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.
#26

Logic and Morality.
He's not spamming the forum so I say go for it Link, you be you bro. The truth of the Quran, little green men from Mars, Zeus, voodoo, whatever, you sell that shit man. Don't let anybody tell you your belief in your particular supernatural magic super sky man is bullshit, because it totally is not, and you can demonstrate that to us in a way that literally no one has been able to since the Enlightenment starting now, with your next post:
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#27

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 03:01 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: He's not spamming the forum so I say go for it Link, you be you bro.  The truth of the Quran, little green men from Mars, Zeus, voodoo, whatever, you sell that shit man.  Don't let anybody tell you your belief in your particular supernatural magic super sky man is bullshit, because it totally is not, and you can demonstrate that to us in a way that literally no one has been able to since the Enlightenment starting now, with your next post:

Link doesn't understand that "seek and you will find" often boils down to confirmation bias, since people can learn to rationalize almost anything.

So no, we don't have to prove to ourselves that God exists by reading the Quran or whatever.  The burden of proof resides with believers, and they aren't up to the task.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#28

Logic and Morality.
Again, I'm seeing a lot of problems with basic communication here, but it's not QUITE as bad as in the other thread, so I'll take a stab at translating it.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: 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.


Okay, so I think I understand this, even if it's phrased poorly.  Logic has a moral element -- what I would refer to as intellectual integrity -- that requires us to sometimes do the tough thing and follow the evidence rather than simply prefer what we wish were true.  Agreed.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: 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.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: And it must forbid desires from mixing falsehood and deceiving oneself with respect to this issue.


Wishful thinking is a bad basis for beliefs?  Agreed.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: And it must overwhelm despair with hope,


Wait, didn't we just say that wishful thinking is bad?  Sometimes the facts point to despair.  It's not pleasant, but forbid desires from mixing falsehoods etc etc etc

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: and it must open up the vision of the mind to read and the eyes of the soul to reach and see.


Now we're just into fluffy vague poetry country.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: And it must not play probability of ignorance and make far truths just because they seem strange.


No dismissing Quantum Mechanics because it's weird.  Got it.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: All this disciplines of logic cannot be perfect without moral discipline,


Back onto the subject of intellectual integrity.  Good stuff.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: and if you strive for the truth, God will intervene and find a way for you and guide you on it.

Aaaaaand the whole thing crashes and burns in a huge fiery wreck of baseless assertion.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: 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.


I'm already giving God a chance.  God knows my phone number, God knows the pass code I'm thinking of, God knows how to make my phone display that really weird character in that pass code that the phone can't normally display, and any text that begins with that pass phrase I will accept as being of extraordinary origin.  Still waiting.  Ball's in God's court.

As far as humans appointed by God versus not appointed by God?  Well there's the huge, huge task of sorting out the false prophets from the true.  There are millions upon millions of false ones, as can be determined by the way they keep contradicting one another.  So far, none confirmed as true.  This disparity requires us to embrace a hefty amount of skepticism whenever a particular individual is proposed to us as a true prophet, since 999 times out of 1000 (at least) the prophet being waved in our face is a false one.  Following false prophets is bad, right?  We therefore need a mechanism to filter out the false prophets.  Hence the phone thing.  That's not a challenge that false prophets, or those they have deceived, are capable of meeting.  It should sort out the false prophets from any true ones quite nicely.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: The methodology of giving God a chance, I've done it.


... so if one first believes, one will come to believe.  Got it.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: 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.


You converted.  Already knew that.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: The Quran is a cure for Atheism, Disbelief in Messengers (Deism), Polytheism,


Believe in the Quran, and you'll believe a god exists and has a messenger and it's a monotheistic god, because that's what the book says and you've started believing the book.  Makes sense.  ... why would I believe that, again?

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: Hypocrisy


.... since when does the Quran cure hypocrisy?  This is new.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: and every type of harmful sorcery to the soul can be cured by it.


Sorcery.

....

SORCERY.

....

SORCERY?

....

