What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?

[Just Another Opinion]

This is an interesting question.  I have been both an atheist and a theist in my life.  The thing I think I have learned the most when it comes to others is stop expecting anything.  Look to your own affairs and if someone doesn't agree that is quite all right.  In fact I enjoy a good open minded conversation.  I think that "religion" is a much bigger problem than God.  We as humans tend to look for a way to exert our own wills over one another(usually to show some sort of dominance) instead of just taking care of ourselves.  So if I had to say what I would like to see it would apply to both sides.

1.  Be quick to realize that for every single existing person there is a unique and different viewpoint from your own.  We all see things differently and if we started respecting that and only sharing our opinions when it was warranted  (ie. this forum) we might just learn something.  Some of us are on this site to learn and foster intellectual conversation not to scream back in forth in a resounding effort to annoy anyone who wishes to grow.

2.  Respect that people are who and where they are.  Your opinions and bullying are never going to change anyone's mind.  Change comes from within, if someone wants to be different they do what it takes to become different.  You can't make anyone do anything.

3.  If you are the type of person that can't hear a good argument without resorting to name calling or know ahead of time that your opinion will never change then you should not engage in a debate.  If all you are trying to do is spout whatever it is you are selling then you are wasting a lot of folks time who would really like to be learning and hearing intellectual debate.

4.  One thing I would very much like to hear about is God as an entity not as a religion.  Are we talking about God or religion here?  I have enough religion talk from everyone I have ever met, whether for or against or why they are right and I am wrong and so on and so forth.  For example I heard a quite compelling argument the other day involving God, Quantum Physics and the ten dimensions.

Anyways that is what I would like to see from everyone.

[Zankuu]

[...]
Anyways that is what I would like to see from everyone.

Getting back to the OP, what would it take for you to change your view?

[ParkingPlaces]

Welcome, Just Another Opinion.

I think you're paying too much attention to our intractable discussions with ardent believers and not paying enough attention to the fact that this is a site where opinions are indeed discussed, sometimes even vehemently. That's why we are here. Going into shock about our being less than saintly is a bit naïve. There may be sites where people can exchange opinions and ideas without going ballistic, but I don't know where they are.

And of course we usually don't get that carried away, on either side. There are exceptions, but unless someone starts going all WWF on our asses, we can usually have pretty decent conversations with those we disagree with. The downhill slide that sometimes happens is almost always caused by the believer either getting frustrated or their insistence upon maintaining a superior attitude and thinking that since they've got their god on their six, they can do and say anything they want, civil discourse be damned.

And if it were just a matter of disagreeing and nothing else mattered, then all of this would be moot. But most of us live in the U.S., where we are constantly bombarded by religious folks trying to take over the government and the schools and other public institutions. So those of us negatively effected by such selfish acts feel a need to speak out. And where better to practice, and where better to get exposed to the wide array of religious excuses, than here?

It is fine that you want everyone to get along, but those of us who have been on planet earth long enough know that that is not always possible. And not necessarily because of us. And I should not that we have indeed changed a few peoples minds, using our various tactics, so item #2 isn't completely true. And again, the part that is true, name calling and such, happens only after the conversation as already deteriorated, not during the first post.

If you want to talk about god as an entity, you can either post along a little more until you become able to post threads yourself (I forget the number but it is low) or you can ask someone, including me, to start such a thread. We're fine talking only about the god concept and not specific religions or our problems with organized religion in general. It is a perfectly legitimate subject.

Again, welcome. I ask that you please not be like eartheconomyspirit, a newbie that has had us frothing at the mouth with his lousy attitude and singular desire to irk the heck out of us. Granted, he has been good at it, but if one is going to have a skill, it is better that it be more socially acceptable. Your list of complaints/concerns seems to indicate that you would like to change the site immediately into a politically correct and harmless place, but that probably isn't going to happen either. But you can easily set the tone with your posts and responses and I can assure you that as long as you don't dick around and/or skirt the issues, we will all be pretty decent to talk to.

Also, we do have a "protected" discussion board where everyone participating has to talk nice. On both sides. It hasn't been used much because most believers want blood, and that is specifically banned in that arena. But you are welcome to ask for a thread there. Just ask one of the mods. If you don't know how to do that, let me know and I'll help you out.

