Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence? (OP)
Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
You need tools to prove something and mathematics is widely accepted as a tool to prove all kinds of things...
6 apples = 2 x 3 apples
Mathematical operations like addition, multiplications etc usually are dealing with numbers or variables representing the quantification of units.
The type of units can be all kind of things like hours in time, feet or meter in space, lbs or kg in weights etc.
Notice, the process of quantification involves taking measurements in finite. One minute = 60 seconds like a stop watch we chop it off the starting time to the end of time measurements.
The distance between LA to NY is x miles. In other words, the measurements in finite = the end point - starting point.
All kinds of things in reality can be measured in finite way and has to be measured this way.
What is reality? It's just an event that exists in the space-time dimension. Bill Clinton as a president was a reality (time ref.point= between period of 1992-2000; space ref. point= in US) while Bush is a son of a ....(well, that's arguable)...
But, It's not realistic to say Blair is the president of United States (since time and space ref.points= nada). In other words, Blair as the president of United States is an imaginary event.
'Things' in reality by its very nature is limited. The unlimited thing or infinite only exists in mathematical mind or mindscape or whatever you want to call it.
Since human part of 'Things in reality' the way our mind works is limited or finite hence our logic does not build too well to deal with infinity.
The problem arises when our finite mind try to deal with infinity. In early 1600s Galileo nicely asserted: "When we attempt, with our finite minds, to discuss the infinite, assigning to it those properties which we give to the finite and limited; but this I think is wrong, for we cannot speak of infinite quantities as being the one greater or less than or equal to another"
This assertion is supported by an example called Galileo's paradox:
1->1; 2->4; 3->9; 4->16; 5->25; 6->36...
The paradoxical situation arises because, on the one hand, it seems evident that most natural numbers are not perfect squares (2,4,9 etc); so that the set of perfect squares is smaller than the set of all natural numbers; but, on the other hand, since every natural number is the square root of exactly one perfect square, it would seem that there are just as many perfect squares as natural numbers.
Galileo said:"We can only infer that the totality of all numbers is infinite, and that the number of squares is infinite...;neither is the number of squares less than the totality of all numbers, nor the latter greater than the former; and finally, the attributes 'equal', 'greater', and 'less' are not applicable to infinite, but only to finite quantities."
Note, Galileo himself did not really know how to deal with this situation; this was to be the task of Georg Cantor, some 250 years later. In other words, infinite has a different set of rules, a different arithmetics from finite numbers.
Everyone who has ever survived a first year calculus course knows, the formula:
(f(x+dt) - f(x)/dt)
The quantity dt is called an infinitesimal, and obeys many strange rules. if dt is added to a regular number, then it can be ignored, treated like zero. But, on the other hand, dt is regarded as being different enough from zero to be usable as the denominator of a fraction. So is dt zero or not? Adding finitely many infinitesimals together just gives another infinitesimal. But adding infinitely many of them together can give either an ordinary number, or an infinitely large quantity.
Why mentions mathematical mumble-bable?
If atheist believes there is no God unless it's proven otherwise then atheist still leaves the possibility remains open for the existency of God... atheist asks for proof.
If the proof of God is something related to 'human senses' or 'Things' atheist can see, touch, smell, and hear...The thing is, the process of human senses by its nature is limited or finite process, hence the problem arises since God by characteristical definition CAN NOT be FINITE! God is characterized by the absence of limit or INFINITE!
Says who?
Plotinus was the first thinker after Plato to adopt the belief that God or the Absolutely One, it has never known measure and stands outside of number, and so is under no limit either in regard to anything external or internal; for any such determination would bring something of the dual into it.
St. Augustine who believed not only that God was infinite but also that God could think infinite thoughts.
and many others, but one of the best is:
Georg Cantor who created a theory of the actual infinite which by its apparent consistency said:
"The actual infinite arises in three context:
first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent other-worldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Abo****e;
second when it occurs in the contingent, created world;
third when the mind grasps it in abstracto as a mathematical magnitude, number or order type. I wish to make a sharp contrast between the Absolute and what I call the Transfinite, that is, the actual infinites of the last two sorts, which are clearly limited subject to further increase, and thus related to the finite"
Note: Cantor is one of the best infinite-mathematicians and he acknowledges the Absolute Infinite, if atheist knows better, try to have a theory that beats his...
To ask proof God existence based on direct empirical data (which is itself a result of finite measurement) is demanding to put infinite into rules of finite which only leads you to nowhere just like Galileo's paradox.
Based on direct empirical data, no human can prove God Existence but applying the same rule atheist also can not prove the inexistency of God either. Why not? because The Absolute Infinite is free from all kinds of influence, like Cantor said fully independent other-worldly being. Since the process to prove or disprove the existency of God is finite hence coercing infinite to finite would be an impossible task. Notice Cantor said only the Transfinite the last two sorts of the actual infinites related to the finite NOT the Absolute Infinite.
Is God only imagination or not realistic since there is no space and time ref.points to be found? Unless of course, if you believe in christian doctrines whereas God in human form visited Earth 2000 years ago in Bethlehem.
A Big If, If atheist for some reasons finally believe in God, would you believe in God who goes to the bathroom?
Back to the question, Is God only imagination or not realistic since there is no space and time ref.points to be found? Or if The unlimited thing or infinite only exists in mathematical mind or mindscape or whatever you want to call it, does it mean God exists only in our mind?
Again, this type of questioning or processing information of finite won't be applicable to the Absolute Infinite. Why not? Again, see Galileo's Paradox and Cantor's first context of actual infinite.
There is a limitation of human mind among others to answer specially this kind of questions. Where's the proof? Read Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Because you CAN NOT know what is God, the totality of truth that is the ultimate reality is inevitable some information (like this kind of questions) we simply can not know the answer. this is the fundamental result of modern logic established seventy years ago called godel's proof where godel pointed out that human mind reasons by starting with axioms and from axioms he builds theorems.
Kurt Godel pointed out in any system of axioms you must in order the system to be consistent is must have missing some axioms. You can not capture in any system of logic all of the truth without building a self-destructing mechanism. It's like a sound system that capables to produce any kind of sounds. It can produce a very sound that vibrates so hard that shakes and destroys itself to pieces. In other words, in every axiom-system eventually run into problems that it cannot solve at all hence called Incompleteness Theorem.
This is a mathematical result proven mathematically not some guess work!
If atheist still insists on asking this type of questions, try to disprove the Godel's theorem prior to ask.
To help us escaping from confusions, God sent His prophets to mankind.
christian believes God reveals Himself while muslim believes God reveals His Wills. God reveals what God wants us to know. Through oberservations of His creations relatively and indirectly we confirm the existency of God. 'Relatively' implies believers have confirmed and unbelievers still at lost and decided to become atheist.
The confirmation process peculiarly resembling variable dt or infinitesimal, and also seems to obey strange rules. if one ignores God in his or her daily's life then the existency of God tends to be nullified, treated like zero or God does not Exist. But, on the other hand, when God is highly regarded in his or her daily's life then not only God does Exist but also plays as a factor on his or her behaviors.
Nobody was born as an atheist. Atheist is the by product of one's own logical thinking. At least atheist got some portion right...."There is no God",
what atheist perhaps need is the remaining words, to complete the sentence
"There is no God, but He, most Gracious, most Merciful"
In contrast to christianity, the islamic position is in agreement with what it is known to be the facts of modern logic (in youtube.com, some videos of mathematician professors revert to Islam). Also, Muslim has the amazing Al-Qur'an.
Al-Qur'an, 004.082 (An-Nisa [Women])
004.082 أَفَلا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلافًا كَثِيرًا
004.082 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
It is not natural for human being to claim a book free of error. Al-Qur'an can not be made by human but rather must be revealed from Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad S.A.W
For 1400 years, the unbelievers try to find mistakes in it to no avail. Sure you may find people who claim they found lots of errors in it (********************). But either they are too ignorance to hear the explanations of so-called errors by muslim experts or they only interested to shout errors and close the door.
Go ahead find one mistake, if you do, the vatican may love to hear from you and may even pay you millions of dollars. But the chances are, whatever you might find, the so-called mistake won't be new rather an old song being recycled again and again for 1400 years.
You won't find any contradictions in Al-Qur'an rather contra-distinctions.
Al-Qur'an, 002.023-024 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])
002.023 وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَى عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
002.023 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
002.024 فَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلُوا وَلَنْ تَفْعَلُوا فَاتَّقُوا النَّارَ الَّتِي وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَافِرِينَ
002.024 But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.
Millions of non-muslims speak/write and some are experts in Arabic language. For 1400 years, none has satisfied this challenge....like the ayah/verse said... of a surety ye cannot!
