Pleasure and Joy

[genkaus]

The trouble is you are behaving like a frontline solder who is obliged to shoot anything that moves in front of your eyes without having a second thought on what you are shooting.

The trouble with you is that all the targets you have given me are easy shots unworthy of a second look.

You are rejecting all my claims right in the air.

Because you are making those claims right in the air.

However, in doing so you are showing your ignorance to a fact that if a certain claim is taken negative right from the start based on disbelief then intellectual sense of discussion can never be established. If you see my claim only from one perspective at a distance, it is seen obscurely. Focusing on one side only, each perspective inevitably distorts reality. Thus, this way the ultimate, enlightening truth is also said to be emptiness.

Bullshit. Starting with disbelief and waiting for evidence does nothing to limit my perspective.

You negate my theistic claims as these claims deviates from popular opinion of atheism but by this, you are trying to put a veil over the facts that science and materialism, the foundation of atheism, lament over the questions related to transcendent “I” and linked to the origin of universe.

I negate your claims because your claims are nonsensical. And I'm unaware of any lament over the question of transcendent "I" or the origin of universe.

I am not ignoring any of your comments but those comments are seriously influenced by hatred and violent attitudes, which make them perverse and proscribed for counter arguments.

The moment you failed to address my post and started off on the tangent of questioning my motives is the moment you started ignoring my post. And what you read here is contempt and disgust - not hatred and violence.

Anyway, I have a feeling that you may perhaps debate based on educational foundation apart from using loutish tactics for spitting on people’s faces and therefore, for this assumption, I developed a short essay in which I have tried to cover the question “Why An Atheist” feeling proud in violently refusing the existence of God. This is only a sketchy work without any bother of exhaustive details. I understand if someone strives to get an idea then he can comprehend even rocket science without having any sense of fatigue but if someone neglect and ignore something then he is capable to transform even a simple anecdote into a tortuous topic by applying different fallacies to it.

Do you even read what you write? Sounds like a bunch of word-salad.

It took me a while to get to this assumption and I throw blame right over your head, as you are the one using disrespect as a tool to win the debate.

I won the debate on merits. The disrespect was for fun.

I am not intended to win or lose debate as you may discern here, rather to share my knowledge of Quran under the hood of modern acquired knowledge to have a critical view from you guys. So let’s jump over the essay.

Its good that you don't care about winning or losing - because you've already lost.

Essay
Unfortunately, you are more concerned to attack the spiritual account of human agency, as conflicting with common experience and detrimental to morality, than to explain how in your own view human agency fits into the world as a whole without having a code of moral conducts.

Where this thread is concerned - sure. My own view of human agency and its relation to morality and the world is explained elsewhere. Here, the subject of discussion - the one that you presented - is your moronic - I mean, quranic - view. I think its moronic and therefore I;m arguing against you.

I don’t know to which Atheism you belong:

Atomical
Hylozoic
Hylopathian or
Cosmo-plastic

None of the above. I haven't heard of any of them before.

No matter which atheism, all what Atheism has is materialism.

Wrong. Many atheistic philosophies reject materialism. And I'm not a materialist.

However, materialism is injudicious as it conflicts with both fact of mind and the spiritual aspects of human experience. In result to this conflicting nature, Atheism abandons moral rules, which religions enforced on human actions. Consequently, atheism literally lacks code of moral conducts in any form. This leads atheist to the vagueness of moral rules where he tends to interpret them in ways convenient to himself.

Wrong. Materialism gives an alternate view of mind and spirituality. Therefore it follows a different set of morals than religions.

The fundamental strategy of an atheist is to distort the standards of rationality for belief by exaggerating favourable evidence in science for what he wants to believe in, disregarding contrary evidence, and resting content with minimal evidence for pleasing beliefs.

Wrong. We don't need to distort or exaggerate anything. We haven't found any contrary evidence so far.

However, the right moral choice requires experience of particular situations, since general rules cannot be applied mechanically. The “idea of substance in general” employed in ideas of specific substances is the idea of something unknown underlying the attributes known by experience. Ignorance of “the substance of spirit” is an ignorance of the nature of it. This ignorance manifested in our failure to understand the internal cohesion or to explain what thinks in us, and how it does so.

Nonsensical. Nothing said here makes any sense.

The will (the human understanding) is composed of several basic powers, including sensation, reason, memory, and judgment. We have no clear grasp of these, nor of most other basic concepts, but know them only indirectly or relatively, through comparisons or their effects to intuitive knowledge.

On the contrary - we do have a pretty god grasp of this and other basic concepts. Maybe you don't, but others do.

