Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

But for many theists (and other people), this would apparently be the end of theism.

Chances are that some do not even have the vocabulary necessary to express themselves in that relative, mediating role.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You could simply clearly say what you want -
Sentences beginning with "I want ..."

"I want you to believe what I tell you."
"I want you to do as I tell you."
"I want you to not oppose me."

Or whatever it is that you want or don't want.

Eventually, all conversations come down what each person wants, and hiding behind philosophy or claiming that one is acting by the orders of someone else, just don't make for close relationships.

Perhaps you have reached the stage where you don't have any needs, interests and concerns that would pertain only to you personally, perhaps they don't arise in your mind anymore, and all you have left is the will of God, and you are merely a tool in God's hands, when you open your mouth, it's God speaking.
Perhaps you are in fact like that, but we are not.

As long as you talk to us and want us to change, you'll just have to consider this, and speak to us in a language we understand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And there's also a happiness to be found in things more permanent, such as family and career. Beyond that, you're chasing ghosts. There is no such thing as permanent and everlasting joy.

You're misusing the word "superiority." I'm stating a fact. While I'm aware that he's not going to agree with it, it was in response to his claims to the contrary. Am I supposed to simply accept his terms? Of course not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Both LG and Wynn have continued their bad habit of simply ignoring posts and points that they cannot counter.

Sad, really. But I guess with experienced posters such as myself and Marquis, we know what the silence means and can take it as a white flag.

 

that's cool. seems like you raised the white flag then? in the "reasons not to believe in God" thread i wrote - "ask the catholics - they have a whole giant system of churches and a guy in a big hat who supposedly wears an apostle's ring, that have made it their understood reality that evolution occurred. Maybe the pope has a good metaphor for various aspects of the creation story! " among many other things. I know the points i raised are difficult to answer, but even so, i didn't just assume you gave up and i changed your mind. Was that "sad, really, " too? Sometimes posts get lost in the shuffle, sometimes people have other things to spend their time on than creating an argument that will be accessible to another person's reality tunnel.

I think we should all be a little easier on each other here, if even just because it is required for rationality.

 

Oh well, it's about time for religious people to clean up our cognitive act i think. Non-religious people need to do this as well, so we don't have to feel bad about it. Protagorus' "man is the measure of all things" is just a recognition of our limitations we can all benefit from. It doesn't have to lead to atheism or theism, it is just a realistic look at our equipment.

 

Please point out thread in question where you supposedly changed my mind. I'd love to see that.

As for wynn and LG, my comments are based on a history of this behavior.

 

is there something in the following sentence you don't understand?

i thought the sentence was in english and lo and behold... it is! But don't worry about reading if it takes up too much brainpower haha. heehee hoho.

let me suggest that you may be the only one clapping you on the back for the times they showed the "white flag".

i wrote -

Please note in the sentence above that i specifically said, "i didn't". i thought you might understand that i was saying that people might lose track of, or care for, a particular discussion, without "surrendering". As i was pointing out before, it would serve everyone to just ease up a little bit and recognize that most of the "winning" and "losing" events here, are solipsistic.

 

I meant link me to it. Show me where you changed my mind. Now I see that it's just your awful grammar that had me confused. Do us all a favor and clean it up a bit. If you care enough to post, care enough to make your posts readable.

And as I pointed out, this is typical evasion by wynn and LG. They're still responding to posts by me (well, wynn is) but ignoring the ones that trump their earlier points. In a standard conversation or argument, it's common practice to either concede a point, or continue to debate it. To simply drop it without cause is often times a sign that the person dropping the argument is simply giving up. Not always, of course--I recently dropped a debate with Syne because he's a troll and I have no way of continuing without getting myself into trouble with the mods by calling him names. But in the case of wynn and LG, this is typical.

Speaking of typical, how about you add something to the discussion rather than trolling the thread looking for a fight?

 

That is funny, considering you ignored post #28 of this very thread. I suppose this means I should make the same assumptions of you that you are making of LG and Wynn. Yes, I know what the silence means.

 

Case in point.

 

You know, numerous Christians, Hindus, Muslims etc. etc. - they, too, claim that they are just stating a fact, and claim they are not being superioristic.

Yeah, you're all "just stating facts," even if the things you say are mutually exclusive. And we should all just accept your terms, of course!!

 

There's nothing mutually exclusive about it. Atheism is an intellectual position. You don't have to believe in anything to reach it, you just have to examine evidence.