Of course, many unbelievers will never turn to Islam (based on their free will decision),
Al-Qur'an, 007.179 (Al-Araf [The Heights])
007.179 وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالإنْسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا أُولَئِكَ كَالأنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ
007.179 Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning).
When you are at dinning table do you take those meals which you would not so much as look at? No, assuredly. So, you shall not receive that which you will not desire. If you desire to know God ask for guidance in your heart.
Human logic can err; most of the time they almost always err; It is certain that without Iman (Faith based on confirmation of logic) it is impossible to know God.
If you ask once and get no guidance. Well, Have you seen people who practice shooting at a mark? Assuredly they shoot many times in vain. they never wish to shoot in vain, but are always in hope to hit the mark. You who ever desire to know God, keep asking, if God wills, surely you will receive guidance.
The carnal eyes can only see things gross and external: But believers have spiritual eyesight which is the Iman/faith of God, wherefore we can see our God in every place (metaphorically speaking).
None? This is basically the God of the gaps argument, science has explained a great many things which were once evidence of the Almighty, as time goes on the list diminishes.
You haven't answered one question posed you, yet speak so freely for science.. why is that?
How exactly does one conclude the God of the Quran from observing nature?
What claims? Every claim related to God or world religions.
c. 1500BC Moses comes down from the mountain with a list carved into a tablet.
"Hey guys, I went up this mountain and spoke to God. He told me to let you know that these are the rules from now on, ok?"
"Bro, you've been up there alone for quite a while, how do I know you didn't just write those yourself?"
First published in 1917, On Growth and Form was at once revolutionary and conservative. Scottish embryologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1860-1948) grew up in the newly cast shadow of Darwinism, and he took issue with some of the orthodoxies of the day--not because they were necessarily wrong, he said, but because they violated the spirit of Occam's razor, in which simple explanations are preferable to complex ones. In the case of such subjects as the growth of eggs, skeletons, and crystals, Thompson cited mathematical authority: these were matters of "economy and transformation," and they could be explained by laws governing surface tension and the like. (He doubtless would have enjoyed the study of fractals, which came after his time.) In On Growth and Form, he examines such matters as the curve of frequency or bell curve (which explains variations in height among 10-year-old schoolboys, the florets of a daisy, the distribution of darts on a cork board, the thickness of stripes along a zebra's flanks, the shape of mountain ranges and sand dunes) and spirals (which turn up everywhere in nature you look: in the curve of a seashell, the swirl of water boiling in a saucepan, the sweep of faraway nebulae, the twist of a strand of DNA, the turns of the labyrinth in which the legendary Minotaur lived out its days). The result is an astonishingly varied book that repays skimming and close reading alike. English biologist Sir Peter Medawar called Thompson's tome "beyond comparison the finest work of literature in all the annals of science that have been recorded in the English tongue." --Gregory McNamee --This text refers to the Paperback edition.
Product Description
Why do living things and physical phenomena take the form they do? D'Arcy Thompson's classic On Growth and Form looks at the way things grow and the shapes they take. Analysing biological processes in their mathematical and physical aspects, this historic work, first published in 1917, has also become renowned for the sheer poetry of its descriptions. A great scientist sensitive to the fascinations and beauty of the natural world tells of jumping fleas and slipper limpets; of buds and seeds; of bees' cells and rain drops; of the potter's thumb and the spider's web; of a film of soap and a bubble of oil; of a splash of a pebble in a pond. D'Arcy Thompson's writing, hailed as 'good literature as well as good science; a discourse on science as though it were a humanity', is now made available for a wider readership, with a foreword by one of today's great populisers of science, explaining the importance of the work for a new generation of readers.
The text is its own testament, in this case the quran specifically, as there is no other book like it, in style, context, meaning, poetry, politics/ economics/ social structure and spiritual guidance! and the challenge is yours should you desire to produce one sura like unto it, I have already stated the criteria, on numerous posts prior.
perhaps if you read more and spewed less drivel it might become clearer?
Since day one noone ever came up with any evidence of God's existence or that his will has been dictated in the manner described by the Book(s).
I don't doubt that most people here believe wholeheartedly in the word of the Quran but when people are so vehement about obtaining evidence for claims made by others it makes me wonder what these
people have done to validate the factual accuracy of their own opinions.
You speak of factual accuracy with the confidance of someone who possesses it, which is hilraious considering you haven't answered any questions about our existence, origins of life, purpose, evolution into more complex organisms and the purpose of death in evolution. Which makes me wonder what have you done to validate your own opinion and that is actually all it is, an opinion, where you take the liberty to speak for all scientests as if you have a clue!
furtheremore all you have done is plagiarize and have the audacity to complain of well thought refutations.. what is ailing you?
In order for me to convince you otherwise about the origins of the world you require a how from science, spelled out in detail.
If I challenged you on the how of God, what answer would I get? "Don't know, he's God, he just did it. Don't ask how because you probably wouldn't understand."
That is the diffident way out, science should be its own truth, if you had factual evidence to the list I stated prior, you wouldn't dance so much like a kid who can't hold his bladder. In my previous post I stated, I wouldn't discuss details of religion to someone who doesn't believe in God and gave the example
I don't discuss Quranic contents with folks who don't even believe in God, it is purpose defeating! It will be like discussing with you the thromboprophylaxis of Dabigatran, when you have no understanding whatsoever of the coagulation pathway normal physiology let alone the pathology of it and why this particular med is superior to others already out on the market!
If you truly had details on the evolution of single celled organisms into bacteria, you wouldn't need all these fillers, you'd produce your evidence annihilate all religious books in one shot and it would be over.. but here you are day in and day out failing to make a point for yourself!
It's a lie that religion gives you any of the right answers, it just prevents you from asking the right questions.
Amazing, you have had all the time in the world to free yourself from religious obligations and shackles, yet stand on any ground with the most unlearned adherent, handicapped at best at offering any answers!
3.5 billion years of life on Earth with a gradual development and increase in complexity from microbes to humans. It isn't evidence against God, but it is evidence against what is allegedly God's word.
That would be true indeed, if it were verifiable, so far you have failed to show how any single celled organism evolved into a complex being, I have in fact given you some of the names of possible mutations, be they acrocentric breaks in chromosomes, silent, missense, framshift mutations, jumping genes etc etc, none have been proven to cause anything short of death and or disease, and yet you claim that is how bacteria from God knows where (perhaps left by the aliens) evolved in to cockroaches and later into humans, and amazingly enough, not a thought as to why the process is so directed? for instance we wouldn't stop at cockroaches, they seem inherently more successful than we are at survival!
so how about you give your theoritical science some practical considerations? You can use liposomes or e-coli as vectors see how I make your life easier? and introduce new genetic material into a host to transform it, plus perhaps you might mention what environmental circumstances allowed for that success the first time around, ON ITS OWN VOLITIONS, so that for instance you can have a perfectly working carbamoyl phosphate synthetase and don't end up dead from nitrogenous wastes simply floating in your body-- as any mistake happening early on would spell the death of that organism and then there is none more to be had for other tries see.. use your gooey noodles!
There is no evidence in the fossil record that humanity started 40-85 (depending on who you ask) generations before the Prophet with the sudden appearance of a single pair of humans (and if ahadith are to be believed, humans that are 90ft tall).
isn't it amazing then, how we have humans here, when according to you there is no record of them? yet I can survey the room and see them, they must have come from somewhere, even if they are not fossilized!
You are willing to believe you came from ape, but not a larger size human, it is a conundrum really? When people are burried they decay, that is why there is no evidence of them (ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh) has that ever occured to you? Not everything is left deep in limestone!
Does the presence of 60,000 year old human remains in australia agree with this Quranic account? Maybe they all lived to 2000 years old and mastered shipbuilding in the desert. Perhaps Eve was so genetically disimilar to Adam that all the races of humanity came about in
a dozen generations of interbreeding.
I don't see why it doesn't agree? We don't know how long ago adam and eve lived and there is an account in the Quran of other creatures and large gaps in existance before the creation of man... I have taken the liberty to add verse
one from Suret al'insan and an exegesis of it
... and again I ask you, you claim we came from fossilized bacteria, yet can't see the absurdity in bacteria becoming human, turning into a pair of male and female, or generations of interbreeding with that?
Why, if the Quran is meant to be clear and precise, fully detailed and with nothing excluded, does it take several hundred lines of alternate interpretations to explain away a small handful of passages?