Yeah, okay, I'll get right on protecting myself from sorcery.  But not with the Quran.  I've got a magic sorcerer-repelling rock that I'm going to try out first.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: Of course, testifying to it now doesn't prove it.


It most certainly does not.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: 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.


I'd be more sympathetic regarding your angst if it weren't so crassly performative.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
The following 1 user Likes Reltzik's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#29

Logic and Morality.
People like Link never go away, but never quite show up either.

(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: The Quran is a cure for Atheism....

I read and tried to make sense of the Quran several times long before I gave any consideration to atheism (which isn't capitalized, by the way).  So no, the Quran doesn't "cure" atheism, as if it was a disease (which it isn't, by the way).

My logic tells me Link is immoral.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • jerry mcmasters, Dānu
Reply
#30

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 12:50 PM)Alan V Wrote: People like Link never go away, but never quite show up either.

Lolz that made my morning.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#31

Logic and Morality.
I don't need to do a deep reading of anything that a modest survey reveals is deeply flawed. The onus and obligation then moves to the advocate. "Just try it, you'll like it" is no longer valid at that point.
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#32

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 01:39 PM)Dānu Wrote: I don't need to do a deep reading of anything that a modest survey reveals is deeply flawed.  The onus and obligation then moves to the advocate.  "Just try it, you'll like it" is no longer valid at that point.

The first time I tried to read the Quran, I got part way through then chucked it in the garbage.

Years later I thought I had been prejudiced, so I tried to read it more sympathetically, from a better-informed cultural perspective.  Unfortunately, the apologetics I had been reading turned out to be highly misleading.
Reply
#33

Logic and Morality.
The Bible very literally gives me a headache. Not sure what the Quran would do.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
-Carl Sagan

"The best counter to extremist speech is not censorship. The best counter is more speech." -Thumpalumpacus
The following 1 user Likes c172's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#34

Logic and Morality.
(06-03-2020, 10:40 PM)Link Wrote: The Quran is a cure for Atheism....

It's actually quite exactly the opposite. 
One can trace many of the elements, references and concepts to pre-existing Arabic cultural elements. 
It's not "original" in any way. Study it, and there is no way one can take it seriously as a "revealed" text. 

"Sometimes it is revealed like the ringing of a bell. This form of inspiration is the hardest of them all and then it passes off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says."


LOL
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#35

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 12:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Go spam some other forum. 
Take your god(s) and shove them up your ass.

Agree totally.  Link is obviously an intellectually challenged, delusional individual simply trying to
infect this forum with his belligerent, dogmatic Islamic bullshit.  Spamming is too polite a word for
the deliberately inflammatory crap he posts.  He's a cunt of the first order.

And this is the religion he follows.....

[Image: 97c7154d9f8b47563624efb5b7f2c257--koran-sharia-law.jpg]
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#36

Logic and Morality.
Link, your troubled mind has manifested itself as religious zealotry.   You need psychological guidance.
                                                         T4618
The following 1 user Likes Dancefortwo's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#37

Logic and Morality.
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.

I find probably Atheists can't understand the arguments in Quran for God, hell, heaven, the purpose of life, why send Prophets, why send Messengers, why appoint Kings etc, because they feel it's not proving them but just asserting them and doesn't address the doubt of disbelievers.

What you said about fake Prophets is important, but fake Prophets don't come in a vacuum, a lot of what they say has to make sense to attract believers, but the key thing is when you get rid of falsehood. This is why I started with the notion, build on certainty only.

I've made threads about approach things beyond a->b->c, with the starting point of having only to research when God is known to exist otherwise ignore all religious writing.

Take the religion of Bahaism. I don't believe it. But I know almost of what they say is true. But they never prove their religion, but yes, most of what they say spiritually is proven to be true aside from their interpretation of day of judgment or predictions of Baha'allah and also their texts takes spirituality and makes it boring to me. But what they state is of course true and they prove a lot of what they say in form of morals. He is a fake Prophet but even can learn truths from fake Prophets.

