Quote:We hate the Shamans and Prophets of old, but they steered humans to believing in self-worth.

Nope all they did was feed them the snake oil they were sick and they needed dogma to save them

Quote:What if you realized there is no justifying value without God but that God was impossible to exist, what you would do?

Accept my perception of values was false. And be happy about it as I’m ride of a lie

Quote:Atheism paradigm,

No such thing

(April 2, 2018 at 10:17 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 9:37 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I don't believe in axioms, but believe knowledge is possible. And I don't believe knowledge is possible by it being an axiom.

It's self-defeating position if the point is to argue. Yeah nothing can be proven, because, anyone can say well how do you know that.

Axioms also open a way to be lazy and just assert what you don't feel like justifying to just be an axiom.

It makes it easy to do away with the journey to knowing true nature of knowledge and certainty and reflection.

What can be evident to someone can be unclear to someone else.

In my Deist years,  I heavily depended on axioms being properly basic.

I don't believe anything is. You have to see what you believe based on living proof.

And that fact is not an axiom, but you realize through life experience.

You can't see the forest for the trees MK. Nobody (except self-absorbed sycophants) argues just to argue. We argue in order to get closer to the truth.

You seem to have some admiration for Socrates, so let's look at him for a moment. Socrates said, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." Yet he still used and valued argument. Why? Because argument clarifies the case of both sides. By listening to or participating in argument, you get to learn what facts support both sides of an issue. That's why Socrates was wise to say that he knew nothing. What his statement really meant was: "I have no prejudices. I keep an open mind. I look at both sides of the argument."

Don't even think of argument as something that involves two people with differing views. Look at any truth claim: like the claim that clouds are made of water vapor. Ask yourself: What are the reasons that I accept this as the truth? And you might possibly come up with a "list of things"... a list of reasons why you accept that clouds are made of water vapor.

1) It is demonstrable that water can become vapor. (we've all noticed this phenomenon when boiling water on the stove).
2) When clouds are thick and heavy, it usually rains. (this supports the idea that clouds are made of water vapor).
3) When there are no clouds in the sky, it never rains (see above)
4) etc.
5) etc.

Okay, so this is the list of reasons why you believe that clouds are made of water vapor. But what is it a list of? It's a list of arguments. An "argument" is nothing more (or less) than a reason to believe something. If someone ever doubted that clouds are made of water vapor, your list of "reasons why you accept that clouds are made of water vapor" would be good ARGUMENTS to make against their position.

Arguments are how we get to the truth, MK. They are not just there to throw at people when we disagree with them. They are a list of reasons why we hold the position that we do.

Yet humans argue and don't arrive at the truth. What you are stating is true only in an ideal world that doesn't exist.

Until we are true to ourselves and find out who we are and the true way of knowledge, arguments, including the one I am making, don't persuade anyone.

In Quran, I believe Moses' arguments were all good and better and he had miracles, but it argues Pharaoh deceived the people in believing Moses' couldn't speak clearly and was lowly person due to his clothes.

What you are stating is if humans are sincere and rational, argument is of use.

But we aren't.

We argue and bicker for it's own sake. And we are anything but neutral in watching a debate, it leads us just confirming our bias.

And axioms is irrelevant to arguments being true or not,  arguments rely on premises, but no premise can be verified through properly basic knowledge.

We came to know them through experience.

So we have to question how we know, and I believe we have to know on living proof, a living true seeing witness who perceives things truly.

So more meaningless luddite nonsense from mystic . Were he demigrates reason and realo methods of obtaining understanding and in their place places magic soothsaying.

Not surprised

I'm saying in a ideal world, arguments lead to truth. But in this chaotic world we live in, we have to search a means to know the truth, that is not through arguments. Because arguments has not persuaded humans whether they should or shouldn't.

There is a way to sheer honesty certainty in what you know. And philosophers telling you things are axioms that are self-evident is not one of them.

As you can see, this argument won't persuade anyone itself as well.

(April 3, 2018 at 5:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Yet humans argue and don't arrive at the truth. What you are stating is true only in an ideal world that doesn't exist.
...
What you are stating is if humans are sincere and rational, argument is of use.

But we aren't.

We argue and bicker for it's own sake. And we are anything but neutral in watching a debate, it leads us just confirming our bias.

You make a point, but you are generalizing. Some people are honest, though it is naive to assume that everyone you engage in argument is. That's where logical discourse comes in handy. Dishonest logic is fallacious logic. In life, hurling insults at one's opponent might make it seem like truth is on your side (politics comes to mind) but in rational discourse this is recognized as an ad hominem. That's why I love philosophy so much--it is truth oriented. The best thing we can do to keep a conversation honest is keep a conversation rational.