And lastly, this is sort of a derailment, topic-wise, so we should probably continue it elsewhere if you want to continue this particular line of thought. Again, let a mod know, or me if you don't know how. Someone can make it so.

[bertatberts]

I did it's in the link

No you haven't you have only cited a document that was written 150 years after the fact. it is not a recording of history, it is a recording of what someone may have thought happened, you said you had historical records supply them thank you. I want to see contemporaneous historical records, not someone's (nearly two centuries later) opinion.

Did you go to the web link and if so are you saying that I haven't provided a reference to a specific point you wish to challenge.

Yes, I went to your link twice, and no you haven't provide any historical records, I'm still waiting as you are now dodging.

If so, my bad, the summary doesn't have the links that the main book has.  Let me know what  your challenge is and I'll get the reference.

Stop dodging and provide the historical records you said existed.

might I suggest to make this quick a possible for you., you start with my claims that Judaism was corrupted by Cyrus the Great and that proof exists to support a further claim that the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah were made up.

You can suggest it all you like. However it is up to you to provide the historical records for such claims. Your opinion alone is not valid.

[eartheconomyspirit]

I did it's in the link

No you haven't you have only cited a document that was written 150 years after the fact. it is not a recording of history, it is a recording of what someone may have thought happened, you said you had historical records supply them thank you. I want to see contemporaneous historical records, not someone's (nearly two centuries later) opinion.

Did you go to the web link and if so are you saying that I haven't provided a reference to a specific point you wish to challenge.

Yes, I went to your link twice, and no you haven't provide any historical records, I'm still waiting as you are now dodging.

If so, my bad, the summary doesn't have the links that the main book has.  Let me know what  your challenge is and I'll get the reference.

Stop dodging and provide the historical records you said existed.

might I suggest to make this quick a possible for you., you start with my claims that Judaism was corrupted by Cyrus the Great and that proof exists to support a further claim that the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah were made up.

You can suggest it all you like. However it is up to you to provide the historical records for such claims. Your opinion alone is not valid.

Looks like my bad. Sorry about that. You could have a least said which topic caught your attention.

Oh well, no rest for the wicked, I guess.

To maintain focus, refer to the diagram that covers the 5 corruptions theory (about four to five down pages depending on your screen res). Note this is a big picture exercise. The goal is to demonstrate that Prophecy and Miracles are fraudulent. Also to show how Judaism has been owned by empire since 538BC and Christianity by Rome since shortly after 70AD. Islam is out of scope , but I suspect the same conclusion applies.

http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Corruption 1 - Cyrus  takes ownership of Judaism 

The Cyrus Cylinder  (And I did provide a link to it - who's being biased and sitting on assumptions :-))  discovered in 1879 contains written evidence that Cyrus the (not so) Great had this tactic of propaganda that saw him emerge as the vanquished God's best bud. When he took over Babylon Cyrus team produced this Cylinder as a propaganda exercise. There are three key aspects. Discredit the old story, align Cyrus with the locals God (Marduk in this instance), and lay out some new Godly rules of which Cyrus is privy too.

Now the only way that the locals  can accept this propaganda is by belief in the story. This is the fundamental premise of a faith interpretation. A - it is BS, B- it cannot be proven C- it gifts power to the story teller the moment the believers accept the unprovable BS. Go(o)d for emperors. Not so Go(o)d for the locals. You can do your own checking of history to verify that claim.

Many Scholars, for over the last 100 years, (Again there was a link, lazy bones), have held the view that the Book of Isaiah was written in three parts. They say Parts 2 & 3 belong to 538BC or later. I say, they all belong to 540-538BC. Interestingly, Part two sees Yahweh become the supreme Go(o)d and a little, what we call in Australia, pumping up of ones tyres (inflating their egos) for his Jewish captive audience. It's also in part 2, that Cyrus is shown as Yahweh's new bud. A messiah complex and thousands of imaginings are born. Not to mention, much human suffering.

In Part 3, New rules are set, for the new Cyrus Styled Judaism and the returning Jews.  Cyrus now has a loyal and devoted force established on that important land bridge which is Judea. Ask any Samaritan what they think of what happened to their religion.

