I know what you're thinking, another religious post, no it's not but rather spiriutal and intellectual, rick-rolled? 🙂🙂

Without a doubt, all kinda thoughts or ideas that comes to our minds has a physical impact on our bodies, even a sad scene in movie would make us cry although we know it's not real or a male would get his tent up fantasizing about some sexual activities (whiskey penis doesn't count), physical impact includes hormonal production depending on how negative or positive the imapct is, think we can make a good use of that?

That said, one could keep up a positive attitude even if things is going wrong but requires training and good control on the flow of ideas or thoughts getting into our minds, it is absouloty time to start developing that ability.

As per my personal experince, having faith in God was one thing which helped me a lot to overcome a life-threatening situations and keep up a positive attitude when nothing else helped to serve that purpose. Faith is not necessarly to be a religious aspect but can vary according to personal use of Faith, some people have faith in thier own abilities to overcome hard times, some others have faith in people no matter how bad thier social experince was and that helped them to move on.

Although i believe that i'm experincing one of the darkest times ever, i know the worst is yet to come therefor developing and learning new ways to keep up a positive attitude is crucial and that is the purpose of this post, to share my own experince and learn from others, i've been told that meditation can also help keep up a positive attitude but hasn't tried it yet.

Now it's your turn to share what helped you keep up a positive attitude and what your thoughts is about general idea of Faith.

Thanks for your time,,,,,,
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Edit:

  1. I couldn't find any reason for a cancer patient who was estimated to live for more 7 months to be positive but Faith, a more reasonable poll question would've been "Do you think Faith in general is might be needed to keep up a positive attitude?" saddly not editable.

Gifted with Cancer - Ali Banat, worth watching.

  1. It looks like the post has been infested with some people who is rather rude and lack of manners who is trying to ruin the moderate atmosphere of the post, a report were made and now I have no option but to wait for support, i will certainly not respond to those in the same fashon for i have manners and i respect SG guidlines, discussion is to be resumed after action is made, thanks

  2. It looks like it’s gonna take some time before that hands of justice arrive therefore I have to warn everybody that there is a dude –or duda or maybe both- who is trying to poison the thread and taking it into some negative direction, let’s stick to the topic of the post please which is the general idea of “Faith”
    Religious discussions was a reply to comments regarding religious faith, if you are not okay with Faith in general nor religions in particular, I advice you to leave the post at once or participate in a decent way, thanks.

1 month ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

Do you think Faith in general is needed to keep up a positive attitude?

View Results
yes i do.
no i don't.
i'm not sure.

Two things:
1) Every time I see the word Faith, the first thing I think of is George Michael.
2) I think faith is a wonderful thing and it is a little sad that so many people today shit all over it. I'm not religious, but I have many religious (Christian) friends, and I think it can be healthy and wonderful so long as applied in a healthy, inclusive fashion. And if it helps people deal with otherwise crippling emotional challenges in life, why not?

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The issue with faith is that faith could be misleading, because it's an idealized version of reality. This creates a dangerous precendent, since by chance alone, faith might work sometimes, and that might pursued us into believing it's reliable tool for predicting future events. So, yes it has the potential to help, but also the potential to harm.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

First, lets not argue about definitions. Google suggests two:

  1. "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Every person has it and our discussion will be meaningless.
  2. "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.". This definition I will be using going forward.

| Do you think Faith in general is needed to keep up a positive attitude?

I see two interpretations:

  1. "Faith is needed for everyone to keep up a positive attitude". It is false. I have a counter example: myself. I believe there is no god, I believe there is no reason for our existence, I believe that there is nothing after death. And I have a positive attitude: I don't want to commit suicide, don't want die, don't want to kill others, want to live as long as possible. There are difficult times in life and knowing that there is no specific purpose to them, that they are sometimes random, and sometimes only my fault, helps me cope with them. At no point in my life have I had Faith, yet here I am, with a positive attitude.
  2. "Faith is needed for some people to keep up a positive attitude". This statement is extremely hard to prove or disprove. I still think it is false. I think of it this way: for every person there is something other than Faith that will make them happy and help them keep up a positive attitude. Faith is not necessary. It may be sufficient but it is not necessary.
    I'm not sure how well you know logic, just in case, here is an explanation of what necessary and sufficient is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

Now for Faith in general: I believe it is detrimental. Every good it does can be achieved differently, without all the drawbacks that Faith has. My main argument against Faith: everything can be deducted from it, it is self-contradictory. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

But before we go there there are several issues I want to highlight:

  1. I don't need 100% proof to believe something. Gravity does not have a 100% proof, yet I believe it. Is is all about probability: when something becomes highly unlikely I start to act as though it will not happen.
  2. How people act is more indicative of their true beliefs. For example, there are people that claim they believe in God. They will say that God not existing is not a possibility. They go to a church and pray some illness to go away. Yet they anticipate that it may not work and so they also go to a doctor and take medicine. At the very least they accept the possibility that God may not exist and act accordingly: go to a doctor.
    Don't fall into this trap yourself: notice how you act to understand what you truly believe right now. And change the way you act according to what you think you should believe.
  3. Be open minded, don't be afraid to change your mind and accept that you were wrong. Ask yourself: what argument will make you change your mind. If you can't even imagine in what circumstance will you change your mind, you are not in a discussion to know the truth. Here's an example: if you tell me a prayer that heals common cold, and I use it and heal, then I tell it to my family and they use it and heal, I will accept the possibility that God may exist. There may be other explanations so I will not immediately go saying "God exists!", but I will accept it as a possibility. When other hypotheses will be disproven by scientists and the main hypothesis that remains will be "God exists" I will accept that God exists. This is not the only way to sway me, I'm just saying there are ways to make me change my mind.

English is not my native language, it is hard to articulate my thought accurately, I tried my best.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How people act is more indicative of their true beliefs. For example, there are people that claim they believe in God. They will say that God not existing is not a possibility. They go to a church and pray some illness to go away. Yet they anticipate that it may not work and so they also go to a doctor and take medicine. At the very least they accept the possibility that God may not exist and act accordingly: go to a doctor.

I strongly and undoubtedly disagree with that, people's accepance of likeliness that their prayers might not be answered by God is not an acceptance to the idea that God doesn't exit, i see clear misconception here, God not answering doesn't mean he is not there and if he is there doesn't mean that he must answer whenever he is called by whoever.

if God answers all my prayers with out me following reasons nor causation to get what i want, that kinda destroys the purpose of life that i learned i was created for and also destroys why i was created to begin with, if God proves his existance to you in a physical way (i believe he doesn't need to) then there is no meaning of rewarding believers cuz there won't be any sciencirity in that relationship, only insane person who is gonna deny God after seeing a physical evidence.

as an employer, i don't have any reason to go for every employee and tell him/her hey i'm your employer, if any of them thinks that my company or organization is standing on it's own without a head and their pay checks is coming out of nothing then i don't think those emplowees would be of any help to my business but they'd rather destroy it instead cuz they are out of their minds, i'd rather give them rules and regulations about how i want my business to go and if they follow it and prove scincerty and devotion to work hard, they might earn themselves a promotion but if they intentionally did not want to follow my regulations and replaced it with their own in harmful way to my business, this might earn them some jail time.

on the other hand, if my company is run by robots geuss i don't have to put any regulations for them cuz first they wouldn't understand it second i can easily progam them whichever way i want.

Be open minded, don't be afraid to change your mind and accept that you were wrong. Ask yourself: what argument will make you change your mind. If you can't even imagine in what circumstance will you change your mind, you are not in a discussion to know the truth

of course i know i'd change my mind if someone can bring me an argument that is more logical or supported by science.

if you tell me a prayer that heals common cold, and I use it and heal, then I tell it to my family and they use it and heal, I will accept the possibility that God may exist

so if i give you a prayer to God that always works and only works when you use it, that isn't enough for you to believe that God exist but you would only believe in its possibilty? i don't know how to reply to that.

my example above kinda explain why God doesn't need you nor need to give you a physical evidence of his existence but rather give you a road to follow if you want to reach out for him but if you don't, you'd basically be using your right to choose and that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that you have a freewill, if you didn't find a prove that is enough for you to believe that God exist, there is also no prove that he doesn't exist unless you wanna elaborate more about what made you think that God doesn't exit.

if you don't need God in your life that is fair enough but doesn't mean that God is not there, for me that whole system that we're part of can't be kept together without proper managment, man is not in control of everything then what is keeping it together?

English is not my native language, it is hard to articulate my thought accurately, I tried my best.

nothing has to be perfect as long as we can communicate on an intellectual level, at least you're literate enough to speak two languages :)

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ok, my point about beliefs was not "God should answer all prayers", this is simply what can be inferred from my example. I admit, my example is incorrect, people in my example may have non-contradictory view of life. I don't know what I wanted to say there, lets move on.

I did not understand what were you trying to say in your paragraph about employment. But there is a key difference in this example: every employer has an opportunity to go and see you themselves if they start to question your existence. They have a way to find definitive proof. If they try and can't find any evidence of your existence, it is reasonable for them to start questioning your existence.

This analogy does not work because there is a key difference: there is definitive proof of your existence and every employee can easily verify it.

Ok, so you say you can be persuaded, and you can imagine an argument/event that will change your mind.

| if you didn't find a prove that is enough for you to believe that God exist, there is also no prove that he doesn't exist unless you wanna elaborate more about what made you think that God doesn't exit.

  1. Burden of proof
    Is is considered that the burden of proof lies on the one claiming something exists rather than the one claiming something does not exist.

Lets say you are correct. If I can not prove that God does not exists then it exists.
You can not prove that Flying spaghetti monster does not exists, then it exists as well. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster).
Also you can't prove that a Dog that is omnipotent does not exist that says everything opposite of what God would say. God says don't kill, Dog says do kill. God says fast, Dog says don't fast. And so on. Oh, and Dog says that God does not exists.
And a million other things that I come up with.
Now we have all these divine entities and they contradict each other. And we believe that every one of them exists: we can't prove they don't. And as we know, everything is deducible from a contradictory system.

This system is simply unsustainable.

The fact that I can't prove that God exists does not mean that it exists.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

  1. I am not saying God does not exists, I am saying that there is no indication that this possibility among billions of others is more probable.
  2. Without any proofs, and in a world where we can't have definitive proof of anything, it all comes down to probabilities and how we act. All these billions of religions/Faiths/theories/whatever are equally probable: that God exists, that Spaghetti monster exists, that Dog exists, that nothing exists, etc. We don't have any proofs for or against them.

Religions contradict each other. For example: one says you can't eat pork, others say you can. There are more religions that say you can. So most probable outcome: you can eat it. Will you eat it? It depends on other things. Some people don't want to hurt animals so they don't eat meat. Religion has nothing to do with this decision.

And this goes for every action. If we consider every possible religion, the most probable outcome for every action is it is not prohibited. So a person will act basing his decision on something else. So a rational person will in effect act as though he doesn't believe in any religion.

Still, a proof! It will look something like this:

  1. All possible religions are equally probable. (Not every widely accepted religion, but every possible religion. Even a Dog religion.)
  2. Since all religions are equally probable, a rational being should base his actions based on probabilities: the most probable outcome wins.
  3. For every action, we calculate probability of this action being prohibited based on every possible religion. This is where it gets tricky, but actions themselves are indistinguishable at this point (nothing prior had any constraints on actions, actions are interchangeable). So we get equal result for all actions: either that all actions are prohibited or all actions are possible.
  4. Since all actions are equal, religion does not affect decision making.
  5. Since religion does not affect decision making, a rational being acts as though he doesn't believe in any religion.

Examples about rational behaviour to demonstrate what I mean:

  1. Let's say we have proof that Christianity is true with a probability of 40%, Islam is true with a probability of 60%. A rational being should act as though Islam is true.
  2. Let's say we have proof that Christianity is true with a probability of 33%, Islam is true with a probability of 33%, Flying Spaghetti Monster is true with a probability of 33%. A rational being should act in contradicting situations as two of these religions tell. If Christianity and Islam says do not kill, and FSM says do kill, one should not kill.