The same is true of Ahmadism, a lot of how they reinterpret Quran is very good, it's a better interpretation that what all sects have about key verses. For example, their explanation of a woman and the 2nd witness thing is the best.  They don't say it requires, just that woman make better use of a 2nd witness, and that it's not universal to all situations as Muslims applied it to almost all situations where a witness is called. It was a particular issue which a woman due to how their brains work benefit from a witness while a man doesn't, because, their brain organizes in boxes while a woman remembers through association. In any case, a man can also do this, it would suggest for a woman because they can make better use of it. So both allowed to bring a 2nd witness. I find this interpretation most rational. Why would a woman be a half a witness of a man?

It's a better interpretation. Quranists of course also right about a lot things about Quran but not everything.

So there is no need to pick a group or sect. You can study from all people.

And Quran when you come with no attachments to a sect, is much easier to understand. Also someone mentioned they weren't guided by Quran. The Quran has a verse about this, and in that verse it says "and if they aren't guided by it, they deny it and say these are only stories of the ancients".  My question to Alan V, can you interpret the Quran putting aside the God existence question, just put all it's argument for that on hold, but regarding it's stories, to be a lesson we can gain from it and see the potential warnings in philosophical way, see a way of God if he exists. If you can do this, you are on way to discovering the dark sorcery that surrounds the hearts already, which will make you well under way to noticing something supernatural about how people approach the Quran.

I guarantee reflecting on Quran, you lose nothing, at most, you gain skills in analytical and philosophical insights. There is no harm. 

You are afraid of it or despair of it guiding or don't want to reflect over it, what has the Quran said is the reason for this? Don't have to accept it, just see the reasoning an philosophical way and reflect over the case it makes.

Alan V make a thread about your reflections and I will help facilitate your concerns if you have any.

Also, edge cases are important, but they shouldn't draw you away from the main heart of a religion and most of the book.  Edge cases often are a way to dismiss a religion but often they are easily solved if you go deeper into the issue. For example, an edge case is "slavery is allowed in Quran", reality I discovered, those verses are about a relationship allowed between a man and woman that is not marriage, but has conditions to take care of children and conditions to make sure to know the father, and it's known as Muta. It's not advised except for certain people in a certain condition while patience is emphasized to be better. It's these that are the 2nd form of "who are oaths give reign over (as far as sex is concerned)" but it's seen as slaves and oaths been translated to "right hand" which is an odd way to translate it.

This is just one edge case.  But you can't just focus on edge cases.  You have to see the heart of the book which is about the family of Mohammad and their authority and the way they manifest God and his oneness and connect us to the Necessary Eternal being in every moment and in every second, to the extent they are part of our inner world just as Satan and his forces are part of it as far as evil is concerned.

Of course, not telling you to believe in the hidden world, just reflect over the case Quran is trying to make and see beyond stories, and see the argument it is making. For example, if you can disprove Deism through it's arguments then questions becomes God or Religion one or the other, and Deism is out of the question.

If you can disprove false religions structure wise,  you can narrow it down to a few or one religion, and it will be that or Atheism.

This is not impossible. I get it, it's hard. But it might be worth it.  There is no harm in trying.
Reply
#38

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 08:06 PM)Link Wrote: 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.

I find probably Atheists can't understand the arguments in Quran for God, hell, heaven, the purpose of life, why send Prophets, why send Messengers, why appoint Kings etc, because they feel it's not proving them but just asserting them and doesn't address the doubt of disbelievers.

What you said about fake Prophets is important, but fake Prophets don't come in a vacuum, a lot of what they say has to make sense to attract believers, but the key thing is when you get rid of falsehood. This is why I started with the notion, build on certainty only.

I've made threads about approach things beyond a->b->c, with the starting point of having only to research when God is known to exist otherwise ignore all religious writing.

Take the religion of Bahaism. I don't believe it. But I know almost of what they say is true. But they never prove their religion, but yes, most of what they say spiritually is proven to be true aside from their interpretation of day of judgment or predictions of Baha'allah and also their texts takes spirituality and makes it boring to me. But what they state is of course true and they prove a lot of what they say in form of morals. He is a fake Prophet but even can learn truths from fake Prophets.

