Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
So now they are both soul and spiritual bad?
I guess we could just play it your way and go dictionary shopping:
Collins Dictionary, 1st definition then:
Spiritual means relating to people's thoughts and beliefs, rather than to their bodies and physical surroundings.
Another dishonest straw man, as that's not even close to what I said.
And of course your post rather hilariously shows precisely what others have been trying to help you understand, that both dictionary definitions of spiritual contain supernatural aspects, as the definition you have quoted shows:
So plainly not relating to the physical, whatever could that mean? Another moment of comedy gold Homer, well done. And the secondary definition you omitted for fairly obvious reasons:
Dear oh dear Homer but you are simply pissing your pants again and again, and insisting you have not. You are wrong here Homer, but your ego has driven you to a point where you simply will not allow yourself to recant and admit the obvious truth.
Spirtual is defined with supernatural aspects in both dictionary definitions, the word soul however has a secondary dictionary definition that does not contain any supernatural aspect.
Your ball Homer, off you go again, run Forrest runnnn.....
What's physical about a soul?
Not what I said, but I'll gloss over yet another dishonest misrepresentation and give you the spanking you clearly want....
Soul food is physical no? 20 souls onboard captain, I think you'll find those souls are physical in that context. Soul music, can be seen on the sheet, and heard when played, etc etc
Why do you do this to yourself? You must know that denying a dictionary definition is only going to make you look silly.
"is only going to make you look silly."
That ship has sailed.
My bad, I should have said even more silly.
BULLSHIT spewed by Homer, he’s not here to learn anything. Did he already buy the book, read it, think about it ... NOPE
Argument au Homer (example of him being a complete fallacy)
***New Poster*** woman, theist, new age (comment section); first post by her, let’s call her “Marge”
(No hi - just strait out) “I channel an alien which brings me great knowledge”
(after asking more specific questions, “how do you know it’s an alien”, “what type of knowledge”, etc, etc ...we get to the word “channel”. Please note that through “discussion” communication is difficult and pinning down “precise” answers is difficult (eg. “stuff I didn’t know”; OR, “not the Star Trek “Spock” Alien”, you get the idea)
Skeptic .... “ What do you mean by “channel”, is it like other “channels” where you get information from an “outside, invisible source”?
Marge: ... No, it’s more physical than that.
Skeptic: “What do you mean “physical”, your “own thoughts”, can you define it?”
Marge: “Its like outside information coming in, I feel spiritual so I know it’s not my own thoughts... but it’s not what you relate to regular mediums that channel a spirit or other aliens.”
Skeptic: “How? Here, is this what you mean ... (definition) and some others. I don’t think you mean swimming (a channel of water) or electrical circuits - do you mean TV shows?”
Marge: “You could describe it as watching TV, but I get more out of it as I learn things I didn’t know before and it makes me feel good and ...”
Skeptic: “Then why the fuck just say you watch TV and get specific on what programs you like?!?!”
Marge: “I explained that to you already and I said beforehand that I get more out of it than just a relaxing experience, so I am “channeling”. It’s not my fault you don’t understand what I mean, in fact even Sam Harris uses the word and he’s an atheist”
(Btw good debate [his usage is at about the 24min mark in...)
Skeptic: “You’re a fucktard”
It is the very definition of a straw man, as I never made the claim you assigned me, and here is your claim again:
Now here is my original:
"One of the principles being that they never challenge theistic beliefs with critical scrutiny,"
So it absolutely was a straw man, as I said one of, which you misrepresented as everything.
The atheist perspective will involve no belief in a deity, otherwise you cannot generalise. If you're having trouble defining something you believe that is usually not a good sign.
Go back to the part where you said it would validate my beliefs (post 103) that started this as post 105 is absolutely not your original post and then we can see who created what straw man. Not challenging beliefs is absolutely not the same as validating them, especially in a setting where asserting belief is not needed.
It's absolutely your scarecrow here.
It was a straw man, and the dishonesty of moving the goal posts now to a different post you had made no reference to speaks for itself.
You're either being dishonest or lazy. Might I suggest if you are responding to something, that you quote the salient text, and provide a link if it's not fron the post you're responding to. Otherwise your pants are going to cause you 3rd degree burns....
Another straw man, as I never claimed otherwise. In the original post you've now included to avoid admitting your use of a blatant straw man fallacy I said:
Anyone with a cursory understanding of English can see that's not the remotely the same claim as you are now assigning me. That not challenging and validation are the same thing. I clearly was observing you wanted both, as your posts have shown form the very start, you won't challenge your beliefs critically, and won't honestly address criticisms from others, and you don't like that aspect of this forum, hence your desire (which you expressed) to try elsewhere for places where you could discuss your beliefs in a forum where they were not challenged. I'm paraphrasing before you see another straw man fallacy.