Additionally they all have errors. (You could have just linked, not everyone wants to read all those passages inline.)
Arabic is a rich language, and as stated prior, if you wish to take the challenge of producing anything like it, then using the least amount of words to convey the best meaning is desired, and I have given the example of suret an'nazi3at where it takes 7 words to translate just two Arabic ones. The Quran is preserved in original tongue and not difficult to read or learn.
There are no errors in the Quran, if you maintain that, you'll have to prove it and not scurry to the web like a plagiarist in the least you should have the courtesy before you write so you don't come across like a complete oaf? as stated everything has been refuted and I can tell how it bothers you to read a long refutation. If you are not up to a challenge then don't be all he man about it things that are clearely over your head. In other words don't bray and pound on your chest extra hard and then complain when you are given a response that doesn't appeal to you!
The explanation by Ansar for 6 days in one place vs 2+4+2 in another, that some are to be understood as simultaneous is akin to me saying:
I washed my clothes on Monday. I ironed my clothes on Tuesday. I picked up my dirty clothes on Monday.
There is nothing elegant about this, and it is in contravention of Quranic principles.
You are just splitting hair, his modifying of it, so it is spoken in terms even you can understand doesn't detract from the beauty of the text or its transcendence, and those terms that are more abstract and complex will be deemed by you fictional, so there is really no winning, and no one really cares at the end, whether it speaks to you personally or not, You are very negligeable in the scheme of things and angry fellow, who wants to drag the world down with him, while feigning knowledge in the process!
Depending on which way you look at it there is either redundancy or missing detail, which both go against properties of the Quran defined within it. The fact that the creation is described 5 times is a little redundant, no?
Nope, there is a reason behind the numerology, and repetition in the Quran, as there is a reason behind 'al'mot'qata3at' those chapters that begin with just odd numbered letters!
The Divine Law of Cause and Effect attributes one cause to one effect. This law is a strong proof for the existence of God. The more general Law of Repetition attributes repetitive effects in non-related fields to One God. This law simply states that because common guidelines exist, in all living organisms, physical objects or historical events, then the Designer or the Creator of all organisms, objects or events is the same. This law also states that because a phenomenon exists in different branches of science, then this phenomenon has to be attributed to only one Uncaused Cause. With humility and open mind, we should believe that God exists.
What is the point of this exactly? that it is 17 in lieu of 16? lol how hilarious are you?
Not sure how you would reconcile that with the placement of the stars...
41:12 So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard.
Again, I fail to see what it is, you desire reconcilliation for?
Earth's atmosphere has 7 layers. The lowest layer is called troposphere. Rain, snow and wind only take place in the troposphere. There is an upper atmosphere. There is a lower atmosphere. and each indeed has a duty
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
Some things in life have to be accepted on face value. If one requires proof to accept it, then it is useless. So don't spin ur wheel trying to make one believe. If they do or don't it is for them to deal with. As they say, you can lead the horse to the water, but can't make him drink.
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I know this is the case.
I also believe that this specific case is unjust.
Defining justice isn't really left to human definitions
Define the 'perfect' crime here.
ummmm.. someone who got away with murder and people do get away with murder, not everyone makes it to the ten o'clock news!
Moreover, justice would be dispensed the old fashioned way. We would find them and take them into custody.
see above reply, how do you dispense with justice on someone who got away with a perfect crime?
What you learn and what you decide to do in life is a choice, but what you believe is not.
What you believe is a choice. We are given free will and make choices with it.
Actually, we have many young children on board who concluded Islam is true and chose from that to become a Muslim.
This is extremely relevant to the topic. If belief is not a choice, but only a conclusion - then punishment for any kind of belief becomes inherently unjust.
Your conclusion is based on an a priori judgement, which I don't accept because it is flawed at the core, to which again I say you are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is incorrect!
It is as if you are maintaining that watermelons are oranges when everyone around you tells you they are red!
There we go then. You couldn't just 'believe' in Christianity by choice.
But it is by choice that I don't subscribe to christianity.. to believe is to be confident about something as truth, and I don't find full truth in it for reasons I'll defer as I am not interested into turning this into a religious debate!
I was caused, not created.
Yes we have already established you were caused by the storks!
Interest. There is no grounds otherwise.
interest is a sterile term by itself!
Are you informing me that God, as per Islam prescribes punishment for idle amusement?
for vain discourse specifically!
Clearly not.
But you are not me. I don't mind discussions like this.
You are right, but you address me in the process which in turn gives me a subtle obligation if nothing else to clarify the Islamic position, which I don't know if your term 'interest' falls into, or it could steer into vain discourse, which displeases me not just from a religious stand point but just a mismanagement of my private time that I NEED otherwise!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Gator
I'm not looking for proof for an ironclad conclusion, just what is reasonable based on my experiences.
Indeed you are on to something, it is what is reasonable to experience and level of educations that renders me unable to accept some of the floating theories on the origins of life at face value without here too meriting large leaps of faith, that I'd rather invest where they are actually needed and provide me with spiritual satisfaction!
and that is really what it comes down to, instead of such long winded debates..
other atheists here can learn something from you in relating to others and generally how to address those whose thoughts differ from yours..
peace!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Defining justice isn't really left to human definitions
Justice, to me is an entirely human invention. There is nothing divine about it and there is nothing unquestionable or infallible about any form of it. When I hear someone assert a God that is benevolent, all-merciful and all-just and in the next breath declare that this same God will send non-believers in him to hell for all eternity - I see a contradiction. There is so much else I could say to this post, but I will merely reiterate my original point.
I believe that torture in hell for the 'crime' of disbelief is morally reprehensible and immoral. Appealing to the argument that God decides what is just is not a convincing argument, for it begs the question of the age old Euthyphro Dilemma and implies that morality is inherently arbitrary and infinitely subjective, not linked to universal principles, or universal ideals but merely the will of a cosmic arbiter. Simply to say, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - not a convincing argument.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
ummmm.. someone who got away with murder and people do get away with murder, not everyone makes it to the ten o'clock news!
So the perfect crime, according to you is a successful crime? I thought you were referring to a deeply nasty crime that commanded a long punishment.
Well, if someone was a fugitive from justice - we would try and catch them and bring them to justice.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
see above reply, how do you dispense with justice on someone who got away with a perfect crime?
How do we deal out justice to someone who got away?
We can't - unless we catch them.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
What you believe is a choice. We are given free will and make choices with it.
You assert this so often and yet provide no reasoning behind it, where as I have provided reasoning for the opposite position.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Your conclusion is based on an a priori judgement, which I don't accept because it is flawed at the core, to which again I say you are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is incorrect!
It is as if you are maintaining that watermelons are oranges when everyone around you tells you they are red!
It is nothing to do with that at all.
It just shows that you do not understand the nature of belief.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
But it is by choice that I don't subscribe to christianity..
No it isn't. It is because you do not believe in Christianity (which you cannot change unless you become convinced by new information or new insights).
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
to believe is to be confident about something as truth, and I don't find full truth in it for reasons I'll defer as I am not interested into turning this into a religious debate!
I am not interested in your reasons for rejecting or disbelieving in Christianity. I only bought it up to make a point about the nature of belief.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Yes we have already established you were caused by the storks!
Storks played no role in my causation.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
interest is a sterile term by itself!
That is my reason for discussion. Deal with it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
for vain discourse specifically!
Then I would say that the God that you propose is unjust and apparently petty. (To moderators: this is not an insult, but an honest observation of a concept of God that I am being told about.)
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
You are right, but you address me in the process which in turn gives me a subtle obligation if nothing else to clarify the Islamic position, which I don't know if your term 'interest' falls into, or it could steer into vain discourse, which displeases me not just from a religious stand point but just a mismanagement of my private time that I NEED otherwise!
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Justice, to me is an entirely human invention. There is nothing divine about it and there is nothing unquestionable or infallible about any form of it. When I hear someone assert a God that is benevolent, all-merciful and all-just and in the next breath declare that this same God will send non-believers in him to hell for all eternity - I see a contradiction. There is so much else I could say to this post, but I will merely reiterate my original point.
To you is the operative word here!
I believe that torture in hell for the 'crime' of disbelief is morally reprehensible and immoral. Appealing to the argument that God decides what is just is not a convincing argument, for it begs the question of the age old Euthyphro Dilemma and implies that morality is inherently arbitrary and infinitely subjective, not linked to universal principles, or universal ideals but merely the will of a cosmic arbiter. Simply to say, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - not a convincing argument.
