Is Atheism Irrelavent?
- Thread starter Mazulu
- Start date
You have to take the full definition in of "ascended masters."
It's pretty in depth.
I'm not a believer in pointing out others' faults. I have my own to work on like everyone else, so not for me to judge.
If there is a god, he would be the only judge.
Agnosticism intrigues me because it keeps me open to the possibility of a god existing, although I can't say with certainty that one does or doesn't exist.
I read a cartoon the other day. The headline was "Radical Agnosticism: I don't know if god exists and neither do you!"
It was funny.
What didn't you like about that idea? We point out faults in them and they in us. We learn from the group.
Like one way or the other I learn from my apparent mistakes too. No double meanings in posts or they might ban you for the most negative connotation.
Don't try and register friends when you are banned, for you'll be accused of setting up sock puppets.
Honestly, this website is taking us further away from happiness, enlightenment, joy, peace of mind... If we were granted a permenant ban, it would instantly improve the quality of our lives.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That's an interesting mindset. You want to do something but you can't do it unless the choice is taken out of your hands.
Enlightenment is not perfection. It's realizing that nothing needs changing.
To me perfection implies nothing needs changing since it is perfect.
Enlightenment is not a thing that rings a bell within me. Has someone put forward the definition yet?
I utilized my time away profitably but I prefer to be able to contribute on the forum, for it shows up where your arguments are lacking.
I thought you were coping better this time around.
Thanks wegs, it is much appreciated that you can share a joke with me. I think you could do with someone who pointed out faults. They maybe in the same areas as you have identified yourself or not. It would be worth knowing. Look don't hesitate to tell me where my faults lie (that goes for all of you, just tell me please), and from memory you did previously let me know of one or two. I'm going for a job promotion soon so it will be important to know what my socialising faults are. I will be having to dealt with a larger range of clients, so it is vital I iron out all my faults ASAP.You have to take the full definition in of "ascended masters."
It's pretty in depth.
I'm not a believer in pointing out others' faults. I have my own to work on like everyone else, so not for me to judge.
If there is a god, he would be the only judge.
Agnosticism intrigues me because it keeps me open to the possibility of a god existing, although I can't say with certainty that one does or doesn't exist.
I read a cartoon the other day. The headline was "Radical Agnosticism: I don't know if god exists and neither do you!"
It was funny.
Bells
Staff member
It wasn't the double meaning post, but the porn link and the posts you made after it that saw you banned. If you feel posting your sexual needs and what video you use to get off on on an open site, then perhaps you should read the rules of this site for a refresher course of what is and is not acceptable.
Also.. Friend.. That went directly to the threads you read and post in, posting from your IP address who joins so soon after you are banned. Because that isn't strange or unusual. We won't even discuss the ones that were banned before they could complete the registration process.
Or you could just log out and not post or return to the site.. You know, self control.Mazulu said:
I think we should discuss the previous attempts.
Well there was an earlier attempt (2-3 weeks before) to see Carol registered and James R said he would see that the registration went ahead, but it never happened, so if it was banned, well we would have never considered that, for it was a legitimate attempt to register along with PM communication with the site manager, so why would we even considered looking in the banned list? I have always said openly that in the weekends I share the same computer as Carol does (and at times of annual leave like I am now). OK I showed her how to setup "subscribed threads" and because I wanted her to post her story on the "Beautiful Christian Songs thread" and other associated ones I practiced on those ones. So what you noticed was correct observations but the deductions you made from them were incorrect.
So tell us clearly Bells, what proof do you need to show that Carol.Robson is a genuine poster, so her registration can be reactivated? It will be as clear as day that we are distinct people as our style of communication is so different.
Please Bells be fair. Carol just can't understand the treatment she is getting at the moment. She is looking over my shoulder, and says she "has been made to feel useless and unimportant".
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that's true. Each of those words has its own meaning. Their extensions, the sets of individuals that the different words apply to, are like partially overlapping Venn diagrams.
I'm going to disagree with you pretty strongly on that one. It's entirely possible to be a 'spiritual' atheist.
Buddhism doesn't involve belief in the existence of an 'Abrahamic'-style monotheistic "God", yet Buddhists can be very religious. In other words, 'spirituality' or 'religiosity' are broader and more extensive categories than theism. Theism is a particular kind of religious belief. It's both possible and common to deny the truth of theism, and hence qualify as an atheist, while still possessing a strong personal religiosity. (Imagine a Zen monk.)
I think that part of the problem in understanding these terms is our tendency to perceive words like 'atheism', 'spirituality' and 'religion' in Western terms. Many people simply assume that Christianity IS religion. In this cultural environment atheism is often the rejection of Christianity. (In some cases an angry and passionate rejection.) And disbelief in Christianity in turn is understood as being synonymous with the rejection of religiosity in general. Which isn't necessarily true.
That is why I said "typically" above. We have to jump through some hoops to redefine "spiritual" in a way other than commonly used for it to be compatible with atheism.
Spirituality is usually contrasted with the profane, which is all atheists usually admit exists.
The profane world consists of all that we can know through our senses; it is the natural world of everyday life that we experience as either comprehensible or at least ultimately knowable... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanum
Yes, like I said, only atheists are defined as being devoid of both divine and religious belief. A Buddhist would not identify solely as an atheist, hence the "religiosity".
I'm trying to make sure we don't appeal to the delusional idiots. It's working, too.
Ah, nothing to say? Tongue tied and twisted?
You mean to say you actually admit to not knowing anything about what science is working on? Nothing? Nada? Zip?
Since nothing spiritual has ever been shown to exist, you can define it anyway you want and it will still be nonsense.
Spirituality is usually contrasted with the profane, which is all atheists usually admit exists.