Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists. And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.

scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:

• One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
• Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
• Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).

Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.

I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?

Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!

A majority believe in the possibility of something greater than self, even in a group of all atheists. A bit of an important distinction. Otherwise, I agree, most believe in something religious or spiritual.

Does the fact that most people believe matter? Most people don't understand science or the brain. Even people who believe in spirituality only do so because they want to believe in more. They don't know anything they just want there to be so they've convinced themselves they believe in something they can't even prove to themselves. No proof necessary. They just hope or as they all it "have faith"

Does the fact that as far back as we can trace man has always believed matter? I say that's proof it was all just made up by a scared primitive men.

Are either of these things proof of a god? At least boss doesn't say I'll go to hell if I don't buy into it. I'll give his monkey ass that.

 

[Boss]

Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists. And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.

scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:

• One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
• Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
• Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).

Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.

I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?

Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.” – David Stevens

And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either. We remain open to all posibilities. You're twist on a creator is actually really lame. You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too. Interesting.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?

We remain open to all posibilities. You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.

Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?

Pathetic.

 

[daws101]

knowledge evolves much faster than life....since bossy's yammering has not evolved it will be left in the garbage pile of history like phrenology and the vapors..

I disagree. Knowledge, when applied to you, seems to vanish into a black hole, never to be seen or heard from again. Any surface knowledge which remains on the event horizon is converted to anti-knowledge and spewed back out from your oral orifice into the universe. Science is perplexed.

of course you'd disagree which just proves my point...

 

[daws101]

the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...

But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.

false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
why did that fire happen? someone was careless with a match.
how did that fire happen someone was careless with a match.

 

[Boss]

the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...

But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.

false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
why did that fire happen? someone was careless with a match.
how did that fire happen someone was careless with a match.

False. It NEVER is.
Why did that fire happen? Someone was careless with a match.
How did that fire happen? A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)

 

[BreezeWood]

that makes no sense ... sort of lost with your argument there, Blade - can we try a Peach, no process there ...



we get what you are implying - of course you never replied to what will be your superior attribute when locked in a room with a hungry Lion.

that's the problem, why do you exclude all other life from spirituality - what you communicate with is not "in your head" why would ( whatever) only communicate with humans ?




you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.

.

I'll agree if there is a god he cares about giraffe and bear and dogs too. Even the tiny Tardigrades.

Either that or he doesn't give a shit about any of us. This is the more probable scenario if there is a god that created this universe.

the filtered religions suggest for the Spirit to freely exist requires a state of accomplished purity ( purity of heart ) for there to even be the possibility for acceptance to the Everlasting. so no there is no concern unless warranted by deed and then only to reject the unworthy.

the Everlasting is responsible for the universe - what is living is guided by the longest lasting Spirit - per interpretation over time.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?

you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
.

Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.

Boss: Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.

The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.

Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?

.........

isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.

Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...

no religion ???

.

 

[daws101]

the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...

But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.

false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
why did that fire happen? someone was careless with a match.
how did that fire happen someone was careless with a match.

False. It NEVER is.
Why did that fire happen? Someone was careless with a match.
How did that fire happen? A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)

nice bullshit!
no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire happened would need or care hear the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...

 

[daws101]

Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?

you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
.

Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.

Boss: Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.

The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.

Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?

.........

isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.

Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...

no religion ???

.

• spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

 

[LittleNipper]

the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...

But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.

false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
why did that fire happen? someone was careless with a match.
how did that fire happen someone was careless with a match.

False. It NEVER is.
Why did that fire happen? Someone was careless with a match.
How did that fire happen? A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)

nice bullshit!
no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire happened would need or care hear the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...

Well, you sound highly educated and understanding. So, why do we have matches? Where they the end product of natural environmental evolution or were they created by man? My educated guess is that you really have no idea why you exist or where you are going. Instead of badmouthing, perhaps you might wish to put your brain to some purpose other than being narrow minded and missing the boat!

