I dont accept their fabrications.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
When i asked in what capacity was sexual promiscuity to be preferred over marriage they had no answer,

Probably because the two are far from mutually exclusive. I notice that later in your post you change it to "marital fidelity".

I am one of those you tend to label a materialist - yet as far as I can see from your post here, a materialist is simply someone that disagrees you on some point. It seems every argument you don't like has its roots in materialism.

Interestingly, you attempt to substantiate your 'Christian model' purely on materialistic grounds ie you claim that the Christian model is superior than the 'materialist' model because the Christian model has materially superior benefits.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Probably because the two are far from mutually exclusive. I notice that later in your post you change it to "marital fidelity".

I am one of those you tend to label a materialist - yet as far as I can see from your post here, a materialist is simply someone that disagrees you on some point. It seems every argument you don't like has its roots in materia han the 'materialist' model because the Christian model has materially superior benefits.

I provided reasons and evidence, you may like to do the same instead of advocating your own opinion as if it were evidence enough. Let me tell you something, its not and it appears to me to be reflective of the emptiness which materialism foments. Why dont you establish your own spirituality rather than simply tearing down and trying to destroy that of others, why dont you?

Your first point is pointless, your second equally so and your third point is a failure to grasp the content, for I have nowhere advocated that Christianity should be utilised as a vehicle for gaining material benefits (although it may as a consequence occur that such is the case), indeed, the Christian is willing to forgo or give up material benefits to establish his spirituality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I provided reasons and evidence, you may like to do the same instead of advocating your own opinion as if it were evidence enough.

I wasn't involved in the discussion and despite the fact that you think marriage equates to 'spiritualism' and materialists like me must therefore be against marriage, I have been married myself and may do so again. I was just pointing out your error in suggesting that marriage and promiscuity are opposites.

Let me tell you something, its not and it appears to me to be reflective of the emptiness which materialism foments.
I don't follow that sentence. Could you expand on it?

Why dont you establish your own spirituality rather than simply tearing down and trying to destroy that of others, why dont you?
I don't try to tear down others spirituality. I do try to point out errors in other peoples beliefs. If you would rather maintain your beliefs complete with errors, then why bother discussing them at all? After all you believe your beliefs are perfect do you not?

Your first point is pointless, your second equally so and your third point is a failure to grasp the content, for I have nowhere advocated material benefits, indeed, the Christian is willing to forgo or give up material benefits to establish his spirituality.
So when you made this statement:

When it was pointed out that there are certain practices which when viewed from a human perspective, while being observed in the animal kingdom prove to be disastrous for humans, as in the case of sexual promiscuity it was utterly lost on them.

You were in some roundabout way not suggesting that promiscuity was materially disastrous but only spiritually so? No wonder you lost the argument, your opponent had no idea what you were on about. He thought you claimed there was some material disadvantage to promiscuity when in reality you were just saying it was bad for your soul.

And again, in your discussions regarding lying, you only claimed that it was beneficial to the soul not to lie and that there was no real material benefit to maintaining honesty?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I provided reasons and evidence, you may like to do the same instead of advocating your own opinion as if it were evidence enough. Let me tell you something, its not and it appears to me to be reflective of the emptiness which materialism foments. Why dont you establish your own spirituality rather than simply tearing down and trying to destroy tha ...[text shortened]... d, the Christian is willing to forgo or give up material benefits to establish his spirituality.

the Christian is willing to forgo or give up material benefits to establish his spirituality.

Ahem........maybe that should read -

the Christian is willing to forgo or give up material benefits to establish his or her spirituality.

Your latent sexism is seeping through a tad Rob.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wasn't involved in the discussion and despite the fact that you think marriage equates to 'spiritualism' and materialists like me must therefore be against marriage, I have been married myself and may do so again. I was just pointing out your error in suggesting that marriage and promiscuity are opposites.

Let me tell you something, its not and it to the soul not to lie and that there was no real material benefit to maintaining honesty?

1. First of all i never stated that they were opposites, you did, DO NOT ASSIGN TO ME VALUES THAT I HAVE NOT PROFESSED, i gave reasons as to why promiscuity is not to be preferred, you did read those reasons did you not? Then you may comment up then instead of the usual ad hominen

2. No i could not expand on it, its self explanatory.

3. 'Pointing out errors in other peoples beliefs', ??? Why dont you establish your own beliefs instead of pointing out so called, aberrations in the beliefs of others? why dont you?

4. I dont profess belief in a soul, STOP ASSIGNING VALUES TO ME THAT I DO NOT PROFESS. There was reasoning given as to why sexual promiscuity is not to be preferred, you may make reference to those. What my opponent argued was the use of condoms, a purely materialistic solution and quite deficient for it does not tackle the root of the problem, that is morality. Those who advocate this are treating the symptoms, not the actual problem which is one of morality. Again this is another instance of the pure folly of the materialist.

