Polytheism and monotheism

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
Post Reply
User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

gupsfu wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:Why do you still dispute things? I already told you, Spirituality thinks differently. You cant dispute who is right or wrong. I already told you I am pro science. BUT at the same time i am also a spiritualist.
I'm disputing your assertion that spirituality can answer questions that science cannot. Why can't I dispute that?

Answers that don't come with supporting evidence are as good as answers that are arbitrarily made up. You need to refrain from claiming that you have answers when that's the only kind of "answers" you have.
Well, you like it or not, that is my evidence. You cant tell me that i didnt provide evidence Now cant you?? Scriptures are good evidence for spiritualists. It is of no use for an atheist afterall. Why should you worry about spiritual evidence???????????????

Spirituality answered it. Now it is your turn to prove that god doesnt exist using your scientific methods. Start with the soul. Let science create a perfect being with all the basic organs, vision, hearing and most importantly intelligence, also dont forget to " Add Soul" into it. Then I will become an atheist.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

charleslemartel wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:
Ha! He didnt win anything using occams razor debunker. He can't and will not ever win any debates with spiritualists. Having said that, Huxley, where's your proof that god doesnt exist???

:)
Actually, God does not exist. What exists in his place is the Skybunny.
As long as you believe that there is a skybunny charlesmarty, good for you man.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

crazymonkie_ wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:RIGHT NOW? AS i see it, it is you who is talking in circles. Ranting about the same things again and again.
Only because I haven't gotten any straight answers on my points. I'm not saying "I win" or anything, but if you want me to stop saying the same things, point out exactly where I'm wrong.
Get over it. Spiritualists are different.
That's actually incorrect: Spiritualists' evidentiary claims are different. We're all the same sub-species. It's just that some of us don't accept personal experience or what's in a book, or what someone says about a book, to be truth.
Accept it. You cant win any argument if you keep asking to prove something that is not related to each another. Spirituality is just way different from anything else.
I'll quit harping on it if you can show me how spirituality isn't a series of best guesses or baseless speculation.
I rarely whip out scriptures, but in this instance i did and as usual you are still barking at the same tree. Read my post. Understand the perspective of how the sages think.
See, the thing is: I *know* what various sages think. I mean, I might not know the painfully small details, but I know in broad strokes what most are about. You and I just focus in on different sages, really. My focus tends to be on really early Christian apologists, later Stoics (wish we had earlier Stoics), the Nag Hammadi 'Gnostic' writings, the remainders of the Epicureans, some Buddhism, a teensy bit of Jainism, and that's about it.

That each of these has interesting ideas is undeniable. That there is some moral goodness to be found in almost all (except some apologists- I'm looking at you, Justin Martyr *shudder*) is also undeniable. But that they had some sort of greater piece of truth? I dispute that. They had good guesses, based upon intuition, but not truth. For that, you need empirical evidence.

*edit*
Damn. And we were doing so well.
No, I won't.

You show contempt and disrespect for Christians and Muslims (here for instance) and atheists (this thread) and yet you promote Hinduism as the be all and end all of spirituality.

I must say your arrogance in this matter would make you a very good Islamist, the only real difference being the letter and not the spirit of your beliefs.


If you read the scriptures, and you agree with it , doesnt necessarily makes you a " Spiritualist" get it????? Spiritualist is not a label. Spiritualism is a personal thing. It is a bond. There is not arbitration between it and anything else.
Damn. And we were doing so well.
You think so?????????? OK then. :roflmao:
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