You use science as a tool to view every moral aspect of human nature but Science, unlike “non-science”,

(1) is empirical,
(2) seeks certainty,
(3) proceeds by the use of a scientific method,
(4) describes the observable world, not an unobservable one, and
(5) is cumulative and progressive.

Except, I use rationality to view morality - not science.

Philosophers of science offer conflicting viewpoints concerning these criteria. Some reject one or more completely. For example, while many accept the idea that science is empirical, rationalists reject it, at least for fundamental principles regarding space, matter and motion. Even among empiricists differences emerge, for example between those who advocate that scientific principles must be verifiable and those who deny that, this is possible, claiming that falsifiability is all that is required.

And where are you getting this?

You are endeavouring to show self-consciousness in terms of physical sciences but in doing so you have entangled your being with self-deception in fact. Self-deception is complicated and perplexing because it concerns all major aspects of human nature, including consciousness, rationality, motivation, freedom, happiness, and value commitments. In a wider sense, you refer to intentional activities and motivated processes of avoiding unpleasant truths or topics and the resulting mental states of ignorance, false belief, unwarranted attitudes, and inappropriate emotions.

Wrong. You are deceiving yourself with this assumption.

In the state of self-deception, Atheist camouflages his strength of mind that he can wilfully get his own selves to believe the opposite of what he knows is true. He knows, he feels, and he experiences self-consciousness yet he endeavour to fiddle this reality. This way he supports greed, rudeness, disrespect and other forms of wrongdoing.

Wrong. They are not forms of wrongdoings.

No matter you deceive your thoughts by masking self-consciousness (spirit) under deep layers of materialism but this self-consciousness (spirit) is in fact responsible for our sensations and feelings. Consciousness depends on sensation and this sensation is not aided by intellect. Bodily sensations have been seen as a major problem for any attempt to give an account of the mind that takes it to be part of the material world as investigated by the physical sciences.

Your ignorance is astounding. But what's even more amazing is how blatantly you can beg the question.

Sensation is beyond language. Sensory cognition is devoid of linguistic overlay or theoretical assertions. The case is beyond description, not because it is something ineffable residing outside or behind human experience, but because it is the very sensory stuff of human experience whose momentary unique actuality cannot be reduced to universalistic, eternalistic language or concepts.

Wrong. Once again. Sensations are very much within the grasp of language.

Intellect is comprised of two distinct faculties. The first is sensation, which humans have in common with animals, and which is capable of grasping particulars but is unable to go beyond the senses. The second is mind (spirit), which aspires to invisible and eternal realities. Sense exhibits its own inherent certainty in its apprehension of singulars. Experience shows that to sense fire one need not apprehend the form of fire; rather it suffices simply to be slightly burned. On the basis of this initial passive perception, sense “can infer the rest of the power of the object acting upon itself”.

Concepts, which is what mind aspires to, are not invisible or eternal "realities". And don't confuse mind with spirit. One exists, the other doesn't.

The correct way to think analytically is to adopt the methodology of the thought-experiment, holding ideas together in the imagination to see if they can be combined without contradiction. If we can imagine dead people being resurrected and leaving their graves to continue a physical existence then there is nothing impossible about that idea and there is no need to suggest that it is a metaphorical or equivocal reference to something else. If the Quran refers to physical resurrection, and if we can think about physical resurrection without contradiction, then why not just accept that what is meant by physical resurrection is what we would normally understand by that miraculous event.

If you can imagine without contradiction that your poop tastes like chocolate and smells like strawberries then why not take it as possible and just accept it?

That's why.

I think self-deceivers pursue “engagements” (ways of participating in the world) that they disavow. Disavowal implies a refusal to become explicitly conscious of engagements and also of the activities involved in concealing them. Isolated and without rational supervision, disavowed engagements can wreak havoc on oneself and others. You are responsible for initiating disavowal, but responsibility becomes ambiguous in so far as you lose control over disavowed engagements.

If so, then you are the one pursuing "engagement" here and therefore you are the self-deceiver.

I am not the one with whom you have debated earlier. Considering me one of them is your Guesstimate.

Huh?

Let me explain the importance of cause in the context of self-determination.