Please, when arguing, show where my logic is incorrect, what implications are wrong. Analogies are not counter arguments: they may help explain, but they are not counter arguments.

Some food for your thoughts:

  1. Why do you believe your specific version of God/religion/Faith? You found evidence that somehow distinguishes it from others? Or is it simply because it is what you parent believed / taught you, or people around you believe / were taught? Have you never studied any others? Did you even consider any other religion? Why don't you believe Hinduism? Why don't you believe Buddhism?
    Ever heard of Shinto?
  2. I believe that there is no God or any other omnipotent being by applying Occam's razor: it is most simple out of equally probable explanations.
  3. There is evidence that mainstream religions are false. I am most familiar with Christianity, so I can provide some examples about it:
    We found evidence that animals evolved rather than being created by an omnipotent being. This disproves Christianity.
    We found evidence that Earth is not the centre of universe. This disproves Christianity.
    We found evidence that life on Earth was long before mankind. This disproves Christianity.
    If you read the Bible, it contradicts itself. If we assume everything written in bible is true, we get a contradictory logical system, and everything is deducible from it. You can explain everything, there is excuse for every action. It can't prohibit anything. It is useless.
    Again, this does not mean that Christianity is 100% false: out proofs are not 100%. But is highly more probable that Christianity is false rather than Christianity is true.
4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ok, my point about beliefs was not "God should answer all prayers", this is simply what can be inferred from my example. I admit, my example is incorrect, people in my example may have non-contradictory view of life. I don't know what I wanted to say there, lets move on.

i respect that.

I did not understand what were you trying to say in your paragraph about employment. But there is a key difference in this example: every employer has an opportunity to go and see you themselves if they start to question your existence. They have a way to find definitive proof. If they try and can't find any evidence of your existence, it is reasonable for them to start questioning your existence.

think of employer as God and people as employees, i'm sure that you agree with me that any employee within a company can never question the existence of his employer even if he has never met that employer before for all the evidences shows clearly that a company can't stand of its own and that employer doesn't need to proof anything to an employee if the existence of the company and its system wasn't enough, if you have failed to see any evidence for the existence of God cuz you decided not to invest some effort searching for the truth and relied only on what's being projected to you then it's something else and totally up to you.

Burden of proof
Is is considered that the burden of proof lies on the one claiming something exists rather than the one claiming something does not exist.

if i calim God exists i'm not obligated to proof it to anyone but only for those who is honestly willing to know the truth (yet to be judged on your part) about it and willing to do some effort to at least validate the information i'm giving otherwise would be a waste of time, on the other hand, i believe God doesn't need to proof his existence they way you want it to happen but rather through the process of what you call "burden of proof" cuz it's gonna be part of your evaluation of consciousness in your way to perfection, think about it as escalation of thoughts that'd lead you to comprehend who God is and what that all about cuz you would just get it listen to some words for random individual just like me.

Lets say you are correct. If I can not prove that God does not exists then it exists.

you need to be very accurate when quoting, i didn't say that if you can't proof God doesn't exit it'd automatically proof his existence.

Now we have all these divine entities and they contradict each other. And we believe that every one of them exists: we can't prove they don't. And as we know, everything is deducible from a contradictory system.

i think my last reply applies here to.

Without any proofs, and in a world where we can't have definitive proof of anything, it all comes down to probabilities and how we act. All these billions of religions/Faiths/theories/whatever are equally probable: that God exists, that Spaghetti monster exists, that Dog exists, that nothing exists, etc. We don't have any proofs for or against them.

exactly, "in this world" you get definitive proof of almost anything (not everything though), how about something out of this world?

proof about black holes is only visible, we haven't even gotten close to it nor we have a sample of it to determine its being, everything about it is just theories.

theoretically speaking, if God is all knowing and nothing is like him and he is the creator of everything including black holes and all the knowledge we have or yet to dicover, it wouldn't make sense to be able to figure out or sense what God is by any means that you may apply of any of his creation, if your eyes can't see all light Spectra that doesn't mean the only colors out there is the ones you can see, there is also colors you can't see an example is black color, it's a color that doesn't reflect light therefor you can't see it but the reallity of it is not necessarily to look like how your eyes sees it, same thing applies to black holes.

you wouldn't think the existence of electricity unless you get electrocuted by an eel and you would know what electricity is unless you invest some time and effort to know it "Burden of Research and Experiment"

if you're waiting for an interaction with God based on the above examples before you consider thinking about God you'd get it but only at the time that Faith is no longer needed to believe anything cuz basiclly the proof of everything would be right infront of your eyes.

Religions contradict each other. For example: one says you can't eat pork, others say you can. There are more religions that say you can. So most probable outcome: you can eat it. Will you eat it? It depends on other things. Some people don't want to hurt animals so they don't eat meat. Religion has nothing to do with this decision.

i assume you're referring to three major religions out ther but to let you know, non of them allowed pork, i wouldn't rely of probability, if i came to find the real word of God and it says no pork then no pork for me, similarities between religions gives a possibility that all of those came from one source while contradictions is a possibility of Man's interference.

how to distinguish which religion is right and which is the word of God?

  1. i'd go with the text that would challenge Man's knowledge and comprehension of things to an extent that goes beyond man's knowledge at the time of revelation.
  2. text must be errors and contradictions free.

my rationalism led me to that at least.

Since all religions are equally probable, a rational being should base his actions based on probabilities: the most probable outcome wins.

i wouldn't make a decision based on probability but rather certainty specially when it comes to Faith and potential after life.

For every action, we calculate probability of this action being prohibited based on every possible religion. This is where it gets tricky, but actions themselves are indistinguishable at this point (nothing prior had any constraints on actions, actions are interchangeable). So we get equal result for all actions: either that all actions are prohibited or all actions are possible.

only applies if all religions is true which is logically illogical, truth can only be one while falsehood can vary.

Examples:
water starts to boil at 100 celsius (true with no variations)
water starts to boil at 80 celsius (false with infinite number if variations changing the number to anything other than 100)

Since all actions are equal, religion does not affect decision making.

religion starts to affect decision making as soon as you believe in its validity and starts to embrace it.

Let's say we have proof that Christianity is true with a probability of 40%, Islam is true with a probability of 60%. A rational being should act as though Islam is true.

a rational being would go with neither, 100% certainty or never.

Please, when arguing, show where my logic is incorrect, what implications are wrong. Analogies are not counter arguments: they may help explain, but they are not counter arguments.

i wouldn't judge your logic as incorrect but rather show you a different views about it from different prospective which i believe in.

Why do you believe your specific version of God/religion/Faith? You found evidence that somehow distinguishes it from others?

yes, all i needed is to read the book and think and validate everything as the book it self encouraged me and since i found no errors nor contradictions, i was ready to accept it as a whole even if it'd prevent me from things i liked to do.

Or is it simply because it is what you parent believed / taught you, or people around you believe / were taught?

that'd be a blind faith

Have you never studied any others? Did you even consider any other religion? Why don't you believe Hinduism? Why don't you believe Buddhism?

i studied some but not to a large scale and i wouldn't consider to follow other religions because i found no error in what i already have and i believe God is only one and so the way he wants to be worshiped should also be one, he used to send his message to Mankind in a form of books, scriptures, fragments or whatever which all calls for one God and good morals and deeds, Man added his touch sometimes out of greediness sometimes out of assumptions creating sects, religions and all sorts of spiritualities.

that said, God has to correct that sending one message after another including physical proofs that you're asking for but instead of worshiping one God, people worshiped the messenger who brought the signs and proofs from God.

49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. (John 12:49)

i believe in the message Jesus came with and in the above verse he is saying that he is basically following orders of God but people yet to say " o Jesus, you don't know the truth about yourslef, you are God" based on what i believe is an assumption.

i believe in the message Moses came with but the Jews claimed to be the only people worthy of God mercy and love "the choosen ones" and it's even hard to be a Jew which i don't believe that God wanted this for us, i believe they were choosen yes but that doesn't make them the only ones worthy of God's mercy and love with all respect to them and to fellow christians.

i believe Buddhism has good meanings except for racial justice which i tend to diagree with.

Ever heard of Shinto?

never heard of it.

There is evidence that mainstream religions are false. I am most familiar with Christianity, so I can provide some examples about it:

if one is proven wrong, the other to is yet to be judged.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Lets not discuss everything in parallel. If you really want to get to the truth (and possibly change my mind) we should establish things we agree on and then add to it piece by piece. I tried to order things such that every next step is built upon previous one. If you disagree with the first, it is meaningless to discuss next things. They are built on top of each other.

On logic and proofs in general

A proof is a series of statements:

A is true
B is true
...
If A is true then C is true
If B is true then D is true
if C and D is true then F is true
...
Z is true

There are two ways to challenge it:
Argue about it's initial assumptions (statements "A is true"): A is not true because ...
Argue about implications (statements "If A then C"): C does not follow A because ...
C is not true is not a counter argument.

Example of a bad counter argument

Since all actions are equal, religion does not affect decision making.

religion starts to affect decision making as soon as you believe in its validity and starts to embrace it.

My statement is "if all action are equal [A] then religion does not affect decision making [B]"
You say "B is false". This is not a counter argument. I never stated this. I state:
A is true
A => B is true

Applying modus ponens, we get B is true. To dispute [B is true] you have to dispute [A is true] or [A => B is true]. Saying "B is false" does not disprove anything, this is not how logic works.

Another example

i wouldn't judge your logic as incorrect

If you think that my logic is correct you can't have different conclusions. This is not how logic works. This is by definition "irrational": not logical or reasonable.

Rational behaviour

a rational being would go with neither, 100% certainty or never.

A rational being has to act even when he is uncertain of something. Doing nothing is also an act. I assert that a rational person should act based on most probable outcome.

Oversimplified example to illustrate key point:
Imagine a casino. Lets say we have a contest.
If the number on roulette is 1-30 [A] you have to eat bread as quickly as possible.
If the number on roulette is 31-36 [B] you have to drink water as quickly as possible.
Before starting, you have a choice: sit at a table with bread, or sit a table with water. You can't stand in between those tables. You have to chose.
I argue that a rational person should sit at a table with bread: probability of [A] is 83.33%, probability of [B] is 16.67%.
A rational being acts as though [A] is true. (he does not believe [A] to be true, this has nothing to do with beliefs)

Proof

  1. A rational being when not knowing the truth should act as if the most probable outcome is true
  2. There is at least an uncountable infinite number of actions a rational being can do
  3. Religion has stance on every action: either it is prohibited, it is allowed or it is encouraged
  4. We construct an infinite number of possible religions: all permutations of assigning stance [3] to every action [2]
  5. One of religions [4] is christianity. [this is just a fun fact it has nothing to do with anything]
  6. There is no evidence for any specific religion [4]
  7. There is no evidence against any specific religion [4]
  8. Since [6] and [7] every religion is equally probable
  9. For every action [2] we calculate what a rational being [1] should do: calculate most probable outcome of all possible religions [4]. Since every religion has equal weight [8] and the way we constructed religions [4] we get that every action is not prohibited. Every action is equal.
  10. Since [9] religion does not affect decision making of a rational person [1].

Assumptions (statements that are not proven here) are 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

Other religions

i studied some but not to a large scale and i wouldn't consider to follow other religions because i found no error in what i already have and i believe God is only one and so the way he wants to be worshiped should also be one

You have a self-contradiction:
[A] You assert that there is only one true religion [the way he wants to be worshiped should also be one]
[B] Your current religion is a possible candidate for [A] [i found no error in what i already have]
[C] You studied some religions and you didn't find errors in them [that is my assumption based on what you said] so they are possible candidates for [A]. More broadly: there are religions that you have not studied so you can't have found errors in them so they are still possible candidates for [A].
[D] Your current religion is the only one true religion [i wouldn't consider to follow other religions]
[E] Since [D] other religions are not possible candidates for [A]

[C] contradicts [E]

I get that I repeat myself, but: everything is deducible from a contradictory system of beliefs (you have not disputed it yet, my respects). Let's not discuss whether it is bad. If we agree on everything else we can discuss it, but other stuff is more important.

