How far is too far?

[swarm]

I have never understood why atheists ask the kind of questions that the OP is asking. To christians, god can never do "evil", what he does is always correct. You may think these acts are heinous, and I may agree with you, but we have to remember that good and evil are relative terms.

Because these questions get to the heart of some important issues.

The acts described are heinous. Any actual person coming close to doing these things would be rightly considered a most despicable villain. Yet the same people who revile Hitler for what he did, praise god for doing worse.

Remember theists generally don't have relative good and evil.

Also watching the machinations which zealots got to in order to rationalize away the problem really highlights how morally bankrupt they are.

Finally it brings home the common ground that no matter what you may believe about god, the one thing you can be sure of is he is not to be found in the myths of men.

 

[swarm]

There is the suggestion that for humans, karma - the law of action and reaction - is what gets them to be killed (that is: their bodies get killed), sometimes in horrible ways.
There is also the suggestion that there is reincarnation - that we are not born 'innocent', but bear a karmic burden from our previous lifetimes.

If you are going to go with a comic book hindu version of rebirth and karma. But we aren't talking about people, we are talking about gods and gods don't get out of karma. Also, even that karma is a mix of what was and what is, what you are doing and have done and what the others involved are doing and have done. Your "previous karma" might put you in a position to be shot by some one, but they still have to choose the evil act and shoot you.

For a god to act in a heinous manner would seem a good reason to choose some other god to focus your worship on if you don't wish to be sucked into their evil ways.

The analogy doesn't work. A parent doesn't give their child life, nor does a parent have full control over a child's life. (For example, the child can be taken away from the parent by illness, death, kidnapping, social services.)

A parent literally gives their child life and you can be taken away from god in most belief systems.

I am saying that there is no such thing as 'grievous injury and death from little or no provocation'. The 'provocation' is significant, accumulated in this and previous lifetimes.

Well yes you are morally bankrupt and justifying the unjustifiable by inventing things in "previos lifetimes." This is because in your last lifetime you were Hilter. See how easy that is?

Personally I think every one was innocent in their "previous lives" and any mishaps are from this life's actions and the luck of the draw.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Perhaps I worded that poorly. I do understand why atheists ask these questions, ignorance.

No. You don't understand. I suspect you don't want to.

If their was proof that their was a god and you would go to hell if you didn't worship him, you wouldn't do it because of some misplaced sense of self righteousness?

I certainly wouldn't do it. There are many other things I wouldn't do under threat of hell. There's nothing misplaced about it.
Is there anything you wouldn't do to avoid hell? Wait, don't answer that. Look for the thread on it I'm starting.

If you agree that anything can be claimed depending on one's beliefs, than surely you can see the silliness in a question such as the one asked by the OP.

Surely you can see you're being very silly.

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually I determine similarities by establishing what is a primary detail (as distinct from a secondary one).
”
So you cherry pick to reinforce what you want to believe. No problem. Most religious people do.

er ... no

I actually said I establish what constitutes a primary detail and what constitutes a secondary detail .... of course feel free to go on determining what constitutes religion by analyzing secondary characteristics but you should realize that you are distinguishing yourself not only from theistic philosophy but also the intelligent criticisms of theism posed by atheists too.

actually I said: If you are willing to exclude other religions and gods as false, that's fine with me.

still can't see the elements of fideism in such a statement?

If you aren't that's cool too, but I wasn't requiring you to consider every one else's whacky false religion, just your own. Of course if you claim they are all true, then you get to consider them as well.

that's fine, but the problem is that you haven't really established the grounds for questioning just yet (namely that god is heinous)

“
the idea that there is only one religion : devotion to god
”
That's in part what is being questioned here. Are you a cowardly, mindless drone who is so spineless that you cannot question your god no matter how heinous it becomes?

not at all

but at the same time, I am not such a cowardly mindless drone that I would accept an incoherent argument (such as "god is heinous since he burns people unlike me, however I participate in BBQ's") either ....

You seem to be just that sort of person. Congradulations. Your fideism is complete and unquestioning.

hehe

even if that was the case, I wouldn't be alone

 

[swarm]

I actually said I establish what constitutes a primary detail and what constitutes a secondary detail

Cherry picking by any other name...

that's fine, but the problem is that you haven't really established the grounds for questioning just yet (namely that god is heinous)

You are so busy trying to dodge, you haven't bothered yet to understand the question.

(such as "god is heinous since he burns people unlike me, however I participate in BBQ's")

You burn people in BBQs? You are pretty sick dude.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cherry picking by any other name...

If you can explain how your assertions about religion are primary as opposed to secondary I will overlook the cherry stains on your fingers

You are so busy trying to dodge, you haven't bothered yet to understand the question.

The question is how come god is more heinous than you.
The answer is that you are more heinous than god.