I have no idea what that last sentence means. However at this point I think it is obvious you are incapable of acknowledging an error in your reasoning, or arguments. It's a common and often deliberately dishonest tactic in religious apologetics, but I had been giving you the benefit if the doubt, and assuming you simply are very poor at creating and understanding rational arguments, now I'm starting to wonder if I haven't been overly generous.
The claim you assigned to me is not one I ever made, ipso facto it is a straw man.
You did claim validation of beliefs I even pointed out the post.
Fuck me, are you really this obtuse, or is it deliberate?
I have to ask, is English your first language?
I never denied I had stated you were looking for validation of your beliefs, did I? I denied claiming that not challenging beliefs was the same as validating them, which is the claim you implied I'd made. Thus it was a straw man..
Dear oh fucking dear...
Slow down, and read the posts with more care, as you are responding with endless misrepresentations of what has been said.
For clarity, this was your straw man claim:
To be absolutely clear, I have never made any claim that said otherwise. Though I have now lost interest as you lurch from one irrelevant straw man to another.
Saying that anyone was doing anything to validate beliefs was the straw man you were whacking at.
No it isn't as this was clearly offered as my opinion, and did not infer it was your argument.
This doesn't alter the fact that you cited a claim of mine, where I specifically said one aspect of, and then misrepresented it with a straw man fallacy to imply I'd argued everything.
I'd stop digging now, if I were you Homer, as the pit you're in is only going to get deeper.
So you say:
"So you want a group that will validate your beliefs"
"I'm not wanting a group that validates any beliefs"
And you reply:
"One of the principles being that they never challenge theistic beliefs with critical scrutiny, as several posters have pointed out."
And when I say:
"Not challenging beliefs is absolutely not the same as validating them"
I'm the one that's setting up an easy false thing to poke at!?!
I'm the one digging a hole??
Yours was a straw man fallacy which misrepresented my claim, in the manner I have repeatedly and very specifically pointed out.
Mine was an opinion inferred from your posts and general dislike of having your beliefs subjected to critical scrutiny, and more pointedly was not implied as a claim or argument you had made.
I really can't dumb this down anymore sorry. I suggest you learn what these fallacies are so you can better spot them, and try and learn the difference between offering a subjective opinion, and blatantly misrepresenting an argument someone has made. As those are not the same thing.
My opinion wasn't false, it was my subjective opinion. It was not offered as an argument you had made.
Whereas, you took an argument I'd offered in support of my opinion and blatantly misrepresented it.
Again I'm sorry you are unable to see the difference, but that's hardly my fault.
You tied your subjective opinion to a completely different issue and when I pointed it out, we ended up here.
Your argument to support your opinion was utter tripe.
My observation was about your motives for seeking the religious cult, you started a thread on, so its relevance is manifest, and your claim is just as manifestly nonsense. We ended up here because you misrepresented an argument I'd made in support of that opinion,with a straw man fallacy. Now its debatable whether your denials are pure perfidy, or you are actually unaware of the fallacies you have used from the moment you arrived.
No, that vapid piece of petulant rhetoric you've just posted, that doesn't even pretend to offer a cogent intelligent counter response to my argument, is what's tripe. It's also a juvenile response to being called on your previous response to my argument, which was a straw man misrepresentation of it. As I said until you're man enough to acknowledge an error, you will not learn anything, but I have from the start been dubious about your claim to want to learn anyway, as you seem as blinkered and intransigent in the face of facts, evidence and reason as any theist I've encountered.
Well let's just use Sheldon logic on the strawman you are accusing me of then:
"Everything spiritual isn't about asserting or challenging a set of beliefs"
That was my subjective opinion from my observations of you.
I can provide hundreds of posts as evidence.
You are a liar Homer, I have been more than patient, and your response is beyond childish, to petulantly parrot my own argument back to me like a child in a playground.
Good fucking god, you have reached a new low here...I am now starting to believe you really are just trolling after all...
Evidence of what? I have quoted my original claim verbatim from the start, and here again, it specifically says one aspect of, you are a liar and a troll. Here is your claim and my response to it verbatim again then.
One of the principles being that they never challenge theistic beliefs with critical scrutiny, as several posters have pointed out.
Here is a link to that post so everyone can read it in context, so your perfidy is self evident.
I wasn't speaking about your "one of", I was speaking from my subjective opinion of you derived from your tendency to turn everything into challenging beliefs, usually you respond with "what do you expect in a debate forum?", similar to your claim that I was looking for validation of my beliefs in your subjective opinion.
