Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

I know you prefer Hullabaloo. An easy way!

Yup. But I'm not takign the easy way. My Hullabaloo is backed by proof.

Are you trying to say, you would not mind if someone say your mother is a bitch because it is an untrue comparison!!!???

Yes. Do you know how many times I've been called a son of a bitch.

Okay! No problem, they are both Coward and Conspiratorial.
However, what in your opinion is free speech?

The same thing as it is in legal opinion.

But, ,you are trying to deflect. Insulting Muslims and prophet Mohammed - as long as it does not rise to libel or slander - comes under free-speech and therefore should be allowed.

Yeah! You can say that while sitting in your comfortable sofa with a cup of hot chocolate and enjoying the war games. It is known as “lack of consideration”.

And what does that have to do with anything? Why should 'consideration' be present?

Can you show only 10,000 people who have memorized some particular book having the volume similar to Quran and in language, they don’t know. If 10,000 is a big figure then show only 1,000 compared to 30,000,000.

I can. The sum total of Hindu religious texts would be much bigger than Quran. They are also written mostly in Sanskrit - a language that most of the priests who recite those texts everyday are not familiar with in the least. A lot of them become familiar by slowly understanding it via daily repetition. But they are able to memorize it long before they fully understand the language.

No professor can give interest to the student if the student does not have his own interest in the studies. If someone studies, without having interest, that is because he bears some burden. You don’t have interest in studying Quran and you don’t have a burden so no reason would suit you here.

Then why did you bring it up?

How you know Quran when you do not know its contents?

By the sites that talk about its content.
By the Muslims who talk about their beliefs based on its contents.
By the actions of those Muslims informed by its content.

I told you that Wikipedia is not run by crooks. It is a respected site. They are not telling false then they are neither distorting real things.

it is written there:

I"n 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an."

Moore had taken an intelligent by refusing because he is not living in a Muslim community he had for sure cultural burden over his shoulder.

Wikipedia only report what happened but no where it agrees. Its only your dream.

Read the line before that. Where it says that Moore's findings have been refuted. Also, read the references cited by the Wiki. Both, in combination, sufficiently prove me correct. Moore refused because he was embarrassed by foolish statements made years ago and hopes that given time, people would just forget he ever said that.

Crooks manage Wikiislam. I told you that. Give reference from the work of some eminent historians or theologians. Don’t you have anyone else than those crooks?

Do you know what argumentum ad hominem is?

Its when you have no argument left to make and resort to name calling. Its a sign of how weak your position is.

Your saying that Wikiislam is run by crooks doesn't make it so. Even if it was, it still wouldn't make their arguments wrong. The simple fact is, it has given evidence to support its argument and you have no counter.

You are showing lack of knowledge. Nearly all medical institutions around the globe are using Keith Moore’s books (including the Islamic version) as textbooks.

No, they don't. That's just what you want to be the case, but isn't.

You are pushing me towards websites, where people are striving their utmost to prove Quran and Islam wrong. They don’t care whether they are using hooks or crooks for their reasoning. The fact is lshining ike sun in the midday, Moors books including Islamic version are every where around the globe and all medical students are using it as their treasure to earn high marks.

Moore's books minus any reference to quran are being used. Those with Islamic references are not.

Moore was proven wrong on that front - about any embryological knowledge in Quran being miraculous - but that was a failure of his historical knowledge, not medical knowledge. And all the latest editions are missing that bit. Its almost as if it was an embarrassing mistake he wants to forget.

As for giving you those links - well those people have done such a fine job of proving the Quran and Islam wrong that I don't have to do any work. Your indignant bumbling about them being crooks doesn't change that.

Jochin Katz is another crook who had literally fooled naive people by the spreading rumour that Quran has different versions.

Nope. He is an honest man. You are the crook adn a liar for spreading lies about him.

You see, I can do ad hominem too.

I know exactly what is in your mind and why you brought this word here. On contrary, you missed the point why I use Burqa in capital words. If you want, we can discuss on Burqa and about your problem with this Burqa.

Again, what are you blabbering about?

What I know I talk only on that. I know there are people who favour Quran but can’t represent their views appropriately as they lack in proper knowledge. I know there are people who go in negative extreme and cross all boarders of ethics in hatred and jealousy.

I am only concerned on what I am saying not what others are saying. If someone is saying true I am with him may he be atheist, Christian, Muslim, anyone. If someone is saying false I am not with him may he be a Muslim. If I don’t know something then before saying I try to find out the truth.

Except, you are talking about things that you don't know about. Or if you do know about it, then you are lying. Either way, this makes you a liar.

You have been given evidence of scientific discrepancies and errors in quran. If you know about them - then without disproving them you cannot call Quran 'miraculous' without first disproving each and every one of them. If you don't know about them, then you should find out before making such nonsensical statements.

There are thousands of videos refuting those allegations. You can make a research. It’s not a difficult task.