And "superioristic" isn't a word. I still don't know in what way I'm supposedly acting superior, and you've failed to clarify. All you're doing is crying about hurt feelings. Grow up and do the homework for yourself instead of waiting for someone to sway you with an argument.

 

Why bother reading!

There is plenty of mutual exclusivity between the things that atheists and Christians say, or between the things that Muslims and Christians say, etc. etc.

You continually make absolute claims about things that are under discussion, and regarded by the other poster as not yet settled.

Indeed. It is ludicrous to hope that those - be they theists or atheists - who claim to be our betters, or who claim they want to help us, or whatever noble goal they state - it is absolutely ludicrous to hope that they would actually talk to us.

Dog eat dog!
Kill or be killed!
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!


Spirituality is a gladiator sport.

 

I'm saying that there's nothing mutually exclusive about the truth. Go on and look for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it, or read from some dusty tome. You can see it for yourself.

The response you're so up in arms about was in response to a claim of the opposite by another poster. Was I supposed to just accept his position?

You're being melodramatic. I've tried talking to you, but you apparently don't want to have to think for yourself. You'd rather have your truth spoon-fed to you. I'm not here to do that. Which is why I keep saying, don't take my word for it. Go out and find out for yourself. We could get into discussions about how I arrived at atheism, but I fear you'd cut out some tiny, out-of-context point and arrive at some non-sequitur complaint, if you bothered to respond at all. In other words, I'm right here, but you won't sit still long enough for a chat.

 

yes, it is my fault, always someone else's fault, haha, yes of course, sorry.

i am just having a little fun pointing out the (thread related) idea that we humans often say, when we do something, it is different from the same something being done by someone else. So the religious try to get away with anti-humanism because when the religious have tortured in the past, it was all for good purpose (supposedly). In the present, however, we must admit that humanist ideas have infiltrated the religious structures, or that the religious are simply better at more logically following their own doctrines of compassionate behavior.

Going back to early documents related to ethics, it is easy for us to say hammurabi's (religious in appearance) code was a rather barbaric attempt at restraining mankind's desire to go far beyond fairness and partake of violence. However, the intent was apparently "to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak...". Then of course, in the spirit of not-humanism it says, "so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." Here we have the two basic ideas in opposition within one sentence. One, that things should be more fair, the other that I will decide what is fair for you an I both. *http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

When we accept the (non-materialist) idea that we are inherently worth more than our physical entities, and our basic material bodies or genetic fitness are not our only worth, we can actually be humanist. SO, in order to become humanist we cannot be materialist, but rather must make some sort of philosophical jump into humanism. That jump is unsupported by science, so essentially we are all required to hypothesize, although some of us can't come to terms with that.

 

The idea of the thread that I presented was to forward Humanity in the direction of Humanity first and foremost so that we see the bigger picture for Humanities survival

So we stop killing each other over religious ideologies

Now has this thread failed my objective or have I failed Humanity in some way in introducing this thread

Don't get me wrong the discussion has been interesting but are we any further ahead in bring Humanity up from the, sort of, second person to being the first person in this discussion

Let me be plain here , I am tired of the wars, the deaths of thousands of innocent people and soldiers for some religious ideaology

 

Further to add

Is this , religion divides Humanity , especially the Abrahamic religions , we need to understand that these religions require that this one god has only HIS one goal in mind , that he subjects ALL of Humanity under his thumb

I find it very unnatural for any intelligent being to believe in some outside being to be more important than there own natural being

We have been usurped by these religions , psychologically and actually Historically

We, Humanity are in trouble because of this


So as I said " Isn't time that Humanity is more important than any religion " ?

It is time

 

It is naive to assume war is anything other than political violence, no matter what ideology is used to justify it, whether secular or religious.

All group loyalties, especially those warranting fighting in a war, are some degree of belief that some outside being is of comparable import to one's own being, whether that "being" is a nation, religion, peer group, etc.. Your problem is with a fundamental aspect of human nature. You only confuse how people try to justify that nature with the cause.

 

True

But the secular war is not about the mind , religious war is about the mind

What do you mean by outside being? Religion aside

Actually I don't agree

Religion and the fighting for , is an entirely different reason to fight than merely for land

Religion fights for the hearts and minds of people for some invisible concept

Whereas those that fight for land and/or country have a concrete reality