You burn people in BBQs? You are pretty sick dude.

Actually I don't eat meat .... but there is a general consensus that eating raw meat makes for an exceptional whackiness even amongst avid meat eaters ... if that's what you mean.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Is it impossible for you to participate in a discussion ON THE TOPIC of the OP???

 

[swarm]

If you can explain how your assertions about religion are primary as opposed to secondary

Cherry picking religions is your deal.

The question is how come god is more heinous than you.

nope. try reading it this time.

Actually I don't eat meat ....

so you bbq them and then waste the meat?!

 

[The Breaker]

No. You don't understand. I suspect you don't want to.





I certainly wouldn't do it. There are many other things I wouldn't do under threat of hell. There's nothing misplaced about it.
Is there anything you wouldn't do to avoid hell? Wait, don't answer that. Look for the thread on it I'm starting.





Surely you can see you're being very silly.

I understand, or at least I try. I have asked myself the same question in the past.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If you're trying, you fail miserably.

What question?

 

[The Breaker]

What question?

The question asked by the OP.

"Understanding" is subjective. You feel I am failing miserably, I don't. I do feel that I can't understand another's beliefs completely as they are not mine. I also like to think that I do my best to understand because each of us had no choice in believing what we do.

 

[lightgigantic]

Swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you can explain how your assertions about religion are primary as opposed to secondary
”
Cherry picking religions is your deal.

hehe

whenever you have the stamina to establish that your ideas of religion as distinct from secondary, please be our guest.

“
The question is how come god is more heinous than you.
”
nope. try reading it this time.

Every religion to my knowledge that has a god, has god doing horrific things.

Do you need neon signs?
“

Actually I don't eat meat ....
”
so you bbq them and then waste the meat?!

I have no need to partake of the heinous activities of yourself, if that's what you mean

 

[swarm]

whenever you have the stamina to establish that your ideas of religion as distinct from secondary, please be our guest.

Why would I even care to? Cherry pick to your heart's content. Create a fantasy you like better than the traditional ones, that's all hari krishna is to begin with any way, what's his name's fantasy of how it ought to be instead of how it traditionally was. Maybe you can rewrite a book of your own "purports."

I have no need to partake of the heinous activities of yourself, if that's what you mean

Try actually reading the op. I'm sure some one as smart as you can eventually figure out the simple question.

 

[lightgigantic]

Why would I even care to?

at a guess, because its a prerequisite for a coherent argument...

Cherry pick to your heart's content.

meh

google "reflexive criticism'

Create a fantasy you like better than the traditional ones, that's all hari krishna is to begin with any way, what's his name's fantasy of how it ought to be instead of how it traditionally was. Maybe you can rewrite a book of your own "purports."

Without an even clear understanding of historyographic elements of your preferred object of theistic ridicule (namely christianity), its obvious that you are in no position to begin working on others .... (but as long as you have your google window open, you might want to try "vaishnavism")

Try actually reading the op. I'm sure some one as smart as you can eventually figure out the simple question.

.... once again

Every religion to my knowledge that has a god, has god doing horrific things.

Do you need neon signs?

:shrug:

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Look who's talking about coherent arguments. The blind thinking he can lead the sighted.

 

[wynn]

google "reflexive criticism'

Where do you get these words?! Or 'henology'?

You do realize that neither the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, nor the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, nor Wikipedia have entries for the above mentioned terms?



Anyway, good terms (as a further internet and dictionary search reveals), kudos to you.

 

[swarm]

at a guess, because its a prerequisite for a coherent argument...

As usual, you are mistaken.


Every religion to my knowledge that has a god, has god doing horrific things.

Do you need neon signs?

While you are googling away I suggest looking up the meaning of the word "question" since you can't distinguish one from a statement. Let's try a game of answer the questions...

Is there a point at which god is so heinous that even a religious person won't worship him?

Do you religious people have any standards at all or will you worship god no matter what?

Every religion to my knowledge that has a god, has god doing horrific things.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

 

[lightgigantic]

As usual, you are mistaken.

mistaken that you have a need for a coherent argument?
OK .... I stand corrected

While you are googling away I suggest looking up the meaning of the word "question" since you can't distinguish one from a statement.

The problem is that there is a difference between a "loaded question" and a "question"

Let's try a game of answer the questions...

Is there a point at which god is so heinous that even a religious person won't worship him?

Do you religious people have any standards at all or will you worship god no matter what?

Every religion to my knowledge that has a god, has god doing horrific things.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

A first inquiry in the general direction of critical literacy might be somewhere in the vicinity of "why is it exactly that you insist on working with a god that is heinous and horrific?"

 

[Japarican]

I believe in God on my own terms. I don't always go by what "religious people" say. After all, we are all human so how do we know what God really wants.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Is that what it says in the original Hebrew?

What diference does it make.???