[God] used to send his message to Mankind in a form of books

No, I think every priest will tell you that all the books were written by mankind.

Christianity

Everything before this, we did not need to disprove any religion. I did not use an argument "religion is false" once.
But, you quoted Bible, so I assume you believe it to be true.

i found no error in what i already have

Let me help you find it (this is one minute of googling):

  1. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html
  2. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html
  3. https://www.evilbible.com/
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

I guess everyone today agrees that Bible is self-contradictory. People (most notably priests) "resolve" inconsistencies which basically means they pick what to believe in.
And we know that everything is deducible from a contradictory system of beliefs (I can say that many times). So if you want to go and murder an entire city just find a person there who doesn't believe in God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)

Please lets discuss it only when we agree on prior stuff.

Analogy

Imagine this: I tell you that there is a dragon in my garage. You are excited and come visit me. You walk into the garage but it is empty.

  • Where is the dragon?
  • It's invisible
  • Why can't I touch it?
  • It's incorporeal
  • Why can't I hear it breathing?
  • It's very quiet
    And so on. I can not show you a single evidence it is there. I can explain away all your reasons. Then I say:

if i claim dragon exists i'm not obligated to proof it to anyone but only for those who is honestly willing to know the truth (yet to be judged on your part) about it and willing to do some effort to at least validate the information i'm giving otherwise would be a waste of time, on the other hand, i believe dragon doesn't need to proof his existence they way you want it to happen but rather through the process of what you call "burden of proof" cuz it's gonna be part of your evaluation of consciousness in your way to perfection, think about it as escalation of thoughts that'd lead you to comprehend who dragon is and what that all about cuz you would just get it listen to some words for random individual just like me.

I hope you can see similarities. If we agree on everything else we can discuss if it is a bad analogy, but again, other stuff is more important. You don't agree with it, fine. I hope it helps shed light on my point of view.

In conclusion

Before starting this, I wanted you to ask yourself: what argument [I meant evidence] will make you change your mind. If you can imagine at least one, we will discuss this topic.
So, just out of curiosity, and to help me fight my future battles, tell me what is the evidence that will make you change your mind? Please answer this question in your last post in this discussion with me, when you are "done" with me, I really want to know it.

4 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

First, I’d like to thank you very much for your efforts keeping this discussion decent and intellectual.

Lets not discuss everything in parallel. If you really want to get to the truth (and possibly change my mind) we should establish things we agree on and then add to it piece by piece. I tried to order things such that every next step is built upon previous one. If you disagree with the first, it is meaningless to discuss next things. They are built on top of each other.

I’d like to say that I’m not here to change anybody’s mind, the best I can do is to show you where to start to learn about what I belief to be true and provide you with some evidences why I think it to be so and that is going happen upon your request, conversion doesn’t make any sense to me nor encouraged by what I belief in.
As an attempt on my part to establish a a solid ground and foundations that we both can agree on and continue with this discussion in a series of escalations based on validly of last stance, I’d like we both to agree on the following terms and would list as “fundamentals” for a reference:

  1. Proof: is an evidence or a set of evidences to prove or disprove an idea, thought, experiment etc to be true.
  2. Religion: according to my understanding is the way God wants to be worshiped and people to follow.
  3. God: a supreme being who is believed to has created everything. (not a man nor a dragon)

About On logic and proofs in general
I don’t think that you made the best use of Mathematical Proof, the Implementation you made is not right but we already agreed on validity of previous step is a must before escalation.
Think of evidence like a judge in a court, let’s just put mathematical methods aside for now because it’s not applicable at this point and would only add confusion, its time is yet to come.

About your example of a bad counter argument
I don’t need to prove [A] to be true first for me to prove [B] true or false since [B] is not based of conditions of statement [A] and [A] is just an assumption.

this is not how logic works.

I can see clearly that you have mistakenly mixed logic in general with mathematical logic so this wasn’t an example of bad counter argument but rather a confusion.

To emphasis more about my previous statement that you can’t get multiple true conclusions about one specific theorem, here is an example:

  1. God is one.
  2. There is multiple Gods.
  3. There is no Gods or God.

If you can get a conclusion that any of the above statements is true then the rest is automatically false, you cannot work on them with mathematical proof method.

If you think that my logic is correct you can't have different conclusions. This is not how logic works. This is by definition "irrational": not logical or reasonable.
Some people gets offended if you tell them they are wrong so I thought it would be more proper to put it the way I did.

About Rational behavior

I assert that a rational person should act based on most probable outcome.
That is applicable on things other than religion, I don’t need a religion at all if it’s not the word of God and for me to believe so I need to have 100% probability it came from God following evidences, reasoning, logic etc and 0% probability of falsity.

about proof
I think I don’t need to emphasis more that Mathematical Proof is not applicable here (see fundamentals)

About Other religions
You can’t prove my self-contradiction using a wrong use of Mathematical Proof method.

[A] yes I assert.
[B] not true because [A] applies to my current religion therefor there is no contradiction.
[C] that’s not what I said let me break it down the way you like:

  • I didn’t study other religions in a large scale.
  • I wouldn't consider following other religions because i found no error in my current religion/faith and to explain more, I belief that my current religion is the most recent and undistorted message from God, other religions might contains some words of God but since there is contradictions and errors, it’s a clear evidence of forgery added by Man.
    [D] true

I get that I repeat myself, but: everything is deducible from a contradictory system of beliefs (you have not disputed it yet, my respects). Let's not discuss whether it is bad. If we agree on everything else we can discuss it, but other stuff is more important.

Now all I can say is that you see contradictions in my words and faith due to improper use of logic and possible misunderstanding.

No, I think every priest will tell you that all the books were written by mankind.

Yes every man of God would say so, books was revealed to Mankind by God through messengers and the that revelation was wrote into books by Man, no contradictions, God doesn’t need to send a whole physical book (Quran was not revealed as a whole book but rather through a course of events during a period of time then got written in a whole book after revelation is done)

About Christianity
Let me tell you what I believe about it to make it clear, I believe Jesus was a messenger of God and all contradictions and errors found between all versions of the bible or even within one version is a result of Man’s interference and personal motives of authors of those versions.
I won’t debate anything about those contradictions you found in Christian belief so, moving on.

About Analogy
You’re way of applying analogy is also incorrect and I would use Mathematical Proof method (I know you love it haha) to show you why:

Proof:
[A] God created everything, he claimed to be unlike anything of his creation. (to be disputed)
[B] since [A], God is not subject to any laws of nature or physics.
[C] since [B], you can’t sense God himself using your basic senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste or touch)
[D] since [C], there must be other ways to interact or reach out for God.

Notice that the only statement to be disputed here is [A] and once it’s proven true, the rest of statements is automatically going to be true.

about In conclusion

Before starting this, I wanted you to ask yourself: what argument [I meant evidence] will make you change your mind. If you can imagine at least one, we will discuss this topic.
So, just out of curiosity, and to help me fight my future battles, tell me what is the evidence that will make you change your mind? Please answer this question in your last post in this discussion with me, when you are "done" with me, I really want to know it.

Sure, something that would make me change my mind would be contradictions or errors within the book I believed to be a word of God, now it’s your turn to tell me what would change your mind.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Okay let's break down the simplest logical sequence we have for now.

Reference

You have a self-contradiction:
[A] You assert that there is only one true religion [the way he wants to be worshiped should also be one]
[B] Your current religion is a possible candidate for [A] [i found no error in what i already have]
[C] You studied some religions and you didn't find errors in them [that is my assumption based on what you said] so they are possible candidates for [A]. More broadly: there are religions that you have not studied so you can't have found errors in them so they are still possible candidates for [A].
[D] Your current religion is the only one true religion [i wouldn't consider to follow other religions]
[E] Since [D] other religions are not possible candidates for [A]

What we agree on

[A] is true
[D] is true

First point

How can [B] be not true if it is a weaker version of [D] which is true? Let me rephrase:
[B] Your religion is possibly the true one
[D] Your religion is the true one

Or maybe I should point out that [A] states that there is only one true religion. All others are false.

Second point

[C] claims that you have not found errors in some other religions therefore you consider them possible to be true.

The first part "have not found errors in some other religions" is obviously true since you did not study them all (and you are not expected to).

The second part assumes that religions without errors (evidence against them) are possibly the true ones for you. This may not be true for you so there may not be a contradiction. I assumed it was true because you made it sound like you picked your current religion because it does not contain errors.

So let's break it apart:
[C1] There are other religions without errors
[C2] Religion without errors (without evidence against them) is possibly the true one

And for simplicity lets say that errors or self-contradictions in religions are evidence against them and use "evidence against it" from now on as it is more broad and more precise.

Revised version

[A] There is only one true religion
[B] Your religion does not have evidence against it
[C1] There are other religions without evidence against them
[C2] Any religion without evidence against it can be the only one true religion
[D] Your religion is the only true one
[E] (follows D) Other religions except yours can not be the true ones

Two questions:

  1. If we assume [A]-[D] as true, do you agree that this system is self-contradictory?
  2. Is it [C2] you don't agree with? If so, how did you pick your religion out of all others without error?

On changing minds

something that would make me change my mind would be contradictions or errors within the book I believed to be a word of God

If there is an online version of it and you can send a link maybe I will be able to find errors.

what would change your mind

That depends on what we are talking about.

I strongly believe that you can't follow a self-contradictory religion. I remember that "everything follows from falsehood" is just a convention because it makes most sense and is most symmetric but it is not necessarily true. Basically I believe that "A and not A" can never be true. So much is built on it. Proof by contradiction ceases to work. Some parts of mathematics become invalid. And it's not just me, there are many more intelligent people that also believe it. So if mathematics will not regard proof by contradiction as proof anymore then I too will change my mind.

I don't believe animals (and by extension people) were created by some divine entity. There is evolution theory that has many supporting evidence. I know some of it's flaws but I still believe it because I am not an expert. If experts say that there is overwhelming supporting evidence, I believe them (because they use scientific method: reproducible experiments). If they say the found overwhelming evidence that disproves it, I will believe them. I know it sounds exactly like believing priests, and in a way it is. But there is a key difference: all experiments are public knowledge and anyone can try and see for themselves what the result is. Most people never do, but many people (scientists) do.

Maybe there is some other aspect that interests you, I can show you examples.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I’m not sure what kind of nonsense you’re trying to forge here but anyway, let’s get it on.

Maybe you’ll get it this time:

[A] You assert that there is only one true religion

I did.

[B] Your current religion is a possible candidate for [A] [i found no error in what i already have]

[B] and [A] is actually the same thing so it’s not possible for anything to be candidate for itself.
When I said “i found no error in what i already have” doesn’t mean that what I already have is different than the only one true religion mentioned in [A].
To make it easier for you to digest, I’d put this way “I assert that there is only one true religion and that religion is the only one I believe in cuz I found no errors nor contradictions plus some scientific facts that is proven to be a no man’s knowledge 1400 something years ago”

[C] You studied some religions and you didn't find errors in them […] you can't have found errors in them so they are still possible candidates for [A].

Although I asked you twice to be accurate when you quote me, you insist to come up with nonsense I didn’t say and build an assumption accordingly.
What I actually said is I didn’t study other religions on a large scale and that has nothing to do with the possibility that those religions might contain errors or not, not studying something won’t give any conclusion about that thing to be true nor false.

I started to get a bad impression about you already cuz if you don’t stop this, you’d only leave me with only two probabilities, either you’re experiencing some serious miscommunications with me or you’re intentionally misquoting me as a disparate attempt to prove something in your mind.

After carefully reading the rest of your reply and considering that you ignored most of my last reply, I can now provide you with a proof that this discussion is not gonna be of any benefit and needs to stop now based on your rules.