 

[Boss]

the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...

But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.

false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
why did that fire happen? someone was careless with a match.
how did that fire happen someone was careless with a match.

False. It NEVER is.
Why did that fire happen? Someone was careless with a match.
How did that fire happen? A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)

nice bullshit!
no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire happened would need or care hear the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...

No, why and how are not the same and I've demonstrated this with your own example. It's not bullshit, it's something your dumb ass can't refute, so you whine bullshit. Anyone who is rational understands that how and why are two completely different questions on anything. Only some retard loudmouth on a message board would attempt to argue otherwise.

 

[BreezeWood]

Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?

you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
.

Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.

Boss: Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.

The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.

Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?

.........

isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.

Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...

no religion ???

.

• spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent ...


when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.

.

 

[sealybobo]

Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists. And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.

scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:

• One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
• Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
• Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).

Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.

I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?

Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.” – David Stevens

And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists. Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either. We remain open to all posibilities. You're twist on a creator is actually really lame. You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too. Interesting.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?

We remain open to all posibilities. You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.

Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?

Pathetic.

That's because both are true. Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more. Great example is prison. Prison is full of people who all believe in god. Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.

Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.

So from now on call it Something. In Something We Trust. Something Damn You! Please Something, forgive me, blablabla. Last night I was watching a black woman preacher. She was misinterpreting the bible left and right. Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them. But she said he created us in his image. She had a very specific god she was talking about. She wasn't vague like you. She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy. So now that's god? Energy? Electricity?

You know what? Since I don't know, I hope you are right. I hope there is something higher or more too. I just don't. But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great. I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies. That's wishful thinking too.

So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything. You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land. You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are. Sucker. They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.

 

[sealybobo]

the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...

But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.

false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
why did that fire happen? someone was careless with a match.
how did that fire happen someone was careless with a match.

False. It NEVER is.
Why did that fire happen? Someone was careless with a match.
How did that fire happen? A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)

nice bullshit!
no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire happened would need or care hear the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...

No, why and how are not the same and I've demonstrated this with your own example. It's not bullshit, it's something your dumb ass can't refute, so you whine bullshit. Anyone who is rational understands that how and why are two completely different questions on anything. Only some retard loudmouth on a message board would attempt to argue otherwise.

You've been wrong and not admitted it.

Remember your theory since most people believe and have always believed that must mean it's true? Neither of those arguments are sound and you have yet to apologize for being a fucking lying retard.

 

[sealybobo]

Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?

you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
.

Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.

Boss: Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.

The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.

Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?

.........

isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.

Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...

no religion ???

.

• spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent ...


when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.

.

Typically weak minded people or insane people have visions, and it has never been demonstrated to be true to science yet.

 

[BreezeWood]

Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?

you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
.

Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.

Boss: Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.

The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.

Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?

.........

isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.

Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...

no religion ???

.

• spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent ...


when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.

.

Typically weak minded people or insane people have visions, and it has never been demonstrated to be true to science yet.

not visions, vision as seeing something from outside your head ....
.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

Such is the nature of evil... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?

you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
.

Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.

Boss: Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.

The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.

Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?

.........

isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.

Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...

no religion ???

.

• spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance

spiritual evidence is non existent ...


when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.

.

Typically weak minded people or insane people have visions, and it has never been demonstrated to be true to science yet.

Science is the quest for truth within the scope of the observable, physical universe.

Thus the investigations are limited to that which can be observed. Imagine the level of foolishness, which presumes that the infinitesimal perspective of our species might provide us with some understanding of energies which we can't begin to see, let alone understand.

The sum total of human understanding of the physical universe, can't even explain gravity to any degree of certainty and this is a force, the effects of which are readily observable.

Take the singularity as an example. Clearly energy is entering in great force. We 'believe' we understand, collapsing star, which causes a warping of space/time, due to the super-mass that has collapsed upon itself, creating a gravitational attraction so powerful that nothing can escape, not even light.

