Why would the almighty ever need humans to intervene on its behalf?

(October 9, 2018 at 12:36 pm)no one Wrote: Why would the almighty ever need humans to intervene on its behalf?

It gives busybodies and blowhards something to do.

You see, it's all part of the plan.

Yep, MK has gone down the rabbit hole. When he joined he was a Deist and you know, deists are the kind of theists that don't bother much.

There was an hiatus and he returned a full fledged muslim minion. I stand by MA's concern, that one day we will see his face plastered on the news for something horrible. I can only hope not.

(October 9, 2018 at 12:36 pm)no one Wrote: Why would the almighty ever need humans to intervene on its behalf?

It seems to need them to do an awful lot of talking.

It’s rather farcical, isn’t it? He’s hiding in the broom cupboard for some reason, because he wants to test whether we'll believe he’s real anyway. Yet all these guys are pointing, shouting and giving his position away. They’re screwing with the test.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

All your arguments, and those used by theists in general, have all been shown to be logically invalid and/or unsound. Which makes them unconvincing by definition.

The fact that you, and other theists are unable to detect the fallacies in your arguments, goes more to your confirmation bias. You are dead set to lead the evidence to support your beliefs, instead of following the evidence where it leads.

Quote:2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

Yes, if you meet your burden of proof, I will be compelled, by my intellectual honesty, to accept your claim.

1000's of years and still waiting for the above to occur...

Quote:3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

I am not completely sure what you are saying here.

When I was still a theist, I was completely sincere in my search. It was my sincere search, and a modicum of intellectual honesty that lead me to being unconvinced that a god exists.

And as far as the Qur'an is concerned, it is not evidence for your god, IT IS THE CLAIM!

Quote:4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

I wish you could restate the above a little more clearly and succinctly.

Quote:6. I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

Maybe the problem is not us, but the quality of the dialog?

I take every one of your posts seriously (in hopes that you will one day say something compelling). I evaluate each one with regards to logic and evidence.

Why is it our fault that all your arguments fail to stand up to scrutiny? Don't blame us for not being as gullible as you are.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

Agreed. A productive conversation needs people with differing perspectives to understand each other. At the same time, IMO the best someone can hope for is to have clarity about what the other side truly believes and perhaps how they have arrived at their opinions. I doubt very much that I will ever convert to Islam or that you will buy into the mystical visions of Swedenborg. However, I truly believe that by listening to each other we can more deeply understand the richness of our own faith traditions, the common threads that unite us, and even take to heart some of the earnest criticisms of our atheist brothers and sisters.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

I have given up on the burden of proof debate. The debate assumes that that people gain knowledge from the ground up…starting with self-evident truths and reaching conclusions after building a tight chain of logical arguments. But people do not start with self-evident proofs. They are dropped into the middle of life and must work both backwards and forwards at the same time. The wise write life’s philosophy with a pencil. One end has a lead. The other end has an eraser.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 3. God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not, forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

Most definitely, yes. It seems like a part of human nature to belittle those who strive for more. Manned flight is impossible. No human can run a 4-minute mile. Perhaps our quest to probe the deepest mystery of human life is folly…trying to find meaning and purpose where none can be found. That is always possible. Jacob wrestled with God and limped away, wounded.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 4. It won't ever make sense that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

Many kids in my high-school people mocked those who did not drink or maintained their virginity. Many people do not see the value in abstinence or temperance. They slander the notions of purity or self-discipline. And when any of those high-minded students lapsed or failed to meet their own high self-expectations, the others insulted them for even trying. The darkness hates the light. That will never change.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 5. When we value beings, we value the value in them, if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

Not sure what your point is here. At the same time, I see your appreciation for the path of the mystic. Last night, I was pondering one of the central mysteries of the Christian faith – the tension between the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ. I questioned who I was by questioning who he is. In my mind’s eye, I saw the Highest Divine Good reaching out into the furthest reaches of creation and drawing the value He imparted to His creation back into Himself. That vision does not seem to be uniquely Christian; but rather, deeply ingrained in Judaism and Islam as well.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 6. I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

The fool is he who thinks he knows, but knows not that he knows not. Shun him.
The sleeper is he who knows, but knows not that he knows. Awaken him.
The wise man is he who knows and knows that he knows. Follow him.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. If you have heard our arguments and found them convincing, consider we have heard your rebuttals and found them unconvincing.