Proof on that you are forging nonsense to support your desire to find self-contradiction in my words:

  1. ill logic ([B] Your current religion is a possible candidate for [A] [i found no error in what i already have])
    one thing can’t be a possible candidate to itself.
  2. Frequent misquotation: ( [C] You studied some religions and you didn't find errors in them)
    (there are religions that you have not studied so you can't have found errors in them)
    ( [C] claims that you have not found errors in some other religions therefore you consider them possible to be true )
  3. Possible mental issues: (The first part "have not found errors in some other religions" is obviously true since you did not study them all (and you are not expected to)
    if you think that not studying other religions is enough to prove that those religions contains no errors then you need to seriously consider visiting a physiatrist

About changing minds

If there is an online version of it and you can send a link maybe I will be able to find errors.

I doubt that you’re capable of applying any objective criticism on anything in a healthy way so, moving on.

what would change your mind.

You asked me about what would change my mind and I gave you an honest answer and I expected you to do the same but instead, you started talking about what you believe in a story-telling way

I strongly believe that you can't follow a self-contradictory religion.

Till now you weren’t able to prove self-contradiction in my words nor in my religion so, moving on.

Finally, if you wanna prove self-contradiction in my words, here is how to do it:

Try to find two or more statements made by me that go completely opposite directions and put them together then present it as a self-contradictory proof.

Now, let me apply this method on your words to see if I’d be able to find self-contradiction or not.

Statements you made:

  1. "There is evolution theory that has many supporting evidence. I know some of it's flaws but I still believe it because I am not an expert. If experts say that there is overwhelming supporting evidence, I believe them (because they use scientific method: reproducible experiments)"

That means in short, you believe things as long as it has practical evidence or reproducible experiments as you said.

  1. "If they say the found overwhelming evidence that disproves it, I will believe them. I know it sounds exactly like believing priests, and in a way it is"

Now you’re saying that you believe in evolution as faith and this goes into an opposite direction from the previous statement.
Conclusion:
Obvious self-contradiction.

About Evolution theory, the only evidence I’ve found myself for it and according to the defenders is that it happens over millions of years, that is one hell of an evidence that is impossible to prove so won’t take it as an evidence.
You speak about scientists who claims to have overwhelming evidences ( I’m sure you have no idea about those evidences) and you ignore scientists who embrace the opposite opinion and that means you only side with whoever matches with your on desires not caring about what the truth is.

As an attempt on my side to educate myself more to get an overview about all possible opinions about evolution which agrees or might not agree with it, this is that I’m going to watch after submitting this reply to you, also there is some other references from awesome users who participated in this discussion which I intend to go through.

Thanks a lot and stay safe,,,,,

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

After carefully reading the rest of your reply and considering that you ignored most of my last reply

Read you first reply, how you responded to "Burden of proof". You ignored all of my points (without burden of proof on you the system is unsustainable; if you believe burden of proof lies on the other person then how can you reject my proof that the flying spaghetti monster exists?) and simply said "i believe God doesn't need to proof his existence" [sic]. I did not ask that, I asked how to resolve the inconsistencies.

I wanted to focus on one particular thing [for now] that we are most close on agreeing. But I did not leave out anything within that issue.

Try to find two or more statements made by me that go completely opposite directions and put them together then present it as a self-contradictory proof.

Sure, here we go:

One

I assert that there is only one true religion and that religion is the only one I believe in cuz I found no errors nor contradictions plus some scientific facts that is proven to be a no man’s knowledge 1400 something years ago

Therefore all other religions are false.
It is not possible that any other religion is true.

Two

What I actually said is I didn’t study other religions on a large scale and that has nothing to do with the possibility that those religions might contain errors or not, not studying something won’t give any conclusion about that thing to be true nor false.

Not studying something won’t give any conclusion about that thing to be true nor false.
There are religions you did not study.
Therefore you don't know if those religions are true or false.
Therefore some of them might be true.
It is possible that some of those religions are true.

Bold is the contradiction

I’m not sure what kind of nonsense you’re trying to forge here

Maybe you’ll get it this time

To make it easier for you to digest

Possible mental issues

you need to seriously consider visiting a physiatrist

I doubt that you’re capable of applying any objective criticism on anything in a healthy way

Ad hominem attacks. I don't know why you suddenly got all defensive. It was civil and pleasant prior to it, thank you for your time. I am not willing to participate in this discussion any further.

And since we're in giving advice territory, you should visit a mathematics teacher at your local university, show him Revised version and ask him what he thinks. Or ask him if there is contradiction in your two statements that I quoted.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Again you have failed to prove anything but miscommunication, misunderstanding and misquotation on your part but, let me explain why the two statements you used is not contradicting each another (you failed to dispute my proof about you’re contradictions):

The true religion i believe in is all the messages of God (scriptures/tablets/books etc) since the dawn of man till today, current version of messages/religions may or may not contain errors or contradictions depending on how well there are preserved/maintained, if any of those religions have things in common between each other matching the most recent message of God (which I follow as my religion now), if those things in common is not identical then it’d have a high probability to be true word of God even if those religions contain errors or contradiction.

That said, if a religion contains errors or contradictions that doesn’t mean the whole religion is false but might contain some truth within and vice versa.

Therefore all other religions are false.

Therefore all other religions (may or may not contain errors or contradictions)

It is not possible that any other religion is true

that depends on how valid or authenticated they are, if a religion matches with the most recent message of God then that message is considered a message of the only true religion of God.
Now, a proper question, why don’t I study other religions if there is a possibility that they might fall under the term “the true religion of God”? Basically, cause I found no problems with the most recent one, why would I go back to older messages? Makes sense?

Ad hominem attacks. I don't know why you suddenly got all defensive.

First, I wasn’t defensive but rather offensive, at the same time, you should not feel offended because intentional misquotation is considered nonsense and dishonesty therefor, you owed me an apology instead of being offended.

Maybe you’ll get it this time
To make it easier for you to digest

What’s wrong with those? Feeling offended for no reason?
Anyway, I’m sorry for that, maybe I should’ve been more formal with my words.

Possible mental issues
you need to seriously consider visiting a physiatrist

Actually that wasn’t mocking but rather a sincere advice because you indicated some serious ill logic, whoever thinks that one can get a conclusion without studying or observing etc is not someone in the right frame of mind and you made it clear “is obviously true” to get a conclusion without studying, according to you.

I doubt that you’re capable of applying any objective criticism on anything in a healthy way.

That is true due to Possible mental issue I explained to you above, if you are willing to express yourself and correct your statement ( “is obviously true” ) I’d take that back.

It was civil and pleasant prior to it, thank you for your time.

It was and has been civil till this point, you’re welcome, disagreement doesn't damage amicability

I am not willing to participate in this discussion any further.

I see that you agree with me that this discussion between you and me should stop now, at least we agreed about something finally.

And since we're in giving advice territory, you should visit a mathematics teacher at your local university, show him Revised version and ask him what he thinks. Or ask him if there is contradiction in your two statements that I quoted.

mathematics teacher: we weren’t discussion math, we might need some religion scholars and psychiatrists here instead, irrelevant.
Revised version: revised version of what? You need to be more precise.
I will make sure to ask a psychiatrist about whether I was right about potential mental issue on your part or not and if I were told I was wrong I will come here and apologize to you cause that’s what good people does.

Thanks for your time, i appreciate your contribution.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Found a nice article about ad hominem and burden of proof, I think you should read them:
https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/
https://effectiviology.com/burden-of-proof/

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for sharing those, they are actually two interesting topics to discuss.
Let’s start with fist one:

Ad Hominem

I assume you took some of my words as an “Ad Hominem” so let’s see what happened.

An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. Essentially, this means that ad hominem arguments are used to attack opposing views indirectly, by attacking the individuals or groups that support these views.

I directly attacked your argument not you personally by referring to it as “forged nonsense” therefor it’s not considered ad hominem.

an ad hominem argument can involve simply insulting a person instead of properly replying to a point that they raised, or it can involve questioning their motives in response to their criticism of the current state of things.

I did question your motives by saying “or you’re intentionally misquoting me as a disparate attempt to prove something in your mind” and that would’ve been considered as Ad Hominem if I didn’t “properly replyed” to all the points that you raised and considered a personal attack.

Fallacious and reasonable ad hominem arguments

The ad hominem attack is used as primarily as a diversion tactic, either to unjustifiably shift the burden of proof to someone else in the discussion or to change the topic.

I did not shift the burden of proof, I explained in which condition I would provide a proof (“for those who is honestly willing to know the truth”) and explained why God himself doesn’t need to prove his existence, everything around is considered a proof in addition to his holy book that you have no idea about it so far, allow me to quote myself and you again.

Read you first reply, how you responded to "Burden of proof". You ignored all of my points (without burden of proof on you the system is unsustainable; if you believe burden of proof lies on the other person then how can you reject my proof that the flying spaghetti monster exists?) and simply said "i believe God doesn't need to proof his existence" [sic]. I did not ask that, I asked how to resolve the inconsistencies.

You didn’t refer to any inconsistencies, I did explained why all your attempts to prove self-contradictory on my part was based on misquotation, miscommunication and misunderstanding and would add now misinformation, now let’s see what my first reply was:

“ if i calim God exists i'm not obligated to proof it to anyone but only for those who is honestly willing to know the truth (yet to be judged on your part) about it and willing to do some effort to at least validate the information i'm giving otherwise would be a waste of time, on the other hand, i believe God doesn't need to proof his existence they way you want it to happen but rather through the process of what you call "burden of proof" cuz it's gonna be part of your evaluation of consciousness in your way to perfection, think about it as escalation of thoughts that'd lead you to comprehend who God is and what that all about cuz you would just get it listen to some words for random individual just like me.”

Now if the existence of God is probable and you care to know the truth about it, the "Burden of Research" would fall upon your shoulder while you can ask me to proof any of my claims and I wouldn’t mind instead of insistently trying to prove my self-contradiction by using misinformation and misquotations which wouldn’t change my mind about my religion if it was proven true cause you need to prove my religion self-contradictory as well.

Possibly Fallacious :

  • Maybe you’ll get it this time
  • To make it easier for you to digest

I might’ve gotten carried away because misquotation and misinformation you did but I’m sincerely very very sorry about those two

Reasonable fallacious:

  • I doubt that you’re capable of applying any objective criticism on anything in a healthy way.

I did explained myself already in multiple positions why I made this statement.

Appeal to motive:

either you’re experiencing some serious miscommunications with me or you’re intentionally misquoting me as a disparate attempt to prove something in your mind.

One of those is true for many reasons I stated before.

Tone policing

Fuck it. It needs to be said ¯(ツ)
Enough already

This one applies to some replies from other users on this thread.

At the end I have to say that I tried my best to sincerely and fairly criticize my own words to the best of my knowledge (that was your burden to do) now are you willing to spend some time trying to clear the miscommunications if you had any and apologize accordingly?

Thanks for sharing that link, it was very informative to me that I’ll be educating my self more and more regarding that matter.

About the proof of burden, I don’t think I need to elaborate more on that since I tend to support my claims with a proof according to my reasoning and rationalism and you might find it irreasonable or irrationable, will elaborate more if I find the urge to do so after reading the other link.

3 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Talking only about burden of proof here to keep discussion focused and concise. I will first state what I am talking about and then give arguments supporting the claim.

Burden of proof fallacy

For example, if someone believes in ghosts, the burden of proof rests on them when it comes to showing that ghosts exist. Accordingly, it’s fallacious to shift the burden of proof to others, by claiming that no one has disproved the existence of ghosts or by asking someone else to prove that ghosts don’t exist.

Quote from https://effectiviology.com/burden-of-proof/

I argue that this is true and we should apply that principle in our discussion.
This article references scientific studies that support this claim.

