human spirit wrote:
"Debate should not be
so argumentive."
Why not? What kind of
argument would you put forward in support of this conclusion? (Yes, obvious
irony intended.)
human spirit wrote:
"Arguing reflects
ignorance and conceit of one's own opinions thereby making you
unintelligent."
It does? How so? Argument
(when done properly) is a means of rationally securing conclusions and
validating new knowledge. How does this "reflect ignorance and conceit
of one's own opinions"? You'll have to provide more information on why
you think this in order for it to have any substance. Otherwise, I see no
reason why I should dismiss what you say as mere resentful blather.
human spirit wrote:
"To have a debate of
this nature is to question the existence of God and that is good."
But above you just said that "Arguing
reflects ignorance and conceit of one's own opinions thereby making you
unintelligent." Though you do not establish that conclusion (you merely
assert it), you now seem to be saying that arguing is good if it brings
about a certain end (namely, the questioning of god's existence). What is
your conception of good? Is reflecting ignorance and conceit good
in your view? What exactly motivated you to write what you've written here?
I'm just trying to understand what it is that you want to say, and why you
are saying it.
human spirit wrote:
"We don't have to
merely accept what others tell us."
However, some would like us
to. Don't forget that. They usually start with people when they're little
children, when they're most impressionable and have not yet developed a
command of philosophical ideas sufficient to provide them with an
intellectual defense against what they're told to accept. This is why
most people hold a god-belief in the first place: they were taught to
believe in their childhood, and they were also taught that it is wrong to
question it or defy this teaching. When they get into adulthood and have not
discovered a rational view of the world, they will likely still think
that their god-beliefs are true. But I agree: I have no obligation
to accept what others (including human spirit) tell me.
But your statement here seems disharmonious
with your earlier statement that "Arguing reflects ignorance and
conceit of one's own opinions thereby making you unintelligent." If
"we don't have to merely accept what others tell us," then on what
grounds should we accept what others tell us, if not on rational grounds
(which relies on argument)?
human spirit wrote:
"Stop waving flags of
vanity."
Who is waving a "flag
of vanity"? And what exactly is a "flag of vanity" anyway?
What does it look like? How do you identify it? And why shouldn't one wave
it if he has one? If you respond saying that waving a "flag of
vanity" (whatever that is) makes one look unintelligent, why shouldn't
one look unintelligent? What you consider symptomatic of vanity, others
might consider an expression of passion for knowledge and thus may serve as
a testimony to one's intellectual vitality. Please clarify your thought so
that you are not misunderstood.
human spirit wrote:
"Become humble to see
peace and have awareness."
I'm not certain how becoming
humble ensures awareness. Rather, I have learned that actively focusing my
mind maximizes my awareness. I do not see this as a consequence of becoming
humble. And humility as a path to peace may simply be euphemistic
for rolling over and appeasing one's victimizers. Nothing you have said
indicates that this is not what you mean. But I will not be humble for this
end. I generally see the urge that others be humble as the desire that
others become spineless.
human spirit wrote:
"You've come so far as
to debate over God, then why can't you take the next step and give him a
chance."
I cannot give a chance to
that which does not exist. This would be incoherent. Besides, which
"god" do you think one should give a chance to? There are so many
different gods to choose from, literally one to suit every taste. If you
don't like one, there's always another you can choose. Or, you can fashion
your own in your own image, which is really what all conceptions of a god
are in terms of essentials. So why borrow someone else's god when you can
invent your own? Why not for that matter adopt a belief in Gumbygod,
the god you can bend? That's what religious people do anyway. When they find
that their theological ascriptions to the gods they claim exist get them
into to tight and uncomfortable corners, they rationalize, evade and
shapeshift those ascriptions in order to futz their way out of those tight
spots. It's all dishonest, but still you have people advocating this kind of
behavior. Ever wonder why?
human spirit wrote:
"If you can get over
your failures and forgive yourself for being human, then you can
see that you don't have to be perfect. (wherein lies the
perfection)"
I do not see my
humanity as a point of guilt and I do not accept any form of
unearned guilt. Thus, as godless responded, "There is no reason
whatsoever to forgive yourself for being human....none!" I
agree entirely. All gods play hide and seek. We call those who play with the
notion of a god "believers." It's a game, nothing more, and there
are no winners in that game, only losers.
CertainVerdict