human spirit wrote:
"Debate should not be so argumentive."
 
Why not? What kind of argument would you put forward in support of this conclusion? (Yes, obvious irony intended.)
 
human spirit wrote:
"Arguing reflects ignorance and conceit of one's own opinions thereby making you unintelligent."
 
It does? How so? Argument (when done properly) is a means of rationally securing conclusions and validating new knowledge. How does this "reflect ignorance and conceit of one's own opinions"? You'll have to provide more information on why you think this in order for it to have any substance. Otherwise, I see no reason why I should dismiss what you say as mere resentful blather.
 
human spirit wrote:
"To have a debate of this nature is to question the existence of God and that is good."
 
But above you just said that "Arguing reflects ignorance and conceit of one's own opinions thereby making you unintelligent." Though you do not establish that conclusion (you merely assert it), you now seem to be saying that arguing is good if it brings about a certain end (namely, the questioning of god's existence). What is your conception of good? Is reflecting ignorance and conceit good in your view? What exactly motivated you to write what you've written here? I'm just trying to understand what it is that you want to say, and why you are saying it.
 
human spirit wrote:
"We don't have to merely accept what others tell us."
 
However, some would like us to. Don't forget that. They usually start with people when they're little children, when they're most impressionable and have not yet developed a command of philosophical ideas sufficient to provide them with an intellectual defense against what they're told to accept. This is why most people hold a god-belief in the first place: they were taught to believe in their childhood, and they were also taught that it is wrong to question it or defy this teaching. When they get into adulthood and have not discovered a rational view of the world, they will likely still think that their god-beliefs are true. But I agree: I have no obligation to accept what others (including human spirit) tell me.
 
But your statement here seems disharmonious with your earlier statement that "Arguing reflects ignorance and conceit of one's own opinions thereby making you unintelligent." If "we don't have to merely accept what others tell us," then on what grounds should we accept what others tell us, if not on rational grounds (which relies on argument)?
 
human spirit wrote:
"Stop waving flags of vanity."
 
Who is waving a "flag of vanity"? And what exactly is a "flag of vanity" anyway? What does it look like? How do you identify it? And why shouldn't one wave it if he has one? If you respond saying that waving a "flag of vanity" (whatever that is) makes one look unintelligent, why shouldn't one look unintelligent? What you consider symptomatic of vanity, others might consider an expression of passion for knowledge and thus may serve as a testimony to one's intellectual vitality. Please clarify your thought so that you are not misunderstood.
 
human spirit wrote:
"Become humble to see peace and have awareness."
 
I'm not certain how becoming humble ensures awareness. Rather, I have learned that actively focusing my mind maximizes my awareness. I do not see this as a consequence of becoming humble. And humility as a path to peace may simply be euphemistic for rolling over and appeasing one's victimizers. Nothing you have said indicates that this is not what you mean. But I will not be humble for this end. I generally see the urge that others be humble as the desire that others become spineless.
 
human spirit wrote:
"You've come so far as to debate over God, then why can't you take the next step and give him a chance."
 
I cannot give a chance to that which does not exist. This would be incoherent. Besides, which "god" do you think one should give a chance to? There are so many different gods to choose from, literally one to suit every taste. If you don't like one, there's always another you can choose. Or, you can fashion your own in your own image, which is really what all conceptions of a god are in terms of essentials. So why borrow someone else's god when you can invent your own? Why not for that matter adopt a belief in Gumbygod, the god you can bend? That's what religious people do anyway. When they find that their theological ascriptions to the gods they claim exist get them into to tight and uncomfortable corners, they rationalize, evade and shapeshift those ascriptions in order to futz their way out of those tight spots. It's all dishonest, but still you have people advocating this kind of behavior. Ever wonder why?
 
human spirit wrote:
"If you can get over your failures and forgive yourself for being human, then you can see that you don't have to be perfect.  (wherein lies the perfection)"
 
I do not see my humanity as a point of guilt and I do not accept any form of unearned guilt. Thus, as godless responded, "There is no reason whatsoever to forgive yourself for being human....none!" I agree entirely. All gods play hide and seek. We call those who play with the notion of a god "believers." It's a game, nothing more, and there are no winners in that game, only losers.
 
CertainVerdict