5. Let me say this to you for the last time, I DO NOT PROFESS BELIEF IN A SOUL, STOP ASSIGNING VALUES TO ME THAT I DO NOT PROFESS!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]the Christian is willing to forgo or give up material benefits to establish his spirituality.

Ahem........maybe that should read -

the Christian is willing to forgo or give up material benefits to establish his or her spirituality.

Your latent sexism is seeping through a tad Rob.[/b]

Its strangely pleasant to hear from you dear Nobster, why that should be the case, i do not know ( i suppose i really do like you despite our verbal altercations), never the less, I always write in the masculine genitive case (grammatical term? I dunno) , simply for expediency, its not latent sexism although i do see how it could be construed as such, but then again, is the term man-holes, really sexist?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is as good a point as i have read on these forums and very insightful. Thanks Finnegan.


Sláinte robbie

However there exists the militant materialist, who not content to derive his own satisfaction from developing his own spirituality must seek to denigrate that of others. Usually it takes the form of science pitted against religious belief.

If everyone calmly describes their own beliefs while declining to dispute the incompatible beliefs of others that may produce excellent table manners but it is a failure to engage at all with critical thought. There is absolutely no reason to insist that people may not attack a belief they consider false unless they are able to set out, at the same time, an alternative. Neither is it a rational or logical argument to say that a criticism of your opinion is false on the grounds that the critic has not set out a clear alternative.

So what if a theist wishes to draw inferences for his religious belief from an observation of the natural world? Is there not order, harmony, irreducible complex systems at play. Is his sense of wonderment any less than those whose mathematical formulae you mention lead them to similar paths of delight whether its the cosmos or the microcosmic world they are observing.

The so what arose in history when a newly Christianised Roman Empire forcibly destroyed the philosophical academies and put an end to Greek thinking - including science - for over a thousand years. It arose in history when it burned scientists at the stake and tormented Galileo, frustrating the development of his work and ideas. Indeed, even Thomas Aquinas only escaped the Inquisition by ungracefully dying first. It arises in current affairs when fundamentalist Christians set out to destroy the teaching of science in the American education system. It arises when it harms the ability of too many people from childhood onwards to engage with the great ideas of their age. It arises when Zionists use obscurantist, radical readings of the Old Testament to provide cover for their oppression of the Palestinians, and when American evangelicals support them in cheery anticipation of the coming End of Days, breeding the famed Red Heifer of Revelations. It arises when Islamists exclude their wives and children from cultural opportunities. The so what arises daily.

i had a curious experience on another forum where i was advocating marriage. Someone piped up that it was not in the best interests to be married , ... Had they really not considered unwanted pregnancies, the break up of families, abortions and the emotional and psychological scars which may ensue, sexual transmitted diseases etc. When i asked in what capacity was sexual promiscuity to be preferred over marriage they had no answer

As observed by Twitehead, you set up a false dichotomy here between marriage and promiscuity. I have read your rejection of this complaint but it remains valid in my reading. You do not discuss the severe difficulties arising because of marriage, especially when accompanied by the loss of civil rights for women. A reformed version of marriage is worth defending - not an institution for patriarchy.

Thus the scene is set, we have an established morality and a truly sublime model in the Christ, it is like a fortress to us, the materialists must load the cannons and try to breech the walls in order to establish their own vision.

When you make a claim like that we are entitled to attack it. I personally consider it so demonstrably false I could post for pages and pages in refutation of it without pausing to attempt devising an alternative morality to replace this dead carcass, something that as already said I do not accept is required of me in this context.

Slainte.

Originally posted by finnegan
[b] However there exists the militant materialist, who not content to derive his own satisfaction from developing his own spirituality must seek to denigrate that of others. Usually it takes the form of science pitted against religious belief.

If everyone calmly describes their own beliefs while declining to dispute the incompatible beliefs of oth ...[text shortened]... s, something that as already said I do not accept is required of me in this context.

Slainte.[/b]

Again after reading the text, what is there to say, other than you are entitled to proffer criticism of another's belief system but offer nothing by the way of a constructive alternative yourself, thank you for illustrating my point.

What your second point purports to prove i cannot say other than that knowledge has at some epochs of history been destroyed or obscured and its protagonists put to death and that religious atrocities have been and continue to be perpetrated.