Morality to an atheist is subjective indeed and subject to the changing tides. Theological morality is defined.. and your choice to adhere to.. You don't get to define it, and as stated, you may state your grievences on the day of recompense, I am personally not impressed.
So the perfect crime, according to you is a successful crime? I thought you were referring to a deeply nasty crime that commanded a long punishment.
one that is awful and one which one got away with..
Well, if someone was a fugitive from justice - we would try and catch them and bring them to justice.
That is sophmoric at best, as you know many criminals in fact aren't caught
How do we deal out justice to someone who got away?
We can't - unless we catch them.
What a profound revelation, indeed when they get away with crimes, no earthly justice will be served then!
You assert this so often and yet provide no reasoning behind it, where as I have provided reasoning for the opposite position.
And I have stated your reasoning is based on an apriori judgement and is easily dismissed as it is a nonpoint!
It is nothing to do with that at all.
It just shows that you do not understand the nature of belief.
That is hilarious coming from an atheist!
No it isn't. It is because you do not believe in Christianity (which you cannot change unless you become convinced by new information or new insights).
What do you mean don't believe in christianity, it does exist, therefore there cannot be denying belief in it. New evidence has indeed come forth to make me dismiss it as a contendor and its own book is wrought with contradiction, there is no point in me adhering to something that is faulty IT IS A CHOICE. Stop dictating to me your defintions of belief and religion. It is nonesensical at best
I am not interested in your reasons for rejecting or disbelieving in Christianity. I only bought it up to make a point about the nature of belief.
see my previous reply!
Storks played no role in my causation.
you are a funny guy!
That is my reason for discussion. Deal with it.
the very defintion of sophistry!
Then I would say that the God that you propose is unjust and apparently petty. (To moderators: this is not an insult, but an honest observation of a concept of God that I am being told about.)
You think what you will, it is inconsequential to me!
Nobody is forcing you to respond.
Then quit quoting me!
cheers
Last edited by جوري; 08-08-2008 at 04:28 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
To you is the operative word here!
Absolutely to me. It is incompatible with my moral principles. Assuming that Muslims have the objective to convert Non-Muslims, they will have to at some point - deal with and answer questions relating to this topic. People disbelieve in certain renditions of God for moral reasons just as much as philosophical and scientific reasons.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Morality to an atheist is subjective indeed and subject to the changing tides.
Define 'subjective' in this instance.
And no, my morality is not subject to the changing tides.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Theological morality is defined.. and your choice to adhere to..
Theological morality is nothing more than a glorification of obedience. It is infinitely subjective and ultimately arbitrary.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
one that is awful and one which one got away with..
Well, if they got away we couldn't do anything.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
What a profound revelation, indeed when they get away with crimes, no earthly justice will be served then!
Unfortunately, correct.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
That is hilarious coming from an atheist!
How do I not understand the nature of belief?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
What do you mean don't believe in christianity, it does exist, therefore there cannot be denying belief in it.
As in, you do not believe the claims of Christianity. You cannot change this disbelief unless you are convinced that your disbelief is false.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
New evidence has indeed come forth to make me dismiss it as a contendor and its own book is wrought with contradiction, there is no point in me adhering to something that is faulty IT IS A CHOICE.
Have you ever heard of the term internally inconsistent? You just specified that new evidence defined your reasoning for dismissing it and then you insist that it was a choice.
Belief is a conclusion, not a choice - again. You cannot just 'choose' to be a Christian anymore than I can just 'choose' to be a Hindu.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
the very defintion of sophistry!
I don't have to justify my reasons to discuss to you.
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Absolutely to me. It is incompatible with my moral principles. Assuming that Muslims have the objective to convert Non-Muslims, they will have to at some point - deal with and answer questions relating to this topic. People disbelieve in certain renditions of God for moral reasons just as much as philosophical and scientific reasons.
1-Inconsequential. I find many man made laws down right immoral and don't contest it, since it is state law.
2-There is no compulsion in religion.
3-Most people who are seeking to be Muslims usually have more abstract thoughts and sophistication and don't ask the questions and draw conclusions in similar manner to that of two year olds further, if truly interested in religion ask answers to deep philosopical questions of learned scholars and not on a public board!
Define 'subjective' in this instance.
Taking place within your own mind and modified by your individual bias
And no, my morality is not subject to the changing tides.
where does your morality come from then?
Theological morality is nothing more than a glorification of obedience. It is infinitely subjective and ultimately arbitrary.
another subjective view, for you haven't personally defined for us where you own morality comes from? Theological morality is documented for millenniums and well outlined nothing at all arbitraty about it.. where is the moral code of conduct of atheism?
Well, if they got away we couldn't do anything.
Yeah, you couldn't how inauspicious.. what keeps an atheist at bay from commiting the perfect crime if he could get away with it and there was no such thing as rewards and punishment in the hereafter? I mean truly if you could commit a white collar crime and embezzle knowing 100% you'd get away with it, why wouldn't you? I can't think of a single thing to hold you back!
Unfortunately, correct.
see above.
How do I not understand the nature of belief?
your account of it, is laughable at best!
As in, you do not believe the claims of Christianity. You cannot change this disbelief unless you are convinced that your disbelief is false.
It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!
Have you ever heard of the term internally inconsistent? You just specified that new evidence defined your reasoning for dismissing it and then you insist that it was a choice.
Have you heard of cognitive conservatism? Once you've have formed a cognition (attitude or belief), you will process every piece of information in a way to preserve that belief and understanding. and remain in a state of inertia.. and that is something you are entitled to, but consider your opponent, not everyone is so easily molded for you to hammer your incessantly for it to finally take hold out of someone caving in. You are entitled to your non-point, but I am a bit sick of your circular logic at this stage!
Belief is a conclusion, not a choice - again. You cannot just 'choose' to be a Christian anymore than I can just 'choose' to be a Hindu.
see my above reply!
I don't have to justify my reasons to discuss to you.
Don't bait me into more silliness.
Me quoting you is not forcing you to respond.
Good then. It ends on my part with this post!
cheers
Last edited by جوري; 08-08-2008 at 05:54 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Theological morality is nothing more than a glorification of obedience.
I wouldn't say its nothing more than that, but that is certainly one of the biggest components of it, and especially of the abrahamic religions. I don't think there is any theme more repeated in these three religions than obedience.
Half the ten commandments are about obedience (not about being kind or good). Muslims celebrate surrendering and submitting to the will of God. The entire book of Judges in the bible is about Israel straying from obedience to God and being punished for it over and over.
The story of Abraham and Isaac is the ultimate example though. If it was a morality story it would end with Abraham telling God he will not obey and kill his son Isaac because that would be unjust, and God then saying Abraham passed his test for staying moral in the face of unjust authority. It instead ends with Abraham killing his child on God's order, like when a mobster tests the loyalty of his goons by giving them a gun they think is loaded and telling them to shoot their brother. This story is Morality vs Obedience, and obedience wins.
Also notice that in the garden of eden story, the forbidden fruit is said to be the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil", so before eating it there is no way that Adam and Eve could have know it was good to obey God and not eat the apple. It is all about obedience to power.
Heaven and Hell are also obedience based. The most base form of moral development - punishment and reward.
Every now and then you find a theist claiming that atheists can not be good without God, can not be moral, etc. But I argue the opposite. We all have a sense of morality stemming primarily from empathy (seeing yourself in others and feeling their pain as you identify with them). Some enshrine this in religion and attribute it to the orders of a deity. But it isn't just them who have it - we all do, else why are atheists not running around killing and raping everybody? The problem with religion is that although it may enshrine some moral values it also burries others beneath dogmatic adherence to a perceived authority (God) and throws in added adherence to some rather arbitrary and sometimes harmful "values".
Belief is a conclusion, not a choice - again. You cannot just 'choose' to be a Christian anymore than I can just 'choose' to be a Hindu.
Indeed. Try as you might, I doubt you'll manage to choose to believe you are an elephant. Try it. Repeat "i am an elephant" a few dozen times and picture yourself as an elephant. Is it working? Can you make this choice?
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 08-08-2008 at 08:41 PM.
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
1-Inconsequential. I find many man made laws down right immoral and don't contest it, since it is state law.
Not all man-made 'morality' is state law, and I don't see why - just because something is considered law, that you refuse to contest it? Especially as you accept that state law can be wrong.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
3-Most people who are seeking to be Muslims usually have more abstract thoughts and sophistication and don't ask the questions and draw conclusions in similar manner to that of two year olds further, if truly interested in religion ask answers to deep philosopical questions of learned scholars and not on a public board!
