Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you seriously think an atheist cannot be spiritual?
no, they should have a deviod of spirituality forum, where all those atheists without
spirituality can go and discuss elementary details and base materialism. A debate
about the existence of God is utterly futile from both perspectives for it cannot be
proven, nor disproven, therefore, what is left, is to discuss principles and ideas based
o ...[text shortened]... onsciousness,
spiritual attributes like appreciation of art, or compassion, or forgiveness etc
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat's an irrational event?
no, rather quite the opposite, for without an 'irrational force', one cannot begin to view
events, which in themselves appear irrational in any rational way, they simply would
not make any sense. This appears to me to be the greatest folly of the rationalist,
attempting to view 'irrational events', in a rational way, without recourse to the
supernatural, for as soon as one allows room for it, all things then begin to make
sense.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...which goes to great lengths to 'prove', his default position. ..”
Because as I have stated, its the atheist, from his pre disposition, which goes to great
lengths to 'prove', his default position. For the theist he has no need of this futility, he
has an example, if you are Christian, in the personage of Jesus Christ, he has a
teaching, to which he aspires, he has a beautiful spiritual message, he has Biblic ...[text shortened]... s NO NEED of a
FUTILE debate as to whether there is a God or not, for to him, its a reality.
I am not sure what you mean by “'prove', his default position”.
If what you mean is that atheists try and prove that there is no god, then that is simply not true.
Atheists only point out that there is no rational in the belief that there is a god just as there is no rational in the belief that there is a tea cup orbiting Mars.
Also, simply repeatedly saying the debate is “futile” doesn't answer any of my questions.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI resent you pradoy, its exactly this type of futile argument that i am referring to, what
“...which goes to great lengths to 'prove', his default position. ..”
I am not sure what you mean by “'prove', his default position”.
If what you mean is that atheists try and prove that there is no god, then that is simply not true.
Atheists only point out that there is no rational in the belief that there is a god just as there is no rationa ...[text shortened]...
Also, simply repeatedly saying the debate is “futile” doesn't answer any of my questions.
is there of spiritual content, nothing, its deviod, so you do not hold there is any
rational, (your description) basis, for a belief (which does not need a rational basis), in
a God to which you do not believe in, then that is fine, take it to the base materialism
forum spanky, this is spirituality
.
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynkaexactly my point, there should be a base materialism forum for those that deny the supernatural, let me quote you the forum description,
But the overwhelming majority of atheists don't even think those exist, so there is no interpretation to do.
Spirituality
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.
If as you say, you dont profess a believe in the supernatural, or want to debate the supernatural, then why are you here? Let me just say, i dont resent the atheists, i think
they are great, I really do, as long as they are discussing spirituality, which many are very adept at doing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBecause of many reasons.
exactly my point, there should be a base materialism forum for those that deny the supernatural, let me quote you the forum description,
Spirituality
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.
If as you say, you dont profess a believe in the supernatural, or want to debate the supernatural, then why are you here?
First, my belief is not dogmatic. I fully acknowledge the possibility I could be wrong, even though I'm far from being on the fence.
Second, reading opinions of people I agree with means I will learn nothing. Discussing with people I disagree leads to learning. And even when I don't change my position, if often makes me understand my own opinions better and also the positions of others. I find that valuable.
Third, some religious beliefs impact my life because they have implications for political beliefs. From abortion to gay rights, among many other subjects. So the more I can convince others to be tolerant about those things, the better. Here, I'm sure there is a lot of common ground between me and many theists.
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynkayes, this is great, these are the types of debates which foment reasoning and
Because of many reasons.
First, my belief is not dogmatic. I fully acknowledge the possibility I could be wrong, even though I'm far from being on the fence.
Second, reading opinions of people I agree with means I will learn nothing. Discussing with people I disagree leads to learning. And even when I don't change my position, if often makes me unders ...[text shortened]... ings, the better. Here, I'm sure there is a lot of common ground between me and many theists.
discussion and which do , as you eloquently state, have some basis in spirituality, I
bow to such and beg your forgiveness for my impertinence.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...I resent you pradoy, ...”
I resent you pradoy, its exactly this type of futile argument that i am referring to, what
is there of spiritual content, nothing, its deviod, so you do not hold there is any
rational, (your description) basis, for a belief (which does not need a rational basis), in
a God to which you do not believe in, then that is fine, take it to the base materialism
forum spanky, this is spirituality
.
I assume that is supposed to be “parody”? If so, what “parody”?
Which part of that post was parody and in what way?
If not “parody” then what word is that?
“...so you do not hold there is any
rational, (your description) basis, for a belief (which does not need a rational basis), ...”
why would a belief “not need a rational basis”?
If a belief has no rational basis then it is surely an irrational belief.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonno its a religious belief! your paradoy was in your insistence of
“...I resent you pradoy, ...”
I assume that is supposed to be “parody”? If so, what “parody”?
Which part of that post was parody and in what way?
If not “parody” then what word is that?
“...so you do not hold there is any
rational, (your description) basis, for a belief (which does not need a rational basis), ...”
why would a belief “no ...[text shortened]... d a rational basis”?
If a belief has no rational basis then it is surely an irrational belief.
terming a religious belief, the same as if there was a tea cup orbiting Mars, which i
think you'll find less evidence of, than if there was a historical personage known as
Jesus Christ, who just happened to, well, against tremendous odds, start a religion.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm quite sure there is as much evidence for orbiting teacups as there is for *magic* Jesus (as opposed to non-son of "God" Jesus)
no its a religious belief! your paradoy was in your insistence of
terming a religious belief, the same as if there was a tea cup orbiting Mars, which i
think you'll find less evidence of, than if there was a historical personage known as
Jesus Christ, who just happened to, well, against tremendous odds, start a religion.