BlacKStaR wrote:Well, you like it or not, that is my evidence. You cant tell me that i didnt provide evidence Now cant you??
Actually, we can. There's a world of difference between 'evidence' (repeatable, falsifiable) and 'assertions' (often based on intuition- which *can* point to a hypothesis- or utterly without evidence.) You have asserted. That your assertions are from a different tradition, yet rely upon the same style of argumentation ("I just *told* you what my evidence was! Look- book, holy men, personal experience!") shows the fallacy of special pleading- which you are doing here- does not work.
Scriptures are good evidence for spiritualists. It is of no use for an atheist afterall. Why should you worry about spiritual evidence???????????????
It's also no use for a skeptic or someone with a different spiritual system. They're all mutually contradictory, and so far there's been no evidence for a realm beyond the physical (whether we humans can experience it or not- meaning such things as UV and IR light exist, despite the fact that we can't see it). Once there's been a true, falsifiable, repeatable discovery of such a thing- a null set of the physical, if you will- you'll have a case for a spiritual realm, and can test your hypotheses against its reality.
Now it is your turn to prove that god doesnt exist using your scientific methods.
Ah bupbupbupbupbup..... No, no, no. Noboby's saying that here. What we're saying is that based upon the evidence so far, there is no compelling evidence for a spirit realm, any god, or any being, place, or thing 'beyond,' 'above' or 'past' this universe we know. If one is working from a spiritualist angle, of course that's impossible. How can we disprove something that hasn't been conclusively proven to exist? How can we test or verify something that lives beyond our universe and which can bend or break the laws of physics as we know it? We can't.

Though I have to say: You are the one making the assertions here. The burden of proof is on you. You must prove a spiritual realm exists, without the use of scripture, holy men/women, personal experience or special pleading. Good luck. Seriously.
Start with the soul.
All right: I need a working definition. How is it attached to us? Where is the evidence? Does the body change because the soul leaves (don't say "Death is when the soul leaves the body" because OH is that ever begging the question.)
Let science create a perfect being with all the basic organs, vision, hearing and most importantly intelligence, also dont forget to " Add Soul" into it. Then I will become an atheist.
So you need to find proof for the supernatural to become someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural? WTF man!

Look: Science says this world is imperfect, and rightly so. It is a world were the imperfections come from evolution- from the ongoing process of change under environmental stresses (population separation, food supply, and so on). Science can't, won't and needn't create a 'perfect' being because that's impossible. Perfect for what, first of all. Perfect for living in a deep-sea vent? Perfect for living at the South Pole? Perfect for living in a rainforest?

Second, as I said earlier, nothing is perfect. Nothing will ever be perfect. There's no need for perfection- only a general thrust of good adaptation. Or we could end up with more creatures like us: We change the environment to suit our needs; we don't change according to the environment (for the most part.) That only makes us unique in degree, and says nothing about us potentially having 'souls,' whatever they may be.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

BlacKStaR wrote:If you read the scriptures, and you agree with it , doesnt necessarily makes you a " Spiritualist" get it????? Spiritualist is not a label. Spiritualism is a personal thing. It is a bond. There is not arbitration between it and anything else.
If you read the scriptures and agree with them, and the scriptures in question are spiritual in nature (philosophy or *ugh* theology) then one IS a spiritualist by definition.

Though in the broadest sense, 'Spiritualist' is just fancy-schmachy talk for 'dualist.'

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

debunker wrote:@ guptsu
After you die, your body either decomposes or gets cremated into ashes. So what's left for our merciful god to burn?
And how are you supposed to feel pain if you no longer even have nerves, much less a brain?
But your Highness, we, the gullible people, believe that God created us the first time and He can easily recreate us the second time.
So your god will re-create us just for the sake of burning us? Does he really hate us non-believers that much?

I wonder if your god realizes the fact that, at least for some people, the act of believing is not voluntary? They simply cannot force themselves to believe things that they deem to be absurd/doubtful, no matter how much they might want to. So why are they getting punished for something they have no control over?

It's definitely your god's own fault that all men are not created equally gullible. May be he should burn himself instead.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

crazymonkie_ wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:If you read the scriptures, and you agree with it , doesnt necessarily makes you a " Spiritualist" get it????? Spiritualist is not a label. Spiritualism is a personal thing. It is a bond. There is not arbitration between it and anything else.
If you read the scriptures and agree with them, and the scriptures in question are spiritual in nature (philosophy or *ugh* theology) then one IS a spiritualist by definition.