Nonetheless, they are still questions that people ask and concerns that they have.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Taking place within your own mind and modified by your individual bias
Then yes, my entire moral understanding by your definition is subjective. As is every decision I make in my life. So?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
where does your morality come from then?
I have reasoned (with or without influence from mainstream culture) my moral principles. My other influences of morality come from empathy.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
another subjective view, for you haven't personally defined for us where you own morality comes from?
It doesn't matter where my morality may or may not come from. It does not have anything to do with theistic morality.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Theological morality is documented for millenniums and well outlined nothing at all arbitraty about it..
The amount of documentation and the paper trail of theistic morality does not make it any less arbitrary.
Your conviction that Islam is right or that Allah's viewpoint is infallible is no more convincing that another individuals conviction that Thor exists. You define morality by what God says. You deem what is righteous not through rational inquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might. God is the ultimate force of might in your belief and therefore what God says goes. You are from this not interested in humanity, but furthering what you believe God has said in the Quran. You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
where is the moral code of conduct of atheism?
Since Atheism is not an ethical theory, or a moral principle or indeed anything whatsoever to do with reality - it has none. As explained, all an atheist constitutes is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God/s. An Atheist's morality is not defined by their disbelief in God.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Yeah, you couldn't how inauspicious.. what keeps an atheist at bay from commiting the perfect crime if he could get away with it and there was no such thing as rewards and punishment in the hereafter?
Well, your situation is outside of reality. The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds. So for a start, no-one who intends to commit a crime ever knows whether it will succeed.
Moreover, many things keep atheists at bay from being a criminal. It depends upon the atheist that you ask. I personally see attempting to commit a crime as morally wrong and so I will not do it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I mean truly if you could commit a white collar crime and embezzle knowing 100% you'd get away with it, why wouldn't you? I can't think of a single thing to hold you back!
Morality.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!
I'll fix this for you:
It is a conclusion based on serious study.
Moreover, you cannot compare a belief to a career choice. A belief is a conclusion an individual comes to. A career choice is an active decision someone makes in life.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Have you heard of cognitive conservatism? Once you've have formed a cognition (attitude or belief), you will process every piece of information in a way to preserve that belief and understanding. and remain in a state of inertia.. and that is something you are entitled to, but consider your opponent, not everyone is so easily molded for you to hammer your incessantly for it to finally take hold out of someone caving in. You are entitled to your non-point, but I am a bit sick of your circular logic at this stage!
How is my logic here circular?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Don't bait me into more silliness.
I do not bull bait at all, having spending a lot of time historically with other people on forums bullbaiting me.
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Not all man-made 'morality' is state law, and I don't see why - just because something is considered law, that you refuse to contest it? Especially as you accept that state law can be wrong.
what do you propose a coup?
Then yes, my entire moral understanding by your definition is subjective. As is every decision I make in my life. So?
so your 'morality' by many an account can be immoral, as discussed prior there is no definition of terms for you, and no good reason it is anything short of your own whims or what you concede in your own mind.. one day for instance you see a man who is oozing money, money drips from his wallet, you decide to take it rather than handing it back to him, for there is no really impetus for you to do otherwise especially if you can get away with it!
I have reasoned (with or without influence from mainstream culture) my moral principles. My other influences of morality come from empathy.
empathy isn't something that one can regard in the case of an atheist, it is too esetoric too abstract, and not scientifically defined, or are you conceding that other forces undefined come to play here?
It doesn't matter where my morality may or may not come from. It does not have anything to do with theistic morality.
But it matters, because you speak of obedience and glorification, and your buddy brings into it colouful biblical stories that have nothing to do with Islam as if you both have such a profound understanding yet fail in the matter to define for us
1- purpose for your so called morality
2- a source to it
3-reason.. as discussed prior, if you could commit a perfect white collar crim why wouldn't you? rebelling against 'obedience' even such obedience is state law seems an atheist moto, so why not?
The amount of documentation and the paper trail of theistic morality does not make it any less arbitrary.
but the whims of an atheist morality makes it thoughtful and organized or are you trying to tickle me?
Your conviction that Islam is right or that Allah's viewpoint is infallible is no more convincing that another individuals conviction that Thor exists. You define morality by what God says. You deem what is righteous not through rational inquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might.
How is declaration of might an impetus for my morality? I concede that my morality is innate and doesn't argue against nature, and nature is God's laws according to Islam.. there is no might or spite.. there is however Justice.. what is the case for you? I mean arbitrary seems really well assigned in the case of atheism not theism!
God is the ultimate force of might in your belief and therefore what God says goes. You are from this not interested in humanity, but furthering what you believe God has said in the Quran. You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.
How do I not condemn things like murder pray do tell?
The amount of murders committed by atheists so we can keep tally of who is arbitrary in their morality here overrides all the religions COMBINED
enver hoxha, mao xedong, saloth sar, stalin or sung 1I etc each one with millions of death in their names...
Since Atheism is not an ethical theory, or a moral principle or indeed anything whatsoever to do with reality - it has none. As explained, all an atheist constitutes is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God/s. An Atheist's morality is not defined by their disbelief in God.
I know it is driven by pure self interest!
Well, your situation is outside of reality. The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds. So for a start, no-one who intends to commit a crime ever knows whether it will succeed.
lol.. I love how you write 'never ever ever' cute, perfect crimes happen all the time in fact they have several programs dedicated to them, be it unsolved crimes on court TV or try to catch Ameica's most wanted etc..
people do bad things and get away with it every day.. and most criminals think they can outsmart everyone, they don't go into a situation really thinking it is morally reprehensible or that they will get caught, either way you have strayed from purpose
1- the need for justice to be established in cases where earthly justice fails
2- and again, what would hold an atheist back from commiting a perfect crime if he knew he'd get away with it with enough planning and calculation?
Moreover, many things keep atheists at bay from being a criminal. It depends upon the atheist that you ask. I personally see attempting to commit a crime as morally wrong and so I will not do it.
But where do your morals come from?
Morality.
I'll fix this for you:
It is a conclusion based on serious study.
study of what? you have $2000 of your gluttonous evil boss where you can grab them and completely get away with it.. what to study save your mode of execution?
Moreover, you cannot compare a belief to a career choice. A belief is a conclusion an individual comes to. A career choice is an active decision someone makes in life.
yes the same active decision one makes when deciding on a religion.. you haven't told me why the two can't be compared, they both require planning and study and execution of action!
How is my logic here circular?
you assume a conclusion based only on premises designed in the confines of your own mind and go over them again and again!
I do not bull bait at all, having spending a lot of time historically with other people on forums bullbaiting me.
amazing isn't it, how you can just walk away from it..
Okay then.
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
what do you propose a coup?
Uh, no - I propose nothing. I just don't see why you are reluctant to criticise something just because it is law.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
so your 'morality' by many an account can be immoral
Sure.
And others morality can be immoral to me. We all have different views on what is moral. So?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
as discussed prior there is no definition of terms for you, and no good reason it is anything short of your own whims or what you concede in your own mind..
Except not everything I consider moral or immoral has been defined simply by my own mind, or through my own whims. I already told you that a lot of my moral beliefs come through reason.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
one day for instance you see a man who is oozing money, money drips from his wallet, you decide to take it rather than handing it back to him, for there is no really impetus for you to do otherwise especially if you can get away with it!
I wouldn't do that.
I would help him pick it up and return to him. I don't consider taking someone's money as a moral action.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
empathy isn't something that one can regard in the case of an atheist, it is too esetoric too abstract, and not scientifically defined, or are you conceding that other forces undefined come to play here?
Empathy is innate.
I have felt it, and I suspect I will continue to feel it. Do not presume to tell me whether I have empathy or not.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
But it matters, because you speak of obedience and glorification, and your buddy brings into it colouful biblical stories that have nothing to do with Islam as if you both have such a profound understanding yet fail in the matter to define for us
Work it out for yourself. Morality is an almost universal grey area. You complain about you needing to spoonfed information to people, yet now I am sensing complete projection. You almost command atheists to inform you everything about the universe. You almost command me now, to inform everything about my moral understand to you. I do not know everything and I freely admit and yet you provide evidence that you are unable to handle not knowing everything, or grey areas existing.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
1- purpose for your so called morality
There is no inherent purpose other than arguably, to maintain a balance between peace and personal freedom - at least from my perspective.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
2- a source to it
I take influence from Libertarianism, Kantianism and Negative Utiltarianism.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
3-reason.. as discussed prior, if you could commit a perfect white collar crim why wouldn't you? rebelling against 'obedience' even such obedience is state law seems an atheist moto, so why not?
