Pleasure and Joy

[Harris]

You know how I know when I have won a debate? When the opponent starts flinging poo instead of actual arguments. And that is precisely what you've been reduced to here.

Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments. Anyone intent on a "healthy debate in an educated manner" would've considered it irrelevant. Which is precisely what theists, deists and agnostics I've debated with before have done.

As for your responses, they're anything but disciplined or educated. You like to vomit walls of text to obfuscate your arguments - but that doesn't work here. You resort to indignant and grandiose posturing to compensate for lack of counter-arguments - but that doesn't work here. Then you move on to ad-hominems, accusing your opponents of makign their arguments "by hook or by crook" - and even that doesn't work here. So, this is what you've been reduced to - using every negative stereotype associated with atheists and throwing them out there regardless of their actual applicability.

Allow me to disillusion you of them. No, I do not enjoy killings of millions of Muslims - but I do appreciate death of those who initiate violence. No, neither Hitler and Stalin would get anything but contempt from me because both of their ideologies are contradictory to mine - one was a Christian and the other a communist. No, I do not represent Atheism. Yes, I am rude - but I am neither brutal nor insane - given that I provide rational justification for all my positions and don't condone violence (unless you meant 'brutal' in the sense of being 'brutally honest', in which case- guilty as charged). Yes, I do believe that atheism is about facing harsh reality - but that is my personal view and not of all atheists. And no, my view does not mean that atheism is about "brutality, cruelty, harshness, and ruthlessness". I am doing more that saying NO to your claims - I've given sufficient reason for saying NO. And though I am most certainly not a skeptic (as the resident skeptics here would happily testify to) - it is still wrong to say that skeptics have no beliefs. And yes, by all means, try telling the resident skeptics here that "the only good skeptic is a dead skeptic" - I can't wait to see them tear you apart.

Here's a little but of disillusionment regarding your own arguments. Making a claim is not enough. If you cannot support your claim, then I don't need to do anything more that say NO to it. Its not my responsibility to go about disabusing you of whatever insane notion you might have. Since you have failed to prove your case, I have no reason to treat your Quran as anything other than what it is - ramblings of a delusional man with an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance. Your arguments have been no different that any of the other theists before you. As a matter of fact, if I so chose, I could've simply linked you to the relevant posts made in the past refuting whatever argument you make. Your posts have been anything but intelligent or educated - in fact, they seemed to have been borrowed straight out of the apologetic junkyard floating around the web. In this thread, I kept looking forward to Chad's and Benny's responses for a dose of intelligent conversation.

“You know how i know when i have won a debate? When the opponent starts flinging poo instead of actual arguments. And that is precisely what you've been reduced to here.”

You are only exhibiting your overconfidence here, which is nothing special.


“Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments.”
Usually, people use confrontational and provocative language and scandals to hide their deficiency and try to win “by Hook and by Crook”.

If I am answering your confrontational and provocative arguments its only because I feel its important to stop any confrontation and provocation among people as these help in spreading hatred. I don’t think Atheism is teaching how to hate people or maybe I am wrong.


“Anyone intent on a "healthy debate in an educated manner" would've considered it irrelevant. Which is precisely what theists, deists and agnostics I've debated with before have done.”

You are building almost every of your argument based on guesstimates.

“As for your responses, they're anything but disciplined or educated. You like to vomit walls of text to obfuscate your arguments - but that doesn't work here.”

You are ceaselessly spitting right into my eyes for no reasons. I am not abusing you or your Atheism yet you are spitting and spitting. I have not yet vomited, as my health is good enough for the survival.

“You resort to indignant and grandiose posturing to compensate for lack of counter-arguments - but that doesn't work here.”

Agreed! I have not yet presented my counter arguments. You have not given me any serious reason for that. You are saying only NO or maximum pushing me to some web sites administered by crooks.

For example:

What argument have you given against Kalam other than rejecting all its premises in the air?

“Then you move on to ad-hominems, accusing your opponents of makign their arguments "by hook or by crook" - and even that doesn't work here.”

For your rejections in air, I don’t have any other option than to say “by hook or by crook”. Sorry for that

“So, this is what you've been reduced to - using every negative stereotype associated with atheists and throwing them out there regardless of their actual applicability.”

I have never attacked your person as well as your atheism. For sure, you have some kind of superiority or inferiority complex. Perhaps you have both. You are mistaken in comparing me with others as no matter how strongly I am against your idols, I still respect you as a human being and avoid any personal attacks on you. On the other side, you are not letting any chance go empty where you can attack on my person and on my faith.

“Allow me to disillusion you of them. No, i do not enjoy killings of millions of Muslims - but i do appreciate death of those who initiate violence.”

If Bin Laden is one culprit, would that justify killings of innocent Muslims in millions? Do you favour that act of the secular west?

“No, neither Hitler and Stalin would get anything but contempt from me because both of their ideologies are contradictory to mine - one was a Christian and the other a communist.”

I understand Christian is your enemy, but what happened with the communist who is your cousin.

“No, I do not represent Atheism.”

Then why are you defending Atheism?

“Yes, I am rude - but I am neither brutal nor insane - given that I provide rational justification for all my positions and don't condone violence (unless you meant 'brutal' in the sense of being 'brutally honest', in which case- guilty as charged).”

I don’t think a brutal man can be an honest man. “Brutally honest”, I consider it a good term for self-satisfaction.