Again a demographic study shall reveal that atrocity has been committed by the religious and no religious alike. Again highlighting merely religious instances is an entirely biased point of view for its takes into no account those Christians who endeavoured to change their immediate environment and instigate social reform, shall we speak of prison reform, abolition movement etc or of those who carry out educational and charitable work. Even your own argument can be used in the case of those Americans who wish, not to destroy the education system as your rather blatantly and well if i may say, predictably concur, but merely to provide an alternative theory. What has sound science got to fear from that? Shall we talk of the Khmer Rouge, Albania? and attempts to set up an atheistic state? with disastrous consequences? I dont think you are being entirely objective in your insistence that the 'so what', is merely found within the realm of religion, which itself need not be synonymous with spirituality. One indeed may be religious but absolutely deviod of spirituality.

Whether i set up a false dichotomy or not i cannot say, i provided evidence and reason, which demonstrated the matter at hand, indeed, a complete lack of anything to the contrary leads me to conclude that yes indeed, my argument was sound, that the materialist has no valid reason to state why promiscuity is to be preferred to marriage.

Yes indeed you will find pages and pages of other attempts to provide a refutation while proffering sheer nothingness as an alternative, the problem of course is, that the ravages of materialism are readily discernible from a social perspective, one only need to look at the fragility of the financial system with greedy and corrupt bankers preying on the poor house owner who is left worshipping his bricks and mortar, as if his life arises out of the things he possesses to the many social ills caused by infidelity and a lack of morality. A vacuous region to be sure.

Slainte

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1. First of all i never stated that they were opposites, you did, DO NOT ASSIGN TO ME VALUES THAT I HAVE NOT PROFESSED,

You may not speak very good English up there in Scotland, but down here in South Africa, you cannot 'prefer' one thing to another unless the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot correctly say that you prefer marriage to promiscuity.

... you did read those reasons did you not? Then you may comment up then instead of the usual ad hominen
I did not. I merely pointed out that your carelessness might have caused confusion in your argument.

2. No i could not expand on it, its self explanatory.
Well then I cannot comment because I do not understand it. If you refuse to explain then I just have to take it you don't want to be understood for some odd reason.

3. 'Pointing out errors in other peoples beliefs', ??? Why dont you establish your own beliefs instead of pointing out so called, aberrations in the beliefs of others? why dont you?
Again, the two are not mutually exclusive. Why should I do one as an alternative to the other?

4. I dont profess belief in a soul, STOP ASSIGNING VALUES TO ME THAT I DO NOT PROFESS.
My apologies. The word 'soul' has such a wide range of meaning that it probably does include what you do believe in. If you read my post again, you will see that in that context it doesn't have to specifically mean what jaywil believes in.

There was reasoning given as to why sexual promiscuity is not to be preferred, you may make reference to those.
Well how about admitting that those reasons were materialistic. You know they were but wont admit it because you know I am right. Whenever I point out your errors you start dancing around trying to avoid it.
Can you state one reason you gave why sexual promiscuity is not to be preferred?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You may not speak very good English up there in Scotland, but down here in South Africa, you cannot 'prefer' one thing to another unless the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot correctly say that you prefer marriage to promiscuity.

[b]... you did read those reasons did you not? Then you may comment up then instead of the usual ad hominen
I did ...[text shortened]... id it.
Can you state one reason you gave why sexual promiscuity is not to be preferred?[/b]

1.I have provided reasons, you may make reference to those reasons.

2. Unless you have anything constructive to say, anything that mat be construed as spiritually enlightening, them please post it, i will not waste any more time and effort with those who are merely intent to tear down and destroy while proffering no alternative or no reason as to why their point of view is to be accepted ( i was going to say preferred but you may of course use it as some type of semantic argument)

3. Your apology is accepted, there is no Biblical reason to accept an entity which survives death, its of pagan, Greek origin, possibly Babylonian before that.

4. Why should i admit to something that i do not profess, it is YOU not i who have stated that the reason one wishes to remain faithful to ones marriage partner is for materialistic reasons, in fact, i resent that assertion, for clearly the reason one does is in respect to vows that one has made before God and because one loves ones partner. How that is materialistic you will now demonstrate.

5. I provided many reasons, you may make reference to any of those. Be sure to read them this time.

Ok, lets cut to the chase, Materialists lets hear your alternative spiritual vision

thanks in advance Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok, lets cut to the chase, Materialists lets hear your alternative spiritual vision

thanks in advance Robbie.

That's not the chase. The validity of your opinions does not rest on the validity of an alternative opinion since both may be invalid (or indeed valid).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok, lets cut to the chase, Materialists lets hear your alternative spiritual vision

thanks in advance Robbie.

Aren't you confusing atheism with materialism?

Originally posted by finnegan
That's not the chase. The validity of your opinions does not rest on the validity of an alternative opinion since both may be invalid (or indeed valid).

I am not interested in whether they are valid or not, i merely want to hear what they are.

Originally posted by souverein
Aren't you confusing atheism with materialism?

Nope, there are many atheists who profess and demonstrate a spirituality, and there are many religionists who are deviod of such.