(wL) Forums

DK, post: 67071, member: 3039 Wrote:General Josh taking discussion serious O.O haha, jk

Yeah... Just a little... But what can you do?

UH OH, ETERNAL IS GOING TO MODHAMMER ME NOESS!!!!:eek:

Eternal, post: 67076, member: 478 Wrote:Yeah... Just a little... But what can you do?

Take the thread the opposite way

silly, post: 67065, member: 2152 Wrote:Technically, there's only one type of atheism, simply put: the lack of belief in the existence of a supernatural deity.

There are actually a two types of atheism. You're either an agnostic atheist our a gnostic atheist.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

I suppose you're a gnostic atheist.

This is going to be long, haha.

General Josh Wrote:Oh, silly is an atheist, well that makes sense then, but wait my first post had nothing to do with religion, and then somehow he equated me saying spiritual with religion, which by definition are not the same, especially when used as an adjective.

I wasn't talking about religion per se, I was talking about spiritualism (which includes religion).

General Josh Wrote:Then you commented on my example of Miyamoto eventhough i warned you not to because i know most ppl wouldn't have read his book, or know exactly who he is.

It doesn't matter what kind of swordsman Miyamoto was, he wasn't able to navigate with sonar, and you were instead implying that he had some sort of supernatural substitute.

General Josh Wrote:Then you dont know who the two famous ppl i mentioned above are, which if you did, maybe you wouldve known where i was coming from in the first post. I didnt say i expected you to know who they were, but i didn't expect such an arrogant response.
1st rule of Debate, if you dont know where the person you are debating with is getting their facts, or don't know even fraction of what they are talking about, dont say anything.
You really don't know what you are talking about, because you didnt do any kind of investigation as to why i had the opinion i did, you just immeadiately tried to refute it without having an understanding of where i was coming from. Which is the 2nd rule of debate, no investigation of facts=no argument.

Dyer said this: "the greatest gift you have ever been given is the gift of your imagination. Everything that now exists was once imagined" No offence, but in its spiritualistic context it sounds silly.

Campbell on the other hand sounds like an anthropologist, and apparently specializes in comparative mythology: "Comparative mythology is the comparison of myths from different cultures in an attempt to identify shared themes and characteristics.[1] Comparative mythology has served a variety of academic purposes. For example, scholars have used the relationships between different myths to trace the development of religions and cultures, to propose common origins for myths from different cultures, and to support various psychological theories." (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology). If anything he has probably put forward similar ideas to what I did (when I was talking about the flood mythology).

It also doesn't matter what the origins of opinions are, as only the opinions themselves are logically relevant. (Pretend the theory of gravity had not yet been discovered. Imagine a four year old kid had a dream in which a flying seahorse told him that objects are drawn towards other objects of greater mass. Whether or not the dream is ridiculous doesn't have any bearing on whether or not gravity is a real phenomenon)
Conversely, It doesn't matter where you got your "facts" from if they're plainly illogical. Aristotle came up with some silly ideas, and Newton was an Alchemist (he believed that there was a hidden technique that could enable him to convert non-gold things into gold on a mass-scale).

General Josh Wrote:Now if you had asked me before hand where i was getting my facts, or the "why is that your opinion" question, and i would've most certainly have told you, but you didn't and you just assumed you knew what you were talking about.
The whole thing about that there "are limits," that things are"finite" you're fucking spliting hairs like anyone can, Der humans cannot fly by their own means, but we can invent something that can let us fly now can't we? Thats what i meant by limits, i used the example that scientists said light was "unbendable" but that now there is a theory out there that it can be.

Are you kidding me? The psychologists were determining what the boy's biological limits were (regarding his hearing), and you said that was "dumb", and started bringing up semi-spiritual concepts in which the human mind is supposedly infinite in faculty and that nothing is impossible. I replied to that and stated that there are limits, and that our minds are finite (which is a direct contradiction to what you said).
My point was that virtually everything has limits; a person cannot fly by themselves (that's one of their limits), and light itself would have its own limits too, whatever they are.

General Josh Wrote:Your the kind of person that 60 years ago would have said "its impossible to travel to or in space", that obstinate and overzealous attitude about how right you are, thats why i called you self-centered.
You even stated it in the third line of your above post, but apparently you dont actually do the things you tell others.

No, I'm not the type of person that would have said that, as there was already plenty of logical evidence that we could theoretically travel into outer-space. However, if you were to suggest that tomorrow we can transform into unicorns because we have no limits, then yes, I'll probably be skeptical.