Part 1, was all about preceding events that had actually happened. The attack by the Assyrians and Baylonians on the hapless Jewish Shepherds. Cyrus though casts this as the Shepherds fault for going against their Go(o)d. Guilt is established which paves the way for Cyrus the Messiah to show them how to escape the situation the Jewish People have put themselves in. rather than the reality that it was all at the hands of some power hungry ego maniacs.

This corruption was probably presented to the captives as something Cyrus team of MAGI discovered. A long lost prophecy. The birth of woooo....

But wait... there is much more to this story... However the interplay between the two wolves, these patterns of human behaviours, repeats itself. This fact allows people in future generations to think that these "prophecies" are real and current.

If you prove this wrong, with valid and better counter evidence, I stop. If you don't , I push on. But you must remember, this history is peppered with BS, so your explanation/theory  has to ride the test of time :-)   

Want to know more... read the summary first and ask specific questions. I've earned the rest :-) 
 

[Nam]

earteconomyspirit,

From your link:

Each one of these:

The Gospel of Thomas

25 Jesus said, "Love your friends like your own soul, protect them like the pupil of your eye."

Baha'i
"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." ~ Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah,71

Buddhism
"Hurt not others in ways that you, yourself would find hurtful." ~ Udana-Varga,5:18.

Christianity
"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." ~  Matthew7:12

Confucianism
"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you" ~ Analects 15:23

Hinduism
"This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." ~ Mahabharata 5:1517

Islam
"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself".~ Sunnah

Jainism
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self" ~ Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

Judaism
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary" ~ Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Native American
"Respect for all life is the foundation"

Sikhism
Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." ~ Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib

Zoroastrianism
"That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." ~ Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5

are not the same as the others in definition. Meaning: they do not interpret to the same meaning.

Some say, "treat others as you would treat yourself". Well, if one treats them self poorly, then, by that phrase they should treat others poorly[1].

Then you have others that say that "you should treat them better than yourself", and others that require ones own definition, or moral ambiguity.

They all can't be "the golden rule", and nor are they even remotely the same to be interpreted that way, especially the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian ones.

-Nam

1.	I recognize the opposite is true too but the phrase doesn't directly follow that logic

[ParkingPlaces]

eartheconomyspirit

Do you not understand that your "scholarship" is of little or no interest to us. It is like arguing that the shade of pink on one of the "My Little Ponies" is the wrong shade, and listing the reasons why you think an inexperienced 3D guy failed to follow preset studio guidelines or something. And equally as important.

If the stories all look false and feel false and taste false, the fact that some of them are of more interest to you is irrelevant. If the religious stories of what is normally called the christian god and his kid don't match reality in any way, the specifics of the tale area of no consequence. Unless you find yourself needing to kill someone and you want a good excuse. Otherwise they accomplish nothing. The old testament is full of misinformation and most of it is just plain wrong. The mention of Egypt is about the only clue in it that the story took place on earth rather than Tatooine. The new testament, with its mysterious boy wonder, may have quite a following, but most of those enamored by the narrative are really only in it for the fanfic. And the potlucks. And that subset to which you belong, that group of solitary individuals, each with the right answer and proof all the rest are wrong, would serve humanity much more effectively if you would just get together to go out and kill all of those idiots who think we never landed on the moon.

Trying to convince a bunch of atheists that you have found the truth amongst all of those religious tomes is like trying to tell a planeload of WWF wresters and fans that you've finally perfected the male tutu and that you hope they'll all be willing to try on a free sample. Except you'll have even fewer takers here.

Short version. We just don't care. If the Jesus story can't be made the least bit believable (and it can't), the details are irrelevant. As are your studies. That you are incredulous that we're not falling all over you with praise, and that the women here aren't begging to wash your feet, indicates that you have problems reality in many ways.

[eartheconomyspirit]

earteconomyspirit,

From your link:

Each one of these:

The Gospel of Thomas

25 Jesus said, "Love your friends like your own soul, protect them like the pupil of your eye."

Baha'i
"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." ~ Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah,71

Buddhism
"Hurt not others in ways that you, yourself would find hurtful." ~ Udana-Varga,5:18.

Christianity
"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." ~  Matthew7:12

Confucianism
"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you" ~ Analects 15:23

Hinduism
"This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." ~ Mahabharata 5:1517

Islam
"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself".~ Sunnah

Jainism
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self" ~ Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

Judaism
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary" ~ Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Native American
"Respect for all life is the foundation"

Sikhism
Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." ~ Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib

Zoroastrianism
"That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." ~ Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5

are not the same as the others in definition. Meaning: they do not interpret to the same meaning.

