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.