The same is true of Ahmadism, a lot of how they reinterpret Quran is very good, it's a better interpretation that what all sects have about key verses. For example, their explanation of a woman and the 2nd witness thing is the best.  They don't say it requires, just that woman make better use of a 2nd witness, and that it's not universal to all situations as Muslims applied it to almost all situations where a witness is called. It was a particular issue which a woman due to how their brains work benefit from a witness while a man doesn't, because, their brain organizes in boxes while a woman remembers through association. In any case, a man can also do this, it would suggest for a woman because they can make better use of it. So both allowed to bring a 2nd witness. I find this interpretation most rational. Why would a woman be a half a witness of a man?

It's a better interpretation. Quranists of course also right about a lot things about Quran but not everything.

So there is no need to pick a group or sect. You can study from all people.

And Quran when you come with no attachments to a sect, is much easier to understand. Also someone mentioned they weren't guided by Quran. The Quran has a verse about this, and in that verse it says "and if they aren't guided by it, they deny it and say these are only stories of the ancients".  My question to Alan V, can you interpret the Quran putting aside the God existence question, just put all it's argument for that on hold, but regarding it's stories, to be a lesson we can gain from it and see the potential warnings in philosophical way, see a way of God if he exists. If you can do this, you are on way to discovering the dark sorcery that surrounds the hearts already, which will make you well under way to noticing something supernatural about how people approach the Quran.

I guarantee reflecting on Quran, you lose nothing, at most, you gain skills in analytical and philosophical insights. There is no harm. 

You are afraid of it or despair of it guiding or don't want to reflect over it, what has the Quran said is the reason for this? Don't have to accept it, just see the reasoning an philosophical way and reflect over the case it makes.

@Alan V make a thread about your reflections and I will help facilitate your concerns if you have any.

Also, edge cases are important, but they shouldn't draw you away from the main heart of a religion and most of the book.  Edge cases often are a way to dismiss a religion but often they are easily solved if you go deeper into the issue. For example, an edge case is "slavery is allowed in Quran", reality I discovered, those verses are about a relationship allowed between a man and woman that is not marriage, but has conditions to take care of children and conditions to make sure to know the father, and it's known as Muta. It's not advised except for certain people in a certain condition while patience is emphasized to be better. It's these that are the 2nd form of "who are oaths give reign over (as far as sex is concerned)" but it's seen as slaves and oaths been translated to "right hand" which is an odd way to translate it.

This is just one edge case.  But you can't just focus on edge cases.  You have to see the heart of the book which is about the family of Mohammad and their authority and the way they manifest God and his oneness and connect us to the Necessary Eternal being in every moment and in every second, to the extent they are part of our inner world just as Satan and his forces are part of it as far as evil is concerned.

Of course, not telling you to believe in the hidden world, just reflect over the case Quran is trying to make and see beyond stories, and see the argument it is making. For example, if you can disprove Deism through it's arguments then questions becomes God or Religion one or the other, and Deism is out of the question.

If you can disprove false religions structure wise,  you can narrow it down to a few or one religion, and it will be that or Atheism.

This is not impossible. I get it, it's hard. But it might be worth it.  There is no harm in trying.

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.
Reply
#39

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 03:17 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: 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).
Reply
#40

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 09:59 AM)Alan V Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 03:01 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: He's not spamming the forum so I say go for it Link, you be you bro.  The truth of the Quran, little green men from Mars, Zeus, voodoo, whatever, you sell that shit man.  Don't let anybody tell you your belief in your particular supernatural magic super sky man is bullshit, because it totally is not, and you can demonstrate that to us in a way that literally no one has been able to since the Enlightenment starting now, with your next post:

Link doesn't understand that "seek and you will find" often boils down to confirmation bias, since people can learn to rationalize almost anything.

So no, we don't have to prove to ourselves that God exists by reading the Quran or whatever.  The burden of proof resides with believers, and they aren't up to the task.

People can rationalize almost anything even disbelieving what has been proven to them beyond doubt though for different reasons hold on to doubt.  This is why my thread is about the link between morality and logic, and where they intertwine in destiny of each other.
Reply
#41

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 08:31 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 09:59 AM)Alan V Wrote: Link doesn't understand that "seek and you will find" often boils down to confirmation bias, since people can learn to rationalize almost anything.

