't really at fault and that God used the devil as a means of inflicting more punishment on the Jews. Why would God be mad at the devil or the Germans if what they combined to do was none other than His work?

The Germans are not at fault according to your reasoning. How can they be? The Jews sinned but the Nazis couldn't have, they were merely pawns. How can you sin doing God's work? Doing exactly what He wanted you to do? Is there a commandment that says thou shalt not take the devil into your heart even if it's God's doing?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Do what I say not what I make you do.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Do what I say not what I make you do.

Catch 22 God style:D We're fucked!!

[PsychoticEpisode]

Who can I thank? Satan, God or just a plain old lucky coincidence? What mysterious force guided Carico to this thread?

A thread that is supposed to be about God and religion going Beyond Comprehension. Although saddled with a few minor off topic sidebars, the thread needed to hear from someone just like Carico, bless his little heart. It happened quickly but I'd like to think that never in a million years could I hope for a testimonial such as Carico's posts. Like Nazis doing God's work he has managed to show how far one must go to comprehend God. Serendipitous moments such as these don't come around in every thread so consider yourselves lucky to have witnessed it.

[greenberg]

Totally out of context my dear fellow. All I suggested was that a 1st impression is really important. People pass judgment on 1st impressions, sometimes for life. However.....

I'm not really concerned about who you are but you seem fixated on me. Sounds personal, maybe it isn't, but I don't really give a shit about you. You see what you want and more power to you. Why worry about the debater?

:bugeye:

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Catch 22 God style:D We're fucked!!

Many christians believe not only that god knows who will & won't go to heaven or hell but it is PREDESTINED by god.

[lightgigantic]

If you only knew...... snicker, snicker.
well suppose we were discussing advanced physics and you spat the dummy every time reference was made to some accredited research or conclusion on the topic that was beyond our direct perception

....I dunno
maybe you would be better off finding a chat forum for football or something
:o

First you assume I am scripture challenged then with your second thought you assume that I would use scripture if I wasn't. Think about it, if I rant against scripture usage then why would I? I'm no hypocrite.
OK suppose this scenario

I rant and rave against claims of physics
You bring in the (written) claim of physicists in an attempt to stabilize the situation
I continue by advocating that they are a bunch of bozos

Would you suppose that at least being familiar with the supporting evidence for their claims could actually help me to begin to lodge an argument against them.

At the moment I am not challenging your argument.
I am just trying to help you form an argument.
:o

[PsychoticEpisode]

This is good, I have an atheist & a theist both roasting my nuts. It's beyond comprehension.

Oh LG, I'd let you be the bozo. Can't see you wanting to be a Carico clone though?

I'll bet physicists are lining up just to accredit religious research. Religious research or is it religious philosophizing, both of them a waste of time and effort.

I'm an atheist, there is no god, therefore god based religion is a hopeless cause. I'm not pulling any punches, God ain't here, never was, and never will be. Study all you want, you can't make it happen. You know me LG, I'm a hardliner, convince me I'm wrong.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Christian soldiering has many guises. Shave your armpits.

The religious have had their day in the Sun. Humanity has been forced to listen to the ramblings of the religious for thousands of years. Theists have ruled for too long. Centuries of being told God exists is too long without any proof, therefore God is nowhere to be found. Say what you want about atheism because you can't stop its advance. People are listening, people are changing. Intelligence, hindered for centuries by religion, is poised for a major breakthrough and it won't be stopped. It will not only become fashionable but logical to utter the words intelligence and atheism in the same sentence.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I challenged god to a fight but the spineless coward won't show up.

Try dreaming it. :D If god can be imagined then He can definitely be there.

Theists are getting desperate. Arguments about God are more apt to take the form of how to make an argument than whether religion is worth anything.

I see nothing wrong in proclaiming god's non existence, afterall I'm an atheist. I'll make absolute statements just to see how theists react. The religious have been doing it for centuries. According to our religious philosophers' rationale, all holy texts should then be rewritten and all absolutes authored between the pages should be expunged. Shit, there'd be nothing left of any bible or holy text if that were to happen.

[greenberg]

I'll make absolute statements just to see how theists react.

Sure. Except that you are like a little child, holding his ears down with his hands, and going "I can't hear you! La la la la!"



And yes, many theists over the course of the centuries have made absolute statements to challenge atheists or theists of other denominations.

Our immediate reaction to absolute statements tends to be something like this -
http://www.spca.com/content/images/dogfight2_8858_1_1_6528.jpg

soon turning into something like this -
http://nxnw.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/dogfight2.jpg

Absolute statements seem to trigger in us the fight or flight reaction (either in the form of a fist fight or verbal fight), at least at first, and often, it stays at that. This shows how much we are subject to passion. It does not help communication, though, and after one such fight, we are none the wiser about what to do when the next one comes up. And given that this is a dog-eat-dog world, the next one is just around the corner.

[Simon Anders]

Christian soldiering has many guises. Shave your armpits.

The religious have had their day in the Sun. Humanity has been forced to listen to the ramblings of the religious for thousands of years. Theists have ruled for too long. Centuries of being told God exists is too long without any proof, therefore God is nowhere to be found. Say what you want about atheism because you can't stop its advance. People are listening, people are changing. Intelligence, hindered for centuries by religion, is poised for a major breakthrough and it won't be stopped. It will not only become fashionable but logical to utter the words intelligence and atheism in the same sentence.
This sounds precisely like the kinds of religious proclamation that make my skin crawl.
Apart from the fact that it implies the memberships of religions are going down, which they are not, it has a prophetic air, which I doubt is based on science.
If you are trying to role model the new era, you are doing it in the worst forms of past ones.