Because it would be morally wrong. When we talk about morality, we talk about accepting specific methods of behaviour and condeming others. Yrare asking, essentially - "Why do you do just ignore morality?" Morality is about what we ought to do. If you uphold moral principles as valid, or legitimate - then you would follow them. I do, and therefore I do not break them (or at least try not to).
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
but the whims of an atheist morality makes it thoughtful and organized or are you trying to tickle me?
There's no such thing as 'atheistic morality'. There is only morality.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
How is declaration of might an impetus for my morality?
Well, that depends.
Why is rape wrong, for example? Is it wrong because it is an imposition of another human's rights on another or is it wrong because God says so?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I concede that my morality is innate and doesn't argue against nature, and nature is God's laws according to Islam.. there is no might or spite..
Is something right because God decrees it, or does God decree it because it is right?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
there is however Justice.. what is the case for you? I mean arbitrary seems really well assigned in the case of atheism not theism!
Please elaborate how arbitrary morality works for atheism.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
How do I not condemn things like murder pray do tell?
I never said that. Apparently big paragraphs render you unable to understand what was said. Here is what I actually said:
"You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to."
Do you have anything else to comment on in that paragraph?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
The amount of murders committed by atheists so we can keep tally of who is arbitrary in their morality here overrides all the religions COMBINED
enver hoxha, mao xedong, saloth sar, stalin or sung 1I etc each one with millions of death in their names...
The ever-persistant logical fallacy of atheists are killers. Those 'atheists' you spoke of killed not because they were atheists, but because of other reasons (such as their brutality, communist ideals etc).
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I know it is driven by pure self interest!
How utterly disgusting. I am not driven by "pure self interest" and therefore your point is false.
So you are telling me that approximately 10% (give and take a percent) of the entire world are all driven by self-interest? This is absolutely prejudiced generalisation and if you switch around it to another generalisation about Muslims, I imagine it would warrant a warning.
If I claimed that all Muslims were terrorists then I would be warned, or banned. I also suspect that you'd be the first to complain about such a gross generalisation. If you claim that all Atheists are self-interested and amoral, you get nothing.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
lol.. I love how you write 'never ever ever' cute, perfect crimes happen all the time in fact they have several programs dedicated to them, be it unsolved crimes on court TV or try to catch Ameica's most wanted etc..
Learn to read.
"The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds."
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
1- the need for justice to be established in cases where earthly justice fails
Of course, we don't even know if a justice outside of human judgment and imposition even exists, so your point here is the equivilent to me complaining that we don't live in peace.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
2- and again, what would hold an atheist back from commiting a perfect crime if he knew he'd get away with it with enough planning and calculation?
His or her moral philosophy and/or beliefs.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
But where do your morals come from?
My family, my community, my environment, my own reasoning and interpretation of events.
[/quote=Skye]
study of what? you have $2000 of your gluttonous evil boss where you can grab them and completely get away with it.. what to study save your mode of execution?[/quote]
What are you talking about?
I am going to have to, for your own benefit - it appears, retrack the conversation so you can stop incorrectly snipping responses I make to make them look like something I did not mean.
You said: "It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!"
You were referring to your 'choice' to 'choose' Islam. I then responded in the following manner:
I said: "It is a conclusion based on serious study."
I was informing you (and you know that I contend that belief is not a choice) that your 'choice' to accept Islam was not a choice, but a conclusion that Islam was correct. I don't have a clue where you got the delusion that I was talking about morality at all in this point. You have this irritating and consistent habit of completely misunderstanding my points to mean the exact opposite of what I meant. It does not help at all that you poorly quote my points out of context.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
you assume a conclusion based only on premises designed in the confines of your own mind and go over them again and again!
No, it is an understanding of the definition of belief. That is my premise.
[/quote=Skye]amazing isn't it, how you can just walk away from it..[/quote]
Yeah.
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Uh, no - I propose nothing. I just don't see why you are reluctant to criticise something just because it is law.
What happens when you criticize the law according to you? you just sit there and *****? people do that all the time, it doesn't change things.. It doesn't matter for instance that half the country hates Bush, he is still in charge.. there is something to be said about wasting ones efforts!
Sure.
And others morality can be immoral to me. We all have different views on what is moral. So?
So.. Your standards in fact are utterly nonsensical and is the making of a lawless society!
Except not everything I consider moral or immoral has been defined simply by my own mind, or through my own whims. I already told you that a lot of my moral beliefs come through reason.
What is the base line for your 'reason' and what is reason really, again a very esetoric concept, I am not sure how an atheist who believes in nothing, nothing unpalpable anyway can 'reason' through something so abstract!
I wouldn't do that.
So refreshing!
I would help him pick it up and return to him. I don't consider taking someone's money as a moral action.
Why not? what makes you 'think' it is wrong?
Empathy is innate.
aha.. what does that mean exactly? you see empathy is something as abstract as speaking of God.. so I am not really sure what you mean!
I have felt it, and I suspect I will continue to feel it. Do not presume to tell me whether I have empathy or not.
I say that is it hypocritical to presume something like morality as innate, but not apply the same concept to God, who many will also contend is innate, out of the exact same reasons!
Work it out for yourself. Morality is an almost universal grey area. You complain about you needing to spoonfed information to people, yet now I am sensing complete projection. You almost command atheists to inform you everything about the universe. You almost command me now, to inform everything about my moral understand to you. I do not know everything and I freely admit and yet you provide evidence that you are unable to handle not knowing everything, or grey areas existing.
It is not projection at all, it is best you learn some basic psychology than risk the same mistake on every thread, this is but a reversal of what usually occurs on this forum. You are unhappy with one stand, prove its opposite to be true and put everything to rest!
There is no inherent purpose other than arguably, to maintain a balance between peace and personal freedom - at least from my perspective.
There can be even more peace at a house with a lakside view when you have embezzled from a company that you in your own 'perspective' can deem criminal, where the money won't be missed and you won't get caught.. I really can't think of one reason why this wouldn't be the case, and if you contend that 'morality' is 'innate' then you'll have to prove it, as stated, it is a little in the esoteric realm, and it makes no sense to speak of something immaterial, when you contend 'lack of belief'
I take influence from Libertarianism, Kantianism and Negative Utiltarianism.
How is your philosophy then not a religion? which is exactly how we defined it before... to take influence from something and adhere to it, is religion!
The burden of proof then lies with why your religion is superior to others!
Because it would be morally wrong. When we talk about morality, we talk about accepting specific methods of behaviour and condeming others. Yrare asking, essentially - "Why do you do just ignore morality?" Morality is about what we ought to do. If you uphold moral principles as valid, or legitimate - then you would follow them. I do, and therefore I do not break them (or at least try not to).
see previous replies!
There's no such thing as 'atheistic morality'. There is only morality.
But just two lines ago, you told me where you get your atheistic morality from.. undoubtedly the rest, including the one who wanted to establish the world's first atheist state got it from some where to.
and it has proven to be alot more sinister and deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong as defined by all the religions combined!
Well, that depends.
Why is rape wrong, for example? Is it wrong because it is an imposition of another human's rights on another or is it wrong because God says so?
I have already told you in the previous post.. it goes against nature, and that is what it means to go against God, it is inherent as the belief in God is inherent!
Is something right because God decrees it, or does God decree it because it is right?
Both!
Please elaborate how arbitrary morality works for atheism.
I have already given you examples of how arbitrary morality is, you have someone like mao xedong, under whom 15 million people died unable to argue against his man-made self-imposed principles.
He defines what is right and it doesn't matter who dies.
lenin defines what is right and twenty million people die... There is no concept of defined right or wrong to keep them at bay.. you and your pal already stated a lack of conformity, though you preferred the term obedience for shock value, what is really to keep at bay from doing all that is unrestrained from convention or morality? Nothing..
a state of lack of belief in everything and imposition of man-made rules which are whimsical at best!
I never said that. Apparently big paragraphs render you unable to understand what was said. Here is what I actually said:
"You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to."
Apparently the same lack of understanding is contagious, for I stated repeatedly and in much shorter lines over and over that 'goodness' is innate, placed there by God, the same way he placed in us 'fitrah' of seeking him!
The ever-persistant logical fallacy of atheists are killers. Those 'atheists' you spoke of killed not because they were atheists, but because of other reasons (such as their brutality, communist ideals etc).
It is because their 'morality' is fickle, man-made, no different than yours really, except on some level you contend that, morality is innate but can't for some reason prove it!