So no, we don't have to prove to ourselves that God exists by reading the Quran or whatever.  The burden of proof resides with believers, and they aren't up to the task.

People can rationalize almost anything even disbelieving what has been proven to them beyond doubt though for different reasons hold on to doubt.  This is why my thread is about the link between morality and logic, and where they intertwine in destiny of each other.

Oh, I do understand that truth exists -- facts, objective reality, or whatever.  I just don't believe reality has all the attributes of God, and especially not consciousness and willfulness.  That being the case, there is no reason to refer to truth as "God," and it would be more than confusing to do so.  So we disagree about what is true.

From my point of view, morality depends on what is true.  But I can see why you find this confusing since you think truth equals God.

As for my reflections, this sums up many of them: Standard Arguments.
Reply
#42

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 08:10 PM)Link Wrote: 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.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#43

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 08:48 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 08:10 PM)Link Wrote: 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.
Reply
#44

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 08:43 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 08:31 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-04-2020, 09:59 AM)Alan V Wrote: Link doesn't understand that "seek and you will find" often boils down to confirmation bias, since people can learn to rationalize almost anything.

So no, we don't have to prove to ourselves that God exists by reading the Quran or whatever.  The burden of proof resides with believers, and they aren't up to the task.

People can rationalize almost anything even disbelieving what has been proven to them beyond doubt though for different reasons hold on to doubt.  This is why my thread is about the link between morality and logic, and where they intertwine in destiny of each other.

Oh, I do understand that truth exists -- facts, objective reality, or whatever.  I just don't believe reality has all the attributes of God, and especially not consciousness and willfulness.  That being the case, there is no reason to refer to truth as "God," and it would be more than confusing to do so.  So we disagree about what is true.

From my point of view, morality depends on what is true.  But I can see why you find this confusing since you think truth equals God.

As for my reflections, this sums up many of them: Standard Arguments.

I will check out your thread later or tomorrow.
Reply
#45

Logic and Morality.
I looked at your analysis of the Ontological argument. It's shown you've thought about it from the lenses of Academics and to me it's a false way to see it. I have a different analysis of what both Descartes and Anselm said.

The predicate thing, is at most if true, a red herring, and if false, a whole of talking about nothing. It doesn't address the meditation at all.
Reply
#46

Logic and Morality.
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.
Reply
#47

Logic and Morality.
You've misunderstood the teleological argument, but anyways I don't like this argument much because it's just appeals to absurdity of luck so makes a probable case for God but not a certainty even if the argument is true. The argument is of course true and can be tweaked with other arguments but like I said it just proves God is more likely to exist then not. The general way to refute it is multiverse giving rise to such conditions eventually, but there is refutation of that, that if you give infinite time to any of the universes they all eventually come to a stand still. I've seen a lot of books argue this but to be honest, I don't understand the science and physics. So I shy away from this argument. But you misunderstood it for sure.

Also it doesn't prove likelihood "God" but a Creator concept thing, so I don't like as much for this reason as well. And it's the same reason you don't find mean caring too much about the cosmological argument because polytheism and all sorts of false notions of God work with it.
Reply
#48

Logic and Morality.
Theodicy, you analyzed some but have not analyzed my theodicy haha. We will make a thread about it!
Reply
#49

Logic and Morality.
(06-04-2020, 12:37 AM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:07 PM)Link Wrote:
(06-03-2020, 11:05 PM)Vera Wrote: 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.

He'll go for help, alright. Problem is, he'll go to a mosque seeking mental help. Further problem, he'll get it (or so they will claim).

@Link, I'm done being concerned with you or what happens to you. I've become so sick and tired of your constant, repeated bullshitting, spamming, and lying that I just want you to go the fuck away, as you've promised to, repeatedly. You're preaching to us about your phony gawd and his pedo prophet (piss be upon him) has moved beyond tiresome, or irritating and right on to infuriating.

Get bent, asshole.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#50

Logic and Morality.
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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)