Beyond Comprehension

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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. 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. 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.