Though in the broadest sense, 'Spiritualist' is just fancy-schmachy talk for 'dualist.'
No, you area absolutely wrong. A spiritualist is a personal union, not an agenda like atheism. As I said, even if you agree with scriptures, it doesnt make you a spiritualist. Dont confuse it with your baloney ideologies.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

Actually, we can. There's a world of difference between 'evidence' (repeatable, falsifiable) and 'assertions' (often based on intuition- which *can* point to a hypothesis- or utterly without evidence.) You have asserted. That your assertions are from a different tradition, yet rely upon the same style of argumentation ("I just *told* you what my evidence was! Look- book, holy men, personal experience!") shows the fallacy of special pleading- which you are doing here- does not work.
You mean to say, that the evidences of a spiritualist is falsible??? Get over it man. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. You have ran out of ideas. I told you many times, the realm of a spiritualist doesnt needs the seal of goddamn atheists. You are irrelevant.

It's also no use for a skeptic or someone with a different spiritual system. They're all mutually contradictory, and so far there's been no evidence for a realm beyond the physical (whether we humans can experience it or not- meaning such things as UV and IR light exist, despite the fact that we can't see it). Once there's been a true, falsifiable, repeatable discovery of such a thing- a null set of the physical, if you will- you'll have a case for a spiritual realm, and can test your hypotheses against its reality.
WEll, atleast you are getting somewhere there. So now, your first lesson, is that, JUST BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR SMALL BRAINS THINK THAT GOD IS NOT THERE, it doesnt mean that it is perfectly allright to think so. Of course that you will say things. " uh Uh.. we got scientific tools to show you the IR exists", but then again, I will tell you that The scriptures and the writings of sages fits our quest.

Ah bupbupbupbupbup..... No, no, no. Noboby's saying that here. What we're saying is that based upon the evidence so far, there is no compelling evidence for a spirit realm, any god, or any being, place, or thing 'beyond,' 'above' or 'past' this universe we know. If one is working from a spiritualist angle, of course that's impossible. How can we disprove something that hasn't been conclusively proven to exist? How can we test or verify something that lives beyond our universe and which can bend or break the laws of physics as we know it? We can't.
This is interesting. " How can we disprove something that hasn't been conclusively proven to exist?" This is contradiction par excellence. You are chasing your own tails again.
Though I have to say: You are the one making the assertions here. The burden of proof is on you. You must prove a spiritual realm exists, without the use of scripture, holy men/women, personal experience or special pleading. Good luck. Seriously.
Excuse me??? You atheist clowns vomit saying things like " No god, skybunnies, bleh bleh" As far as I am concerned, The burden of proof is on you jokers. Not me. Not any spiritualists. Spiritualists dont go on public barking on atheists to disprove god! We thinks and rationalize differently.

So you need to find proof for the supernatural to become someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural? WTF man!

Look: Science says this world is imperfect, and rightly so. It is a world were the imperfections come from evolution- from the ongoing process of change under environmental stresses (population separation, food supply, and so on). Science can't, won't and needn't create a 'perfect' being because that's impossible. Perfect for what, first of all. Perfect for living in a deep-sea vent? Perfect for living at the South Pole? Perfect for living in a rainforest?
You are off topic here and is starting to blabber emotionally here. I understand evolution perfectly.

Now come back to my demands, can science create a being? I am not asking scientists to come up with anything fantastically big, all i need is something as big as a fly. Which i can bet my last dollars, no one can. So, since you said it is impossible for science to create any life beings, what are you waiting for???? Look for the answers in light of different approach. And may I recommend, SPIRITUALITY. Go start reading the ancient Vedas, Manu Smirti, Bhagavad Gita, etc etc.....

Oh, dont be a child. Be a man and take my challenge. Explore spirituality. Go to a monastry, take up any religions while you can still be a scientist.
Second, as I said earlier, nothing is perfect. Nothing will ever be perfect. There's no need for perfection- only a general thrust of good adaptation. Or we could end up with more creatures like us: We change the environment to suit our needs; we don't change according to the environment (for the most part.) That only makes us unique in degree, and says nothing about us potentially having 'souls,' whatever they may be.
Whose fault is it anyway???? God has endowed mankind with perfect consciousness. Gave laws to him to use and protect nature, but it is humans who continually disobey the naturalistic orders. Look what science has contributed to global warming!!!. If i would think crude, it is science which will eventually destroy the earth.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by debunker »

Now come back to my demands, can science create a being? I am not asking scientists to come up with anything fantastically big, all i need is something as big as a fly.
Wow! Blackstar! You're asking for too much! I really think they can't even create a bacterium (starting from the most basic building blocks, atoms).
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

debunker wrote:
@ Blackstar

Don't blame the atheists for not believing in God.

