Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(September 30, 2011 at 4:11 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I'm with you so far, but what has that got to do with anything?
Everything! Your friends were claiming that the existence of things depends solely on belief in their existence - and not something objective. That's just sheer nonsense, is it not?
Can you link me to where they claim that? I find that very hard to believe. Could it be just a simple miscommunication?
Or you could just check for yourself on the threads I've commented on. They're not that many.
Just to be clear: what is it exactly that you find hard to believe? That they reject my contention that the existence or non-existence of objective things is not dependent on anyone's beleifs? If they're not rejecting that, then we're all on the same page.
What happened to the Shamanism Zak??
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
(September 30, 2011 at 5:05 am)Rayaan Wrote: Zaki, if you don't mind answering this, what is your religion? Your username sounds like a Muslim name. So, are you a Muslim or not?
I'm a Free Thinker. I don't see the need to belong to any group in order to hold a worldview. Worldviews derived from membership of a group and co-ordinated with this group are usually compromises and therefore approximations. That is not a good way to seek out the Pure Truth - or do cutting-edge science.
Nevertheless there are many things in many religions that I find admirable and worthy of emulation. Atheism to me is the result of illogical thinking. Any worldview that rejects the validity of the Principle of Causality is bound to be absurdist, solipsist, and ultimately nihilist. And we can see plenty of evidence of that around us.
(September 30, 2011 at 4:11 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I'm with you so far, but what has that got to do with anything?
Everything! Your friends were claiming that the existence of things depends solely on belief in their existence - and not something objective. That's just sheer nonsense, is it not?
Can you link me to where they claim that? I find that very hard to believe. Could it be just a simple miscommunication?
Or you could just check for yourself on the threads I've commented on. They're not that many.
Just to be clear: what is it exactly that you find hard to believe? That they reject my contention that the existence or non-existence of objective things is not dependent on anyone's beleifs? If they're not rejecting that, then we're all on the same page.
I find it hard to believe that they claim that existence is dependent solely on the belief of their existence. As for searching the forums, I am mobile on tapatalk and crosspost searching is not that easy. A link would have helped.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
(September 30, 2011 at 5:05 am)Rayaan Wrote: Zaki, if you don't mind answering this, what is your religion? Your username sounds like a Muslim name. So, are you a Muslim or not?
I'm a Free Thinker. I don't see the need to belong to any group in order to hold a worldview. Worldviews derived from membership of a group and co-ordinated with this group are usually compromises and therefore approximations. That is not a good way to seek out the Pure Truth - or do cutting-edge science.
Nevertheless there are many things in many religions that I find admirable and worthy of emulation. Atheism to me is the result of illogical thinking. Any worldview that rejects the validity of the Principle of Causality is bound to be absurdist, solipsist, and ultimately nihilist. And we can see plenty of evidence of that around us.
I'll give you this sunshine...you are consistantly inconsistant.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
(September 30, 2011 at 6:44 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:04 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 5:05 am)Rayaan Wrote: Zaki, if you don't mind answering this, what is your religion? Your username sounds like a Muslim name. So, are you a Muslim or not?
I'm a Free Thinker. I don't see the need to belong to any group in order to hold a worldview. Worldviews derived from membership of a group and co-ordinated with this group are usually compromises and therefore approximations. That is not a good way to seek out the Pure Truth - or do cutting-edge science.
Nevertheless there are many things in many religions that I find admirable and worthy of emulation. Atheism to me is the result of illogical thinking. Any worldview that rejects the validity of the Principle of Causality is bound to be absurdist, solipsist, and ultimately nihilist. And we can see plenty of evidence of that around us.
I'll give you this sunshine...you are consistantly inconsistant.
I've no idea what you mean. I don't think you do either, do you?
(September 30, 2011 at 6:44 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:04 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 5:05 am)Rayaan Wrote: Zaki, if you don't mind answering this, what is your religion? Your username sounds like a Muslim name. So, are you a Muslim or not?
I'm a Free Thinker. I don't see the need to belong to any group in order to hold a worldview. Worldviews derived from membership of a group and co-ordinated with this group are usually compromises and therefore approximations. That is not a good way to seek out the Pure Truth - or do cutting-edge science.
Nevertheless there are many things in many religions that I find admirable and worthy of emulation. Atheism to me is the result of illogical thinking. Any worldview that rejects the validity of the Principle of Causality is bound to be absurdist, solipsist, and ultimately nihilist. And we can see plenty of evidence of that around us.
I'll give you this sunshine...you are consistantly inconsistant.
I've no idea what you mean. I don't think you do either, do you?
I am asking AGAIN WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF WICKEDNESS IS
Or is it you have no idea ...do you??
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
September 30, 2011 at 7:00 am (This post was last modified: September 30, 2011 at 7:18 am by Zaki Aminu.)
(September 30, 2011 at 6:06 am)leo-rcc Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 4:42 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 4:31 am)leo-rcc Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 4:15 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 4:11 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I'm with you so far, but what has that got to do with anything?
Everything! Your friends were claiming that the existence of things depends solely on belief in their existence - and not something objective. That's just sheer nonsense, is it not?
Can you link me to where they claim that? I find that very hard to believe. Could it be just a simple miscommunication?
Or you could just check for yourself on the threads I've commented on. They're not that many.