Some say, "treat others as you would treat yourself". Well, if one treats them self poorly, then, by that phrase they should treat others poorly[1].

Then you have others that say that "you should treat them better than yourself", and others that require ones own definition, or moral ambiguity.

They all can't be "the golden rule", and nor are they even remotely the same to be interpreted that way, especially the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian ones.

-Nam

1.	I recognize the opposite is true too but the phrase doesn't directly follow that logic

Big Picture Nam. Not small fixed mindedness. But thanks, I'll give it some extra thought. It came from others who thought it was a golden rule. I think I supplied the sources.

[eartheconomyspirit]

eartheconomyspirit

Do you not understand that your "scholarship" is of little or no interest to us. It is like arguing that the shade of pink on one of the "My Little Ponies" is the wrong shade, and listing the reasons why you think an inexperienced 3D guy failed to follow preset studio guidelines or something. And equally as important.

If the stories all look false and feel false and taste false, the fact that some of them are of more interest to you is irrelevant. If the religious stories of what is normally called the christian god and his kid don't match reality in any way, the specifics of the tale area of no consequence. Unless you find yourself needing to kill someone and you want a good excuse. Otherwise they accomplish nothing. The old testament is full of misinformation and most of it is just plain wrong. The mention of Egypt is about the only clue in it that the story took place on earth rather than Tatooine. The new testament, with its mysterious boy wonder, may have quite a following, but most of those enamored by the narrative are really only in it for the fanfic. And the potlucks. And that subset to which you belong, that group of solitary individuals, each with the right answer and proof all the rest are wrong, would serve humanity much more effectively if you would just get together to go out and kill all of those idiots who think we never landed on the moon.

Trying to convince a bunch of atheists that you have found the truth amongst all of those religious tomes is like trying to tell a planeload of WWF wresters and fans that you've finally perfected the male tutu and that you hope they'll all be willing to try on a free sample. Except you'll have even fewer takers here.

Short version. We just don't care. If the Jesus story can't be made the least bit believable (and it can't), the details are irrelevant. As are your studies. That you are incredulous that we're not falling all over you with praise, and that the women here aren't begging to wash your feet, indicates that you have problems reality in many ways.

I get it may not interest you. But I didn;t know that the group had spokespeople. That's new. Do you all attend the same church meetings or something.

Again with the assumptions. When did I profess scholarship. I did say when scholars review this, I expected some (more informed) reactions I think. It's all so long ago now.

You seem to have this pattern. Correct me if I'm wrong. As soon as it gets to specifics, you want to show off your gift for creative writing. I've seen it already and although its just fabulous, it gets stale real quick and may be lacking in depth. Try writing a play and see if you can get paid for the talent, perhaps.

Gotta say it again, I'm afraid. Don't take it too much to heart though, it's only behavioural and with a little effort you can fix that.

Blah... Blah... imagination ... Blah... look mum I can write .... blah blah .... I am a talented word smith with all the answers .... blah blah .... right team..... blah blah ... team ... team this is your captain speaking ... blah ... blah...   

[William]

Gotta say it again, I'm afraid. Don't take it too much to heart though, it's only behavioural and with a little effort you can fix that.

Blah... Blah... imagination ... Blah... look mum I can write .... blah blah .... I am a talented word smith with all the answers .... blah blah .... right team..... blah blah ... team ... team this is your captain speaking ... blah ... blah...

Not exactly a model ambassador for your cause, are you?

26 Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

And FWIW I endorse the kind advice ParkingPlaces has offered you.

[bertatberts]

Looks like my bad.

Oh it most certainly is.

Sorry about that. You could have a least said which topic caught your attention.

Strawman! As you well know no topic, just the fact you claimed you had historical records. You claimed a lot of BS in post #884, then claimed you had historical records in post#886, this is what I'm waiting for, the historical record that confirms exactly what you state, not only your opinion.

If you prove this wrong, with valid and better counter evidence, I stop.

If you prove them right, remember the onus is yours, supply the evidence. The "historical records".