It is all theory... yet to hear the cult speak of it and it becomes clear that they believe to the core of their beings that 'we KNOW!'. We don't know. And in terms of understanding the universe, that is FUNDAMENTAL.

So... it's hysterical that a species that still doesn't even understand the FUNDAMENTALS of the the physical universe, would be so cure that they've some means to explain that which they've no means to even begin to understand.

LOL! Funny stuff.

 

[BreezeWood]

....

So... it's hysterical that a species that still doesn't even understand the FUNDAMENTALS of the the physical universe, would be so cure that they've some means to explain that which they've no means to even begin to understand.

LOL! Funny stuff.

that is funny ...

proper vision is all that is required.

.

 

[Boss]

That's because both are true. Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more. Great example is prison. Prison is full of people who all believe in god. Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.

Well first of all, both can't be true. Either validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence or it is governed by intelligence. You need to make up your mind which is your argument. You can't argue that it's not governed by intelligence when I give you examples of intelligent believers, then claim it is governed by intelligence because some smart people are atheists. In ANY group, you will generally find more believers than non believers. Even in a group of ALL atheists, you find a majority of them are willing to leave the question open. So it seems to me, smart people in general, believe in God or something. Only really stupid people make the claim that God is impossible.

Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.

It's not a matter of "wanting to" for me. Sometimes I wish it could be that simple, to just not want to believe in God and do whatever the hell I please. But I can't because I know God is real, I communicate with God daily.

So from now on call it Something. In Something We Trust. Something Damn You! Please Something, forgive me, blablabla. Last night I was watching a black woman preacher. She was misinterpreting the bible left and right. Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them. But she said he created us in his image. She had a very specific god she was talking about. She wasn't vague like you. She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy. So now that's god? Energy? Electricity?

Here's the thing... You don't get to tell me what to call things. I'll call Spiritual Energy and Spiritual Nature "God" because that's what I am comfortable with, and if you don't like that you can fuck off. I don't know about the black woman preacher, you should probably stop watching her if you don't believe in the God she's preaching about. There are thousands of religions and thousands of variations of those religions, so I can't sit here and defend what one in specific is saying or claiming. I'm non-religious, and I've clarified that several times for you, but for some odd reason you keep wanting to cajole me into a religious debate. What's the matter, did the Atheists only teach you how to refute religion?

God is Spiritual Energy. A form of energy we can't see or measure like electricity, which is a physical energy. I made the comparison once for some hard head who couldn't grasp the concept of a God that wasn't physical. So now it has become a little "meme" to throw back at me, that I believe God is electricity, which I never said.

You know what? Since I don't know, I hope you are right. I hope there is something higher or more too. I just don't. But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great. I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies. That's wishful thinking too.

Your physical body doesn't live on, it can't. Spiritual isn't physical, so it doesn't have to abide by physical rules, entropy and whatnot. Your spirit, the essence of who you are, your mind and thoughts, the things that aren't part of your physiology, are part of your spiritual presence. These things "live on" because there is no such thing as death to them, only physical things die. Your soul will move to some other place or dimension, you will not realize a physical existence anymore, that expired with your physical body. Where you go and what happens next is beyond my ability to understand. That said, I have to assume that Spiritual Nature has some objective in mind because it guides our souls in the physical toward a clear direction of goodness.

So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything. You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land. You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are. Sucker. They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.

But you continue to claim you know that God doesn't exist, it's all made up, invented by imagination, a bunch of bullshit to manipulate people, etc. I am fine with you having the stated position of "not knowing" if that's what you have, but you're going to have to stick by that and stop using it as a crutch whenever you're bested in an argument. You either don't know or you believe God isn't real and doesn't exist, you can't have both beliefs at the same time or swap them out depending on the argument.

And again... I know that you really do care what other people think of you, but I couldn't care less what religious people think of me. It doesn't matter to me.