The determination of the will, the fulfilment of which is my bodily movement must have a cause, which had power to produce it. Now the cause is either “I” or some other being. However, we must ask in what circumstances a determination of will to move my right arm up rates as caused by me. Clearly, first, I must have the power to bring about the determination. Second, the only way in which the exercise of power is conceivable is via a determination of the will. So the only way in which I can conceive of a determination of the will being caused by me is via a prior determination of my will. But what if that prior determination of the will is not brought about by me? Then it would appear that the prior determination - the determination via which my decision to raise my arm up was formed - was either the product of another agent or of myself. In the former case the decision to raise my arm up was not an exercise of moral liberty. Let us remember, however, that it does not follow from the contention that an exercise of active power without will is not clearly conceivable by us that it is impossible. What is the alternative to the belief that we are efficient causes with moral liberty? We might think that every event, including thoughts and actions, has a physical cause, arguing that if thinking and behaviour are not governed by universal exception-less laws, they must be random, and consequently that rewards and punishments are without effect. Arguably, every deliberate action must have a motive. When there is no conflicting motive this motive must cause us to act. When there are contrary motives the strongest must prevail.

If the determination of my will, the fulfilment of which is my bodily movements must have a cause, which had power to produce it, do you think then this intricate universe has no Mind behind all of its procedural activities from the largest universal scale to the scale of quantum particles?

Not without purpose did We create heaven and earth and all between! That were the thought of Unbelievers! But woe to the Unbelievers because of the Fire (of Hell)!
Shaad (38)
-Verse 27-

Is this garbage supposed to be an argument?

Your first error is the assumption of agency.
Your second error is assumption of dualism.
Your third error is the failure to understand causation.

You are misrepresenting my quotes to make them appear less plausible than they really are. You have distorted them to camouflage rudeness that you have exhibited so far. Couple of recent example for the nourishment:
Example one

I wrote:
Is that the reason why poor Afghans receiving western bombs over their heads since last 40 years in their own homes?

You responded:
THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS.

I wrote:
I was astounded by the fact that Atheist enjoys killings of millions of Muslims who are after all human beings. I won’tbe surprised if you say Hitler and Stalin are your much-loved stars.

Example two
You wrote:
“Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments.”

I wrote:
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.

It'd seem I represented your quotes pretty accurately. I never indicated any enjoyment in Afghan bombings - thus making your reply an inaccurate personal attack. Also, you are not going to stop me from being confrontational and provocative. In fact, if these forums are any indication, the only place confrontation and provocation inspire hatred is when the other side is compensating for their deficiency.

It is indeed a universal fact that not all people are identical. Based on that you can’t claim that all Muslims are terrorists. Likewise, I can’t claim whole west is terrorist either.

Similarly, it is also a universal fact that everything that has a beginning has a cause. You cannot deny this universal fact because in our everyday life, we are consistently experiencing that all human activities and all natural events have proper causes. You cannot bring a single example as evidence to support your denial.

That trick has been tried before. Claiming it to be a universal fact does not make it so. I don't have to deny your claim that "everything has a cause" - I'll just wait for conclusive evidence. If you'd said "everything we know of has a cause" - that would be easier to accept. But given the limits of knowledge, the first statement has not been established as of yet.

If our knowledge won’t comprehend the cause behind the origin of this universe that won’t makes it an exception unless you bring a solid verifiable evidence (not an assumption) from your everyday life experiences and prove that things can also come into existence without any cause. This causal fact is so profound that as if it is embedded in our consciousness. That is why we reject without second thought the idea that my wristwatch or a twister has no cause.

First you have to establish that the universe began. That it came into existence.

Up to now First Premise of Kalam Cosmological Argument stands firm as no one out there had proven with the help of proper verifiable proofs that thing can come into being without any cause.

Like I said before - no one needs to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

Second premise also stands firm because science has proven that universe had a beginning. Since first premise has not been proven false therefore, the idea that origin of universe had a cause is true.

No, actually, it hasn't. Sorry.

That what you call “refutation” is no more than purported fictions built on the use of abusive attack to undermine the truths. Those fictitious statements are in fact total exploitation of a common person’s lack of general awareness of Quran, to shift the burden of proof unjustifiably onto his/her shoulders.

If you value those exasperated efforts as refutations then the burden to represent them is yours not mine because I don’t consider them as refutations in any sense. Those statements are based on “BEGGING THE QUESTION” which twist the meanings exploitatively. Those allegations are no more than “Mob Appeals”.

You favour those allegations because any allegation against Quran and God provides you a sense of satisfaction and pleasure. You are not backing allegations on the grounds of realistic reasoning. You favour them because:

Enemy of my enemy is my friend

If you are still interested in getting my elaborations then you have no other option than to submit those twisted statements as your own refutation. It would be my pleasure to tackle with them here.

Your personal opinions on what constitutes a refutation is irrelevant. As is your characterization of these refutations. i favor those refutations because they make sense. You don't because you are blinded by your blind faith. Which is why you are huffing and puffing and stamping your feet instead of actually addressing them.

If you can't address them - fine. Either put up or shut up. Otherwise. try to keep your word-vomit to a minimum.