Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

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

However, you are the one ignoring all my actual arguments and focusing on overconfidence.

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.

You are wrong - in assuming that usage of confrontational and provocative language indicates any sort of deficiency or is used to spread hatred. Given this error of premise the rest of your argument is invalid.

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

What's the "guesstimate" 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.

Well, I'm hoping that my spitting would force you to clean out the religious gunk out of your eyes and open them to reality. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet. And if you think that vomiting walls of text is bad for your health, you should stop doing that.

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?

You haven't presented any "arguments" worthy of countering to begin with. You are making ridiculous claims all over the place without any proof for them and ask for "serious" counters when they don't even qualify for being taken seriously. You haven't given any evidence to show that your quran is anything other than a madman's babblings. You haven't proven that any of the Islamic sites is run by "crooks". And as for Kalam, I reject his arguments because his premises have not been show to be true.

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

But you do have another option - actually giving evidence for your claims. If you did that I wouldn't be able to "reject in air". But that's a tad difficult when what you are trying to claim is ridiculous to begin with.

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.

Actually, when you make claims like "you are spreading hatred" or "You are likely to admire Hitler and Stalin" or "You are being rude, brutal and insane" - then you are, in fact, attacking my person. It doesn't bother me, because these accusations are false, but that is what you are doing.

Secondly, I don't have any of those complexes, but I do feel justifiably superior to anyone who can only repeat the oft-refuted arguments found on the web.

I don't have any "idols" for you to be against.

And I'm not letting of a single chance to attack your faith because, well, that's one of the reasons I am here.

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

I don't justify killing of innocent Muslims - but Bin Laden is not the only culprit.

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

A cousin? Where did you get that stupid idea?

Then why are you defending Atheism?

I'm not defending atheism - I'm attacking your faith.

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.

What you think and what reality is are two different things. Living in clear, honest recognition of existential freedom entails stringent denial of any imagined shackles upon that freedom - no matter how comforting those chains may be or how brutal their denial may seem.

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.

Do you make your nonsensical arguments to them as well?

Preservation of "peace and harmony" to justify continued ignorance is a poor excuse.

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

Wrong again. See my reasons for clarification.

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.

This is what you get when you get your "knowledge" from ignorant theistic philosophies. A skeptic questions and doubts beliefs - that does not mean that he does not have any beliefs. By Most commonly, a skeptic is a firm believer of evidence. Therefore, by definition, a believer is not an antonym of a skeptic. And I'm not behaving like a skeptic because I'm not saying NO to everything - only to your unjustified claims.

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.

You do realize that repetition of unjustified claims does not constitute supporting the said claim. For example, I cannot claim that "all Muslims are violent psychopaths" and as support, give Bush's statement that "all Muslims are violent psychopaths". Kalam's cosmological argument says the exact same thing you do and therefore does not consitute support for your claim.

As for you argument - I reject the premise that "Universe had a cause". The reason - causality is not universe-independent. I don't have to prove "Nothingness" because that is irrelevant to the argument. You haven't proven that the universe has or even could have a cause and that assertion can be rejected for that very reason.

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.

I don't have to repeat the work others have done for me. I have presented criticism on hundreds of verses of Quran - by pointing them out to you. And that qualifies for a refutation from you.

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

The importance comes form the fact that they've all been refuted before.