(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Thanks for your sincere and honest statement. At least you have proven my guess correct that you are indeed a frontline solder. It doesn’t matter anymore whether I am giving you easy targets or difficult because you are obliged to shoot anything and everything as part of your job. Solders have nothing to do with thinking rather their obligation is to obey the commands.
Maybe you are thinking of religious soldiers who don't need to think and just obey commands. Atheist soldiers do need to think - because nobody is issuing commands.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: At least I am making claims and giving proper reasoning, but what has you done other than rejecting them in the air unjustifiably by abusing them as inappropriate for you. Based on your behaviour I can assume that you simply cannot refute those claims and left with no choice than to reject them in the air.
Don't delude yourself. You are just making claims. There is no justification or reasoning to be seen - proper or otherwise.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You think your perspective is not limited. This thinking itself is a sign of narrow perspective.
Its also a sign of broad perspective.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Your negation is in the air and unjustified. Do you think materialism has the explanation for consciousness, which is non-material?
Yes, it does. Given in this very thread. And calling my negation "unjustified" doesn't make it so.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You are correct! It is hard for me to answer those posts, which are full of thick stinky mucus. You really enjoy spiting people’s faces. You correctly observed I ignore your posts when there is nothing other than filth.
Your posts are full of stinky mucus and filth as well. You don't see me ignoring your arguments.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: I hope you liked the flavour of this word-salad.
Tastes like shit. Which is the nature of your arguments.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Dreaming is not bad for health. Keep on spiting on people’s faces and have more fun. Good luck with happy spiting.
Who's dreaming?
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You are debating for wining; I am debating to share my knowledge and experience. You are fighting for a reward, which I already had gifted you long ago.
Your knowledge and experience? Don't make me laugh.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: One more guesstimate. This time it is concerning my views.
As for “moronic”, you are using these types of words for the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute my argument. Mostly you try to shift the burden of proof unjustifiably. Instead of justifying the proposition by good evidence, you use abusive and violent language to suppress the truth. You also take support of popular views in atheism but this is wrong and unacceptable in so far as it deviates from logic, or from the accepted view based on coherent thinking.
Your guesstimate concerning your view appears more like statements regarding mine.
I'm using words like 'moronic' to characterize your views, because they describe your views aptly. That proposition has already been justified, which is why I won the debate, As for the rest, no truth is being suppressed and I also don' support the popular views within atheism - just ask any other atheist here.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You should study harder to be a good student.
Atomical atheism (according to which all things come about by chance),
Hylozoic atheism (which imputes life to matter, associated with Strato of Lampsacus),
Hylopathian atheism (which is merely materialistic, associated with Anaximander) and
Cosmo-plastic atheism (which makes the world soul the highest numen).
Again, none of these views describe my atheism.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Argument without references. Argument in the air. If you are not materialist that means you are not atheist.
Argument from ignorance. Argument from bullshit. Materialism =/= Atheism.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Again, it is an argument without sufficient matter for proper justification. Your answers are not satisfactory at all. I am interested to see what ideology you have about spirituality.
If you are interested in my ideology about spirituality - look at one of the thread I started about it.
If you want to know materialist view on spirituality - ask a materialist, which I'm not.
If you want to discuss my ideology here, then first wrap up your nonsensical arguments.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: But this is exactly what you are doing when you say there is no spirit. You present spirit as brain function with the help of popular scientific notions. Contrary evidence is your own existence. Why suddenly you start thinking? Why you are conscious being? You are a complete conscious person who is living with impressions, ideas, imaginations, and emotions, you have power to contemplate, analyse, and reason in order to make your choices, yet, your existence and life span are not engendered by your choice. You are deceiving your own self by simply closing your eyes over these facts or by means of disguising them by popular scientific concepts.
On the contrary, my existence is not contrary to the scientific view. The questions asked here are answered there - as has already been indicated within this thread. Accepting the scientific view requires going against intuitive notions, which means it requires opening your eyes, not closing them.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: It is nonsensical as you look at consciousness as chemical reactions, neural interactions, and other brain functions but you don’t realize brain science is in its primitive stages and many things are not clear to the scientists. Making conclusions based on the insufficient discoveries in neural sciences is no more than a self-deception.
The conclusions made are regarding aspects for which we have sufficient evidence. I look at consciousness as it is. Deceiving yourself regarding its nature only intensifies your blind faith.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Argument in the air.
Then try to shoot it.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: So, perhaps, you have already collected many moral laws based on your rationality. It would be highly appreciated if you share those laws with everyone.
I have. Search the forum.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: In your opinion, am I writing correctly or not?
Not.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Explain how I am deceiving myself?
By assuming that showing consciousness in terms physicalism is self-deception.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You mean greed, rudeness, disrespect are not forms of wrongdoing? I need a logical answer in place of simple yes or no.
