My decoversion and back to Islam.

[Angrboda]

This constant testification thing to Atheism, is not gonna work lol, because you guys yourself say the burden of proof is on Theists, so that means you are just constantly testifying based on not seeing whether there are proofs or not.

While being unconvinced can be a fault of the conveyer or the proofs, I believe, in this case, the fault is the receivers, and the constant short non-thinking remarks proves it where as when anyone get's deeply into discussions, they tend to resort after a while to fallacies or won't address one of the mini-proofs for the premises that is disputed or won't address a key question.

So I'm convinced - that your constant denial, is meaningless.

You mean shit like you refusing to provide evidence for your claims? You mean shit like that? You're a dishonest douche bag, Mystic.

[Mystic]

Can you give an example of a premise I have not provided reasoning and justification for?

[Angrboda]

You claimed that you had proof of irreducible complexity. And your claim that the videos about the Quran that I posted were wrong when you hadn't even watched them. As well as responding to my criticism of your values argument, which you never did. I could give a shit what you think you've supported, because quite frankly you're incompetent. Your will to power thread showed that.

[Mystic]

Irreducible complexity.  And your claim that the videos about the Quran that I posted were wrong when you hadn't even watched them.

We had a whole thread about binary nature of consciousness.  I showed the paradox. I provided many arguments why it's binary.

You then said it's not binary ,there is a transition between non-consciousness to consciousness, but didn't really show it other then your plant example.

I'm sorry, it was nice thread, but you fooled everyone out the paradox problem and just spit fired things with no relevance.

---

And your claim that the videos about the Quran that I posted were wrong when you hadn't even watched them.  

Do you many commentaries I read about Quran, do you know how many hadiths I am aware of about Quran, do you know how many times I've recited Quran?

I don't need to watch the videos to know the non-sense. 

I am also aware of how people can come up with problems with Quran, I cam with 40 of them and wrote them. The 25 version is still there on shiachat.com.

I know how a person can come with critical approach and find problems.

If you have one example from there, you provide it. Otherwise, spitfire, is annoying to deal with, but is not proof of anything.

---

As well as responding to my criticism of your values argument, which you never did. 

That's for people to asses, I've discussed value, objectivity, etc, in many threads. 

The one for power was from a different angle, it was arguing given there is objective value, we have to asses the question of will power, if it's unreliable generation of power with no accounting from God, what would it mean? I showed the many problems with that, to the extent, it becomes completely irrelevant to morality while we know morality lies heavy on it.

Your post was off-tangent and your topic has been discussed through out the years.

[Angrboda]

Irreducible complexity.  And your claim that the videos about the Quran that I posted were wrong when you hadn't even watched them.

We had a whole thread about binary nature of consciousness.  I showed the paradox. I provided many arguments why it's binary.

You then said it's not binary ,there is a transition between non-consciousness to consciousness, but didn't really show it other then your plant example.

I'm sorry, it was nice thread, but you fooled everyone out the paradox problem and just spit fired things with no relevance.

You'll have to link me to the discussion you are talking about because I am not finding any discussion where you and I discussed the matter. The only thing I can find is this discussion where you are arguing the point with Mathilda, not me. I'm not saying we didn't have such a discussion, but I don't remember it or have access to its contents such that I can comment on it.

Regarding the conversation I did find, what I found was that you asserted that it would require more than a few mutations to move from a non-conscious state to a conscious one in evolution. Now ignoring the specific factual question, this is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument. Ipse dixit arguments carry no weight. If that is an example of what you mean by supporting your argument, then I have a theory about why you and others differ as to whether you've supported your arguments or not, and it is that you believe you have provided good supports for your argument when in fact you have not, such as in that thread.

And your claim that the videos about the Quran that I posted were wrong when you hadn't even watched them.  

Do you many commentaries I read about Quran, do you know how many hadiths I am aware of about Quran, do you know how many times I've recited Quran?

I don't need to watch the videos to know the non-sense. 

I am also aware of how people can come up with problems with Quran, I cam with 40 of them and wrote them. The 25 version is still there on shiachat.com.

I know how a person can come with critical approach and find problems.

If you have one example from there, you provide it. Otherwise, spitfire, is annoying to deal with, but is not proof of anything.