Did you miss the part about burden of proof?

You made the claim. You do the research. i've done mine.

What you are calling evidences are nothing more than foul play. You can fool a naive person with those concoctions but not the one who know Quran.

A temper tantrum worthy of a five-year old.

Instead of shouting foul play and stamping your foot - go prove them wrong. If they are foul play, proving it should not be difficult.

Be consistent in making statements.

Which is why asked for relevance. That statement was a non-sequitur.

Serve your best shot and I’ll try to return it back to you. Everything is on open ground.

I've served you all of my shots. You haven't returned any.

Its such a common sense thing. Let me elaborate on it.

(Until, when he reached the setting of the sun,) means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth.

(He found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something, which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact, it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. Hami'ah is, according to one of the two views, derived from the word Hama'ah, which means mud.

That's the common sense interpretation only if there is pre-existing knowledge about the sun's motion. Without it, it is nothing but an ambiguous statement.

Talk with me on bible and I will not feel shy giving all mistakes and discrepancies in it with evidence and proves, even though if they are billions in numbers. Said that it doesn’t mean I am against bible and Jesus.

I am also a believer in bible and believer in Jesus but unfortunately, bible has been corrupted heavily and I cannot rely on it with certainty. With Quran, it is not the case.

Well them clearly, we've taken different paths. I've chosen to be sane.

Given all the mistakes and discrepancies in the bible, there is sufficient evidence to reject almost all of it as bullshit.

Given the same with quran, similarly there is sufficient evidence to reject it as bullshit.

What's even more interesting is that the rationalizations you give for quran are of the same nature as the ones Christians give for their bible.

---

You said:

“That would be the food you eat - that provides the energy to keep your brain functioning.”

So decide whether it is food or energy, which is required for brain to function is consciousness or is it the brain functioning that is consciousness. By the way what about the people who are in coma? They are getting the food, they are getting the required energy for the functioning of their brains, and their brains function to keep them alive. Do you think people in coma have consciousness?

You seem to have some sort of comprehension issues. So I'll type slowly. Food turns to energy. Energy keeps brain functioning. Brain function is consciousness.

Depending upon the type of coma - yes, people in coma can have consciousness.

You are showing your back to me.

Yup. I'm mooning you.

I said everybody agreed. That was the answer to your question “Who Does?”. I am still without the answer for “Who Don’t?”

Well, the answer to that that is "everybody don't".

Singularity had no components at T = 0. This is what science says. So, any answer would not automatically make that entity a part of the universe at T = 0.

My question remains unanswered:

If there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew?

The only thing we've established so far is that the answer is not allah.

Can you prove existence of “Nothingness”?

Nothingness is not a thing.

Interesting person you are.

universe is not the outcome of chance, not of Nothingness, and for you God don’t exist then what is its cause?

Like I've said many times already - who said there was a cause?

You cannot prove “Nothingness”
You agree it is not caused by chance &

You don’t have any substitute to God.

So who is lazy?

Not lazy - honest. That's all we know so far. We're finding out more about it.

What is the confusing aspect here?

Infinite universe and multiverse are not concurrent hypotheses.

It cannot be a fact simply because science has not yet discovered the boundaries of this universe. Means science is still discovering new galaxies and objects in the furthest horizons of this universe.

You do realize that discovering the boundary is not necessary to discover the age, right?

---

This response is an obvious exhibit of your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is an excellent demonstration of your sly desire to condemn Quran. Your arguments are not based on knowledge rather on your personal preferences only. Target of my main essay “Joy and Pleasure” are the people somewhat like you.

I have gone through your discourse with other members in this thread. There also I found similar pattern of your tactics, which you are applying, over my reasoning in a bitter way. I also found you to be heavily inconsistent in keeping your statements. When I gave quote on the BAD FAITH from

Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre

my intension was to highlight this inconsistency in the statements of the people.

The interesting thing, which I found after reading your tussle with others in this thread, is you seem to copying opinions of Daniel C. Dennett from his book “Consciousness Explained”.

In the preface of this book, Dennett wrote:

“I think I can sketch an outline of the solution, a theory of consciousness that gives answers (or shows how to find the answers) to the questions that have been just as baffling to philosophers and scientists as to laypeople. …

… I’m sure there are still plenty of mistakes in the theory I will offer here, and I hope they are bold ones, for then they will provoke better answers by others.”

This statement is a clear indication that author is not self-assured on his presentation of consciousness in terms of evolutionary biology and computer model of mind, which you have adopted as your weapon against others.

Following are few comments made by other members of this thread, which fit in the established truths authenticated by eminent philosophers and other rational thinkers alike. Most of these comments you have tried to condemn simple based on your own likings by using spurious fictions.

(Today 11:06)bennyboy Wrote:
All those things are inferred purely based on what you can see, or believe that you COULD see, if you chose to go do it yourself.

