Originally posted by FMF
What does what you said to your eye surgeon, and what you thought he thought about you had said, have to do with anything I have said?

He did not take my comment as belittling,rather he was pleased. That was the point.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did not say you did, I just wanted clarification. It does seem that you call 'religion' what I call 'culture', but I have no problem with that as long as we can communicate.

[b]So reading Quoran would not have made a muslim out of me.
I think it would if that was the specific version of theism that was available to you at the time. Why do you t ...[text shortened]... to refer to their theistic religion. Many people are atheists, but culturally Christian etc[/b]

In my case it was a long drawn out process and many other versions of theism would have been looked into by me before adopting one. Surely such things should be analysed case by case.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
He did not take my comment as belittling,rather he was pleased. That was the point.

So of what objective relevance to our topic is a conversation between you and someone you know? Are you citing it as evidence of something?

Originally posted by FMF
So of what objective relevance to our topic is a conversation between you and someone you know? Are you citing it as evidence of something?

Did you not say that when I credit God with something representing human achievement,it is belittling human spirit/abilities ? Not all humans think on these lines.Not even skilled and highly intelligent people.This was the argument I had brought up to counter your views.Still not relevant ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Did you not say that when I credit God with something representing human achievement,it is belittling human spirit/abilities ? Not all humans think on these lines.Not even skilled and highly intelligent people.This was the argument I had brought up to counter your views.Still not relevant ?

You think sublime human achievements can only be explained by the "direction" of God and are not simply sublime human achievements in and of themselves. You think a conversation with someone who may happen to agree with you in anyway proves this?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
In my case it was a long drawn out process and many other versions of theism would have been looked into by me before adopting one. Surely such things should be analysed case by case.

Nevertheless, you ended up following the religion you were most familiar with and not the one that made the most sense or had the most evidence in its favor.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Did you not say that when I credit God with something representing human achievement,it is belittling human spirit/abilities ? Not all humans think on these lines.Not even skilled and highly intelligent people.This was the argument I had brought up to counter your views.Still not relevant ?

It is obvious that not all humans think along these lines, you yourself are an obvious example. I am sure FMF was already aware (as was I) that not all humans think along these lines. But I still do not think it is particularly relevant.

The question is whether or not crediting God with something is belittling human abilities, and it can surely be answered without resorting to a worldwide vote?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The question is whether or not crediting God with something is belittling human abilities, and it can surely be answered without resorting to a worldwide vote?

I credit human achievements to human spirit and human capacity and see nothing supernatural going on. rvsakhadeo appears to be claiming some other non-human entity is directly or indirectly responsible. He/she seems to be suggesting that humans cannot do it on their own. rvsakhadeo is of course entitled to take this belittling view of humans in which he/she deems supernatural assistance to be necessary. On the other hand, I clearly have more belief than he/she does in the spirit, capacity, and achievements of humans. I see no need to downplay or belittle, to any extent whatsoever, those achievements with explanations rooted in superstition.

Originally posted by FMF
I credit human achievements to human spirit and human capacity and see nothing supernatural going on. rvsakhadeo appears to be claiming some other non-human entity is directly or indirectly responsible. He/she seems to be suggesting that humans cannot do it on their own. rvsakhadeo is of course entitled to take this belittling view of humans in which he/she deem ...[text shortened]... belittle, to any extent whatsoever, those achievements with explanations rooted in superstition.

I am very much the He,for your information.
I repeat that it is very common( and traditional in India) to credit the extraordinary heights that we reach in human arts to the grace of or the blessings of God. We(even in the western world) often use the phrase"Out of this World " when describing something great in Music or any other art.We are unconsciously calling it supernatural. Nothing wrong in it. In India at least, when we compliment a person on such type of achievement,we say God has acted through your hands etc. and that person is glad to receive this as a compliment. There is a glorification of the person in such case and not belittling.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is obvious that not all humans think along these lines, you yourself are an obvious example. I am sure FMF was already aware (as was I) that not all humans think along these lines. But I still do not think it is particularly relevant.

The question is whether or not crediting God with something is belittling human abilities, and it can surely be answered without resorting to a worldwide vote?

Please see my reply post to FMF.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
There is a glorification of the person in such case and not belittling.

I disagree. I attribute the achievements of humans to their spirit and capacity. You seem to be claiming that humans cannot do it on their own and that some supernatural assistance is necessary, that ought, perhaps, to be acknowledged. You called it "a spiritual source directing the human capabilities". This is downplaying the achievements of humans, and crediting an entity that resides in your superstitions and speculations. The whole 'humans couldn't do it alone' and 'there must be more to life than this' thing that so many people who profess their spirituality have in common, strikes me as negative. It's packaged as "glorification" but I think it is belittling, regardless of how "glad" people with same mind set as you are.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Great Music as well as any other manifestation of Art including Dancing,Poetry,Painting,Sculpture,even the Gymnastic exercises such as floor exercises or rhythmic gymnastics suggest a spiritual source directing the human capabilities towards the great end results that we ordinary humans can only wonder at.

While I agree that these things seem to stir what we call 'the spirit', I'm firmly on the fence as to attribution towards an external source. Actually, I think I'm probably leaning over the fence because I think I like the atheists' garden better.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If there's anything the testimony of believers here may have taught you guys it's that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are not God, and vice versa.

"Fairy tales" and the concept of "an old man in the sky" are specious arguments and not at all what God is about. Come on, boldly step into the 21st century with the rest of us. 🙂

I posted before that his name should be changed to twithead. Am I right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I posted before that his name should be changed to twithead. Am I right?

So you should be Ignorant Hick?

Denying people a choice in their own labels is oppressive, and tyrannical.
And simply calling someone names to belittle them is bullying, and mean.

Very 'Christian' of you.

And no, you are not right.


BTW, still waiting for you to apologise for your Hitler insult you levelled at me.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Music that moves you personally, might not move me. We all have musical preferences.

So what do [b]YOU classify as great music.

At this particular moment i have Nirvana on the stereo. I think that's 'great music', i'm pretty sure you wouldn't agree with me.[/b]

Some people consider the Classical Music of Bach, Handel, Mozart, and
Beethoven as the great music. However, as you say I would rather
listen to other music, some country, some rock n roll, some religious
like Via Dolorosa, Lovesick Blues, and Great Balls of Fire.