Imagine yourself traveling back in time a 1000 years. And then you started preaching to the people that the earth is round... do you think they would believe you? They will ask you for evidence!

Same here with atheists, they demand evidence for God.
They can never ever understand the concepts and relationship between the mind and consciousness. Sages meditated and died for this cause. Atheists are like barking dogs,the more you throw rocks at them , the more they will bark. Just let them be. It is easy to say " NO " to everything. A baby can do that.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

debunker wrote:
Now come back to my demands, can science create a being? I am not asking scientists to come up with anything fantastically big, all i need is something as big as a fly.
Wow! Blackstar! You're asking for too much! I really think they can't even create a bacterium (starting from the most basic building blocks, atoms).
:D Yep. Realizing this, many scientists today are also spiritualists.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by debunker »

One of those scientists is the genius Francis Collins.
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

debunker wrote:
Now come back to my demands, can science create a being? I am not asking scientists to come up with anything fantastically big, all i need is something as big as a fly.
Wow! Blackstar! You're asking for too much! I really think they can't even create a bacterium (starting from the most basic building blocks, atoms).
You people seem to think that :

(A) science cannot create life (yet)

automatically means:

(B) life must be created by some sort of supernatural god.

I just don't see how you could jump from (A) to (B).
Please explain your "logic".
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by debunker »

Oh logic is something gullible people like us don't care much for except when we're dealing with science in our own respective fields...

For gullible people like me, the fact that life is so amazingly complex is no coincidence. The fact that life is found only on earth is no coincidence. The fact that the earth is at the right distance from the sun for it to be inhabitable is no coincidence. The fact that the moon stabilizes the spin of the earth is no coincidence. The fact that the earth's core contains enough iron to create a magnetic field strong enough to protect us from the solar wind is no coincidence The fact that the atmosphere shields the earth from meteors is no coincidence. The fact that man is a million times more intelligent than all other life forms and is able to speak is no coincidence. I can keep going but I'm afraid it'll take me forever counting the non-coincidence.

As for you, you can always wait for evidence (as if all this is not evidence enough), keep waiting.
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
Amarkord
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:43 pm
Location: Iram, Rub al-Khali.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by Amarkord »

debunker wrote:Oh logic is something gullible people like us don't care much for except when we're dealing with science in our own respective fields...

For gullible people like me, the fact that life is so amazingly complex is no coincidence. The fact that life is found only on earth is no coincidence. The fact that the earth is at the right distance from the sun for it to be inhabitable is no coincidence. The fact that the moon stabilizes the spin of the earth is no coincidence. The fact that the earth's core contains enough iron to create a magnetic field strong enough to protect us from the solar wind is no coincidence The fact that the atmosphere shields the earth from meteors is no coincidence. The fact that man is a million times more intelligent than all other life forms and is able to speak is no coincidence. I can keep going but I'm afraid it'll take me forever counting the non-coincidence.

As for you, you can always wait for evidence (as if all this is not evidence enough), keep waiting.

Or consider the puddle of water, which by design, fits the exact shape of the hole. . .

. . . The puddle wakes up one morning and thinks,
"This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it! It cannot be a coincidence."

But as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything is going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was created to have him in it; so the moment he disappears he wonders what he has done to so upset God.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas.

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by debunker »

if you mean death is the end of the journey, then the answer is no, that's exactly what theists don't believe in.