I really could give a shit about your knowledge of the Quran, that's not what is at issue here. You made a claim about the contents of the videos when it was blindingly obvious that you hadn't even watched the videos. Implying that you had watched the videos is what is in plain terms called lying. If you're basing your arguments and your conclusions on lies, it's rather elementary that you haven't adequately supported your conclusions. Additionally, those videos may or may not have presented matters that you were unfamiliar with. Regardless, two things hold true, a) to make a successful argument you have to actually address the arguments that were presented, and b) if you don't even read or watch the counter-arguments, then your conclusions are based on ignorance. If you think lying and ignoring arguments is a well supported way to form a conclusion, then you're an idiot. If you had simply said that you don't care to watch the videos, we wouldn't have had a problem. But you didn't. Like another Muslim here, instead you chose to lie about it.

As well as responding to my criticism of your values argument, which you never did. 

That's for people to asses, I've discussed value, objectivity, etc, in many threads. 

The one for power was from a different angle, it was arguing given there is objective value, we have to asses the question of will power, if it's unreliable generation of power with no accounting from God, what would it mean? I showed the many problems with that, to the extent, it becomes completely irrelevant to morality while we know morality lies heavy on it.

Your post was off-tangent and your topic has been discussed through out the years.

Yes, it's for other people to assess, and the general consensus has been that despite your belief that you have supported your arguments that you have not indeed done so. Regarding your will to power thread, your first post asserted a syllogism that had as one of its premises that there was such a thing as accurate value. The word accurate implies that there is a true, objective value to the variable in question, namely value. I disputed that assumption. It was very much on topic, and you even said yourself that you wouldn't mind a tangent. You're just making excuses in hindsight. Your final response was to dispute conventional wisdom and that of one of history's pre-eminent philosophers with the absurd notion that we "will what we will" and your usual nonsense about love being something magical. So, no, you didn't show many problems with it, and indeed I spent the bulk of that thread chasing you from one equivocation to the next because you didn't have an answer to my objection. You're just being dishonest once again.

Beyond that was the other value thread in which I provided detailed critique of your argument, and in the main, you simply ignored my criticisms and buggered off. I know you believe that you have provided support in prior threads and "throughout the years" but those threads have been examined and what we find is essentially a tremendous amount of stream of consciousness word salad which nobody can make head nor tail of. I've read those threads, and where I could make sense of them, they were largely more proof by assertion, which, as noted, is not support for your arguments. Where your arguments have been clear, you've been unable to provide any substantive support and usually just lapse into more meaningless rambling and word salads. Your claim that you have provided support to your arguments "throughout the years" is just your own delusional belief, you haven't done any such thing. Your "support" for your arguments exists only in the hazy and confused contents of your head, when you have taken the trouble to put them into sensible order, they have been shown to be nonsense.

[Whateverist]

This constant testification thing to Atheism, is not gonna work lol, because you guys yourself say the burden of proof is on Theists, so that means you are just constantly testifying based on not seeing whether there are proofs or not.

While being unconvinced can be a fault of the conveyer or the proofs, I believe, in this case, the fault is the receivers, and the constant short non-thinking remarks proves it where as when anyone get's deeply into discussions, they tend to resort after a while to fallacies or won't address one of the mini-proofs for the premises that is disputed or won't address a key question.

So I'm convinced - that your constant denial, is meaningless.

Do you actually believe that you have ever presented an argument for the existence of God which should convince a fair and impartial observer?  I'm not looking for a kind-of, sort-of argument.  I mean an argument that is rock solid.  If so, I never saw it.  Mostly they have been verbose but vague and entirely unconvincing.

When we say the burden is on you, that is only if you think we should agree with you.  You are entitled to go on believing whatever you like for whatever reasons you choose for yourself.  That you can think you've ever presented a sufficient argument for others to agree with you just shows you are deluding yourself at least about that.

What we are not asking for is more and longer arguments of an insufficient kind.  When you pile them up, you just annoy us and we stop reading them.  There is no argument I can conceive of which could possibly convince anyone who isn't already convinced that the undetectable exists.  So give it up.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that anyone is under the impression that you don't have alot of thoughts, MK..lol. 

[OakTree500]

This constant testification thing to Atheism, is not gonna work lol, because you guys yourself say the burden of proof is on Theists, so that means you are just constantly testifying based on not seeing whether there are proofs or not.