All those things are based on what I can see - evidence of existence, though not existence itself - and its the same for consciousness. And like consciousness, I cannot directly see the black holes or the dinosaurs or the crime being committed - all I have to go on is the evidence.

bennyboy Wrote:
I accept that the brain takes in light and processes touch, sound, etc. I accept that brains result in behaviors. I do not accept that any of these processes necessarily indicates actual experience. This must be assumed.

Only if you ignore any and all behaviors that require experience to occur. Simple processing of external stimuli would result in one set of behavior - such a flinching from touch or pupils contracting from light. Processing of this process - which is what experience is - results in a whole different set of behavior. You cannot answer any personal questions (why did you pick a banana instead of an apple, which do you like better - chocolate or vanilla?) without there being actual experience.

bennyboy Wrote:
As for the consequence you have envisaged:
For machines to simulate human behavior without actual experience would be, in my opinion, impossible. A great deal of human behavior is contingent upon personal desires, knowledge, beliefs and past experience - all of which require actual subjective awareness. Replicating these without that awareness would not be possible.

ChadWooters:
A couple advantages of dualism are as follows:

Dualism does not conflate neuroscience with materialism. One is a science, the other is a philosophy.

Physical phenomena, in themselves, have no inherent meaning. Dualism provides a place, absent in materialism, for irreducible qualities like qualia and intentionality.

Unlike materialism, dualism affirms that the subjective contents of mental states have explanatory relevance while avoiding both epiphenomenalism and over-determination. This allows natural selection to reward rationality.

How is any of this an advantage?

Existence of a logical and rational view of reality requires that there be no conflict between science and philosophy. What you call conflation is in fact consistency.

Qualities like qualia and intentionality do not need to be irreducible for physical phenomena to have objective (not inherent) meaning. There is a place for them within materialism, just not a place that regards them as irreducible. And the meaning and value assigned to physical phenomena by a consciousness is not diminished by consciousness itself being a physical phenomenon.

Unlike materialism, the affirmation of subjective contents of mental states given within dualism itself relies on inexplicable and unprovable premises. Whereas materialism affirms the explanatory relevance of subjective states while satisfactorily explaining the states themselves.

ChadWooters
You have one thing, an instance of consciousness. It has two properties. The first is a physical brain-state. The second property is feeling. Which property is necessary and which is accidental? You must choose.

bennyboy
When you know what you want to believe, and conflate confirmation bias with an actual scientific process, you are not pitting science against philosophy. You are pitting your personal truthiness against BOTH science AND philosophy.

bennyboy
you see something, and you explain it. Sometimes, you can't see what causes a property-- then you must infer (or downright guess) what causes it. But in none of these cases do you start with an observable and sufficient cause of observable property X, and start guessing how it's the cause of unobservable property Y.

bennyboy
My knowledge is based on direct experience, not on ideas about the underlying nature of things which get replaced every hundred years.

---

That's hilarious - someone so ignorant of historical views on cosmology accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

For the record, the point of the argument made - an argument that you completely ignored and went off in a tangent - was to show that cosmological models similar to big-bang had been developed long before your quran came into existence.

As for Dennet - I've never actually read him - so no, my opinions are not based on his.

And I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by posting arguments made by people much smarter than you when I answer those arguments in the very next post - answers you seem to have conveniently missed.

Also, I've made no secret of my desire to condemn quran. I've also made no secret of the fact that I intend to condemn it because I find it full of shit. Using that to accuse me of bad faith won't work.

Which evidence “Thermodynamics”, “Quantum Physics”, or something else?

Didn't Paulo give it you already?

Did Hawkins, Dawkins, and Krauss congratulate you on your victory?

Why would they? Its not any kind of a great accomplishment.

No one has proven anything all are saying fine-tuning does not exist or giving me links to some strange web sites. That is all what I am listening.

That means you have fingers in your ears and you are not listening at all.

Instead of pushing me to some long thread better, you present your own argument let it be from your favourite thread on this forum.

I did present my own argument there. So go ahead and read it there.

Okay! So how this nature entered into the universe? Perhaps, universe set that nature for itself. If it is the case then universe is God. However, theologians say God is eternal and we know universe is not eternal therefore this argument fails.

Maybe you have better idea from where nature entered with all its working laws in this universe of which we are also part and we know our lives depends over these laws of nature.

Nature doesn't 'enter' anything. It simply is. And we do not know that the universe is not eternal.

Correct! So far, you have demonstrated it well.

I'm not the one shouting.

It’s a lazy man’s way to announce others to be wrong without proper assertions. On the other hand, maybe you do not have anything to assert at all.

You are right. I'm not asserting anything here. I'm simply rejecting your assertions.

If you are not making any claims then how you are proclaiming my reasoning false. If you are not claiming that means you don’t have any reason to compare with my reasoning.

Please - that's a pathetic equivocation. I don't need to claim anything to proclaim your reasoning invalid. All I have to do for that is name the logical fallacies you are employing - and I've done that.