How utterly disgusting. I am not driven by "pure self interest" and therefore your point is false.
What forces drive you then?
So you are telling me that approximately 10% (give and take a percent) of the entire world are all driven by self-interest? This is absolutely prejudiced generalisation and if you switch around it to another generalisation about Muslims, I imagine it would warrant a warning.
self-interest, man made philosophy, their 'feelings' for the day.. it is indeed a generalization considering how few there are of you sharing in the same exact argument and ideals, which makes you rather a sort of new organized religion which I believe some of you already recognize as 'humanistic atheism' voila the birth of a new religion!
If I claimed that all Muslims were terrorists then I would be warned, or banned. I also suspect that you'd be the first to complain about such a gross generalisation. If you claim that all Atheists are self-interested and amoral, you get nothing.
You'll have to believe me when I tell you, calling me a terrorist wouldn't bother me in the least, I can think of worst things.. further if you actually read and comprehend, you'll notice all along, that I have stated morality is inherent from God.. but that is a concept that means nothing to an atheist who contends there is no such God, and fails to provide evidence for the inherence of such an abstract ideal!
Learn to read.
"The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds."
Learn to comprehend what you read!
where and when will justice be served if/when someone gets away with the perfect crime, which many criminals in fact get away with!
Of course, we don't even know if a justice outside of human judgment and imposition even exists, so your point here is the equivilent to me complaining that we don't live in peace.
The point is actually how nonsensical life would be, if there were no higher justice, which as far as atheists go!
My family, my community, my environment, my own reasoning and interpretation of events.
see early pargraphs and stop repeating yourself it gets banal!
What are you talking about?
It means by your own account, if you can justify it to yourself what would hold you back from committing the perfect crime, since there is no higher justice to be served!
I am going to have to, for your own benefit - it appears, retrack the conversation so you can stop incorrectly snipping responses I make to make them look like something I did not mean.
You said: "It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!"
You were referring to your 'choice' to 'choose' Islam. I then responded in the following manner:
I said: "It is a conclusion based on serious study."
I was informing you (and you know that I contend that belief is not a choice) that your 'choice' to accept Islam was not a choice, but a conclusion that Islam was correct. I don't have a clue where you got the delusion that I was talking about morality at all in this point. You have this irritating and consistent habit of completely misunderstanding my points to mean the exact opposite of what I meant. It does not help at all that you poorly quote my points out of context.
No, it is an understanding of the definition of belief. That is my premise.
I choose not to.
These are your own quotes I am working with, how could I possible take them out of context? or is it just because your argument is repetitive and ailing at this stage?
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
What happens when you criticize the law according to you? you just sit there and *****?
That depends. You can petition, protest, picket or simply air your views.
It depends on the country you are in and the process, or if it has a process.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
people do that all the time, it doesn't change things.. It doesn't matter for instance that half the country hates Bush, he is still in charge.. there is something to be said about wasting ones efforts!
That is because he was elected - twice, despite people's complaints about him.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
So.. Your standards in fact are utterly nonsensical and is the making of a lawless society!
What are you talking about? You stated the obvious and I merely agreed with it. You claimed that people may disagree with my moral opinion, and indeed - people do disagree with my moral view on many subjects. I don't see your point.
I never claimed disagreement was the making of a society.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
What is the base line for your 'reason' and what is reason really, again a very esetoric concept, I am not sure how an atheist who believes in nothing, nothing unpalpable anyway can 'reason' through something so abstract!
You consider morality an 'abstract' subject? It really isn't. Morality is all assertion, not belief. It is not a subject based on fact, but observation and analysis of how humans ought to act.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Why not? what makes you 'think' it is wrong?
Because it is not my right to to take money that does not belong to me.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I say that is it hypocritical to presume something like morality as innate, but not apply the same concept to God, who many will also contend is innate, out of the exact same reasons!
We can observe that morality has some inherent value merely by a quick observation of society. The mere fact that individuals possess moral understanding and/or moral principles is evidence enough that morality has value.
With God, it is completely different. You may contend that God is innate, but you have no evidence for it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
It is not projection at all, it is best you learn some basic psychology than risk the same mistake on every thread, this is but a reversal of what usually occurs on this forum. You are unhappy with one stand, prove its opposite to be true and put everything to rest!
Are you suggesting that it is only reasonable to disbelieve in something if you have shown complete and total evidence of something else.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
There can be even more peace at a house with a lakside view when you have embezzled from a company that you in your own 'perspective' can deem criminal, where the money won't be missed and you won't get caught..
Taking someone's stuff is outright morally wrong.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
How is your philosophy then not a religion?
I said my moral philosophy takes influences from three different ethical theories. What makes that a religion?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
which is exactly how we defined it before... to take influence from something and adhere to it, is religion!
This makes no sense - since when does taking influence from something and then accepting various aspects of the influences, necessarily imply or assert a religion? Non-Sequitor and false premise.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
The burden of proof then lies with why your religion is superior to others!
Uh, no. The burden of proof is on a claimant. Merely having a moral philosophy, or having a religion does not mean I have to prove or demonstrate anything unless I claim anything.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
But just two lines ago, you told me where you get your atheistic morality from..
No, I told you what influenced and influences my morality. I did not claim it to be 'atheistic morality' or an example of 'atheistic morality.' It is at best, an example of a specific atheists morality.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
undoubtedly the rest, including the one who wanted to establish the world's first atheist state got it from some where to.
Who are you referring to here?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I have already told you in the previous post.. it goes against nature, and that is what it means to go against God, it is inherent as the belief in God is inherent!
This makes no sense. So you dislike rape because it goes against nature, which you consider to be the same as God and therefore is wrong? So, my previous assertion was indeed - correct, you consider rape to be morally wrong not because of its consequences, the harm it does to people or anything else. You do not accept rape because it "goes against nature" or "goes against God". Morality, meet obedience. You concede here that you only disagree with rape essentially because God says so, or in your words - it goes against God (nature).
Do you disagree with rape for any other reason? Would you disagree with rape if you were not a Muslim?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Both!
It cannot be both.
If God commands what is good, there is a moral standard external from God and God would only therefore command what is good by other standards. If you assert that God also commands what is good, but whatever commanded by God is good - you move the moral assertion wholly back into God's hands and away from the moral standard. Consider the following:
Premise 1: God commands what is good Premise 2: Whatever God commands is good
1. God commands what is good and whatever god commands is good 2. Suppose God chooses to command X. 3. X is a bad command. This contradicts Premise 1 as God cannot command what is bad. 4. However, all commands are immediately declared as good by merit of God's own authority (Per Premise 3) and therefore X becomes good. This leads to two results:
4a. God can command X because God is all-powerful. This however refutes Premise 1 and whatever God commands is good only.
4b. God cannot command X because that would contradict Premise 1. This would refute the idea that God is all-powerful and also refute the idea that whatever God commands is good.
5. Therefore it is either false that whatever God commands is good or false that God commands what is good.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I have already given you examples of how arbitrary morality is, you have someone like mao xedong, under whom 15 million people died unable to argue against his man-made self-imposed principles.
He defines what is right and it doesn't matter who dies.
You have given an example of how grey morality is. You have given an example of a dictator acting grossly disgusting. This doesn't mean anything. It has long been understood that humanity just does not agree what is right and what is wrong, irrespective of whether religion or religious influence exists.
The only method out of the ruthless circle of violence imposed by those who insist under every condition that they are always right, or that their world views is alright right is collective humility and tolerance.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
lenin defines what is right and twenty million people die... There is no concept of defined right or wrong to keep them at bay.. you and your pal already stated a lack of conformity, though you preferred the term obedience for shock value
There is no defined concept of right or wrong for anyone to be 'kept at bay'. Your viewpoint of humanity is quite disgusting to be honest. You appear to represent humanity as tigers needing to be constrained.
Moreover, Lenin is not 'my pal' and I did not use 'obedience' for shock value.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
what is really to keep at bay from doing all that is unrestrained from convention or morality? Nothing..
Many things. For a start, the laws of society often prevent people from getting away with criminal activities and then there is my personal conscience. My understanding, acceptance and willingness to appreciate these principles stop me from committing actions I consider immoral.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Apparently the same lack of understanding is contagious, for I stated repeatedly and in much shorter lines over and over that 'goodness' is innate, placed there by God, the same way he placed in us 'fitrah' of seeking him!
Either way, this is irrelevent to my point.
You claimed I said you do not condemn murder. I never said anything like that.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
It is because their 'morality' is fickle, man-made, no different than yours really, except on some level you contend that, morality is innate but can't for some reason prove it!
