Spiritual Atheism

atheism/humanism as a stepping stone to inner peace.

facebook - http://www.facebook.com/officiallacigreen

main channel - http://www.youtube.com/lacigreen

Category:

Education

Tags:

• spiritual
• atheism
• purpose
• value
• life

[Smithfriend]

@Psychonaut1992 "Yahweh being immoral/whatever is a subjective view, not a fact." I'm glad that you agree with me. Your view that Yahweh is a "fool' is not based on fact, it is based on subjective opinion. Finally, an honest atheist who admits that his worldview is not grounded in reason and logic - only in emotion and speculation.

And I have provided facts to substantiate my opinion. Scientifically accepted statements. Quotes from eminent cosmologists and historians. And logic.

[Psychonaut1992]

@Smithfriend You also confuse speculation on my part with claims of fact. I'm not the theist, the person who cannot differentiate opinion and fact. What have I claimed to be fact? You are the one forcing your subjective "truth" of God onto my /non/-position of a pantheistic deity. Yahweh being immoral/whatever is a subjective view, not a fact. Clearly I'm incapable of expressing anything to you. If this is how you are going to approach things then I have no patience for it.

[Psychonaut1992]

@Smithfriend How could I prove something that hasn't happened (irrefutable revelation of truth supporting a religion)? The burden of proof is on you to prove that it HAS happened. Premise 3 is an opinion so has no place in that argument. Of course he doesn't look like a fool to you if you're a theist.

[Smithfriend]

@Psychonaut1992 I am noticing a pattern in our discussion, by the way. You constantly make bare assertions like, "if the Abrahamic God really existed, he would do "such and such" actions or have "this or that" characteristics". But you never provide any reasons WHY these assertions are true. You never provide any facts, good reasons, or logic in order to substantiate your opinions, which is why they amount to pure unadulterated speculation. Just opinion. Not fact.

[Smithfriend]

@Psychonaut1992 "...looking an incapable, violent fool to your supposed creations" He doesn't look like an incapable, violent fool to me. Perhaps it is not the case that he IS an incapable, violent fool. Perhaps your philosophical predispositions only lead you to believe so - not because there is good, substantial proof.

[Smithfriend]

@Psychonaut1992 Let's look at this in an objective, logical sense. Here's your argument:

1. God commands people not to kill.

2. God may not have the same moral duties that people do.

3. God would "do well" not to kill; it would make him more "logical" and "reliable".

4. God kills people

5. Therefore, the God of the Bible is logically incoherent.

Premise (3) is demonstrably false, not the least because it begs the question, and is refuted by the truth of premise (2).

[Smithfriend]

@Psychonaut1992 "no religion so far as produced a /universally/, /timeless/ and /irrefutable/ basis for the truth of their faith" Let's see the facts to back up this assertion. I can argue otherwise, and very competently.

[Smithfriend]

@Psychonaut1992 My metaphysical views are not "superior" to yours in some elitist sense. Rather, perhaps I have researched both sides of the subject and have a firm grasp regarding the limitations of naturalistic scientism.

[Smithfriend]

@Psychonaut1992 "How could I prove more faith if God had done things differently? It's speculation!" Finally you understand my point! You say that it would be more reasonable to believe in God if he did things a different way, but you can't say why! You can only speculate! Perhaps we are making some progress.