By the way, your example sucks, couldn't you come with something more original:

A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks "Well, this is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact, it fits me so neatly, I mean, really precise, isn't it? (Laughter) It must have been made to have me in it!" And the sun rises, and he's continuing to narrate the story about this hole being made to have him in it. The sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking, and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it's still thinking, it's still trapped in this idea, that the hole was there for it. And if we think that the world is here for us, we will continue to destroy it in the way in which we have been destroying it, because we think we can do no harm.
http://www.nichirenbuddhist.org/Religio ... nment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The minute I read what you wrote I knew this must have been "borrowed" from somewhere. Just like many people, atheists' beliefs and examples are hardly orginal.
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
Amarkord
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:43 pm
Location: Iram, Rub al-Khali.

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by Amarkord »

debunker wrote:if you mean death is the end of the journey, then the answer is no, that's exactly what theists don't believe in.

By the way, your example sucks, couldn't you come with something more original:

A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks "Well, this is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact, it fits me so neatly, I mean, really precise, isn't it? (Laughter) It must have been made to have me in it!" And the sun rises, and he's continuing to narrate the story about this hole being made to have him in it. The sun rises, and gradually the puddle is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking, and by the time the puddle ceases to exist, it's still thinking, it's still trapped in this idea, that the hole was there for it. And if we think that the world is here for us, we will continue to destroy it in the way in which we have been destroying it, because we think we can do no harm.
http://www.nichirenbuddhist.org/Religio ... nment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The minute I read what you wrote I knew this must have been "borrowed" from somewhere. Just like many people, atheists' beliefs and examples are hardly orginal.
And your best answer is that the quote "sucks", that it was "borrowed" and that atheists beliefs are hardly original.

No, I didn't mean death is the end of the journey, I meant that creationists' intelligence is as deep as a puddle of water.

Your link quotes Carl Sagan; he also said:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan
"I don't want to believe, I want to know" Carl Sagan

Intelligent Design is abrogated, not even the Pope believes it any more.

"The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes."
"The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 705331.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ubi dubium ibi libertas.

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by debunker »

and who told you I don't believe in evolution?

By the way, I was merely suggesting that you borrowed that quote and used it as your own thoughts.

Anyway, I don't expect peope like you (whose fields of study probably have nothing to do with science) to really understand the arguments made by atheists... they just read them, memorize them and recite them just to feel they're more intelligent than many other people (all the theists).
account suspended for inappropriate language

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

What about the people who learn from 'the atheists' and use the arguments- when they're sound (which is often enough)- based in logic? There are probably few people on this earth who have a relatively firm grasp of quantum theory, but there are many more who can demand logical solidity in arguments about 'god.' That there are really good arguments out there doesn't detract from when they pop up- nor does it make it fair that you say 'oh, you just copied that.' So what? You've got sources too, I'd wager- that you don't mention them doesn't give me or anyone else the right to dismiss your arguments based on their originality.

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

BlacKStaR wrote:You mean to say, that the evidences of a spiritualist is falsible??? Get over it man. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. You have ran out of ideas. I told you many times, the realm of a spiritualist doesnt needs the seal of goddamn atheists. You are irrelevant.
I mean to say: If it's not falsifiable, it's useless. Again: I keep repeating the points because you've proven nothing. And you seem fine with that. Which is a shame, since we're talking about things that have such high stakes.
WEll, atleast you are getting somewhere there. So now, your first lesson, is that, JUST BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR SMALL BRAINS THINK THAT GOD IS NOT THERE, it doesnt mean that it is perfectly allright to think so.
Yeah, no sh!t; here's your issue, though: Science has shown, for instance, that these things exist. The books you keep talking about only prove beliefs. Show me the peer-reviewed evidence for, say, souls, and we'll be getting somewhere.
Of course that you will say things. " uh Uh.. we got scientific tools to show you the IR exists", but then again, I will tell you that The scriptures and the writings of sages fits our quest.
Special pleading, look outside the book, going in circles, blah blah blah blah....
This is interesting. " How can we disprove something that hasn't been conclusively proven to exist?" This is contradiction par excellence. You are chasing your own tails again.
Oh?

Prove it, then. Prove the supernatural realm exists. You're the one making the assertion; you need to show us the evidence.