I am no scientist, I am not able to demonstrate morality anymore than you are to demonstrate God. (My scientist example is referenced here on the basis that many biologists seem to think our empathy is due to evolutionary advantages and therefore - persists).
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
What forces drive you then?
Many forces. Willingness and desire to help others, personal goals and indeed self-interest (everyone has a degree of self-interest).
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
self-interest, man made philosophy, their 'feelings' for the day.. it is indeed a generalization considering how few there are of you sharing in the same exact argument and ideals, which makes you rather a sort of new organized religion which I believe some of you already recognize as 'humanistic atheism' voila the birth of a new religion!
So according to you, the fact that atheists share very few ideals that are similar, the fact that there is little belief consistency amongst atheists is somehow 'evidence' that we are an organised religion called "humanistic atheism"?
Since when disorder equal order?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
where and when will justice be served if/when someone gets away with the perfect crime, which many criminals in fact get away with!
They won't.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
The point is actually how nonsensical life would be, if there were no higher justice, which as far as atheists go!
Your point is moot. The lack of universal justice does not negate life to nonsensical.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
see early pargraphs and stop repeating yourself it gets banal!
If you ask the same questions you will get the same answers.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
It means by your own account, if you can justify it to yourself what would hold you back from committing the perfect crime, since there is no higher justice to be served!
If I could justify it to myself, I wouldn't be committing a crime in my mind.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
These are your own quotes I am working with, how could I possible take them out of context? or is it just because your argument is repetitive and ailing at this stage?
Well, I'll show you how you completely eradicated the context and made it look like something I did not say or mean.
You said: "It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!"
You were referring to your 'choice' to 'choose' Islam. I then responded in the following manner:
I said: "It is a conclusion based on serious study."
I was informing you (and you know that I contend that belief is not a choice) that your 'choice' to accept Islam was not a choice, but a conclusion that Islam was correct. I don't have a clue where you got the delusion that I was talking about morality at all in this point. You have this irritating and consistent habit of completely misunderstanding my points to mean the exact opposite of what I meant. It does not help at all that you poorly quote my points out of context. Here is how it should have been quoted for accuracy:
format_quote Originally Posted by Me
I'll fix this for you:
It is a conclusion based on serious study.
Moreover, you cannot compare a belief to a career choice. A belief is a conclusion an individual comes to. A career choice is an active decision someone makes in life.
The entire quotation above was referring to a single response of yours for accuracy. You instead, got extracts from me responding to two responses of yours, here it is:
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Morality.
I'll fix this for you:
It is a conclusion based on serious study.
The "morality" part was to a completely different point. You made look like I was claiming that I got my morality from serious study, which is completely and utterly dishonest.
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
That depends. You can petition, protest, picket or simply air your views.
Again, a waste of effort, sort of like replying back to you!
It depends on the country you are in and the process, or if it has a process.
here we are in the free world and no one gives a **** what 49% of the population wants!
That is because he was elected - twice, despite people's complaints about him.
Isn't it amazing how powerful folks can muscle their way into office?
What are you talking about? You stated the obvious and I merely agreed with it. You claimed that people may disagree with my moral opinion, and indeed - people do disagree with my moral view on many subjects. I don't see your point.
Which part was hard for you to understand? I claimed your morality has no agreed upon basis and can in fact fall upon depravity!
I never claimed disagreement was the making of a society.
I didn't assert that agreement was the making of it either! you can't make everyone 100% happy even in a democratic society a prime example is the U.S current day. There is however majority wants and rule!
7% of atheists don't get to define that for the rest of humanity!
You consider morality an 'abstract' subject? It really isn't. Morality is all assertion, not belief. It is not a subject based on fact, but observation and analysis of how humans ought to act.
There is no fact in morality at all.. it is oxymoronic!
Because it is not my right to to take money that does not belong to me.
What defines the rights of the individual?
We can observe that morality has some inherent value merely by a quick observation of society. The mere fact that individuals possess moral understanding and/or moral principles is evidence enough that morality has value.
some societies consider it moral to hang their dead on stilts and let them be eaten by vultures.. or cremate their dead and have them in a drink, I suppose if you have lived there and observed it long enough would consider it normal?
With God, it is completely different. You may contend that God is innate, but you have no evidence for it.
Neither have you for so-called evidence of morality!
Are you suggesting that it is only reasonable to disbelieve in something if you have shown complete and total evidence of something else.
I am suggesting if you eleminate all else, only one answer stands correct!
Taking someone's stuff is outright morally wrong.
Why is that?
I said my moral philosophy takes influences from three different ethical theories. What makes that a religion?
philosophy is a concept unscientifically verified based on a set of ideas and beliefs man-made.. so you are right it doesn't even qualify as a religion... if enough of a brain wash perhaps it would qualify as a cult!
*snip*
cheers
Last edited by Muezzin; 08-14-2008 at 12:00 PM.
Reason: Removed personal insults
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existen[ce?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Again, a waste of effort, sort of like replying back to you!
So why do you do it?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
here we are in the free world and no one gives a **** what 49% of the population wants!
Who said that exactly?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Isn't it amazing how powerful folks can muscle their way into office?
I am not interested in a political discussion. It is off-topic.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Which part was hard for you to understand? I ote=claimed your morality has no agreed upon basis and can in fact fall upon depravity!
No morality at all has any agreed upon basis.
And how does people not agreeing with my morality mean that it is depraved?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I didn't assert that agreement was the making of it either! you can't make everyone 100% happy even in a democratic society a prime example is the U.S current day. There is however majority wants and rule!
7% of atheists don't get to define that for the rest of humanity!
I never said that they did.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
There is no fact in morality at all.. it is oxymoronic!
We observe people acting upon behaviour they consider immoral, or do for 'moral' reasons.
Therefore, morality to an extent - exists.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
What defines the rights of the individual?
Nothing in particular. Human 'rights' are man-made concept.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
some societies consider it moral to hang their dead on stilts and let them be eaten by vultures.. or cremate their dead and have them in a drink, I suppose if you have lived there and observed it long enough would consider it normal?
I would consider it normal, but it wouldn't make it necessarily right.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Neither have you for so-called evidence of morality!
Correct.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
I am suggesting if you eleminate all else, only one answer stands correct!
But then of course, the only remaining answer has to be viable.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
Why is that?
It is not my stuff to take.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
philosophy is a concept scientifically verified based on a set of ideas and beliefs man-made.. so you are right it doesn't even qualify as a religion... if enough of a brain wash perhaps it would qualify as a cult!
First of all, Philosophy has very little to do with science. Secondly, Philosophy has no set beliefs, it describes beliefs. There are sub-topics such as Islamic Philosophy, Christian Philosophy, Nihilist Philosophy etc.
Also, are you implying that philosophy is about brain-washing? You seem to imply that philosophy is 'cultish', would would be one of the most absurd statements that I had ever heard in my entire live.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
the rest of the protracted blah blah blah tells me a couple of things
1- you are either on wellfare, retired or just can't seem to get a life..
in which case I can tell you that borders has amazing activity books for rainy days in their 'specials' section' try cooking, animal grooming or gardening, grow some weed, get some sun, make new friends
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
philosophy is a concept scientifically verified based on a set of ideas and beliefs man-made..
Rubbish. Philosophy analyses, examines and assesses the fundamental assumptions on which such ideas and beliefs are founded, including the scientific method itself. 'A philosophy' is set of views arising from such an examination.
the rest of the protracted blah blah blah tells me a couple of things
1- you are either on wellfare, retired or just can't seem to get a life..
Skye, Skavau has wiped the floor with you in this debate throughout. Couldn't you show just a little grace in defeat rather than your trademark insults just this once? The bluster isn't fooling Skavau or myself and I doubt very much its fooling anybody else either.
Re: Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Rubbish. Philosophy analyses, examines and assesses the fundamental assumptions on which such ideas and beliefs are founded, including the scientific method itself. 'A philosophy' is set of views arising from such an examination.
says you.. I have already enclosed the definition from the dictionary.. we don't get to rename things to coax atheists!
Skye, Skavau has wiped the floor with you in this debate throughout. Couldn't you show just a little grace in defeat rather than your trademark insults just this once? The bluster isn't fooling Skavau or myself and I doubt very much its fooling anybody else either.
the man is a an unyielding verruca, with alot of free time on his hand to repeat himself ad nauseam, if that seems like victory to you, then please raise both your arms with his in celebration, I am not going to be baited back into more nonsense because you've decided to resort to nanananana!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
joking philosophy has helped science 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks