I'm not. I just asked Anti-flag to give me an example of an unselfish nonmaterialistic atheist, in response to his posting. I think everyone is selfish.
Atheism's Thirteen Biggest Flaws (without dysfunctional link, modship pending)
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
I'm not. I just asked Anti-flag to give me an example of an unselfish nonmaterialistic atheist, in response to his posting. I think everyone is selfish.
Taking a wife may or may not be selfish, but abandoning one to "find oneself" for fear of death or disease IMO is definitely selfish.
OK fair enough but everything we do as humans has an element of selfishness to it. Even helping people and expecting nothing in return gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling that is pleasurable (suprise, suprise, even for an atheist).
Edit: Ok I read through the thread and see where that came from.
Last edited:
I agree.
Not really, it assumes helplessness in the female.
So I could abdicate all my responsibilities with the knowledge that this assumes empowerment.
Sure.
Good, I like justifications for my selfishness.
Of course, I better think up a way to avoid the consequences first.
Analysis of consequences is selfish.
You might like to read the post again, I'll even quote the important bit for you, read it carefully;
I clearly have no need to give you an example of what you asked. Regardless, there was the inclusion of the words "people I've met and known".
You might like to read the post again, I'll even quote the important bit for you, read it carefully;
I clearly have no need to give you an example of what you asked. Regardless, there was the inclusion of the words "people I've met and known".
So one example should not be too difficult.
So one example should not be too difficult.
Would there be a point in dropping names you don't recognise? Somewhat futile don't you think? Especially as stage two will involve you accusing me of making it up.
However, again you missed the point, I wonder if you did re-read. I said less selfish and materialistic, not non-materialistic or non-selfish. You're dealing with absolutes in an attempt to bait me into a corner. Nice try.
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
ah no... i could go over the science.... but no one ever wants to do that.... it would be a long discussion.
atheists.... are all wanna be scientists.... that is the basis of their view.
but... they dont seem to realise that.... most scientists... are secular atheists..... and push their biased views and theories...
views... which extend beyond science... to reach beyond our space and time... and say without a doubt... there is no god.
EVEN THOUGH OUR SCIENCE DOES NOT REACH OR SEE THAT FAR.
we... as humans... are ignorant of more.. than we know.
if you are reasonable... you will agree to that statement.
and if so... you must also admit... we cant be sure either way.
most atheists... are sure.... why??? because of ignorance.
ignorance... of just how ignorant they and we all are.
-MT
If you were reasonable you'd be presenting arguments, instead of merely pontificating. It seems to me you're having some silly fantasy about atheists and science, by merely presenting unqualified assertions. A rather ironic bent considering this obsession with other people's ignorance. You are still reading minds.
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
to argue further... would be to introduce alot of my theorys...
because they are based on the abundant evidense.
the evidense... in it self... suggests... a natural progressive pattern.
more over... when you look into the sky... the atheists say its all random and chaos...
which is strange... since in fact... any moron can see the super clusters... and galaxies.... and solar systems... are all very symetrical.
symetry..... if i spelled it right.... is everywhere...
not chaos... and not random formations.
as far back as our best telescopes can see...
its not random... its not messy... in fact... in the past... its more organized.
but apon seeing this... they just say... that we can only see the universe, after its messy stage.
HA
-MT
because they are based on the abundant evidense.
the evidense... in it self... suggests... a natural progressive pattern.
more over... when you look into the sky... the atheists say its all random and chaos...
which is strange... since in fact... any moron can see the super clusters... and galaxies.... and solar systems... are all very symetrical.
symetry..... if i spelled it right.... is everywhere...
not chaos... and not random formations.
as far back as our best telescopes can see...
its not random... its not messy... in fact... in the past... its more organized.
but apon seeing this... they just say... that we can only see the universe, after its messy stage.
HA
-MT
religious principles means to serve god in all circumstances
BG 14.26: One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.
alloyed religious principles are those where the focus of one's service attitude shifts from god to oneself
BG 17.5-6: Those who undergo severe austerities and penances not recommended in the scriptures, performing them out of pride and egoism, who are impelled by lust and attachment, who are foolish and who torture the material elements of the body as well as the Supersoul dwelling within, are to be known as demons.
BG 16.13-15: The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice." In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance.
BG 16.16: Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and fall down into hell.
the general principle behind reading scripture is to determine what are god's ideals.
The general principle behind making spiritual advancement is to accurately perceive where one's ideals are situated and determine the distance from god's
unsatisfactory according to scripture and saintly persons (the bonafide practitioners of scripture - italics included just in case the phrase brings to mind unbonafide practioners)
regardless of what they identify themselves as, the point of religion is how god identifies a person
then it seems you are either fortunate enough to have met some well adjusted atheists or unfortunate enough to have met some maladjusted theists
there is more to religion than morality, namely transcendence. While being moral is certainly admirable, it is not sufficient to solve the problems of life (it is not through advancement of medicine that we will overcome disease, its not by leading a healthy lifestyle we will over come old age and its not through charity or other altruistic acts that we can over come death)
Sarkus
But just to jog your memory, omniscient, omnipotent etc etc
It also illustrates how their claims can be rejected
i
actually there were a few definitions in that thread that were satisfactory, but admittedly they were few and far between since it was mostly atheists who thickened the postings with responses that were of topic.
But just to jog your memory, omniscient, omnipotent etc etc
it illustrates how a person on drugs can claim anything, not merely just seeing/being god.
It also illustrates how their claims can be rejected
i
And who are you, or I, or anyone else to differentiate the valid claims from the invalid? True, there are many claims that can easily be rejected. But some claims are not rejectable - as they can not be verified OR falsified.
And the same can be said of the theists - who DO claim a multitude of things - which give rise to the many differing flavours of theism. How is one to distil the valid from the invalid when there can be no tests done on the claims to show which is correct or not?
Oh yes - for you it would be to listen to a person who has gone before, follow their process and experience for yourself. Happy drug-taking, then (to follow the analogy).