Appeal to authority

Since I am not a renowned expert let me first show you that this is considered true by experts. This is not a comprehensive list but rather just examples:

  1. Bertrand Russel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  2. Christopher Hitchens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
  3. Carl Sagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
  4. [edit] John Locke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I'd say that this view is held by the majority of scientists across all disciplines, but I am not able to find any evidence to support this claim. I think that scientific method is a version of this statement, and it is the method of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
I don't have any supporting evidence for this paragraph, no need to challenge it.
[edit] I think that inclusion of it in a university book is a proof that it is widely accepted as true. The link I found, Lander University: https://web.archive.org/web/20090430170946/http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

I accept that this is a weak argument. But you can read expert's arguments on this topic if you are not satisfied with mine. And yes, mine will be of worse quality: I am not a renowned expert not without a reason after all. I am giving you these references so that maybe they will persuade you.

Reductio ad absurdum

Let's assume that the opposite is true: if one can't disprove ghosts then they exist.
I can invent any invisible immaterial incorporeal omnipotent entity, assign any beliefs to it and claim it exists. It will be your job to find evidence against it.

Other people have done it, the most famous example is Pastafarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
They even published a book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster. You are free to read and find any logical inconsistencies within to disprove this religion. But since it is specifically made to mock religion and rather modern I doubt it contains any. But I haven't read it so my stance is: it is a possibly true religion.

Wikipedia even has a list of these religions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion

There is no real argument here, this is just for your information, no need to challenge it.

Reductio ad absurdum #2

Let's assume that the opposite is true: if one can't disprove ghosts then they exist.

  1. I claim that a God is floating around in space, but he is small so you can't see him, and he says "don't kill people", but he is quiet and you can't hear him. I wrote a book, called it "The Bible", it says that you should not kill people, and I say that you must follow it in life. You can't prove that God does not exist so it exists and I am right.
  2. I claim that a Dog is floating around in space, but he is small so you can't see him, and he says "kill people whenever you have an opportunity", but he is quiet and you can't hear him. I wrote a book, called it "The Elbib", it says that you should kill people, and I say that you must follow it in life. You can't prove that Dog does not exist so it exists and I am right.
  3. [1] and [2] contradict each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion.

The fact that we arrived at [3] is enough for me to deduce that the initial assumption should not be correct. If you disagree, I will elaborate.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

A challenge

If you are sill not convinced, in addition to providing arguments against all of the above, I present to you a challenge.
You state that you current religion is the only true one. All others are wrong. Yet you refuse to provide proof to me. Fine.
Without using burden of proof, assuming it does not apply, prove Pastafarianism wrong.

Conclusion

"My religion is correct because it does not contradict itself nor real world" without proof is a false statement because of burden of proof.
"My religion is possibly correct because it does not contradict itself nor real world" is a true statement.

P.S.

I think that sometimes you fell victim to equivocation fallacy. Specifically when you use phrases like "evaluation of consciousness", "escalation of thoughts". These phrases mean something to you but there is no commonly established meaning so they may mean anything to you. I can't know what you meant so I can't reasonably respond to it.
https://effectiviology.com/equivocation/

P.P.S.

If you find any fallacy in my logic feel free to point it out:

  1. a quote
  2. what fallacy it is
  3. why do you think this is it
  4. why do you think it does not apply. [sometimes arguments make sense even though they are often fallacious]
3 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I failed to find relavence to the topic in most of this but something interesting caught my attention.

A challenge

Yet you refuse to provide proof to me

this is a big lie, again? you need to repent haha?

My Claim:

My religion is a true word from God, other religions can be either man made or previous messages from God that might or might've not been preserved and maintined well by Man, requires to study them as well to find out, notice that if any other religion were proven true word of God i'm not allowed to follow it according to what God said in the most recent message but i'm required to believe in all messages of God.

now if you would accept the word of God if i can prove it so, i will gladly give you the proof that it came from God but if it wouldn't make a difference, it would not be worth of my time.

without further ado, let's get started and try to find some contraditions or error in Quran which i claim to be a word of God.
since you are no expert as you said "Since I am not a renowned expert", i advice you to refer to those who claim to have found contradictions within Quran, if you find what they say reasonable, you're more than welcome to quote and make your own argements based one that, let's see if i would be able to prove it wrong or not, that is rationalism.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is an example of what I wanted to get from you in response:

[You state that you current religion is the only true one. All others are wrong.] Yet you refuse to provide proof to me
this is a big lie, again? you need to repent haha?

You have to support your claim that I lied. You have to show me when and where you presented proof. I did not see any, I accept that I may have mistakenly took it as something else.

My religion is a true word from God

You need to prove it.

Why? Because the burden of proof is on you on this one. This is what my previous message was about. This is a fallacy. I gave you many references. See previous reply on why I think it is true.
I made incorrect assumptions and my arguments were not about the core issue, so I correct my mistake now. To be clear, I now think that the core issue is "burden of proof".

other religions can be either man made or previous messages from God that might or might've not been preserved and maintined well by Man

You need to prove that there are religions that are preserved messages from God.
And if you think yours is a preserved message from God, you need to prove it too.

notice that if any other religion were proven true word of God i'm not allowed to follow it according to what God said in the most recent message but i'm required to believe in all messages of God.

I don't get this at all:
if any other religion were proven true word of God you will not follow it. Because in the most recent message God said so. Ok.
But at the same time you should believe all messages of God. So this applies to that other true religion also, right?

How come this is not self-contradicting? Because you believe but not follow it? What does it mean? What's the difference?

If this is not what you meant, you may want to rephrase this.

i'm not allowed to follow it

Allowed by whom?

i'm required to believe in all messages of God

Required by whom?

now if you would accept the word of God if i can prove it so, i will gladly give you the proof that it came from God but if it wouldn't make a difference, it would not be worth of my time.

Yes, if you have definitive proof that your version of God exists I will believe it.

without further ado, let's get started and try to find some contraditions or error in Quran which i claim to be a word of God.
since you are no expert as you said "Since I am not a renowned expert", i advice you to refer to those who claim to have found contradictions within Quran, if you find what they say reasonable, you're more than welcome to quote and make your own argements based one that, let's see if i would be able to prove it wrong or not, that is rationalism.

Irrelevant. I have never mentioned Quran and never claimed it to be true.
[edit] Irrelevant to this particular issue. I have to read up on it and will address it in another reply.

P.S.

Please don't skip any of my arguments against. Clearly state whether you agree or not, If not, please tell why.

P.P.S.

I still expect you to answer my arguments about burden of proof.

3 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You have to support your claim that I lied. You have to show me when and where you presented proof. I did not see any, I accept that I may have mistakenly took it as something else.

my proof that you lied is that i didn't say "All others are wrong", now give a proof i said so with a real quote not an assumption.

My religion is a true word from God
You need to prove it.

Here’s just one proof from an expert why my religion is a word from God, just a teaser.
EMBRYO = LEECH | AMAZING QURAN MIRACLE

Lets not discuss everything in parallel. If you really want to get to the truth (and possibly change my mind) we should establish things we agree on and then add to it piece by piece. I tried to order things such that every next step is built upon previous one. If you disagree with the first, it is meaningless to discuss next things. They are built on top of each other.

On logic and proofs in general
A proof is a series of statements:
A is true
B is true
...
If A is true then C is true
If B is true then D is true
if C and D is true then F is true

Based on that, we need to agree first on “My religion is a true word from God” to be true or false based on evidence I’ll be providing.

My next claim I’d be supporting if we agreed about previous claim to be true is “other religions can be either man made or previous messages from God that might or might've not been preserved and maintined well by Man”

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Argument #1

Let's assume that the text in that video is correct interpretation of Quran. I don't know any better anyway.

Here is the fifth step:

and then we clothed the bones with the flesh

I am not a medical expert, nor do I know what "flesh" means there. But can you prove that flesh develops after bones?

More specifically, this statement implies that any bone should be formed before all "flesh" (=tissue?) formation is happening. Can you prove it?

But this is only if we give this statement benefit of a doubt and use the most possible interpretation. If I read this on my own, I'd think that it implied that all bones are formed before all flesh is formed, and dismissed it as false.

Argument #2

There is a thing called confirmation bias. It is easy to fit something retroactively. After you know how embryo develops you can find similarities and state that this is what Quran was predicting. Quran did not make this prediction. No one thought that this is how humans develop before we found it out by other means.

Let me rephrase this. Quran told us that one step of human development is a "blood clot"/"suspended"/"leech". It did not go into any specifics and therefore did not make any predictions other than possibly "it has blood".

So I argue that this is retrofitting, not a prediction that became true.

There is a famous example of this in science: phlogiston theory. It made predictions that were shown to be false yet this theory was still believed and was retrofitted to not contradict newly found evidence.

Also this is why seer predictions only work for past events but are useless for predicting future. Nostradamus is the most famous example I believe.

Argument #3

Lets say we consider this to be a prediction. [which I am not agreeing with yet]

As far as i understand, the argument is as follows: Quran told us that human at one stage of development is like a leech. There are similarities. It could not have been known at the time. Therefore it is a miracle.

First, why are we neglecting all the dissimilarities? This is a prediction that turned out to be wrong: leech is not one of the stages of human development.

Prediction is false and it follows that Quran is false.

Second, there are other more plausible explanations other than miracle, one of them being: the writer meant blood clot because it looks the same and the fact that this word has another meaning ("leech") is a happy coincidence.

Argument #4

Lets say we consider this prediction to be true. [which I am not agreeing with yet]
To evaluate if Quran is true we have to account for all other predictions it made, and assert if they were true or false.
This is a step in a right direction but it does not definitively proof that Quran is true. Knowing nothing else and considering this prediction true I can say that Quran is plausible, more plausible than Bible for example, but I can't dismiss every other religion and claim Quran is true just because of one prediction.
There is always a chance that it was pure luck. The more predictive power it has the more plausible it becomes.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

More inconsistencies in this video:

1

It references 23:12 - 23:14 but does not quote 23:12.
23:12 says that human is created from clay.
https://quran.com/23/12

2

23:13 says that sperm is placed in a firm lodging. If it were to predict human development it should have used another existing word at the time to be accurate: egg.
https://quran.com/23/13

3

Around 2:10 in the video it is said that blood clot is a good analogy because blood circulates in an embryo. But blood clot refers to blockage, it prevents circulation of blood. Blood clot is blood that has changed from a liquid to a gel-like or semisolid state.

4

At 2:25 in the video it is stated that the argument can't be used but then it is explained in a manner to make you think that it is a valid argument.

5

3:38 in the video. It looks to me that images are taken from different perspectives. For A it is view from the top. For B it is view from the side.

6

the ONLY reasonable conclusion is that these descriptions were revield [sic] to Muhammed FROM GOD

this is not the only reasonable conclusion


I mean I have to it give credit, it is a well constructed argument. But with flaws and incorrect in its fundamental assumption nonetheless.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

why are you relying to yourself on an old reply?

you are not allowed to do so nor to spam

keep the discussion organized

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

why are you relying to yourself on an old reply?

Sorry but this is not my fault but the site's fault. It is not a reply to my own comment. It's just that this deep nesting is not supported, and everything is now presented in a straight line.

you are not allowed to do so nor to spam

By whom am I not allowed to reply to your comment a second time with other arguments? They are completely new, this is what caught my eye after watching the video the second time

to spam

  1. Define spam
  2. Show me that what I said was spam

keep the discussion organized

I tried, we should have a separate thread / tree for each argument, so that we can have a focused discussion on each topic. But this is not supported here as I learned.

3 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

On Quran

something that would make me change my mind would be contradictions or errors within the book I believed to be a word of God

Quran which i claim to be a word of God

Ok, quick googling, here's some list of contradictions of Quran: https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/. Some of them are internal, logical contradictions. There are more than hundred of those. Some of them contradict science, i.e. what we know about the real world.

There are some simple ones for me to understand, here they are:

  1. Who was the first muslim? https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/first_muslim.htm
  2. Can Allah be seen? https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_seen.htm
  3. To marry or not to marry. https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/marry_christians.html
  4. Numerical errors. https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i004.html

Care to explain why these specific 4 are not contradictions?

I must admit, I'm in the blind here, before quickly glancing the errors I did not know what Sura/Surah was nor heard the word once in my life.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you have to dispute the proof i provided you first before moving forward, at least respect you're own rules.

about all the lovely refrences you are giving me, go through them yourself and make your claim and argument, i'm not here to answer google, MAKE YOUR CLAIM

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you have to dispute the proof i provided you first before moving forward, at least respect you're own rules.

Sure, did that.

I am holding you to your word and showing you errors in the text.

The simplest example:

  1. Surah 32:5 https://quran.com/32/5

  2. Surah 70:4 https://quran.com/70/4

  3. God's day is a thousand years

  4. God's day is fifty thousand years

I am claiming something

There are more than a hundred of logical inconsistencies within the text of Quran.
There are dozens historical and scientific inconsistencies within the text of Quran.

Here is the list:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

Quran contains logical inconsistencies therefore you should not believe it.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I am not a medical expert, nor do I know what "flesh" means there.
Since I am not a renowned expert.

Based on what you said, you rely on your own knowledge to judge my proof and you are not in full command of English not knowing what “flesh” means therefor you need to study Embryology, you can start with "The Developing Human" for Keith L. Moore.

It seems like you were so quick doing a "quick googling" to find some contradictions in Quran, a quick googling also would give you interesting references about hollow earth and claims about the Flat Earth, won’t make them real.

That said, if you believe the first proof I gave you to be false, I won’t ask you to prove it false and it’d be a valid reason to stop here.

Although we agreed not to escalate unless we agree first on first proof but I wouldn’t mind leaving a note on your claims.

The simplest example:

  1. Surah 32:5 https://quran.com/32/5
  2. Surah 70:4 https://quran.com/70/4
  3. God's day is a thousand years
  4. God's day is fifty thousand years

Quotation from translation of First verse “a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.”
Quotation from translation of Second verse “a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years”

Does the word “a day” in English means “God’s day”? Definitely not.
The word “a day” in both verses refers to a non-particular noun therefore your claim is false.

You need to think twice before making a claim specially if you are not in a full command of English, more in depth about the difference between those two days and to answer your other 100 claims of contradictions after we get done with proof number one.

you might also wanna visit a local Islamic center or whatever to find some answers in your native language.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

not knowing what “flesh” means

There are many definitions of "flesh":

  1. the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.
  2. the flesh of an animal, regarded as food.
  3. the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable.
  4. the skin or surface of the human body with reference to its appearance or sensory properties.
  5. the human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul.

Then there are medical definitions of "flesh":

  1. living tissue, especially soft tissues as contrasted with bone.
  2. the soft muscular tissue of the body.
  3. a general term for soft tissues, referring particularly to skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat, and muscle.

I am giving Quran the benefit of a doubt and pick the most fitting definition: medical [1] as it is also opposed to bones in Quran.

I remember that skin forms first and bones are formed later. But I don't have proof of it at hand. So I am sceptical about it.

So I want proof that what Quran states is right: that flesh is formed after bones.
A side question: what does embryo consist of before bones are formed? Can you say that before bones are formed embryo consists only of flesh?

The video states:
sperm => "leech" [= embryo] => "lump" [???] => bones => flesh
If blood clot / leech is embryo, what is lump?

I will repeat my other counter arguments so that they are not forgotten:

  1. This is not a prediction but rather a retrofitting: embryos were not predicted based on Quran
  2. If this is a prediction, then it is not true: while embryo is similar to leech it is also dissimilar.
  3. If this is a correct prediction, it adds weight but does not prove Quran to be true
3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

sperm => "leech" [= embryo] => "lump" [???] => bones => flesh
If blood clot / leech is embryo, what is lump?

The Arabic word that the English term “Lump” is referring to is “مضغة”.

“مضغة” is pronounced as “Mud-gha”
That word is considered a measuring unit for anything that is as small as a chewable piece of meat or material.
Literal translation can be:
“Chewable” “Chewed-size” or “Lump as a measuring unit (lump of meat for example)

Can be also be used in figurative speech, for example (that dude is a “Mud-gha) meaning everybody is chewing his news, that is a figurative way to express how everybody is talking about that person in a bad way.

More examples about old measuring units Origins of Measurements

So I want proof that what Quran states is right: that flesh is formed after bones.

Alright, you want a proof for the proof I gave you to consider it a proof, fine.

You might wanna do some quick googling about Keith L. Moore
Here’s his full statement Embryology and Quran - Professor Keith L. Moore

If you still want a proof for what the professor Keith L. Moore said then you may want do the experiment yourself or find another way to satisfy your denial.

To make sure we’re following your rules for this discussion, here’s what you need to do:

  1. Make a clear statement (true or false) based on the material, explanations and proof I gave you about the argument I made earlier which is “ My religion is a true word from God

  2. Make a clear statement about the errors you claimed (true or false) which is:

    The simplest example:

  3. Surah 32:5 https://quran.com/32/5

  4. Surah 70:4 https://quran.com/70/4

  5. God's day is a thousand years

  6. God's day is fifty thousand years

Based on this explanation:

Quotation from translation of First verse “a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.”
Quotation from translation of Second verse “a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years”
Does the word “a day” in English means “God’s day”? Definitely not.
The word “a day” in both verses refers to a non-particular noun therefore your claim is false.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Worth mentioning that any attempt of diversion or dodging my direct questions or requests from you is going to make me Ignore any further replies without a notice and this is my rules (been following yours for a while now)

Replying to old replies is also not allowed

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sure, let me restate everything once more. Numbers for easier reference.

Claims in the video

The video claims that 23:12 - 23:14 describes human development
The video claims that this information could not have been known at the time, Quran predicted it, hence this theory is correct

1

https://quran.com/23/12

And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.

Obviously false.

2

https://quran.com/23/13

Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.

No prediction that this firm lodging is an egg.

3

https://quran.com/23/14

Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.

sperm -> clot -> lump -> lump is transformed into bones -> flesh is added to the bones -> human

Let's assume clot = embryo. Still there are errors that even I, a layman, can spot:

  1. No mention of zygote as a stage
  2. Lump [assuming this is later stage embryo/fetus/whatever] is not transformed into bones, bones form inside it.

4

About meaning of "lump". Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore

For instance, the Holy book claims that at one point the embryo looks like a small piece of meat which can be chewed, or mudghah, and Moore consents, "by golly, it does, sorta", agreeing and signaling to the knowledge we have about the structure and appearance of the actual embryo, which actually comes into a stage where it resembles the size of a small thing which can be chewed by teeth i.e. it is approximately of 1.0cm meanwhile in Alaqah stage embryo is forming and only 3.5mm which can't be chewed.

A very weak argument.
There is stage in development that is not chewable due to its size, which Quran refers to by clot, it is before the stage that is chewable due to its size, which Quran refers to by lump.
I claim that it does not follow that Quran is true.


“Chewable” “Chewed-size” or “Lump as a measuring unit (lump of meat for example)

If considered to be a unit of measure, how much is it? Is it really about a cubic 1cm?


If you still want a proof for what the professor Keith L. Moore said then you may want do the experiment yourself or find another way to satisfy your denial.

We came full circle. It is not my burden to prove you wrong. It is your burden to prove yourself right. Let's examine scientific value of this research. Can you show me peer review studies? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Here is another professor's findings on this matter: https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2b.html
It goes into far more details than I can, but one thing that stands out that I tried to point out and you ignored it: muscle tissue and bones start forming at the same time. Let me quote:

It is always better to have two witnesses so we shall see what Dr. Keith L. Moore has to say about the development of bones and muscles in his book The Developing Human. Extracted from Chapters 15-17 we find the following information:
The skeletal and muscle system develops from the mesoderm, some of which becomes mesenchymal cells. These mesenchymal cells make muscles, and also have the ability to differentiate...into osteoblasts which make bone. At first the bones form as cartilage models so that by the end of the sixth week the whole limb skeleton is formed out of cartilage but without any bony calcium as shown in Figure 15-13.
While the bone models are forming, myoblasts develop a large muscle mass in each limb bud, separating into extensor and flexor components. In other words, the limb musculature develops simultaneously in situ from the mesenchyme surrounding the developing bones. So Dr. Moore agrees completely with Dr. Sadler.

I found you proof that there are professors, experts in the field, who disagree with what Dr. Keith L. Moore implied about Quran. You should now prove that we should believe Dr. Keith L. Moore and not other experts.

I even found you proof that Dr. Keith L. Moore disagrees with this video.


Can you show me proof that this information was enough to convert Keith L. Moore to Islam [or how you call your religion, I genuinely don't know, this is not an attack]?

In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an."

I say that this is evidence that an expert, who found this proof, did not find it significant to change his mind about it. "It's been years since I was involved in the Qur'an."


There is a lot here already, should have broken it down into points. Sorry about poor structure. The more I dive the more errors and contradictions I find.

5

Contradicting human creation in Quran.

  1. Humans created from water: https://quran.com/25/54
  2. Everything created from water, must include humans: https://quran.com/24/45
  3. Humans created from clay: https://quran.com/15/26
  4. Humans created from dust: https://quran.com/30/20
  5. Humans not created from anything: https://quran.com/3/47
  6. Our clot passages.

6 Main point

Quran did not predict anything. What you showed me is fitting current knowledge to Quran, not the other way around.
Arguments for it:

  1. Nobody expected our current view of human development based on Quran before we found it out by other means.
  2. It is extraordinarily vague to be a prediction. Many different processes fit it. If humans really were made from clay, it would fit.

Here is an article that should explain better why I make this claim:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causality

7

If this is a prediction, then it is not true: while embryo is similar to leech it is also dissimilar.
Detailed article with references to medical books: https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2b.html

I'll not elaborate for now, I think that [6] alone is enough proof that this video is wrong in its conclusion.

8

If this is a correct prediction, it adds weight but does not prove Quran to be true.
You'll have to supply more proof. And also reject all the contradictions.

I'll not elaborate for now, I think that [6] alone is enough proof that this video is wrong in its conclusion.

9

The days.

https://quran.com/32/5

He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.

"to Him in a Day". So for Him it is a Day. For Him a day will pass. When I mouse over letters it says "measure of which is". So it is clearly not "during a day" or something similar. This precise period of time, to Him in a Day, equals 1000 years.

https://quran.com/70/4

The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years.

"to Him during a Day". Same as above. When I mouse over letters it says "measure of which is". So it is clearly not "during a day" or something similar. This precise period of time, to Him during a Day, equals 50000 years.

Yes, I infer that Him in both passages is the same He, Allah. So, a contradiction.

P.S.

Worth mentioning that any attempt of diversion or dodging my direct questions or requests from you is going to make me Ignore any further replies without a notice and this is my rules (been following yours for a while now)

Replying to old replies is also not allowed

Threats only discredit your desire to know the truth. I never made any threats, I only suggested a flow that I believe to be more productive.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.

Obviously false.

why you think it's false? you should explain and give reasons without me asking you cause that is the proper way to argue, what is Man created from?

Threats only discredit your desire to know the truth. I never made any threats, I only suggested a flow that I believe to be more productive.

I didn't threaten you, i was telling you what I’m gonna do if you don't stick to the rules of this discussion.
you have to reply every word in my reply to you not to reply me with google, quote me then comment.
I was not trying to know the truth from you but rather was offering it to you and still you didn't make a clear statement about my claims.

If you still unable to decide whether you see my arguments is true or false then i guess i need to give more elaboration to help you make up your mind.

  1. let's assume you did ignore the fact that i asked you to make a clear statement about my two argument to be (true or false) then no need to continue wasting my time with you.
  2. let's assume that you lack the knowledge to properly judge material in your hands, you need to educate yourself instead of googling.
  3. considering that you showed no knowledge of how to criticize linguistics then you can't argue something you're not familiar with cuz it's just gonna look bad on you.