Unless I'm in a formal debate, I don't care much for "winning" an argument. Why? Because if someone shows where my reasoning has failed, I've learned something. I'm closer to clarity than I was. As Rene Descartes said, "Today, then, since ... I have delivered my mind from every care ... and since I have procured for myself an assured leisure in peaceful solitude, I shall at last commit myself to the general overthrow of all my former opinions." The truly honest person is one who challenges his own assumptions. When somebody reveals to me a truth which I hitherto had not realized, they have done me a favor.

But not everybody shares this attitude. Some people want to "win" an argument, and "losing" an argument to them is bad... very bad. So they try to win at all costs. These are the one's who resort to dishonesty. Also, people who have more at stake than a search for the truth. The religious come to mind. Oftentimes, religion is not just a belief system, but a social system. Just like politics. A line has been drawn in the sand. It's "us" on the inside and "them" out there. If someone challenges one of our religious truths, they are offending your institution. For that reason, the religious are often dishonest in their discourse, even though most of them are not "liars" in the strict sense. They are to be differentiated from those who earnestly seek the truth however because their search stops when certain views are threatened.

Quote:And axioms is irrelevant to arguments being true or not,  arguments rely on premises, but no premise can be verified through properly basic knowledge.

We came to know them through experience.

So we have to question how we know, and I believe we have to know on living proof, a living true seeing witness who perceives things truly.

I think you are confusing axioms with assumptions. I guess they could be viewed as such, but (in rational discourse) there is always an avenue for one's interlocutor to challenge any axioms put into play. Here's one of my favorite axioms from Baruch Spinoza: "If a thing can be conceived as not existing then its essence doesn’t involve existence." If I were engaged with you in rational discourse and I asserted this as an axiomatic truth, you could always disagree with me. If I were going to base a premise upon that axiom, you wouldn't have to accept it as true. That's what I dearly love about freethinking. Nobody can compel me to accept a truth which I myself haven't found reason to accept.

I know what they are proposed to be I'm not mixing them. In my deist days, I would use the notion of axioms a lot.

One refutation is that language is dynamic process we learn and is given to us at a layer of abstraction, but we seek to the know details over time.  Abstraction of what color is for example to a baby is going to be different to the level of abstraction to a well educated woman or man.

It's not rocket science to realize we grow in understanding, and nothing is known but we experience it.

Language and true arguments, and it's form is not agreed upon by humanity... Nor is any properly basic axiom agreed to be an axiom by all humans.

Quote:If a thing can be conceived as not existing then its essence doesn’t involve existence."

And of course it wrong. Nothing can be conceived of not existing, the default is existence, and existence encompasses everything and witnesses it itself, before the creation of things through his words. Non-existence is impossible at all levels, Existence is the reality, and it encompasses all type. I made an argument about this before. My head is tired so I forget I formed the argument to prove this. Something about if non-existence as a default is irrational, so than is any non-existence when we reflect, for any reason of non-existence in total to be irrational possibility of a default, so then is true of any level of non-existence, which means true existence is absolute and encompasses all existence, and existence cannot increase.

So if that is an axiom, and it's wrong... and it seems intuitive... I mean.. who decides what it is.

I believe the opposite to that axiom. So when it comes to numbers, God has representation somehow in every number and every number is him somehow before the world came to be. And numbers relate back to him with levels of abstraction. Same with colors. Same with shapes.

(April 3, 2018 at 9:28 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

Quote:If a thing can be conceived as not existing then its essence doesn’t involve existence."

And of course it wrong. Nothing can be conceived of not existing, the default is existence, and existence encompasses everything and witnesses it itself, before the creation of things through his words.

What about a magical bunny rabbit who grants wishes? You can't conceive that as "non-existing." Keep in mind, Spinoza is not saying that anything that can be conceived of as nonexisting doesn't exist. He just means that existence is not in its essence.

For example, when Sheila comes home for Thanksgiving and starts telling them about her new boyfriend, her family begins to conceive of this boyfriend as "not existing" due to some of her antics in the past. In this instance, however, they are wrong. Sheila really did have a boyfriend. And after they meet him in person the following July, they admit to each other privately that they were mistaken about her boyfriend's existence. However, they also agree amongst themselves that, during the whole affair, none of Spinoza's axiomatic truths were rendered invalid.

I am saying his statement is relative, and is only true from some understanding.

The problem is people sometimes take statements as absolute truth. Obviously the words you put is not an axiom because it has an opposite.

It reminds of the verse "You did not throw when you threw but God threw", in that they are all contradictory. "You did not" contradicts "you threw" and "You did not" is contradicted by "but God threw", and it is in fact, what confirms it from another angle.

What does the law of contradiction say about this in logic. It's none-sense at all layers. But it's a truth.