But you must remember, this history is peppered with BS,

Yes someone's opinion, and you are just adding yours.

so your explanation/theory  has to ride the test of time

Not mine I make no claims, the onus is yours.

Oh and it seems you are turning into a right arrogant s**t, by the way you are replying to the posts, not just mine. You haven't shown that anything you have said is valid, so curtail the arrogance mate!

[DumpsterFire]

If the stories all look false and feel false and taste false, the fact that some of them are of more interest to you is irrelevant. If the religious stories of what is normally called the christian god and his kid don't match reality in any way, the specifics of the tale area of no consequence.

This is spot on, and its really all that matters. I have seen xtians argue time and again that one cannot criticize a religion or the Bible unless one has studied and learned about every aspect of it, but this is utterly false. Once it is determined that the basic premise of a thing is flawed, it is unnecessary to explore the minutiae of it.

I have never read the Bible in its entirety[1], and I never will because its a very boring book. But I know that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being does not exist. I also know that the idea of a singular human consciousness existing for eternity[2] is simply absurd and implausible.

Once the foundation is shown to be faulty, one needn't inspect every single brick to know the house will not stand.

1.	although a great many atheists here have
2.	be it in "heaven" or "hell"

[ParkingPlaces]

I get it may not interest you. But I didn;t know that the group had spokespeople. That's new. Do you all attend the same church meetings or something.

Well, if you can give me a list of all the local atheists who have entered into a serious and meaninful discussion with you and the wolves, I shall stand corrected.

Blah... Blah... imagination ... Blah... look mum I can write .... blah blah .... I am a talented word smith with all the answers .... blah blah .... right team..... blah blah ... team ... team this is your captain speaking ... blah ... blah...

When this is your best writing, maybe you should find a different hobby.

Look, I'm giving you a rough time because about all you are doing here is yelling "Hey go look at my web site, it took me a long time to make it". You inability to give us a synopsis in plain english and your cryptic claims of advanced knowledge on a subject that is (and yes, Im speaking for all of us) of little interest to anyone here is getting on our nerves. Being brash and qabalistic isn't going to get you anywhere here.

And I apologize for the word "qabalistic", except I've been waiting for years to use it a sentence. It's just another word for cryptic. Thanks for helping me check that off my bucket list.

[median]

http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Don't be lazy now. You did ask. It's only a summary. If you want the full historical record you'll have to wait for the book.

RESPONSE TO NONSENSE on eartheconomyspirit.net[1]

1.

In the above saying, GOT2#, Jesus says...

How do you know what "Jesus" said? You just admitted the bible has made up false shit in it. It seems you are cherry picking.

2.

In the above saying, GOT2#, Jesus says seek and find (Cerca Trova), not seek and believe. Belief can bring us closer to this thing called Go(o)d but never as close as knowledge. And this distinction between finding or knowing something and believing something, that may be of great significance in understanding the relationship between power and religion.[2]

2.	http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

Your "Jesus" says to believe and places lots of stress on it in many places (Rom 10, Mark 16, John 14, etc, etc, etc). Again, you are cherry picking bible verses to fit your ASSUMED interpretation (theology). How backwards! Where is your critical thinking?

3.

In this Jesus saying, Jesus places little value on prophecy.

And in other places he talks (allegedly) quite heavily about prophesies. This is b/c the bible itself is filled with direct contradictions. It is not a reliable source for separating fact from fiction regarding anything "spiritual" (not to mention that term has no meaning and is pure nonsense). "Spiritual"? Really? Please demonstrate that in non-vague terms.

4.

These people then make go(o)d choices to reconcile to that reality perception and accept their mistakes honestly.

Yes, such as the mistake in thinking there is anything such as the "spiritual", supernatural, or mystical.

5.

A fundamental threat for peace is selfishness and the untruths that self interested behaviours give rise to.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Rational selfishness is something that everyone practices and is necessary for human survival and well-being. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with selfishness in and of itself, and I would be willing to bet that you practice all sorts of "self interested behaviors" all the time, which you likely have no problem accepting as fine and moral. Did you eat some food or drink some water today? How selfish!

This is called intellectual hypocrisy.

6.

Here's a strange one, that never made the Bible.