The authentic person is one who lives in clear, honest recognition of existential freedom. This is best understood in contrast with the various ways of being inauthentic that Sartre calls ‘bad faith’. These are strategies for denying or disguising one’s freedom and responsibility in order to minimize the ‘anxiety’, which full appreciation of these, would induce.

“Yes, I do believe that atheism is about facing harsh reality - but that is my personal view and not of all atheists. And no, my view does not mean that atheism is about "brutality, cruelty, harshness, and ruthlessness".”

It is not Atheism, which is facing harsh realities; it is a harsh person who faces harsh realities irrespective to whether he is theist or atheist. Peaceful atheists are normal people living with normal people in harmony and mutual understands. I personally have many atheist and communist friends and I never had problems with them.

“I am doing more that saying NO to your claims - I've given sufficient reason for saying NO.”

Your reasons are reasons for you only. They have no potentials to be recognised as reasons.

“And though I am most certainly not a skeptic (as the resident skeptics here would happily testify to) - it is still wrong to say that skeptics have no beliefs. And yes, by all means, try telling the resident skeptics here that "the only good skeptic is a dead skeptic" - I can't wait to see them tear you apart.”

If sceptic has beliefs then he is not sceptic. By definition, antonym of sceptic is believer. You are saying you are not sceptic but you are behaving like a sceptic by saying NO to everything.

“Here's a little but of disillusionment regarding your own arguments. Making a claim is not enough. If you cannot support your claim, then I don't need to do anything more that say NO to it. Its not my responsibility to go about disabusing you of whatever insane notion you might have.”

Okay! Let me make my claim again. Here I claim:

There is nothing so called “Nothingness” and universe has a cause. The cause is God. In support of my claim, I give Kalam cosmological argument.

Disprove my claim and prove there exist something called “Nothingness” and universe came into existence without a cause out from this “Nothingness”.

I hope this time you will present some serious argument in place of rejecting everything in thin air or pushing me towards strange videos or web sites.

“Since you have failed to prove your case, I have no reason to treat your Quran as anything other than what it is - ramblings of a delusional man with an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance.”

You have not presented any criticism on even a single verse of Quran. Paulpablo is doing a good job. At least he is arguing by presenting verses from Quran and criticising them with logical reasoning. You haven’t done such so far. If I have no criticism from you, how comes you are expecting refutation from me.

“Your arguments have been no different that any of the other theists before you. As a matter of fact, if I so chose, I could've simply linked you to the relevant posts made in the past refuting whatever argument you make.”

Maybe they are not different. It is not important they are similar or unique rather what facts they are revealing it is important.

“Your posts have been anything but intelligent or educated - in fact, they seemed to have been borrowed straight out of the apologetic junkyard floating around the web.”

Cheers.

---

When you read a statement from the quran and think it predicts finger prints when it does NOT mention even the word unique or anything that could be another word for unique and it does not even claim to be making a prediction about anything then you definitely most certainly ARE guessing.

The word guess means

Estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

This is the quote of the quran.

Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

Not a mention of the word unique, not a mention of the word prints, not a mention of anything to do with fingerprints uniqueness or anything of the sort.

Now tell me how you know god is telling you in this verse information regarding finger prints.

Are you guessing?

If not please let me know how you know for sure how this verse is telling you about fingerprints.
And don't just use one word answers like LOGIC or REASONING.

I'll give you an example, if I was a policeman and doing an investigation into a murder and the judge asked me why I thought the clues pointed to the suspect I had arrested I wouldn't just say LOGIC or REASONING would I?

I'd have to put up some good arguments such as CCTV footage, forensic evidence, non bias witnesses and so on.


I already am almost certain that you are guessing as I'm not blind or illiterate, I can read the verse and have a good understanding of english enough to know there is no information here or even clues about fingerprints,
AND lets say god does just like to give very vague clues about fingerprints in ancient texts you are still GUESSING what the clue is telling you.

Because after you sat down and thought to yourself "this text must be telling me about fingerprints" god didn't come down and congratulate you on getting it right did he? There were no signs that you are right or correct in your guess work.

Bare in mind also that finger tips were known for having an intricate shape before Islam, Babylonians used fingerprints so did the Chinese.

Quran brings up case of fingertips explicitly in the verse and by this; it has given a hint to a hidden fact. Hint means a slight or indirect indication. Hint always contains slight part of a universal fact in an indicative form only. Here part is fingerprints (hidden part) and whole is fingertips. It is a universal truth that fingertips have fingerprints with which no one can contradict.

God says in the verse, He would recreate fingertips without any flaw and with precision. Fingertips cannot be perfect without fingerprints being in perfect order too.

When I say apple is red, this phrase holds more hidden information about the apple. The information is, only red apple has adequate ripeness for eating. Before people didn’t know what does red mean but now they have discovered this fact hidden behind the word red. Now the phrase “apple is red” is enough to convey the universal truth and there is no need for elaboration on what does red means.

That is how verses in Quran hold universal truths without revealing their intricate details.

“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book (Quran): In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.”
Ali Imran (3)
-Verse 7-

“Bare in mind also that finger tips were known for having an intricate shape before Islam, Babylonians used fingerprints so did the Chinese.”

First, you have not given any historical reference for Babylonians and Chinese, which show they were using fingerprints. Second, if I agree for the sake of argument that Babylonians and Chinese where using fingerprints, then for the discovery of fingerprints why all credit goes to Frances Gold why not to Babylonians and Chinese.