"I am saying that if a person is sincerely interested in the actual truth, they'll try to find reasons for why they believe in something. If there's a legitimate reason, there has to be evidence, and if there's no evidence, there's no reason to have that belief" In what way have I not been consistent with that?

I have a feeling that this conversation is not going to end anytime soon, lol. Gonna shoot you in dm instead :p

Spartacus, post: 67086, member: 1060 Wrote:There are actually a two types of atheism. You're either an agnostic atheist our a gnostic atheist.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

I suppose you're a gnostic atheist.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is the certainty/strength of that lack of belief. They are separate attributes.
If you want to go that far you can make all kinds of distinctions: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
*I would actually be an agnostic atheist, just as I would be an explicit, broad, friendly, open and active athiest.

silly, post: 67001, member: 2152 Wrote:Do you just assume that if someone disagrees with you, they must be angry?
I'm not angry o_O There is zero evidence for any "spiritual perspective". I'm not at all being an ass, I'm simply stating the truth. And no, that's your psychological reaction to what I said, in which you misidentify the probable truth, my mood, and my intentions. You'd think that "evidence" would be important to everyone, but no, some people just want to blindly believe in bizarre things. Either that, or because they don't understand something, they superstitiously assume that there must be a great multitude of supernatural explanations for it's occurrence. If you think there's any evidence for what you're saying, make in plainly known (if it is indeed genuine evidence then I'll straight away concede that you have a point).

The ancient Egyptians believed that their sun-god Ra carried the sun across the sky on the back of a chariot. The Chinese believed that the Earth rested on the back of a gargantuan turtle, while the Hindus instead believed it was a humongous elephant. Europeans used to believe that to yawn without your hand covering your mouth would let your soul go free out of your body. But that's all just nonsense right? Christians used to believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, that Noah had billions of species of animals in his ark, that women were created from a man's rib, and that a whole city of people were converted into pillars of salt (oh wait, heaps of them still do believe all of those things, lol). There's a lot of integrity, free-thought, and intelligence associated with critically questioning your beliefs and searching for the genuine truth, try it.

Are you saying that those beliefs are BS? I really better be misunderstanding because you know that you are insulting religions and other people beliefs.

Assassin, post: 67126, member: 2398 Wrote:Are you saying that those beliefs are BS? I really better be misunderstanding because you know that you are insulting religions and other people beliefs.

I was saying that they don't make sense, and don't have evidence. Just as you would say that about Hinduism and the Egyptian sun god Ra. To me it's the same for all "spiritual" things. I'm not going to pretend otherwise, nor am I going to force my beliefs onto others. But I will defend my own if someone brings it up.

It doesnt make any sense to you, because you might not understand it, but going around and saying that this religious belief is BS and this is stupid IS NOT acceptable no matter what you believe, when you fully grasp the meaning of something then you can talk about it.

Assassin, post: 67136, member: 2398 Wrote:It doesnt make any sense to you, because you might not understand it, but going around and saying that this religious belief is BS and this is stupid IS NOT acceptable no matter what you believe, when you fully grasp the meaning of something then you can talk about it.

I do understand the concepts, I was religious once myself. Saying that religion does not make sense isn't unacceptable, because that's just the truth (there are contradictions and holes in every religion's theology). Even many religious people admit that. I think that you're presupposing that certain religious beliefs are correct, and that's why you think they should be respected (in other words: Allah's word is the true word, so he should be respected). But I do not believe in any of them, and for me they are all in the same boat as the belief that Santa is real. I do respect people's feelings about the matter, but I won't be silent when someone uses a spiritual explanation for something that has a basic scientific answer.

Alright this will be my last reply, simply put you are being disrespectful and im not talking about one religion here im talking in general, and idc about you being religious or not you say you understand but you dont, there are things that cannot be explained by science and im not starting a religious conflict all im saying that you are being disrespective and offending others when you say their beliefs are BS like saying they are stupid or something, just like you see some stuff that doesnt make sense to you but make sense for others, others see stuff doesnt make sense to them but it makes sense to you, but that doesnt mean that you go and call other peoples beliefs BS by doing that you are insulting them.
Perhaps they saw things you didnt see that makes them believe that way, and you by what right come and insult them and their beliefs what gives you the right to judge them? thats why you still dont understand, if he used a spiritual explanation while there is a scientific answer all you have to do is post it and no need to go and start disrespecting.
Im sure you know that all what we discovered and know till now is very little to what there is in this world, and you cant say hes completely wrong because you dont know yourself.