When you're trying to tell a paranoid schizophrenic, that the voices in his head aren't real - he also finds that unconvincing.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

Yes, but when you keep desperately pushing a book of nonsense, penned by barbarian warlords, time and time again asserting it as "proof" - you are trying our patience. Listen, dummy - if your book is supposed to prove your religion's claims to be true - how come most of the people, who believe in god still think Quran is utter horsesh*t? Maybe you should convince them first, before trying your feeble reasoning on people who actually can read?

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 3.  God by definition is the most important being, if an approach to this is made by jest and his scriptures approached with no seriousness, then whether he exists or not,  forgive Theists for seeing it irrational and evil to belittle what by definition most revered being in existence.

It's your definition and your problem. Maybe you shouldn't be presenting your religion in such a comical way?

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 4. It won't ever make sense  that hating goodness for what is: is irrelevant to morality and hence, if goodness is God's light that hating that mystic link, would be hating for what it is at it's heart.

That's not a sentence. Take your meds.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 5. When we value beings, we value the value in them,

Yeah. And when we pepper food, we pepper it with pepper... Seriously, mate - do you ever wonder, if maybe you're not really cut out for spreading the word of your god, on the account of not being able to make sense? Don't you think almighty Allah could find more talented and skilled people to do that, and you're just pissing him off, with your inane ramblings, that you attach to his name?

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: if you hate value being linked to God, and value is linked to God, do you hate or love true value of things or do you just make up what value is and attribute to them...try to understand not only the issue of God existence is of vital importance then to love and appreciating and empathy, but that truly to act for the face of God in all things requires to recognize the face of God and his word of light brought to life.

Word salad. You're just wanking yourself silly, using mystical-sounding nonsense, that makes your rectum tingle. But none of this means anything to us - except as another sign of your mental deterioration.

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 6. I can't take your testification that you are honest and truly assess all evidence seriously - in light of how you guys have display an attitude to dialogue over the years. You chose to be silly. And hence, your testification has become meaningless to me as far as these issues go.

LOL... Who gives a f*ck what you think? Your mother - maybe... We don't come to you with our "testifications", do we? You come here - to an atheist forum - time and time again, with your unsolicited, incoherent, yet pompous ramblings about how we should suck your imaginary friend's magic d*ck. And you expect us to take you seriously?

(October 9, 2018 at 1:02 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I take every one of your posts seriously. I evaluate each one with regards to logic and evidence.

Maybe that explains why many times theists find themselves at odds with atheists. Not every question can be evaluated with only the brain's left hemisphere.

(October 9, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 8, 2018 at 10:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 2. If we have the burden proof, you have the burden to accept the proof if proven to you or show that the burden has not been met.

I have given up on the burden of proof debate. The debate assumes that that people gain knowledge from the ground up…starting with self-evident truths and reaching conclusions after building a tight chain of logical arguments. But people do not start with self-evident proofs. They are dropped into the middle of life and must work both backwards and forwards at the same time. The wise write life’s philosophy with a pencil. One end has a lead. The other end has an eraser.

Am I to assume you've now given up on the Ontological Argument, then? Or am I to simply chortle every time I see you praise its use in the future?

(October 9, 2018 at 1:02 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: All your arguments, and those used by theists in general, have all been shown to be logically invalid and/or unsound. Which makes them unconvincing by definition.

That is simply not true. The logic of Aquinas is impeccable. The only question is whether or not the foundational principles of his demonstrations are true. If you start with different foundational principles different conclusions follow. To the extent that you are as intellectually honest as you say you are, I would think that it would be obvious that nihilism follows as inexorably from those alternative premises as those of Aquinas lead inexorably to divinity.