Exactly. So now you've just shown yourself why your beliefs are unreliable without even realizing you've done it! Man created the bible, and all of it's myths - not any god, deity, or supernatural 'thing'. So we can chuck it out as pure hogwash (just like the other religious texts) and simply live our lives free of the BS that you call "spiritual" b/c there is no good reason for thinking there is any such thing.

7.

And why doesn't Paul/Saul the apostle refer to any Jesus miracles in his main letters. Letters fundamental to teachings in the Christian Bible?

Because Paul (the Godfather of Jebus faith) didn't see any Jebus, never believed in any miracles, and made the whole thing up based on hearsay.

8.

I began to intuitively feel that all the sayings had some value in terms of understanding the human spiritual condition

And that sir, was the beginning of your epic failure - merely ASSUMING there is such thing as "spirituality" (whatever that means) while following your first intuitions (which are often mistaken and fallible) is exactly backwards. In other words, starting from your conclusion, instead of doing disinterested investigation, is why you have this massive one page conspiracy sounding website which has no credibility. You just sound like a gullible and self-misguided hack - trying to go rogue and find some 'secret truth' - like Joseph Smith or something. It's really anti-intellectual sounding, sad, and absurd.

9.

If I had to guess at a distinguishing characteristic for the sayings that were not in the Bible, it would be that those sayings were more about a personal relationship with the nature of understanding spirituality.


Some notable key differences between the Jesus interpretation you find in the Gospel of Thomas and the Jesus interpretation in the Bible are

-miracles, prophecies, devils and angels are absent from the Gospel of Thomas collection
-the sayings collection advocates a search for something that could be known with defined outcomes in life, rather than a position of faith or an afterlife scenario with dramatic and polar consequences.
-The bible seems to be a carrot and stick approach to spiritual maturity, where as the Gospel of Thomas seems to be more about guidance, personal effort, personal choice and karma.

There's your big assumption (and the beginning of your error) in glaring bold print.

So you picked the myth that was more suited to your assumptive preferences (what you personally wanted the text to be saying). So basically, you did exactly what nearly every religious person does - choose the superstitious interpretation that makes you feel most comfortable. That's nice for your personal emotional quest for good feelings but it isn't a reliable pathway for separating fact from fiction.

10.

In essence, I now tend to think that there was, at least, 5 related corruption events that have adversely affected the way that many people interpret or think about the human spiritual condition and this thing we call Go(o)d.

For now, here is a brief summary of those corruptions.

It's interesting how you mention philosophy and people such as Plato , albeit in passing, but then start with assumptions like "authentic spirituality" - as if that has any meaning here. Well, I'm sorry but it doesn't. That term is simply a nonsense word for the gullible, in order to open the door for non-demonstrable, unfalsifiable, intellectually slippery superstition

...and the logical fallacy called The Argument From Ignorance.


Finally, I really like some of the quotations in your article (Einstein etc). You have one that says, "I'd Rather Have A Mind Opened By Wonder Than One Closed By Belief." That's excellent! So how about practicing what you preach. How about opening your mind to "wonder", and education, instead of believing in your "spirituality" nonsense??

There are multiple other nonsense things on your website I could response to but I won't b/c it likely won't do any go(o)d. If you'd like to discuss them just ask and I'll create a forum topic for it so we can go step by step through the gullible claims you have made there.

median

p.s. - Making up your own word called "Go(o)d", and using it in a way that no one but you can understand is also nonsense. It is called The Fallacy of Equivocation.

PLEASE STOP USING IT UNTIL YOU HAVE DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN! 

As per this topic, I would also like to know what it would take for you to change your worldview regarding "spirituality".

1.	http://eartheconomyspirit.net/PRVW/WIITTCGHandBook.htm

[Reedy]

The proposal that god exists is the most preposterous of all claims.  This being that can do ANYTHING.  Of all the insane ideas expressed over all of humankinds existence this is the most laughable.  The claim is not true aprior.  We don't need any evidence.  It is obviously at face value false.

[Anfauglir]

Hi Reedy, welcome to the forum.

Just a quick word - this thread was last accessed in August last year, and the chief "opposition" poster hasn't signed in until September.  We do ask people not to "necromance" old threads, you'll likely not get responses from the original posters as they will have moved on.

I've removed a comment you posted to a thread that was last accessed in 2012, just so's you know.

[Reedy]

Thanks,  I just had to say...