Outside your books and sages, please.
Excuse me??? You atheist clowns vomit saying things like " No god, skybunnies, bleh bleh" As far as I am concerned, The burden of proof is on you jokers. Not me. Not any spiritualists. Spiritualists dont go on public barking on atheists to disprove god! We thinks and rationalize differently.
That's right- we're not making assertions- we're saying 'You've proven nothing.'

What you think about the burden of proof is wrong, in this case. You say 'There is a spiritual realm.' We say 'Show us.' You say 'Book! Sages! Personal experience!' We say, 'No, your proof outside special pleading.' You say, 'I just proved it! Book! Sages! Personal experience!' See- this didn't start with us saying 'There is no god, and we know for a fact there is no god.' It started with you saying 'There is a god/spiritual realm, and this is how I know.' Burden of proof is on you.

Spiritualists actually DO go on 'public barking' on atheists to disprove god. You JUST DID IT IN THE LAST POST! And anyway, it happens plenty in the real world. Or a variant gets used, such as 'You think you can disprove god!' Same meaning, though. A presupposition about what 'the atheists' believe and what 'they' want.

You don't rationalize at all. You assert. You've given no evidence that can't be used, exactly in the same way, by any other religion to prove, at the same level of 'truth,' their beliefs.
You are off topic here and is starting to blabber emotionally here. I understand evolution perfectly.

Now come back to my demands, can science create a being? I am not asking scientists to come up with anything fantastically big, all i need is something as big as a fly.
They can't *yet*. That they can't yet is not proof that they won't ever. Your demands are impossible right now, and prove nothing beyond the fact that science must improve.
Oh, dont be a child. Be a man and take my challenge. Explore spirituality. Go to a monastry, take up any religions while you can still be a scientist.
If dualism can't be proven through anything other than self-referential books or special pleading, I'll just be spinning my wheels. I *tried* spirituality, but got stuck on this point: If it's all pretend (and it is- lack of proof and all that) then I could be using my time better.
Whose fault is it anyway???? God has endowed mankind with perfect consciousness. Gave laws to him to use and protect nature, but it is humans who continually disobey the naturalistic orders. Look what science has contributed to global warming!!!. If i would think crude, it is science which will eventually destroy the earth.
Question begging.

And REALLY mis-characterizing what science has done. Most of us on this earth are alive today because of scientific advances. Like visiting with your grandparents? Without science, they, and possibly your parents, wouldn't be alive right now. Without science we couldn't have enjoyable circular arguments like this.

And you're going to focus in on the bad stuff. WELL; we could certainly tell some tales about the harm spiritualism has done to the world, and its negatives would outweigh science's by a good trillion metric tons at least.

Science, regardless, is a methodology, not a philosophy. That's neo-apologetic rubbish-talk, the idea that science is a philosophy. Though if you do want to disregard science- well, stop using cars, buses, planes, trains, etc (so start using horses, I guess), only buy clothes you know are hand-crafted; stop using running water and indoor plumbing; use only wood, coal or cow-pies for heating and cooking; hand-grind your own flour or use a stone... I could go on and on, but your dismissal of scientific progress is pathetic and sets up a false dichotomy between 'good' spiritualism and 'bad' atheism. Nice try, though.
crazymonkie_ wrote:If you read the scriptures and agree with them, and the scriptures in question are spiritual in nature (philosophy or *ugh* theology) then one IS a spiritualist by definition.

Though in the broadest sense, 'Spiritualist' is just fancy-schmachy talk for 'dualist.'
No, you area absolutely wrong. A spiritualist is a personal union, not an agenda like atheism. As I said, even if you agree with scriptures, it doesnt make you a spiritualist. Dont confuse it with your baloney ideologies.
Now you're not making any sense. Look: either you mean the specific 'spiritualist' as in 'one who believes in spiritualism, IE, who believes they can talk to the ghosts of the dead and channel them' OR you're using it in the much more general term of 'one who believes in a spiritual realm'. If there are scriptures that back up this belief, and someone truly believes in the scriptures, they ARE spiritualists.

You're the one with the 'baloney ideology', because you're just making stuff up.

Post Reply