Logic and Morality.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

The Quran is a cure for Atheism....

Religious texts of any stripe, read with a critical eye, are among the greatest sources of atheism.

[Link]

The Quran is a cure for Atheism....

Religious texts of any stripe, read with a critical eye, are among the greatest sources of atheism.

But read in conjunction with that,  a eye giving some benefit of the doubt and along with somewhat of critical eye to the critical eye, and the Quran will be a cure.

[Link]

Also there is also the Burhanal Sadiqeen (@Alan V ) which is long dialogue shifting from ontological and cosmological or somewhat of hybrid or both, it's hard to label it. Read that one and we can have discussion on it. Some people even see it as purely ontological but appeals to what we know of the opposite of necessary being to prove the Necessary being. Labels unimportant to categorize. Just read into it, and I find this a robust argument.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Reltzik, I didn't expect you to believe in the statements involving God, but in relationship to what I said, keeping this in mind, it means, if God exists, then it's reasonable to believe this should be done.  Of course, since, there is no if for me, I state my belief.

If your sick, sadistic fuck of a gawd exists, then you should be, as your holy book of voodoo tells you, hunting us down and exterminating us simply for not believing as you do. Fuck off, MK

[Bucky Ball]

Also I read it but you didn't address the issue of emanation with respect to goodness, beauty, greatness and honor and need of an eternal foundation. There is many versions of these arguments (different angles) and you didn't address any of them.

Define "goodness", define "beauty", define "greatness", define "honor", define "an eternal foundation", 
.... then prove YOUR particular definitions are universally held, and any more valid than the man in the moon. 
What is lacking here, is that you are incapable of thinking critically about the rubbish you post. 

Get lost, asshole. You bring NOTHING to this forum. Nothing at all.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

The Quran is a cure for Atheism....

Religious texts of any stripe, read with a critical eye, are among the greatest sources of atheism.

But read in conjunction with that,  a eye giving some benefit of the doubt and along with somewhat of critical eye to the critical eye, and the Quran will be a cure.

A cure to believing that Islam is in any way peaceful, or even sane.

By the way, You are a fucking liar!

[Link]

Also I read it but you didn't address the issue of emanation with respect to goodness, beauty, greatness and honor and need of an eternal foundation. There is many versions of these arguments (different angles) and you didn't address any of them.

Define "goodness", define "beauty", define "greatness", define "honor", define "an eternal foundation", 
.... then prove YOUR particular definitions are universally held, and any more valid than the man in the moon. 
What is lacking here, is that you are incapable of thinking critically about the rubbish you post. 

Get lost, asshole. You bring NOTHING to this forum. Nothing at all.

There is different versions of the arguments, and they all define it as far as their usage is needed.

[Bucky Ball]

Also I read it but you didn't address the issue of emanation with respect to goodness, beauty, greatness and honor and need of an eternal foundation. There is many versions of these arguments (different angles) and you didn't address any of them.

Define "goodness", define "beauty", define "greatness", define "honor", define "an eternal foundation", 
.... then prove YOUR particular definitions are universally held, and any more valid than the man in the moon. 
What is lacking here, is that you are incapable of thinking critically about the rubbish you post. 

Get lost, asshole. You bring NOTHING to this forum. Nothing at all.

There is different versions of the arguments, and they all define it as far as their usage is needed.

It's "there ARE", not "there is" ... did you graduate from Grade School ? 
Fail again, idiot. The POINT went over your small mind. The POINT is that there is no consensus what those words even mean, and therefore your statement is meaningless.
What may be adequate for your small little mind, is not adequate for critical analysis, which is the POINT. 
You really need to get that Quran out of your skinny ugly ass.

[Link]

Define "goodness", define "beauty", define "greatness", define "honor", define "an eternal foundation", 
.... then prove YOUR particular definitions are universally held, and any more valid than the man in the moon. 
What is lacking here, is that you are incapable of thinking critically about the rubbish you post. 

Get lost, asshole. You bring NOTHING to this forum. Nothing at all.

There is different versions of the arguments, and they all define it as far as their usage is needed.

It's "there ARE", not "there is" ... did you graduate from Grade School ? 
Fail again, idiot. The POINT went over your small mind. The POINT is that there is no consensus what those words even mean. 
What may be adequate for your small little mind, is not adequate for critical analysis, which is the POINT. 
You really need to get that Quran out of your skinny ugly ass.

Do you know circles and intersection thing?  When we argue by morality, we know everyone has their own circle concept of it, but we are working with some intersecting point of it.  I think you need to study linguistics my friend.

[Bucky Ball]

There is different versions of the arguments, and they all define it as far as their usage is needed.

It's "there ARE", not "there is" ... did you graduate from Grade School ? 
Fail again, idiot. The POINT went over your small mind. The POINT is that there is no consensus what those words even mean. 
What may be adequate for your small little mind, is not adequate for critical analysis, which is the POINT. 
You really need to get that Quran out of your skinny ugly ass.

Do you know circles and intersection thing?  When we argue by morality, we know everyone has their own circle concept of it, but we are working with some intersecting point of it.  I think you need to study linguistics my friend.

I see your mind works in nothing but circles. BTW, you just SHIFTED the goalposts (that's a fallacy), ... I said nothing about morality, I aksed you to specifically DEFINE what the words you use, mean. I see you can't.

I'm not your fucking friend ... and the category you ignorantly call "linguistics", is not linguistics ... you are so fucking ignorant you don't even know the *definition* (hint hint) of "linguistics".

[Link]

You need to know language and communication if you are going to argue I'm not making sense. No body argued in premise form in the past. No one spoke or wrote books like that. No one went into a defining like crazy concepts agreed upon. And it's unnatural and sometimes does the opposite of being helpful. Because you ignore all that is said to support a premise, just to see over all structure of an argument.

[Chas]

You need to know language and communication if you are going to argue I'm not making sense.  No body argued in premise form in the past. No one spoke or wrote books like that. No one went into a defining like crazy concepts agreed upon. And it's unnatural and sometimes does the opposite of being helpful. Because you ignore all that is said to support a premise, just to see over all structure of an argument.

There is no argument to be made.  There is no objective evidence of any gods and no philosophy can philosophize a god into existence.  

You really have gone beyond tiresome and should go away.

[Dānu]

And so morality must command doubt to only yell when it has a foundation, and follow truth even if from a child, and accept proofs be in from an ancient human of a thousand years back before technology we have today.

MAYBE doubt has a position to be expressed (yelled) if its only foundation is "Hey you haven't actually proven that yet", and there are quite a few "proofs" from long ago (and also quite a few from the present day) that are so flawed that they shouldn't be accepted.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.  In fact, some of the most elegant and respectable proofs I know were compiled by Euclid, roughly a thousand years before Islam was founded.

I think I understand you here and agree. The only disagreement is with the "maybe." The doubter's sole obligations are to satisfy any burden of proof which the skeptic himself is obligated to shoulder, and to rest once the claimant has satisfied his burden of proof to a reasonable standard. Going beyond this leads to an unjustified shifting of the burden of proof in the direction of the skeptic and is unacceptable. I can see several likely scenarios that might invite this. First, if the claimant believes the skeptic has a larger burden of proof than the skeptic has accepted. This is quite common in religious debates, leading to formations like the " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" trope. Another common scenario is when the claimant believes that their share of the burden of proof is less than it reasonably should be. And finally, often the claimant may feel that the skeptic is employing a standard regarding acceptance that is unreasonable and therefore inappropriately unyielding. Many times unrecognized assumptions or biases in the claimant can lead to such disputations.

[Bucky Ball]

You need to know language and communication if you are going to argue I'm not making sense.  No body argued in premise form in the past. No one spoke or wrote books like that. No one went into a defining like crazy concepts agreed upon. And it's unnatural and sometimes does the opposite of being helpful. Because you ignore all that is said to support a premise, just to see over all structure of an argument.

One of the things lacking here is your inability to write a proper sentence in the English language. 
Why is your language and communication so poor ? 
NOTHING about the OP makes any sense. Nothing. It's a series of non-sequiturs. 
Unfortunately for you, the study of logic (FOR CENTURIES) was argumentation in "premise form" as you say, (and were ignorantly incorrect about). 
It's not going to work. Define your terms, or STFU.

[Link]

And so morality must command doubt to only yell when it has a foundation, and follow truth even if from a child, and accept proofs be in from an ancient human of a thousand years back before technology we have today.

MAYBE doubt has a position to be expressed (yelled) if its only foundation is "Hey you haven't actually proven that yet", and there are quite a few "proofs" from long ago (and also quite a few from the present day) that are so flawed that they shouldn't be accepted.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.  In fact, some of the most elegant and respectable proofs I know were compiled by Euclid, roughly a thousand years before Islam was founded.

I think I understand you here and agree.  The only disagreement is with the "maybe."  The doubter's sole obligations are to satisfy any burden of proof which the skeptic himself is obligated to shoulder, and to rest once the claimant has satisfied his burden of proof to a reasonable standard.  Going beyond this leads to an unjustified shifting of the burden of proof in the direction of the skeptic and is unacceptable.  I can see several likely scenarios that might invite this.  First, if the claimant believes the skeptic has a larger burden of proof than the skeptic has accepted.  This is quite common in religious debates, leading to formations like the " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" trope.  Another common scenario is when the claimant believes that their share of the burden of proof is less than it reasonably should be.  And finally, often the claimant may feel that the skeptic is employing a standard regarding acceptance that is unreasonable and therefore inappropriately unyielding.  Many times unrecognized assumptions or biases in the claimant can lead to such disputations.

And then there is me, who realizes there is unnatural magic making you not accept and understanding and unable to shut of the uncleanness yelling to doubt God no matter how vivid and clear the proofs I present for Him are and how much they remind you.

And when I talk about magic, it's not that I expect you to believe in it, but in hopes you might one day see it and realize what it is.

And so, I know I will be mocked and despised for saying it, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make because perhaps someone will hear.

[Dānu]

Link, your troubled mind has manifested itself as religious zealotry.   You need psychological guidance.

Anyone without bias, will see, it's you guys that have the greatest zeal on a stance that is just suppose to be nothing (a withdrawal of affirming God exists).

And you would know this how exactly? Your grasp of some of the most basic epistemological issues is frighteningly inept and naive.

[Link]

Link, your troubled mind has manifested itself as religious zealotry.   You need psychological guidance.

Anyone without bias, will see, it's you guys that have the greatest zeal on a stance that is just suppose to be nothing (a withdrawal of affirming God exists).

And you would know this how exactly?  Your grasp of some of the most basic epistemological issues is frighteningly inept and naive.

Observation over the years, you guys are over-hostile for something to you is just a withdrawal of belief. This should awaken you that something else is going on in the inward of who you are.

[Bucky Ball]

MAYBE doubt has a position to be expressed (yelled) if its only foundation is "Hey you haven't actually proven that yet", and there are quite a few "proofs" from long ago (and also quite a few from the present day) that are so flawed that they shouldn't be accepted.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.  In fact, some of the most elegant and respectable proofs I know were compiled by Euclid, roughly a thousand years before Islam was founded.

I think I understand you here and agree.  The only disagreement is with the "maybe."  The doubter's sole obligations are to satisfy any burden of proof which the skeptic himself is obligated to shoulder, and to rest once the claimant has satisfied his burden of proof to a reasonable standard.  Going beyond this leads to an unjustified shifting of the burden of proof in the direction of the skeptic and is unacceptable.  I can see several likely scenarios that might invite this.  First, if the claimant believes the skeptic has a larger burden of proof than the skeptic has accepted.  This is quite common in religious debates, leading to formations like the " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" trope.  Another common scenario is when the claimant believes that their share of the burden of proof is less than it reasonably should be.  And finally, often the claimant may feel that the skeptic is employing a standard regarding acceptance that is unreasonable and therefore inappropriately unyielding.  Many times unrecognized assumptions or biases in the claimant can lead to such disputations.

And then there is me, who realizes there is unnatural magic making you not accept and understanding and unable to shut of the uncleanness yelling to doubt God no matter how vivid and clear the proofs I present for Him are and how much they remind you.

And when I talk about magic, it's not that I expect you to believe in it, but in hopes you might one day see it and realize what it is.

And so, I know I will be mocked and despised for saying it, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make because perhaps someone will hear.

So then, you admit you're spamming the forum.

[Dānu]

I wanted to add one thing, not only is there no harm, you may have a lot fun challenging your mind, might even prevent Alzheimer for all you know if you challenge your mind with this process.  Also, read the Bible and do a comparison, of what Quran says is right in there and what is wrong in the Bible and for what reasons @Alan V.

You may be able to narrow it down to one religion even one creed that is possible in archetype form. Then maybe you will rethink the God question and give it a chance to guide you regarding that.

I gave up on Christianity when I was still a teenager, but it took me much longer to work my way through the Sufi interpretation of basic Islamic teachings, which I found compelling for so long.  In the end, there was no offered proof for basic assertions, even though all of the assertions made a nice, mutually-supporting story.

Which goes to show that just because something is attractive in whatever ways doesn't mean it's true.

Sufis are fools that jump to the sky only to come down feeling water that can't fill any foundational garden or building built, and aren't grounded to deal with reality and they really idolize their local leaders as well as past leaders neither of which do they have proof are authorities pertaining to spirituality or religion nor do they have proof they are spiritual heirs of the Prophet (s) like they affirm. What has Quran said about them for example? How has it refuted their structure?  What you said doesn't real address my suggestion. You are repeating that you weren't guided at a point and so have given up. I'm saying go again and again and again and keep researching. Go to China and seek knowledge there even if you have to. Might even learn magic powers for all you know. Keep searching.

At what point should one give up looking for Russell's teapot? Your answer here appears to be never, which would be absurd and a distinctly harmful and costly proposition, contrary to your claim otherwise.

[Link]

I think I understand you here and agree.  The only disagreement is with the "maybe."  The doubter's sole obligations are to satisfy any burden of proof which the skeptic himself is obligated to shoulder, and to rest once the claimant has satisfied his burden of proof to a reasonable standard.  Going beyond this leads to an unjustified shifting of the burden of proof in the direction of the skeptic and is unacceptable.  I can see several likely scenarios that might invite this.  First, if the claimant believes the skeptic has a larger burden of proof than the skeptic has accepted.  This is quite common in religious debates, leading to formations like the " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" trope.  Another common scenario is when the claimant believes that their share of the burden of proof is less than it reasonably should be.  And finally, often the claimant may feel that the skeptic is employing a standard regarding acceptance that is unreasonable and therefore inappropriately unyielding.  Many times unrecognized assumptions or biases in the claimant can lead to such disputations.

And then there is me, who realizes there is unnatural magic making you not accept and understanding and unable to shut of the uncleanness yelling to doubt God no matter how vivid and clear the proofs I present for Him are and how much they remind you.

And when I talk about magic, it's not that I expect you to believe in it, but in hopes you might one day see it and realize what it is.

And so, I know I will be mocked and despised for saying it, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make because perhaps someone will hear.

So then, you admit you're spamming the forum.

You guys spam the same Atheistic Mantras everywhere. I always try to bring something new or if I repeat something, I structure it different or add additional insight to it,  in hope you may benefit.

What do you do? What do you all do? 

You rinse and repeat insults, mantras you keep repeating to affirm your Atheism, but when do you actually engage in discussion, it's even worse. As when you do, you always try to misunderstand something, never try to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Either purposely misunderstanding or never trying hard enough to see what a person is saying.

You butcher speech that all humans know what it means, and you argue by falsehood you've created and relied on in your heads when the truth is presented to you.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Anyone without bias, will see, it's you guys that have the greatest zeal on a stance that is just suppose to be nothing (a withdrawal of affirming God exists).

And you would know this how exactly?  Your grasp of some of the most basic epistemological issues is frighteningly inept and naive.

Observation over the years, you guys are over-hostile for something to you is just a withdrawal of belief. This should awaken you that something else is going on in the inward of who you are.

No, asshole. We're hostile toward you because we're sick and fucking tired of you coming here to shove your shit in our faces. Really, it goes for any religious asshole who does the same thing. If you were to just put your feet up, relax, and quit trying to convert us, that hostility toward you would quickly go away.

[Link]

I gave up on Christianity when I was still a teenager, but it took me much longer to work my way through the Sufi interpretation of basic Islamic teachings, which I found compelling for so long.  In the end, there was no offered proof for basic assertions, even though all of the assertions made a nice, mutually-supporting story.

Which goes to show that just because something is attractive in whatever ways doesn't mean it's true.