Let me prove to you that you're brain is not able to process information probably:

You claim this as contradictions:

let me give you an example "My house is made of bricks" does it mean that the only materials used is bricks and nothing else like mortar? or basically means that bricks is the main material?

true.

clay from an altered black mud, not just clay.
Doesn’t clay contain water? How do we make mud? Water and soil?
Isn’t it possible that it’s a second material?

The word “Dust” is referring to the Arabic word “تراب”
“تراب” means “soil” in English not “dust”, use google translator

Too many mistakes you made already, you keep copying things from google, you can’t criticize anything without proper knowledge, my dude.

She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" [The angel] said, "Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is.

This means that God was able to create a Man without a father and with only a mother because he’s basically God, sure you understand English?

Now, don’t you see any relevance between water, soil and mud or clay?

BTW, why keep repeating “let’s assume it’s a prediction”? Someone told you if you keep repeating it I would believe it? Lol

Now let me make my arguments:

  1. let’s assume you don’t know proper English (more probable) nor know any Arabic then you can’t criticize anything here
  2. let’s assume you’re trying your best to prove something you’re not capable of proving, you’d end up making a fool of yourself.
  3. let’s confirm that you didn’t follow the rules of discussion you made yourself, then no need to continue.

worth mentioning that I answered some of your points in case someone would read and find it helpful, I’m sure you won’t read them cause you like “quick googling” hahaha.

Discussion ends here

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah it ended a long time ago with you as the loser who can't understand simple concepts or logic. But kudos to iThresh for even trying to argue logic with a religious nut. It's an impossible mission because faith always overrules logic for them.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't see losers here, we had a discussion about a sub-topic from main one and we had rules of it and iThresh didn't follow, i offered him evidence to support my claims which he has the right to accept or not and he didn't accept it so i don't see a reason to continue here.

Why are you so itchy about it?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Because you blatantly lie about what happened due to your lack of understanding of how logic works.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you for your support and thanks for reading.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

unaguitarra Be free to believe in whatever you want to believe, but you're clearly not interested in listening to others' opinions and in keeping the discussion civic. I just don't see why would you bother making a thread about sensitive topics if all you're willing to do is mock everyone else's opinions and clearly not being interested in having a healthy discussion. It's people like you that make me lose hope on humanity.

And now a message for iThresh:
Like Starwhite said, kudos to you for trying to argue with this guy. I'm more than happy to add you to my whitelist for being such a sport and trying to keep this a healthy discussion. <3

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks. It really is uplifting to read this. All the best to you.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Let me turn your focus to two strongest points, against which you have not presented any arguments. So that we don't need to argue if people are made of clay, I find it futile.

  1. The process depicted in Quran 23:12 - 23:14 is wrong
    Aside from the clay thing. Let's assume that it really states what the video says.
    Here is scientific explanation with references to medical books, some of the referenced books written by Dr Keith L.Moore.
    https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2b.html
  2. This is not a prediction
    Nobody expected our current view of human development based on Quran before we found it out by other means.
    It is extraordinarily vague to be a prediction. Many different processes fit it. If humans really were made from clay [which you think is true, so I guess this example is wrong], it would fit.
    Here is an article that should explain better why I make this claim:
    https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causality

P.S.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
This site contains not only contradictions, but also responses by believers that explain contradictions.
Here are responses to "what humans are made of" contradictions: https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/i015.html
So I suggest you read them all to know how to argue against someone like me :-)

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I respect the effort you made here! Futile in the end but very respectful.

For me it is simple. Take away all Holy books and all science books from the world. Given enough time only one of them will come back exactly the same. It might be in a different order but science is the way to the unknown mountaintop.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Everyone is free to believe in whatever i'm not preaching here but if someone wants a challenge i'm ready to take it.

I don't agree with what you said about science and religious books.
We found many things that proves ancient knowledge of Man that has been lost and we are still trying to rediscover it again so if you lose knowledge it will never come back the same.

I don't see a reason to dump science just to prove it will come the same nor dump holy books when i know God will never send and books again.
Everyone can justify anything so it's a matter of take it or leave it, freedom of choice.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You keep spouting crap like everyone is free to believe whatever and that you are not preaching but your behaviour here is exactly the same here as it was in that other controversial thread you have created. You 'appear' to be open to discussion but you refuse to accept anything that does not conform to your dogma. As such any discussion with you is futile because it won't ever lead anywhere. I especially like how you then go to cry about people here not being open minded and mean to you to other discussions.

Also adding kudos to iThresh for trying, you certainly have more patience than myself.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 weeks ago.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Scientific facts will always come back exactly as they were. Einstein's equations will be back, Laws of Newton will be back,
With ancient knowledge, for example the way the Roman knew of a way to make concrete that set while being underwater. Scientists cracked it just a few years ago. The reason behind it working back then and now are still exactly the same.
Religion makes the world run backwards. For the Roman example it would have been, " We can't explain that, therefore God"

A fairy tale Holy book will never be the same. If the writer just happened to live somewhere where crocodiles would be the "evil" animal of the time. We might as well have had a story with a crocodile instead of a snake.
The science behind how chemical bonds work will always be the same.
Holy Books can has wisdom in it but in no way does it offer any facts or proof for a God.
It is the word of a man, not a God.

And you are right the mind can bend in super Yoga ways to justify its reasons to keep believing what it does. Your not exempt from that and neither am I.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't agree with what you said about science and religious books.
We found many things that proves ancient knowledge of Man that has been lost and we are still trying to rediscover it again so if you lose knowledge it will never come back the same.

Sorry, but he is right. People would always discover the law of gravity again. And it would not change. The math would be exactly the same. That goes for everything in science, if given enough time. It does not work for religion.

A few thousand years back you would maybe have believed in Zeus or other ancient gods. Now you believe in the abrahamic god. Your belief is completely determined by your environment, meaning where you live and what parents and friends teach you etc. Had you been born in India, you could likely have become a hindu. In scandinavia you could easily have become an atheist. And in a few thousand years you would probably believe in some weird techno-god (or hopefully in no god at all). You may think you chose to believe in your god yourself. But in reality you're a product of all the influences in your life.

Have you never thought about this? You believe your god is the one and only. But just a thousand years back the idea of that god didn't even exist. People exist for much, much longer. They worshipped countless different gods. Thousands of them. Only quite recently your god was developed. And even now there are other gods. Do you really believe all the people in the world were completely wrong for many, many thousand years, and only now they figured out which is the one true god? Only a tiny fraction of the people, of course, because even now they have very different views on who god is and what his exact rules are. Less than 2 billion people believe in islam, and among them there are countless different interpretations of the quran. Same with christianity, where I believe there are actually thousands of different interpretations. Not only small stuff, but even concepts like hell are accepted by some, not by others. And among those who believe in hell the opinions about how hell exactly looks and what it is are numerous.

So, to summarize: everybody thinks their god and their interpretation of scripture is the right one. What makes you think you are any better than the ones who you believe to be wrong? And what about the time before Islam was even invented? Were all the peoples of the world competely wrong for many thousand years? Is hell maybe full of ancient greeks, neanderthals and whatnot? I assume you already want to answer now that not believing in islam does not mean that people go to hell - but that is again your interpretation and others might think otherwise. I mean, what kind of concept would that even be. God creates humans and demands that they act in a certain way, but he lets them in total darkness for 150.000 years or however long, lets them worship many, many false gods for all that time and only reveals himself and his rules now? Does that sound believable at all to you? Is it not more likely that your individual belief is just one of the many thousands that were wrong before? And that in a thousand years nobody will believe what you now perceive as the one truth?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you for your support. I didn't expect someone else to read through this.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I bet a number of people read through all of it, including myself. It was a vailant effort. But it's hopeless. He is not interested in an objective view. He always starts at "the quran is correct" and goes from there. And every argument has to be altered in a way that this original premise holds up. No matter how many wild excuses he has to find, this premise simply must not be false.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

when you wanna make an argument you need to present it with a valid proof or at least a reason why do you think it's valid argument thus i can go on with you and try to proof you wrong in an academic way but just copying arguments from google that you didn't even study nor investigate to be able to support it to be true, that's gonna be a waste of time for me to answer all of that.

google is full of arguments that the Earth is flat, if someone brought those to me and ask me to proof it wrong i'd ignore it cause that person hasn't spent enough time to really look at the other point of views why the earth is not flat.

He is not interested in an objective view. He always starts at "the quran is correct"

i don't think that you can even support this claim, just plain accusation.

think you can prove the Quran is wrong? build an argument and support it why it's true, that's when i'd really be interested having a discussion with you, i doubt you can, very easy open any link iThresh presented and grab one and say "yes, this is an error because so and so"

1 week ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

LOL, your quran is just like any flat Earth stuff. Made up to troll other people and the one who imagines it's any kind of true has the burden of proof on them. Just like anyone trolling with flat Earth you're completely ignoring the complete lack of proof for anything you believe in. That's why it's called belief, you imagine stuff and then think it's real.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

[C] You studied some religions and you didn't find errors in them […] you can't have found errors in them so they are still possible candidates for [A].

Although I asked you twice to be accurate when you quote me, you insist to come up with nonsense I didn’t say and build an assumption accordingly.
What I actually said is I didn’t study other religions on a large scale and that has nothing to do with the possibility that those religions might contain errors or not, not studying something won’t give any conclusion about that thing to be true nor false.

I started to get a bad impression about you already cuz if you don’t stop this, you’d only leave me with only two probabilities, either you’re experiencing some serious miscommunications with me or you’re intentionally misquoting me as a disparate attempt to prove something in your mind.

How can you complain about being misquoted, and then do exactly that. You deliberately leave out certain parts, for instance the part where he explicitly mentioned that this is an assumption, not a quote, and then accuse him of posting assumptions instead of what you really said. The part looks like this, if you quote it completely:

[C] You studied some religions and you didn't find errors in them [that is my assumption based on what you said] so they are possible candidates for [A]. More broadly: there are religions that you have not studied so you can't have found errors in them so they are still possible candidates for [A].

The argument is rather simple and kind of obvious, if you quote it correctly. Doesn't even matter if you studied or didn't study a specific religion other than your's. If there is another religion that to your knowledge does not have any errors, it is an equal candidate for the one true religion. If there is more than one candidate for the one true religion, you cannot be sure that your's really is the one.

I doubt that you’re capable of applying any objective criticism on anything in a healthy way so, moving on.

This is just one of the many examples in your post where you are overly aggressive. You have someone here you actually applies logic to the discussion. And you don't seem to like it. Why don't you want him to test your book and see if he can find any errors? I can't help but think that you are worried he might actually succeed.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

his is just one of the many examples in your post where you are overly aggressive. You have someone here you actually applies logic to the discussion. And you don't seem to like it. Why don't you want him to test your book and see if he can find any errors? I can't help but think that you are worried he might actually succeed.

you're just being unfair and you know it deep inside of you :)
where did i say that he can't criticize the book? when you wanna criticize anything you gotta make sure you have a proper knowledge to be able to do it, i can't criticize a scintific discovery when i don't know nothing about science yes?

if someone just wanna consume me by making arguments that is not based on anything but making assumptions that is going to keep branching, sorry i can't put up with this.

let's apply some of his logic:
assuming you had the option to ignore the whole religious discussion we get the following:

[A]. you're being anti-religions.
[B]. you're just trying to make it look bad at me but believe it or not, the sun will shine no matter how hard you tried to block it.
assuming A and B is true then it would be a really bad idea to go on with you guys :)

assuming that i'm a bad person who was aggrisive all the time:

A. nobody would hate religions just because i'm being bad to people.

since A is true, save you're effort cause i wasn't preaching to begin with.

he made rules for the discussion and didn't abide by it and yet you're defending him so it's pretty obvious where you both are coming from :)

BTW, this is not logic, if you don't believe me, ask around.

that was like "i learnt some mathematical arguments today, let's apply it everywhere"
and you were like "oh lovely, whatever you say baby as long as you're gonna fight those evil religious people"

let's put you're knowledge to test now, one of his arguments that he found doing "quick googling" is Quran mentioned a day as 1000 days of ours and in another position another day is equal to 50k of our days, what do you think of that and do you think of it as a contradiction? and why?

this is how a logical dicussion based on reasoning should be cause math don't apply here.