[JDawg]

This sounds precisely like the kinds of religious proclamation that make my skin crawl.
Apart from the fact that it implies the memberships of religions are going down, which they are not, it has a prophetic air, which I doubt is based on science.
If you are trying to role model the new era, you are doing it in the worst forms of past ones.

You have to understand that a lot of people are sick of the way religion gets a pass in this country, and in this world. I have no problem with the occasional angry bastard, and neither should you.

[Simon Anders]

You have to understand that a lot of people are sick of the way religion gets a pass in this country, and in this world. I have no problem with the occasional angry bastard, and neither should you.I am not sure what you mean by getting a pass - I can imagine, and I probably agree.

I think people need to be specific then. I have no problem with his anger. What bothers me is that I keep noticing, over and over, here, that atheists allow themselves to do things that bother them when religious people do them.

Make claims without evidence.
Predict the future.
Judge groups of people.
Present fallacies as logic.

and so on.

If PE is angry because conservative Christians have a pernicious influence over American politics and fumed like a rabid ox, I would have no problem, especially if those arguments he made made sense.

The context for me is that those with certain beliefs that can be categorized as religious must, by definition, lack critical thinking, be irrational, be making a mistake, etc. When I see in the arguments a lack of critical thinking, fallacies, ad homonim, a use of the same kinds of acts that the religious are being condemned for, etc., well, it seems fair to point these things out.

[JDawg]

I am not sure what you mean by getting a pass - I can imagine, and I probably agree.

I think people need to be specific then. I have no problem with his anger. What bothers me is that I keep noticing, over and over, here, that atheists allow themselves to do things that bother them when religious people do them.

Make claims without evidence.
Predict the future.
Judge groups of people.
Present fallacies as logic.

and so on.

If PE is angry because conservative Christians have a pernicious influence over American politics and fumed like a rabid ox, I would have no problem, especially if those arguments he made made sense.

The context for me is that those with certain beliefs that can be categorized as religious must, by definition, lack critical thinking, be irrational, be making a mistake, etc. When I see in the arguments a lack of critical thinking, fallacies, ad homonim, a use of the same kinds of acts that the religious are being condemned for, etc., well, it seems fair to point these things out.

That's fair. But I don't know many atheists who fit that criteria. And even if there are a couple, none of them would fit into the Top Ten of worth theistic posters.

[PsychoticEpisode]

If you are trying to role model the new era, you are doing it in the worst forms of past ones.

Are you suggesting then that what religion has been doing to the human psyche over the centuries is totally innappropriate, immoral & unethical?

By the way I'm not really a flag waving, placard carrying, shoot-an-abotionist-on-sight type of rallyer. I am tired of the argument for god being legislated by believers. Rules I am expected to abide by are clearly not for the believer(as in absolute statements). A double standard exists & isn't fair for lack of a better word. I will continue to champion the cause and if I have to I will resort to childish tactics as one must do when dealing with an infant, particularly one that's thousands of years old.

[Simon Anders]

You have to understand that a lot of people are sick of the way religion gets a pass in this country, and in this world. I have no problem with the occasional angry bastard, and neither should you.
I am also quite willing to confront religious people whose ideas or acts here bother me or to disagree with them about certain issues. I notice that for all the talk about
is atheism a belief or not
there seem to be atheists here who believe there is no God
and atheists who lack a belief.

I never see members of these two groups having the integrity to discuss their differences.
For example.

In threads on atheists where religious people generalize about atheists, generally negatively, I have come in and argued against the generalizations.

Again, I do not notice much nuance on the side of atheists. At least not amongst the habitually mocking crew, nor are they confronted, generally, by the more tempered philosophically oriented atheists - who often do not so directly identify themselves as such.

I have appreciated very much the way you have responded to me, challenging me without taking a poop.

But it's been an exception.

[JDawg]

I am also quite willing to confront religious people whose ideas or acts here bother me or to disagree with them about certain issues. I notice that for all the talk about
is atheism a belief or not
there seem to be atheists here who believe there is no God
and atheists who lack a belief.

I never see members of these two groups having the integrity to discuss their differences.
For example.

In threads on atheists where religious people generalize about atheists, generally negatively, I have come in and argued against the generalizations.

Again, I do not notice much nuance on the side of atheists. At least not amongst the habitually mocking crew, nor are they confronted, generally, by the more tempered philosophically oriented atheists - who often do not so directly identify themselves as such.

I have appreciated very much the way you have responded to me, challenging me without taking a poop.

But it's been an exception.

Well, I appreciate the compliment, even if it is by default...;) Again, I think you have to take a couple of things into account here. First, look who the atheists have to deal with here--preaching, propagandized stump speeches regurgitated by folks who don't even know the basic fundamentals of the subject...if I was here every single day trying to convince these people they were wrong, I know for a fact I'd lose my shit once or twice...or a hundred times, who knows? That's why I put the idiots on my Ignore List.

Secondly, this is still an internet forum. You're going to get young, angry folks with big opinions and little experience.

I, for one, have tried to discuss the differences amongst atheists, but I don't think at this point it's a relevant matter to anybody other than me...at least, that's how it's seemed. Hell, I've even offered an alternative term for those who are sure there is no God.