So to me, axioms are not useful to be defined. Rather, we are to see things through their proper angles.

And to see properly you don't assert, you see. And you look to increase in perspective. Discussion is important, but sometimes if people pressure you to leave truth, you eventually will, and if they pressure to embrace falsehood, you might.

I believe in true statements, but their angles could never be properly expressed in axioms. They have to be experienced. Language is a communicator.

There is no probably no way to make an absolute statement that is true in all angles. This includes every statement in Quran.

(April 1, 2018 at 7:38 pm)Lutrinae Wrote: MK, it seems to me one of your main problems is that you lose yourself through the torture of overunderthinking.

Fixed that for you.

Seriously dude, if you encourage him to think things through less you're just gonna make the batshitcraziness worse.

---

(April 1, 2018 at 8:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We don't all value human beings.  Some people accept horrible things being done to them, do those things themselves, or make excuses for those who do.

I do

All lifeforms in fact.

Fuck this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_(philosophy)



I value all sentient lifeforms actually.

---

(April 2, 2018 at 9:25 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I am not saying we don't know those things we call axioms to be true, I am stating calling them properly basic, is to avoid justifying them and searching why we know they are true.

Reason itself is self-justifying. The moment you try to provide reasons against it, reasons to not reason, you've already been defeated.

---

(April 3, 2018 at 10:04 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(April 3, 2018 at 9:28 am)MysticKnight Wrote: And of course it wrong. Nothing can be conceived of not existing, the default is existence, and existence encompasses everything and witnesses it itself, before the creation of things through his words.

What about a magical bunny rabbit who grants wishes? You can't conceive that as "non-existing." Keep in mind, Spinoza is not saying that anything that can be conceived of as nonexisting doesn't exist. He just means that existence is not in its essence.

The way I see it is... a "non-existent thing" is an incoherent concept. Conceiving of the absence of a bunny rabbit, then, (which is very easy to do indeed... just think of literally any situation at all without a bunny rabbit (although, sure, we may need a bit of time to forget about bunny rabbits )) is conceiving of a nonexistent one. Because a "nonexistent bunny rabbit" just means "anything besides a bunny rabbit."

Existence is not a predicate because it isn't anything in itself. Things that are existent are the same as things that are things. And the totality of existence itself MUST exist, but that refers to the fact that all things must be all things. Giving something the property of existence does absolutely nothing: Because the fact that something is something means it is already existent. The property of existence is completely meaningless, and hence not really a property, because the only alternative, nonexistence, is impossible. It's literally nothing. It doesn't refer to anything. So, seen as all things, that are things at all, are existent, then to say that something exists is just to say that it is anything. Even imaginary objects exist within the imagination.

It's the same way with truth. To say "It is true that I am a man" is identical in meaning to saying "I am a man". Truth itself is already implicitly asserted by default, when anything is stated. People can lie, and people can be wrong, sure. But that's irrelevant. The point is the meaning of every sentence is identical with or without the word "true". "True" is just used for emphasis.

Take even a statement such as "This statement is false." All that means is "It is true that this statement is false." and all "false" means is "not true" so the statement literally means "It is true that this statement is not true", which is a logical contradiction. So as soon as you work this stuff out, even the Liar's Paradox disappears

(April 3, 2018 at 1:43 pm)Hammy Wrote: Reason itself is self-justifying. The moment you try to provide reasons against it, reasons to not reason, you've already been defeated.

There is no reason not to reason, but it's about distinguishing proper ways and non-proper ways.  We have limited time in life.  We can't reason about everything. True reason will never misguide from my perspective, because it's connection and reliance on God's Guide.
The false claimants of reason and perception can get us many things true, and borrow from the light in their own existence.
Your paradigm doesn't take account possibility of Djinn and Angels, and portals to the darkest spirit and portals to the leader and Guide,  you are explaining the paradigm purely from an Atheistic stand point.
Since Djinn have incredible powers and minds,  and telepathy, relying on a false energy source and false imperfect mind way to reason, won't make us get all facts wrong, but mix truth with falsehood.
From my perspective, we humans rely on either Angels or Devils or Djinn inbetween, there is a relationship between the two, but most people don't perceive it.
The evil friend (Qareen) doesn't leave me but so doesn't the Guide abandon me.
And I am learning reaching true conclusions is not sufficient to rely on that process of thinking even if you are certain.
Tranquility lies in holding to the pure spring of blessed light, and not to mix with it anything else from impure sources.
Harder said then done.
But again, you think of axioms and reason and all that, from secular perspective.
I don't believe that perspective.
Undisiplined thinking which rules my soul too much even if reaches true conclusions can be bad, if we are wasting time, and not acting to what we already know.
I really got to go. 
I know I didn't prove anything I said, just showing my framework.