Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Logic and Morality.
#1

Logic and Morality.
Logic is a tool of morality and morality is a tool of logic. They go together and the emotional and rational mind are meant to work in cohesion. Logic being a tool of morality is obvious but the other way is because desires is what lead people to disbelieve in proofs when they are firm or rely on falsehood when they are conjecture. 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. And it must forbid desires from mixing falsehood and deceiving oneself with respect to this issue. And it must overwhelm despair with hope, and it must open up the vision of the mind to read and the eyes of the soul to reach and see. And it must not play probability of ignorance and make far truths just because they seem strange. All this disciplines of logic cannot be perfect without moral discipline, and if you strive for the truth, God will intervene and find a way for you and guide you on it.

The guidance of God is the guidance, all other "guidance" lead astray, and so you can continue to put tapes on the mouths of God's chosen guides and not unveil the holy wonders in his books due to ignorance you rely on from humans not appointed by God or you can give God a chance.

The methodology of giving God a chance, I've done it. Years I didn't believe in religion, but kept researching. And at point of my life (near the end converting back) I would wake up believing and sleep disbelieving because of the intellectual war between proofs and conjecture, truth and falsehood in my heart, light and darkness, arguments and counter arguments to counter arguments to counter arguments.

I was tired of it and wish I didn't care about it, but, I knew if the treasure (just a little bit of what if it's true was the start) is there, and guidance of God is there, it would be worthy to pay attention to it.

The Quran is a cure for Atheism, Disbelief in Messengers (Deism), Polytheism, Hypocrisy, and every type of harmful sorcery to the soul can be cured by it.

Of course, testifying to it now doesn't prove it. And translations make this an overwhelming task where those who convert go further astray in misguidance and sectarianism and negativity.

I am alone with no one to find on my path. But I don't care. I will fight for my soul and when defeated rise up, because I choose to over and over again to win my soul back.

We can lose some battles, but lose too many, and ignore the war, and you will lose the war.  We must on all conditions not lose the war.
Reply
#2

Logic and Morality.
Son, seek help. Professional, medical help. You are not well and you are not gonna get better here. You're only making things worse for your brain and mental well-being.
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 1 user Likes Vera's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#3

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 10:45 PM)Vera Wrote: Son, seek help. Professional, medical help. You are not well and you are not gonna get better here. You're only making things worse for your brain and mental well-being.

On the contrary, I am walking towards the safe house and stronghold which will cure my illness forever.
Reply
#4

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 10:50 PM)Link Wrote: On the contrary, I am walking towards the safe house and stronghold which will cure my illness forever.

Then why are you here?
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
Reply
#5

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 10:55 PM)Vera Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 10:50 PM)Link Wrote: On the contrary, I am walking towards the safe house and stronghold which will cure my illness forever.

Then why are you here?

You mean for 10 minutes now? To share insights is why.
Reply
#6

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 10:56 PM)Link Wrote: You mean for 10 minutes now? To share insights is why.

In which *no one* is interested and that you will be ridiculed for (and rightly so)? Again, why?
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 1 user Likes Vera's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#7

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 10:59 PM)Vera Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 10:56 PM)Link Wrote: You mean for 10 minutes now? To share insights is why.

In which *no one* is interested and that you will be ridiculed for (and rightly so)? Again, why?

It's a sacrifice I don't mind.  Someone (even if low chance) may wake up and benefit from it.
Reply
#8

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:01 PM)Link Wrote: It's a sacrifice I don't mind.  Someone (even if low chance) may wake up and benefit from it.

We, however mind. A lot. Do you go into other people's houses and start blaterhing about the things that you want to talk about and in which they have no interest.

I felt sorry for you. Now I'm telling you to stop spamming the place with your inane drivel.

And to seek help.
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 2 users Like Vera's post:
  • SYZ, epronovost
Reply
#9

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:05 PM)Vera Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:01 PM)Link Wrote: It's a sacrifice I don't mind.  Someone (even if low chance) may wake up and benefit from it.

We, however mind. A lot. Do you go into other people's houses and start blaterhing about the things that you want to talk about and in which they have no interest.

I felt sorry for you. Now I'm telling you to stop spamming the place with your inane drivel.

And to seek help.


The analogy fails, because this a forum, where discussing exactly the issue of Atheism and it's opposite is welcomed and the central purpose of it. It's in the statement of purpose, a dialogue regarding this.

If you believe in burden of proof, then you have a burden to listen.

We've seen it repeated Atheism is not a choice. I've shown some perception, that indirectly, will and choice can play the role in this outcome. No one can choose to freely believe or disbelieve in something, but how we approach morality and logic, will determine how much truth we follow and with regards to this, this topic is on point.
Reply
#10

Logic and Morality.
So, you were lying during your last appearance here ? We know you're not interested in "dialogue". So YOUR statement of purpose fails. You have a past here. We know what it is.

Which system of logic are you talking about ?
How did you decide the system you chose was the one applicable to your discussions, and what is the name of your logical system ?
Why did you rule out all the others, and what exactly was the basis for the rule out decision for each of the systems you ruled out ?

Quote:Logic is a tool of morality and morality is a tool of logic. They go together and the emotional and rational mind are meant to work in cohesion.

... is merely an unsupported assertion. As such, it is worthless and dismissed.
You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • julep
Reply
#11

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, you were lying during your last appearance here ?

Which system of logic are you talking about ?
How did you decide the system you chose was the one applicable to your discussions, and what is the name of your logical system ?  
Why did you rule out all the others, and what exactly was the basis for the rule out decision for each of the systems you ruled out ?

Relevance?
Reply
#12

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:33 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, you were lying during your last appearance here ?

Which system of logic are you talking about ?
How did you decide the system you chose was the one applicable to your discussions, and what is the name of your logical system ?  
Why did you rule out all the others, and what exactly was the basis for the rule out decision for each of the systems you ruled out ?

Relevance?


The relevance is that your premise is both false and undefined, thus is meaningless without specifics.
You ignorantly invoked "logic", yet we now see you are not even competent to begin to discuss it.

You also FAILED to answer the question about your previous thread.
Reply
#13

Logic and Morality.
Quote:... is merely an unsupported assertion. As such, it is worthless and dismissed.
You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that.

Except I supported it. For example, a good rule for doubt, is to know when to stop doubting. If you don't, you doubt when you should and when you shouldn't.  But without moral control, you neither notice nor care, as a result, truths that should be accepted are mixed with things that should be doubted. And when you take leaps of faith in probability based on authority, it's just a giant gamble you don't know at the end.  If you are seeking certainty, you must only makes use of what you know for certain, not make use of probable truths based on authority. But if the soul doesn't want to strive and is lazy, will constantly avoid this task.

This enough to show, moral discipline where you strive to gain mentality clarity with knowledge can determine the outcome of this issue.

Free-will factors in. Apathy is also a choice. With apathy, we can be hasty with arguments and not pay attention nor properly reflect over them because we simply decided not to care. That's fine with things we don't need to know about but is this one of those things.  

At the end, so much factors in from morality with respect to this. Do we deny factors and don't consider them like magic just because they seem strange or outdated? That's a choice.

If we care to arrive at truth, we should pay attention not only to logic rules, but how we go about applying them.  Consistency itself with logical rules won't happen without moral discipline.
Reply
#14

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:33 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, you were lying during your last appearance here ?

Which system of logic are you talking about ?
How did you decide the system you chose was the one applicable to your discussions, and what is the name of your logical system ?  
Why did you rule out all the others, and what exactly was the basis for the rule out decision for each of the systems you ruled out ?

Relevance?


The relevance is that your premise is both false and undefined, thus is meaningless without specifics.
You ignorantly invoked "logic", yet we now see you are not even competent to begin to discuss it.

You also FAILED to answer the question about your previous thread.

Defining every word in details is not required.  You can use context and a dictionary if you have trouble.
Reply
#15

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:46 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:33 PM)Link Wrote: Relevance?


The relevance is that your premise is both false and undefined, thus is meaningless without specifics.
You ignorantly invoked "logic", yet we now see you are not even competent to begin to discuss it.

You also FAILED to answer the question about your previous thread.

Defining every word in details is not required.  You can use context and a dictionary if you have trouble.

You can spare me, (and us) your fucking sermons.
Fail yet again. YOU started with as assertion, which you STILL have not supported. 
All your conclusions are assumed, (thus actually illogical). You failed to name the system you're using. There are many ... obviously you know nothing about that. The height of incompetence. You assume "morality" which you fail to define and name, and you FAIL to say how you arrived at YOUR definition of morality. (I thought you said once you studied Ethics. Obviously that was not true). In short, you're not up to this, and you are not prepared to discuss this. 

As Vera said, (and you have been told many times), get help.
Reply
#16

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:46 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The relevance is that your premise is both false and undefined, thus is meaningless without specifics.
You ignorantly invoked "logic", yet we now see you are not even competent to begin to discuss it.

You also FAILED to answer the question about your previous thread.

Defining every word in details is not required.  You can use context and a dictionary if you have trouble.

Fail yet again. YOU started with as assertion, which you STILL have not supported. 
All your conclusions are assumed, (thus actually illogical). You failed to name the system you're using. There are many ... obviously you know nothing about that. The height of incompetence. You assume "morality" which you fail to define and name, and you FAIL to say how you arrived at YOUR definition of morality. (I thought you said once you studied Ethics. Obviously that was not true. In short, you're not up to this, and you are not prepared to discuss this. 

As Vera said, (and you have been told many times), get help.

Doesn't matter, I am working with common ground understanding of  logic and morality. We don't have to agree on all the details for this argument to work.
Reply
#17

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:54 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:46 PM)Link Wrote: Defining every word in details is not required.  You can use context and a dictionary if you have trouble.

Fail yet again. YOU started with as assertion, which you STILL have not supported. 
All your conclusions are assumed, (thus actually illogical). You failed to name the system you're using. There are many ... obviously you know nothing about that. The height of incompetence. You assume "morality" which you fail to define and name, and you FAIL to say how you arrived at YOUR definition of morality. (I thought you said once you studied Ethics. Obviously that was not true. In short, you're not up to this, and you are not prepared to discuss this. 

As Vera said, (and you have been told many times), get help.

Doesn't matter, I am working with common ground understanding of  logic and morality. We don't have to agree on all the details for this argument to work.

There is no such thing as "common ground" anything ... obviously you are an ignoramus operating WAY over your head. 
Where did you get this "common ground" understanding ? Where is you evidence it's "common ground" ? 
You have none. You want to shove your preconceptions down our throats. Not gonna work Link. 
You're always failed here. You just did again.
If you had actually taken Ethics, you would know there is no one moral system for everyone.

The thing is Link, we're on to your game. You come here when you want attention.
You're attention seeking. You need attention.
Try getting a dog.
Reply
#18

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:54 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Fail yet again. YOU started with as assertion, which you STILL have not supported. 
All your conclusions are assumed, (thus actually illogical). You failed to name the system you're using. There are many ... obviously you know nothing about that. The height of incompetence. You assume "morality" which you fail to define and name, and you FAIL to say how you arrived at YOUR definition of morality. (I thought you said once you studied Ethics. Obviously that was not true. In short, you're not up to this, and you are not prepared to discuss this. 

As Vera said, (and you have been told many times), get help.

Doesn't matter, I am working with common ground understanding of  logic and morality. We don't have to agree on all the details for this argument to work.

There is no such thing as "common ground" anything ... obviously you are an ignoramus operating WAY over your head. 
Where did you get this "common ground" understanding ? Where is you evidence it's "common ground" ? 
You have none. You want to shove your preconceptions down our throats. Not gonna work Link. 
You're always failed here. You just did again.

Go study or talk to someone who studied or you yourself read something about linguistics. I can't help you here, because you are making up your own rules.
Reply
#19

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 12:00 AM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:54 PM)Link Wrote: Doesn't matter, I am working with common ground understanding of  logic and morality. We don't have to agree on all the details for this argument to work.

There is no such thing as "common ground" anything ... obviously you are an ignoramus operating WAY over your head. 
Where did you get this "common ground" understanding ? Where is you evidence it's "common ground" ? 
You have none. You want to shove your preconceptions down our throats. Not gonna work Link. 
You're always failed here. You just did again.

Go study or talk to someone who studied or you yourself read something about linguistics. I can't help you here, because you are making up your own rules.

Nice try. Were're not talking about linguistics. Fail again. 
I simply asked you to define the terms in YOUR premise. 
The fact you can't proves my point. 
You're not up to this. 

Go spam some other forum. 
Take your god(s) and shove them up your ass.
Reply
#20

Logic and Morality.
Link, why do you think a god, your god, is the source of morality and/or truth?

How does moral control effect doubt? 

You said don't use truths based on authority, yet you say seek and follow god as an authority.

What does magic have in common with logic and morality?

How does "moral" discipline effect logic or consistency??

These are just a few examples of your thought disorder making connections that you think are rational, but are not. At least I don't find these rational and apparently others here don't either.

But then the ability to recognize what others consider rational and irrational is also part of your disorder. It's why arguing with you rarely helps.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#21

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 11:07 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:05 PM)Vera Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:01 PM)Link Wrote: It's a sacrifice I don't mind.  Someone (even if low chance) may wake up and benefit from it.

We, however mind. A lot. Do you go into other people's houses and start blaterhing about the things that you want to talk about and in which they have no interest.

I felt sorry for you. Now I'm telling you to stop spamming the place with your inane drivel.

And to seek help.


The analogy fails, because this a forum, where discussing exactly the issue of Atheism and it's opposite is welcomed and the central purpose of it.  It's in the statement of purpose, a dialogue regarding this.

If you believe in burden of proof, then you have a burden to listen.

We've seen it repeated Atheism is not a choice.  I've shown some perception, that indirectly, will and choice can play the role in this outcome. No one can choose to freely believe or disbelieve in something, but how we approach morality and logic, will determine how much truth we follow and with regards to this,  this topic is on point.

Oh, please.  Just get some help.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#22

Logic and Morality.
You said you weren't going to do this anymore.  

You seem extremely troubled, and I wish you would seek professional medical/psychological help instead of spamming this forum.
god, ugh
The following 1 user Likes julep's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#23

Logic and Morality.
Quote:Logic is a tool of morality and morality is a tool of logic. They go together and the emotional and rational mind are meant to work in cohesion.

BTW, we know that's not true. 
The rational and emotional centers in the brain are in different places and respond to different inputs. 
Sometimes they work together, sometimes they don't ... as they evolved to function. 

There are as many moral systems as there are humans alive. Everyone has their own set of values.
Reply
#24

Logic and Morality.
Quote:Wikipedia

Occasionalism is a philosophical theory about causation which says that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead, all events are taken to be caused directly by God. (A related theory, which has been called "occasional causation", also denies a link of efficient causation between mundane events, but may differ as to the identity of the true cause that replaces them.) The theory states that the illusion of efficient causation between mundane events arises out of God's causing of one event after another. However, there is no necessary connection between the two: it is not that the first event causes God to cause the second event: rather, God first causes one and then causes the other.

The doctrine first reached prominence in the Islamic theological schools of Iraq, especially in Basra. The ninth century theologian Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari argued that there is no Secondary Causation in the created order. The world is sustained and governed through direct intervention of a divine primary causation. As such the world is in a constant state of recreation by God.

The most famous proponent of the Asharite occasionalist doctrine was Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, an 11th-century theologian based in Baghdad. In The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al-Ghazali launched a philosophical critique against Neoplatonic-influenced early Islamic philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina. In response to the philosophers' claim that the created order is governed by secondary efficient causes (God being, as it were, the Primary and Final Cause in an ontological and logical sense), Ghazali argues that what we observe as regularity in nature based presumably upon some natural law is actually a kind of constant and continual regularity. There is no independent necessitation of change and becoming, other than what God has ordained. To posit an independent causality outside of God's knowledge and action is to deprive Him of true agency, and diminish his attribute of power. In his famous example, when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned not because of the heat of the fire, but through God's direct intervention, a claim which he defended using logic. In the 12th century, this theory was defended and further strengthened by the Islamic theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, using his expertise in the natural sciences of astronomy, cosmology and physics.

Because God is usually seen as rational, rather than arbitrary, his behaviour in normally causing events in the same sequence (i.e., what appears to us to be efficient causation) can be understood as a natural outworking of that principle of reason, which we then describe as the laws of nature. Properly speaking, however, these are not laws of nature but laws by which God chooses to govern his own behaviour (his autonomy, in the strict sense) — in other words, his rational will. This is not, however, an essential element of an occasionalist account, and occasionalism can include positions where God's behaviour (and thus that of the world) is viewed as ultimately inscrutable, thus maintaining God's essential transcendence. On this understanding, apparent anomalies such as miracles are not really such: they are simply God behaving in a way that appears unusual to us. Given his transcendent freedom, he is not bound even by his own nature. Miracles, as breaks in the rational structure of the universe, can occur, since God's relationship with the world is not mediated by rational principles.

In other words, according to the most influential authorities of Islam, God does not have to be rational, even if he usually is. I would assume that means you can't use logic to understand either God or the morality he supposedly commands.
Reply
#25

Logic and Morality.
"The cheese has slid off his cracker."
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)