Beyond Comprehension

lightgigantic said:
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":)
Click to expand...

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 said:
I am saying that judging a genre by it's worst stereotype hardly warrants intelligent criticism
Click to expand...

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?
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
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?
Click to expand...
still it remains, atheistic criticism that appears in academic circles is somewhat different than what it appears in general on sci.
:eek:
 
lightgigantic said:
still it remains, atheistic criticism that appears in academic circles is somewhat different than what it appears in general on sci. :eek:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
PsychoticEpisode said:
Sounds so simple and yet I wish it were true.

Try being Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
greenberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
rjr6 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Please, in your own words.....explain that quote.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
Please, in your own words.....explain that quote.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
rjr6 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
JDawg said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is not about what I believe. Theistic doctrines address issues of "bad things happening to good people", is my assertion.
 
rjr6 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
JDawg said:
I'm curious as to what makes you OK with the idea of you being punished for your dad's mistakes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top