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?
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
It is not about what I believe. Theistic doctrines address issues of "bad things happening to good people", is my assertion.
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.
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.