Theists and atheists: Reluctant bedfellows

of course because its not Natural for people to continualy to " look-out " for everybody else , or love , as religion

thats the thing , people have become free to just think about themselves , rather than the other , 24/7

now the thing is , is that , people will come around to thinking of the whole , Humanity , just as much as they think about our families , its just going to take time and experience

and a change in Spiritual thinking

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if your needs were taken care of,so you wouldn't have to focus on your own needs..wouldn't that free your attention up to help take care of others needs?

hence the decline of the family unit,religion,politics or any other organized group of ppl..

maybe..i don't know if i have that much faith in our own humanity..

now this i can get behind..if only ppl can talk about god without getting so offensive/defensive...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod Hat;

Almost time to shut this one down I see.

...back to topic people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what are we supposed to be disscussing glaucon?

 

I'm sure you can read the OP as well as anyone else.

 

whatever

start a new thread NM from post # 81 to now , well not all

 

the OP was a quote from somewhere there was no actual question asked..

it states that theist and atheist are the same and there aint no point argueing about it..

still what is the question?
i specificly ask you glaucon as any intent from the original OP is irrelevant and subjective to your interpretation of what it is about..any disscussion outside of your idea of what is on topic gets the 'off topic' hammer..
instead of being so quick on the off topic hammer..communicate with the author of the OP to see if is not relevent to the OP and the authors intention..

sorry..i can be done now...

 

That's how you interpret it.
Regardless, it's clear that over the past page or so, you and "thinking" have been discussing religion, and neither theism nor atheism.
The onus always falls on the poster to keep their comments relevant.

Fair enough then.

 

actually i believe the disscussion applied to both theism and atheism..

and how can you talk about either without bringing religion or god into it?

again i ask what is the question in the OP?

and if the poster thinks it IS relevant..?

 

I disagree.

Easily.

That's between you and the OP.

NMS, I'm not here to explain myself to you.

Make your posts relevant, or they will be deleted.

 

your allowed to..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but its you who can delete my posts..or swing the off topic hammer, not the OP, you do not even consult with the OP when you swing it..bad form..

i not asking for you too..im asking for you to show some moderation in your moderating....

you can delete this post if you want..it is definatly off topic..and mainly for you anyway..

 

And the theist who adamantly and frequently debates atheists is probably merely a kanistha, and his engagement in those debates testifies of his own lack of conviction?

Allright, but I got the impression that the article in the OP, and your agreement and elaboration of it, were making the blanket statement that all who engage in the theist/atheist debate do so because they lack full conviction in what they profess to be convinced of.

This didn't seem right to me, as it would also mean that great teachers, who did engage in the theist/atheist debate, did so because of their own lack of conviction.
To suggest such would be a sacrilege!

And it is for the sake of preaching or re-establishing religiousity in general that theists engage in the debate with atheists, no?

This is, at least, how I view these debates, and I give full credit to the theists. It didn't strike me even once to think that any of the theists could be doing it to convince themselves. (Which has brought me much confusion and pain, but I have always blamed it on my own lack of spiritual insight.)

So one of the differences between a kanistha (or lesser) and an uttama is that an uttama is able to cut things short with a blasphemer, but a kanistha (or lesser) cannot?

 

Not quite as severe as that.

A Madhyama also has recourse for argument

There's the whole added issue of how the madhyama is on a satisfactory level of performance while the kannistha is not

To be recognized as such they take the role of a madhyama

a madhyama also has a few unresolved issues of application before them

Its more that because the uttama is so dear to the lord (by dint of the lord being dear to them) that a greater calamity is at stake for the irritating party than mere bad karma. IOW sin is nowhere near as problematic to the path of spiritual advancement as offensiveness

 

Atheists and theists have something in common. They both claim to know the unknowable. I understand theists have faith, but they cannot find enough evidence to know. Same for Atheists, they do not have evidence that proves they know.