Sufis are fools that jump to the sky only to come down feeling water that can't fill any foundational garden or building built, and aren't grounded to deal with reality and they really idolize their local leaders as well as past leaders neither of which do they have proof are authorities pertaining to spirituality or religion nor do they have proof they are spiritual heirs of the Prophet (s) like they affirm. What has Quran said about them for example? How has it refuted their structure?  What you said doesn't real address my suggestion. You are repeating that you weren't guided at a point and so have given up. I'm saying go again and again and again and keep researching. Go to China and seek knowledge there even if you have to. Might even learn magic powers for all you know. Keep searching.

At what point should one give up looking for Russell's teapot?  Your answer here appears to be never, which would be absurd and a distinctly harmful and costly proposition, contrary to your claim otherwise.

If Russel's teapot is by definition the most important thing you can know, than never. 

The thing is God by definition is a being that alone deserves that level of important and value giving that no one else deserves, such that if you give it to any on equal level to it, you've done a grave injustice to yourself, and to others, and you've chosen confusion and lost your way.

That and God would be a Guiding ally of humans who would guide us if we follow her guidance.

She is too beautiful to ignore, and his relevance too much to not strive for to who you are and who can be and not to mention our fates to come in the next life.

[Dānu]

The land before time lol, and world beyond north and south "there is no more north to north, but there is something required to beyond it to be a north or a south" to address Hawking analogy . That's what you got to focus on when it comes to cosmological argument. You are right, how Muslims argued with it, was wrong over the years. But there is a right way to prove it.

If you try to focus on only standard versions or presentations of arguments, yes, probably they will all be false haha. Also, it's not a fallacy of a whole to apply first cause to even a infinite chain (which makes it a paradox), but it's inductive reasoning that proves it has to come an end if non-time wise type causes.

Are you referring to mathematical induction, or an inductive argument by your term "inductive reasoning" here?

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Sufis are fools that jump to the sky only to come down feeling water that can't fill any foundational garden or building built, and aren't grounded to deal with reality and they really idolize their local leaders as well as past leaders neither of which do they have proof are authorities pertaining to spirituality or religion nor do they have proof they are spiritual heirs of the Prophet (s) like they affirm. What has Quran said about them for example? How has it refuted their structure?  What you said doesn't real address my suggestion. You are repeating that you weren't guided at a point and so have given up. I'm saying go again and again and again and keep researching. Go to China and seek knowledge there even if you have to. Might even learn magic powers for all you know. Keep searching.

At what point should one give up looking for Russell's teapot?  Your answer here appears to be never, which would be absurd and a distinctly harmful and costly proposition, contrary to your claim otherwise.

If Russel's teapot is by definition the most important thing you can know, than never. 

The thing is God by definition is a being that alone deserves that level of important and value giving that no one else deserves, such that if you give it to any on equal level to it, you've done a grave injustice to yourself, and to others, and you've chosen confusion and lost your way.

That and God would be a Guiding ally of humans who would guide us if we follow her guidance.

She is too beautiful to ignore, and his relevance too much to not strive for to who you are and who can be and not to mention our fates to come in the next life.

If religion is the single most important thing anyone can know, why do the gawds insist on sending ignorant assholes like you to spread their message? If you're the best they can do, they have nothing of importance to say to the world.

[jerry mcmasters]

And then there is me, who realizes there is unnatural magic making you not accept and understanding and unable to shut of the uncleanness yelling to doubt God no matter how vivid and clear the proofs I present for Him are and how much they remind you.

And when I talk about magic, it's not that I expect you to believe in it, but in hopes you might one day see it and realize what it is.

And so, I know I will be mocked and despised for saying it, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make because perhaps someone will hear.

So then, you admit you're spamming the forum.

You guys spam the same Atheistic Mantras everywhere. I always try to bring something new or if I repeat something, I structure it different or add additional insight to it,  in hope you may benefit.

What do you do? What do you all do? 

You rinse and repeat insults, mantras you keep repeating to affirm your Atheism, but when do you actually engage in discussion, it's even worse. As when you do, you always try to misunderstand something, never try to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Either purposely misunderstanding or never trying hard enough to see what a person is saying.

You butcher speech that all humans know what it means, and you argue by falsehood you've created and relied on in your heads when the truth is presented to you.

I give you the benefit of the doubt in that I think you honestly believe what you say and you think it's not nonsense.  Nonsense does deserve a bit of teasing, though.