Yes. And to find the "logical" answer, find my arguments about contextual morality.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Shot in the air
And you're to blame.
Darling, you give love,
A bad name.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You have not elaborated on how sensations are very much within the grasp of language.
We can communicate sensation through language - thus they are within its grasp.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Brain of the elephant is the largest contained by any living land-dwelling mammal. The adult male elephant's brain can grow to be a whopping 12 pounds. Now compare it with the normal human brain 3.1 pounds. Elephant’s brain has 400% more mass than the brain of human yet poor elephant can’t have fun by spiting on people’s faces.
Yes, it can. But don't confuse quantity with quality.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Whether you have not understood the proposition or you have ignored it intentionally.
Neither. This is called reductio ad absurdum.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Shot in the air.
And you're to blame.
Darling, you give love,
A bad name.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Would you mind elaborating on errors you find in the agency, dualism, and causation?
I just did.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You are using abusive language. This is itself a provocation. If you are doing it for fun then okay, it’s your way of having fun but if you are debating then you don’t have a right to insult counterparty for fun in order to keep the spirit of debate intact. You can use the vulgar language only if counterparty abuse or attack your person.
Boo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river, you big crybaby. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the fucking kitchen.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Alright! Let us try this way.
Everything we know of has a cause.
Let us say that everything that we know comprise of 80% of the whole. 20% is unknown.
My argument is if 80% is true then 20% unknown would also be true or at least 99% qualify to be true.
All new discoveries what science and rational thinking is making are only confirming every beginning has a cause. Based on this fact it can easily be established that Universe has a beginning hence it has a cause.
Wrong.
Everything we know of does not necessarily have a cause.
We know of the Universe. And yet, we don't know if it can have a cause.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: That was established by Hubble’s discovery of the galactic red shift in 1929. The ‘Big Bang’ theory has since been modified in one important respect by the addition of an inflationary episode in the first fraction of a second of cosmic expansion.
The common, annoying misrepresentation of the Big Bang theory. What it signifies is the beginning of the universe in its current form - which says nothing about any supposed "before".
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: So far, we know everything has a cause. Every new discovery is hardening this fact. If we think in terms of chance only then only we can assume that things may happen without a cause. However, science don’t valuate things based on chance. If anyone wants to deny that universe has a cause, then he/she can do so based on the foundation of assumption but he/she would not find evidences in support. Rather every know fact goes against this denial.
We also know that causation is a temporal phenomenon and time is not universe-independent. Therefore, assumption of causation of universe if, in itself, illogical.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Can you disprove Hubble’s discovery of expanding universe to prove universe has no origin?
Hubble's discovery does not prove the beginning of the universe. So there is no need to disprove it.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Guesstimate! This is not my personal opinion.
It is. Calling it 'guesstimate' doesn't change that.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: I know they make sense of joy and pleasure for you because those fictions satisfy your desires.
My desires are contingent upon facts - not the other way around.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: Aging is one of the most important aspects in the existence of every individual whether the structure of the individual is complex or simple. It is an irreversible process. There are hidden codes of commands in every individual, which control the ageing process and establish particular time of existence for every individual. This ageing does not only specify average time of existence but also responsible for a continuous change in the structure of individual. The conviction that everything is always changing (in as much as it is always subject to ageing) had resulted from the contemplation of the law of impermanence. Second, by referring to ageing everything changes all the time and thus undergoes origination and destruction at every moment. Any form of transformation implies the substitution of one entity for another. We don’t see any hitch in the process of ageing as it is perfectly controlled by the code of commands embedded within the structure of every individual. This code is the essence of consumption, which provides prices pulses of instructions to the transformation process.
How these codes originated and how they were embedded in the existence of every individual? Who writes these codes if there is no God and who is maintaining these codes so they provide precise instructions without any default?
This is one of many things, which hardened my belief in the existence of God.
I don’t have a blind faith, I came to this point only after having little contemplation over nature and on the verses of Quran. No one has forced me to believe in God. However, you have for sure blind faith in the non-existence of God. Interestingly, you don’t have any logical reason to prove non-existence of God other than you can’t perceive Him with your physical brain.
A typical argument from ignorance and incredulity.
You don't know how it came about, you can't imagine it coming about without an intelligence behind it - therefore there must be a god.
Your argument here is one of the defining characteristics of blind faith.
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: I am not huffing and not puffing. I am enjoying the fact that you are representing those fictitious statements as your personal refutation. I am only waiting the moment when you will present them here for me.
What fictitious statements?
(October 6, 2013 at 2:28 am)Harris Wrote: You are avoiding presenting those fictions here. Isn’t it?
Which "fictions" are you babbling about?