You went first with the subjective opinions.
Fuck me, how many times must i quote the relevant posts before you are embarrassed to misrepresent what was said? One more then obviously....
Anyone with a cursory grasp of English can see I never remotely claimed what you said.
Now that is fucking hilarious, given you have espoused religious beliefs on here for months that you admit you cannot demonstrate one shred of objective evidence to support. Now just because I called you on the straw man above, and your refusal to admit any error, you are decrying me for offering a subjective opinion, even though I offered a sound argument for that opinion, and you responded with a known logical fallacy, and since then have resorted to evasions and rhetoric.
I have to echo David Killens's earlier post to you now, for shame.
I appreciate the input! Thanks!
Like the members of AA. The first precept is "Belief in a Higher Power."
Seven Humanistic principles sound half way decent but then they spring the sources of their traditions on you....
1. Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, (Ad Populum Fallacy pairs with direct experience as the foundation of their traditions.)
2. Words and deeds of prophetic people which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love; (So.... Believe in prophetic people but if you must confront them avoid logic and reason. Instead, use a religious text to find justice. love and compassion.)
3. Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life (As you will not find a spiritual life outside of religious assertion, I guess this makes sense/)
4. Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves; (Obviously another group of believers who have never read their Bibles.)
5. Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit; (Anyone seen the scientific data warning us against idolatries of the mind and spirit? I haven't.)
6. Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature. (Never mind the simple fact that the members of these traditions are trying to kill each other. Just pretend it is all the same bullshit.)
Hey! This is up Homer’s alley...
Sounds like you found a group that you can talk about your fruits and deny any bible account - they’ll understand “spiritual growth” (cause I sure in the fuck have no idea what that means) and your ideas won’t be challenged (oh, just a little maybe - even in JWland we “challenged” each other a little)...
Good luck and I am not interested in your religious experience with them and their association (closes door gently).
I ponder why Homer asks a bunch of atheists about a certain church instead of just going to a service to discover personally.
I think I laid that out in this thread! They aren't open with Covid, I have communicated with some who go and read what they are about. They purport to have a good number of atheists in their group, so I was wondering if any here had went and what they thought about it. Oldman and Nyar actually had went and told we what they thought, I gained what I was looking for. I appreciated their views.
When I can go, I will and will discover personally what it is like, with the foreknowledge that they saw it as still a Christian thing vs what I was getting from the website and groups of members I had communicated with.
Homer - “love bomb” - hahahahaha. You’ll get a warm fuzzy, “these are true Christians, developing “Christlike” qualities”. No judgment from them.
Just pure unadulterated acceptance.
Go visit a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses a few times too. You’ll get the same thing. AND you won’t get to the “truth” until you are invested (time, friendship and a good dose of gods love)
Hahahahaha. I don’t even have to go and I can tell you. Maybe I’m psychic!!!! Yah, that’s it! OR gods spirit is working through me right now WARNING you (or encouraging...whatever suits your fancy)
Why don’t you start by really wanting to get to what is “as close to what is true” as possible - or do you enjoy the warm comfort of self-deception?
"When I can go, I will and will discover personally what it is like, with the foreknowledge that they saw it as still a Christian thing vs what I was getting from the website and groups of members I had communicated with."
Do you like kool aid?
Here’s a hint Homer... notice the poetic nuance :)
Not intended with sarcasm or “judgement” just observation by reading your words. And I’m drawing it to you attention because I do think that apart of you is grounded in reality and that’s why you still read or come here. You like honesty.
Your first intro to us was with your “fruits of God’s spirit ...”. Now it’s a church with “spiritual growth”.
You are still having trouble taking credit or responsibility for your own thoughts and emotions (both of which can create emotional judgement upon ourselves).
Whoever wrote that scripture of God’s spiritual fruit production (I think Paul) places it well - so let’s examine it...
Usually God’s “spirit” is something that works separate from “him” (ie in creation story; trinity doctrine; JWland etc). It is connected to him but still “on its own” in many respects.
Would you say that directly, from the bible, that God’s “qualities” are love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self control?
Even Paul (who knew all the mosaic laws, genocidal takeover, baby killing, slavery acceptance, women inferiority, etc, etc) couldn’t say that was “God” so it was qualities of His “spirit” (some force he can shoot out of his being and use wherever he likes) - so he could leave out the other qualities associated with God directly - like was it “God’s spirit that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Or God’s spirit that brought the flood?”
Paul listed human qualities that are positive and reflect well when attributed to an invisible sky daddy.