Just to be clear: what is it exactly that you find hard to believe? That they reject my contention that the existence or non-existence of objective things is not dependent on anyone's beleifs? If they're not rejecting that, then we're all on the same page.
I find it hard to believe that they claim that existence is dependent solely on the belief of their existence. As for searching the forums, I am mobile on tapatalk and crosspost searching is not that easy. A link would have helped.
I'm new to these forums and unfamiliar with how they have been configured. So you probably will still be faster at searching than I am. But I'm glad you agree that anyone that claims that the existence of objective things - such as the continent of American or Australia - depends on their belief is nonsense. That is sufficient for me.
(September 30, 2011 at 6:59 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:56 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:44 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:04 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 5:05 am)Rayaan Wrote: Zaki, if you don't mind answering this, what is your religion? Your username sounds like a Muslim name. So, are you a Muslim or not?
I'm a Free Thinker. I don't see the need to belong to any group in order to hold a worldview. Worldviews derived from membership of a group and co-ordinated with this group are usually compromises and therefore approximations. That is not a good way to seek out the Pure Truth - or do cutting-edge science.
Nevertheless there are many things in many religions that I find admirable and worthy of emulation. Atheism to me is the result of illogical thinking. Any worldview that rejects the validity of the Principle of Causality is bound to be absurdist, solipsist, and ultimately nihilist. And we can see plenty of evidence of that around us.
I'll give you this sunshine...you are consistantly inconsistant.
I've no idea what you mean. I don't think you do either, do you?
I am asking AGAIN WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF WICKEDNESS IS
Or is it you have no idea ...do you??
Unlike you and your friends, I don't make up my own definitions of words. I look them up in dictionaries. Here's the dictionary definition of "wickedness" from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
Definition of WICKEDNESS
1 : the quality or state of being wicked
2 : something wicked
September 30, 2011 at 7:25 am (This post was last modified: September 30, 2011 at 7:30 am by KichigaiNeko.)
(September 30, 2011 at 7:00 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:06 am)leo-rcc Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 4:42 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 4:31 am)leo-rcc Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 4:15 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: Everything! Your friends were claiming that the existence of things depends solely on belief in their existence - and not something objective. That's just sheer nonsense, is it not?
Can you link me to where they claim that? I find that very hard to believe. Could it be just a simple miscommunication?
Or you could just check for yourself on the threads I've commented on. They're not that many.
Just to be clear: what is it exactly that you find hard to believe? That they reject my contention that the existence or non-existence of objective things is not dependent on anyone's beleifs? If they're not rejecting that, then we're all on the same page.
I find it hard to believe that they claim that existence is dependent solely on the belief of their existence. As for searching the forums, I am mobile on tapatalk and crosspost searching is not that easy. A link would have helped.
I'm new to these forums and unfamiliar with how they have been configured. So you probably will still be faster at searching than I am. But I'm glad you agree that anyone that claims that the existence of objective things - such as the continent of American or Australia - depends on their belief is nonsense. That is sufficient for me.
(September 30, 2011 at 6:59 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:56 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:44 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(September 30, 2011 at 6:04 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: I'm a Free Thinker. I don't see the need to belong to any group in order to hold a worldview. Worldviews derived from membership of a group and co-ordinated with this group are usually compromises and therefore approximations. That is not a good way to seek out the Pure Truth - or do cutting-edge science.
Nevertheless there are many things in many religions that I find admirable and worthy of emulation. Atheism to me is the result of illogical thinking. Any worldview that rejects the validity of the Principle of Causality is bound to be absurdist, solipsist, and ultimately nihilist. And we can see plenty of evidence of that around us.
I'll give you this sunshine...you are consistantly inconsistant.
I've no idea what you mean. I don't think you do either, do you?
I am asking AGAIN WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF WICKEDNESS IS
Or is it you have no idea ...do you??
Unlike you and your friends, I don't make up my own definitions of words. I look them up in dictionaries. Here's the dictionary definition of "wickedness" from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
Definition of WICKEDNESS
1 : the quality or state of being wicked
2 : something wicked
And the definition of "wicked" is:
Definition of WICKED
1 : morally very bad : evil....etc.
Unlike you we do not cleave blindly to definitions and actually think.
Zaki Aminu/ Aminu Zaki/ Zaki etc etc Nigeria Wrote:Atheists – ALL atheists HAVE TO avoid the application of the strict rules of logic and the demands of facts in ALL their arguments to appear even minimally credible. After all what is Atheism arguing for but the absurdity that EFFECTS can manifest – WITHOUT CAUSES! All you have to do is wait long enough! Or, in a different version, they think that the ridiculous of “cyclic causation” – such as Hawking’s idea of a universe which “creates itself from nothing” is a viable explanation for how things fundamentally come to be and continue to exist.
These are such absurd and utterly dense ideas that only the most strenuous efforts at mental contortion-ism and gymnastics can succeed in disguising – at least partially – their utter vacuity as a logical premises. Unless it is intellectual and moral depravity that leads one to believe such notions make eminent sense.
Atheism is defeated – and EASILY defeated with simple commonsense! Insist on commonsense in ANY debate with atheists and you will EASILY put them to the sword intellectually. Concede even the slightest ground to them – such as like tolerating the idiotic concept of “Chance” as a genuine causal agent and you will have them buzzing incessantly around you like invisible and invulnerable mosquitoes.
Comment by Zaki Aminu — April 30, 2011 @ 4:11 am
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
