Arguments for God in Quran.

[Edwardo Piet]

We engaged... That's not the problem. The problem is when it ever it's get close to reaching the climax and reaching somewhere...

...you duck and cover.

Remember, you were offered to reformulate your argument and I've repeated my response to your argument multiple times, and suggested we both work on it together, but instead you just ignore someone when they actually take you seriously.

[LadyForCamus]

No offense Atlas, but I’m not really all that motivated to keep track of which ridiculous version of this ridiculous religion you and MK subscribe to.

There is a message I try to transfer: books should be studied before it gets judged.

I'm asking you to respect the mind of the reader, and respect your own mind; LFC. That's something you owe to the world. You owe humanity something; all of us owe people to give them at least the honesty. You owe people to treat them like you want them to treat you; maybe that's one reason why I hate to lie. I hate being lied on.

I don’t owe holy texts anything unless there is evidence and reason to believe anything written in them accurately models reality.

You choose to discuss the Quran.

Fuck no, I didn’t.  I had the Quran jammed down my throat by MK, per the usual, and I was trying to explain to him that using the Quran to “prove” god is wholly unconvincing to most atheists.

You were faced by a liar. What are you gonna do?

If he is in fact lying about his book, that’s the least of his problems.[/quote]

[Mystic]

Except I was just informing you of my paradigm. And asking you to explain yours.

[Edwardo Piet]

Except I was just informing you of my paradigm. And asking you to explain yours.

And that was the dodge. When this thread is supposed to be your arguments for God, and your argument is based on premises, and I simply ask you to support your premises, then that is clear that I am trying my best to take your argument seriously. Your argument needs a reformulation because as it stands it was no better than my counterargument that has identical logical structure.

Your whole argument rests on your notion of 'moral guidance' but it is not only not clear to me what you're talking about.... but you haven't demonstrated how it exists or how its existence requires a creator.

[Mystic]

I was talking to LadyForCamus. I

[LadyForCamus]

Except I was just informing you of my paradigm. And asking you to explain yours.

I did.  You asserted that empathy wasn’t a good enough explanation for the foundations of human morality, but when you were asked to explain your objection, you lost your shit and started accusing everyone of ‘hating god’.  So, what’s that about?

[Mystic]

Except I was just informing you of my paradigm. And asking you to explain yours.

I did.  You asserted that empathy wasn’t a good enough explanation for the foundations of human morality, but when you were asked to explain your objection, you lost your shit and started accusing everyone of ‘hating god’.  So, what’s that about?

I've explained why many times, I was asking for your detail, I know what it means, but I was asking for details.  But I don't think you will realize empathy is what makes us all hypocrites who don't act according to their most fundemental knowledge and principles.

That's observation, we neglect the oppressed and poor. What I'm trying to say, is we don't look for guidance past what confirms our self-deceiving egos. 

I don't think we humans act according to any principle we claim sincerely. We look for morals just to say we have them, but don't put them to action. Why do you suppose that it is?

[Edwardo Piet]

I was talking to LadyForCamus.

Oh that's quite alright.

But I take it you're still ignoring me then

In fairness, I do understand that I'm a little too quick for anyone else to keep up with me.

Not in thought! I mean my typing and stuff ya know. Not being an arrogant tosspot and all that jazz.

[WinterHold]

@Atlas
No more so than yourself.  That's the constructive fault of every believer.  All of you get pissy when we laugh in your faces for stepping on your own dicks.

You never assert your "accusations" with evidence from the book you're criticizing.
And, all people get defensive when somebody laughs at them.

---

There is a message I try to transfer: books should be studied before it gets judged.

I'm asking you to respect the mind of the reader, and respect your own mind; LFC. That's something you owe to the world. You owe humanity something; all of us owe people to give them at least the honesty. You owe people to treat them like you want them to treat you; maybe that's one reason why I hate to lie. I hate being lied on.

I don’t owe holy texts anything unless there is evidence and reason to believe anything written in them accurately models reality.

You choose to discuss the Quran.

Fuck no, I didn’t.  I had the Quran jammed down my throat by MK, per the usual, and I was trying to explain to him that using the Quran to “prove” god is wholly unconvincing to most atheists.

You were faced by a liar. What are you gonna do?

If he is in fact lying about his book, that’s the least of his problems.

If you visit a post about "the Quran"; then you agree to discuss.
I personally expect the ethics of a scholar: the least thing is to assert your criticism or defense with evidence.

If you say "the Quran said this"; you should bring textual evidence from the book itself that asserts your claim.
If you didn't; then your words are just loose.

Personally; I didn't send the Quran in a PM to you.
Also, I specify what I use to build my opinion on; textual evidence from the Quran.

It shouldn't be shoved, and if chosen to be discussed a scholar's ethics must govern the discussion for it to be "fruitful".

One member said it: MK is throwing non-existing darts to hit a non-existing target.

---

Except I was just informing you of my paradigm. And asking you to explain yours.

No. You dodge arguments and keep repeating the same unsupported claims over and over.

[LadyForCamus]

I did.  You asserted that empathy wasn’t a good enough explanation for the foundations of human morality, but when you were asked to explain your objection, you lost your shit and started accusing everyone of ‘hating god’.  So, what’s that about?

I've explained why many times, I was asking for your detail, I know what it means, but I was asking for details.  But I don't think you will realize empathy is what makes us all hypocrites who don't act according to their most fundemental knowledge and principles.

And every Christian and Muslim who acts against the instructions of their god is a hypocrite in the exact same way. And, the good Lord forgives and gives an open-ended number of chances to get it right.  It seems humans are destined to make mistakes regardless of whether they think their morals are coming from themselves or from a higher power.

That's observation, we neglect the oppressed and poor. What I'm trying to say, is we don't look for guidance past what confirms our self-deceiving egos.

So, on a global scale we still have a lot of work to do. Sure.  That doesn’t mean the notion of having goals to work toward is a useless or ineffective one.