But the only "proofs" you have, are old books full of crazy stories. Outside of that, you have ZERO things. 

I'm realing failing how any theist can be like "LOL I have to prove something to somebody that doesn't believe? What a fucking joke". You have to understand, some people are atheists who were formally theist and saw for themselves the LACK of evidence to back up their religions claims. You yourself had a "crisis of faith" at some point, [despite totally doubling down on it now for some reason]. Whilst there those like me, who have been atheists their entire lives.

Some, like myself, looked into various religions and their holy texts during their lives to see "what all this religion malarky is all about". When you think about various things including; the time these books were supposedly written, their contents [even you have to admit, its like 80% shady shit like killing people, 15% 'And then magic happened' and 5% 'based in a real world setting'] and more importantly their relevance to the real world as it is today.

Religion, is and always has been, a form of control on others. First with promises of great things when you die, and followed up with "or burn in hell" if you don't do it. I might be one of few atheists who genuinly wishes god/heaven and all that basic line shit was real, because my life would be 100% simpler. I would know for fact who created me/everybody/the universe, and wouldn't have to worry about what to do with my life. To me, if the entire world KNEW this to be true, what would be the point of anything (Jobs, money, day to day bullshit) when your supposed god(s) just want us to live a good life and praise them all the time [for some reason?].

Yet here we are. No evidence of any kind. Human life is not "special" on a global/universal scale. We are but one of many other animals on the planet. There is no after life of any kind, so stop wasting your time now.

In all honesty, I'm not against those that believe. I have members of my own family that are believers in something or another. The problem is when it becomes your whole life and you are just a "tool" of your supposed belief system. Like, believe in a god? Great. Why are you busy here telling us about it, like we're all fools and should know better? Does you god judge solely on those that praise them, despite that being overly vain and selfish or do they base their decisions based on a persons actions in life? IF the latter, then most of us are probably gonna see you up there, if it's true. So stop wasting your life acting like a sanctimonious a-hole trying to preach to athesits about how wrong we are and trying to convert. You'll find at the very WORST, that we like to ask questions, and a lot of things don't add up. 

For example: Lets say god IS real. Why do I HAVE to praise them? I have my own conscious or free will? Should I be greatful he created us all? Why? Does he draw power from my praise? Or is he just a giant self centered ass hole who needs people to boost his own ego? I mean take your pick really.

[Anomalocaris]

Thank you, my friend, for putting this all together. I look forward to reading about your journey.

Suck up. 

Yeah, but what can be a greater insult than to be deemed so vile or worthless a personage as to warrant being sucked up to by neo?

---

I don't think that anyone is under the impression that you don't have alot of thoughts, MK..lol. 

I am under that exact impression.

Thoughts are not just defective neurons randomly firing in their death throes.

[Angrboda]

This constant testification thing to Atheism, is not gonna work lol, because you guys yourself say the burden of proof is on Theists, so that means you are just constantly testifying based on not seeing whether there are proofs or not.

But the only "proofs" you have, are old books full of crazy stories. Outside of that, you have ZERO things. 

In fairness to Mystic, he is presenting an argument based largely upon a priori reasoning, which I believe he traces to the Quran or Muslim theological tradition. Yes he has strayed into the "mah book is special" territory at times, often as a result of unsuccessfully presenting this other argument, but it would be unfair to Mystic to characterize his argument as solely being based on the existence of the Quran and claims within it. He has and does make what is technically an ontological argument and in so doing is innocent of the charge that the only proof he has is a bunch of crazy stories. He just so far hasn't been able to convince anyone that his argument is sound.

(He has posted a surah or two which seem to reference the themes discussed in his argument, and if there is a larger body of discussion of it within Islamic tradition, I have to wonder why he doesn't reference that as support for his argument. Given that the relationship between the ideas in the surahs he has quoted and the arguments he presents is rather oblique, I suspect the discussion of it within Islam isn't particularly more compelling than Mystic's word salad version, and likely leans toward the my book is true because it's magic argument, which has been disputed at length. That's an argument drawn from the Quran itself, that the Quran is of such a character and quality that only a divine source could have been behind it. In general, that's an argument which has failed to convince anyone but Muslims, so it's something of a non-starter, but I have seen Mystic appeal to it when his other arguments are greeted with skepticism. That, and a lot of poisoning the well.)