Edit:

nice profile picture by the way, i wonder if you know that it's the official insignia of the Church of Satan and if you are a follower, i'd love to hear about that practice since i have zero knowledge about it.

argument:

satanic symbol, anti-religions, makes sense now.

1 week ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry for the very late answer. Wasn't much on SG the last days...

you're just being unfair and you know it deep inside of you :)

I am not.

where did i say that he can't criticize the book?

Do I really have to quote the whole thing? Well, ok. You said this:

something that would make me change my mind would be contradictions or errors within the book I believed to be a word of God

Then iThresh offered to test your claim:

If there is an online version of it and you can send a link maybe I will be able to find errors.

Then you rejected his offer:

I doubt that you’re capable of applying any objective criticism on anything in a healthy way so, moving on.

So yeah, you are saying you would discard your belief if someone could find any errors in it. But you don't want people to actually look for errors. Seems convenient. And to be honest, it's rather typical for religious people. They usually don't want their beliefs challenged. They talk a lot about science and evidence, but whenever someone actually challenges them they get very defensive and try to avoid further discussion.

let's apply some of his logic: assuming you had the option to ignore the whole religious discussion we get the following:

The whole premise of this assumption is very strange. Why would you have to assume that I can ignore the discussion? Why would that even be in question? But alright.

[A]. you're being anti-religions.

Yes, absolutely. I am an atheist or anti-theist. I think religion is not only false, but overall a very bad influence for our society. So yes, I am absolutely anti-religious. You make it sound like that's a bad thing. ^^

[B]. you're just trying to make it look bad at me but believe it or not, the sun will shine no matter how hard you tried to block it.

Oh please. Don't start with this victim approach. You started the discussion, and now you're hurt that people take part who don't agree with you? That is to be expected if you discuss things in a public forum on the internet. Some people will agree, some won't. Everybody is free to be part of the discussion. And I am not trying to make you look bad. I am discussing the validity of religious belief.

assuming A and B is true then it would be a really bad idea to go on with you guys :)

As I said, I can only get the impression that you don't actually want a true discussion about this topic. At least not with people who disagree with you. Well, what fun is a discussion where everybody agrees? :/

assuming that i'm a bad person who was aggrisive all the time: A. nobody would hate religions just because i'm being bad to people. since A is true, save you're effort cause i wasn't preaching to begin with.

I honestly can't follow your "logic" here. What relevance does your 'A' have here? Where did anybody say that people would start hating religion because you behave badly? Whatever your idea here is, I can't see it in the discussion we had so far. Also, why even start a list with 'A' if you have only one entry? ^^

BTW, this is not logic, if you don't believe me, ask around.

Honestly, he sounds much more reasonable and able to apply logic than you. And judging by the other comments you both got here, I am not the only one who thinks that.

let's put you're knowledge to test now, one of his arguments that he found doing "quick googling" is Quran mentioned a day as 1000 days of ours and in another position another day is equal to 50k of our days, what do you think of that and do you think of it as a contradiction? and why?

I have a better one. Tell me about Noah. The quran tells this story more or less like the bible, right? Do you believe he actually existed? Do you believe he lived ~900 years and is the (second) father of humanity, because god destroyed everyone who wasn't on the arc with a big global flood?

this is how a logical dicussion based on reasoning should be cause math don't apply here.

I think you are confusing math with philosophy. If you read philosophical works, you will find that many of them have a very theoretical and logical approach to solving problems and finding answers.There is of course a bit of boolean algebra in it, but that doesn't mean it's math instead of logic, like you say (quite the opposite, actually).

nice profile picture by the way, i wonder if you know that it's the official insignia of the Church of Satan and if you are a follower, i'd love to hear about that practice since i have zero knowledge about it. satanic symbol, anti-religions, makes sense now.

My avater is just an album cover... I don't believe you actually consider that I am a satanst. But ok, just to be sure: no, I am not. Actual satanism (in the sense of believing in an actual satan) is just as silly as all the other religions. And you must know that I think that way. I tell you for weeks about how silly the belief in supernatural beings without any evidence is, and now you accuse me of exactly that? Nah, I guess you are just trying to find any way to discredit me. That's ok. I am not a satanist, not a theist and also not a unicornist. Unless there is actual evidence, there is no reason whatsoever to believe in anything supernatural. Satan is not better than god in that sense. They are all equally probable, and that includes santa claus, leprechauns, trolls and the tooth fairy. :)

3 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry for the very late answer. Wasn't much on SG the last days...

It’s good to have you back.

I am not.

You are, for you discrediting all my efforts answering the walls of texts IThresh bombarded me with that wasn’t really to the point most of the time and that gave me an impression that you were just being unfair and trying to support the side you picked.

Do I really have to quote the whole thing? Well, ok. You said this:

something that would make me change my mind would be contradictions or errors within the book I believed to be a word of God

Doesn’t mean that I said the book can’t be criticized.

Then iThresh offered to test your claim:

If there is an online version of it and you can send a link maybe I will be able to find errors.
Then you rejected his offer:

This also doesn’t mean that I said the book can’t be criticized, I rejected his request for another reason and the Quran isn’t a secret to begin with that if he wants to start criticizing now, wouldn’t need me to give him/her a permission nor a copy since the Quran only has one version of it regardless the differentiations between the Islamic sects and since his way was quick googling, I doubted it he would really read it when there is already a template he can use without bothering himself of validating information himself and spend that effort, that was clear through his quick googling, how would anyone know that information that comes from quick googling is valid to support and argument before validating it?, “quick googling” was a proof that the information wasn’t validated, so, if I said that I didn’t think he was capable of criticizing was for that reason and I explained that but you ignored the reason I gave, not for that the book is not to be criticized, you can’t know the truth about anything unless you criticize it and apply reasoning and rationalism on it.

So yeah, you are saying you would discard your belief if someone could find any errors in it. But you don't want people to actually look for errors. Seems convenient. And to be honest, it's rather typical for religious people. They usually don't want their beliefs challenged. They talk a lot about science and evidence, but whenever someone actually challenges them they get very defensive and try to avoid further discussion.

I totally agree with the fact some religious people does that but that is not my way at all, I welcome all honest and friendly discussions or even debates as long as it’s really honest and we’d walk away as friends after it regardless.

The whole premise of this assumption is very strange. Why would you have to assume that I can ignore the discussion? Why would that even be in question? But alright.

Assuming that you’re anti-religions means that you’re gonna attack for the sake of attacking and you reject religions not because you haven’t found enough evidence to support it but because you don’t want it to begin with whether it’s true or not.
That said, if you are to reject religions anyway then you could’ve ignored the post to begin with cause no need to fight it if you’re not planning to embrace it, that how my logic was. Discussions and debates are welcomed but arguing for the sake of consuming my brain cells is something I can’t stand :)

Yes, absolutely. I am an atheist or anti-theist. I think religion is not only false, but overall a very bad influence for our society. So yes, I am absolutely anti-religious. You make it sound like that's a bad thing. ^^

No, I didn’t mean to make it sounds like it’s a bad thing, I was just giving a reason why you’d keep attacking for the sake of attacking not for inquiring.
In that case, I’d love to know why religions in general and Islam in particular is false and a bad influence, you made the claim now the burden of proof is on you but please don’t give me an emotional proof but rather a practical or rational one then I’ll try to answer that the same way.

Oh please. Don't start with this victim approach. You started the discussion, and now you're hurt that people take part who don't agree with you? That is to be expected if you discuss things in a public forum on the internet. Some people will agree, some won't. Everybody is free to be part of the discussion. And I am not trying to make you look bad. I am discussing the validity of religious belief.

In that case, I’ll stop the guilty trip thing now, let’s get to the juice, shall we?

As I said, I can only get the impression that you don't actually want a true discussion about this topic. At least not with people who disagree with you. Well, what fun is a discussion where everybody agrees? :/

It happened that coincidentally I got the same impression about you but I’m getting another impression
now that we’re getting over it.

I honestly can't follow your "logic" here. What relevance does your 'A' have here? Where did anybody say that people would start hating religion because you behave badly? Whatever your idea here is, I can't see it in the discussion we had so far. Also, why even start a list with 'A' if you have only one entry? ^^

Assuming all my assumptions and impressions about you were true (anti-religion, offensive) then would make sense that you’re trying to influence the public opinion causing them to hate religions as if the stereotyping media wasn’t enough, would be also a natural result to what you were saying, that’s how “A” is related.
I must admit I got influenced by IThresh mathematical abilities that I still insist that it’s not applicable here, logic is not only mathematical and I found it a bit bothering so here it is, let me bother you with some nonsensical sequence of nothing that is not even a sequence since it contain only one entry, it worked :)

Honestly, he sounds much more reasonable and able to apply logic than you. And judging by the other comments you both got here, I am not the only one who thinks that.

Even if you’re the only one who thinks that, it’s totally respected and considered opinion unlike Starwhite’s which only made me regret posting and think it’s not the right place to discuss such things but allow me to correct you, IThresh was only trying to apply mathematical logical arguments not generally logic or rationalism.

I have a better one. Tell me about Noah. The quran tells this story more or less like the bible, right? Do you believe he actually existed? Do you believe he lived ~900 years and is the (second) father of humanity, because god destroyed everyone who wasn't on the arc with a big global flood?

I like smart people, infiltrating where not expected, I sounded like I already have an answer for the argument I suggested, anyway , that doesn’t sound like a claim to me, if you think Noah didn’t exist nor lived 900+ years then you’ll have to provide your proof or at least your reasoning.

I think you are confusing math with philosophy. If you read philosophical works, you will find that many of them have a very theoretical and logical approach to solving problems and finding answers.There is of course a bit of boolean algebra in it, but that doesn't mean it's math instead of logic, like you say (quite the opposite, actually).

I agree in that case, I’m very clear about reasoning and rationalism, it’s not something mysterious that we need to argue about, if you wanna use academic ways at least apply it where it’s applicable or needed but applying all your expertise everywhere is not an academic way to me.

My avater is just an album cover... I don't believe you actually consider that I am a satanst. But ok, just to be sure: no, I am not. Actual satanism (in the sense of believing in an actual satan) is just as silly as all the other religions. And you must know that I think that way. I tell you for weeks about how silly the belief in supernatural beings without any evidence is, and now you accuse me of exactly that? Nah, I guess you are just trying to find any way to discredit me. That's ok. I am not a satanist, not a theist and also not a unicornist. Unless there is actual evidence, there is no reason whatsoever to believe in anything supernatural. Satan is not better than god in that sense. They are all equally probable, and that includes santa claus, leprechauns, trolls and the tooth fairy. :)

That is rational but “I guess you are just trying to find any way to discredit me” sounds like a guilty trip to me so I guess we’re equal now :) cause you don’t have a reason to feel bad when I was only inquiring if you were aware of the symbol since I also knew it was a cover for a musical album and if you were a Satanist, would make a very good ties with being anti-religions, if you don’t believe in God doesn’t make you anti-religions automatically by the way.

It’s different with Satanism cause I think that is not based on belief but based on the anti-religious idea so if religions says X deed is forbidding so we do it in Satanism but I agree that if someone is to believe in Satan as a being so yea it goes the same direction with basically all religious in term of belief except for Satan is condemned and cursed being by most of religions.

You claim there is no evidence for anything, have you done at least some quick googling to see what everybody had to offer? And being an atheist, do you have an evidence that God doesn’t exist or existence or nonexistence is equally probable to you?

2 days ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Faith is believing your sphincter will return to normal size after being constipated and shitting bricks.

True story

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's hope, i guess?

Edit: believe it or not, i had that experince and it went back to normal. 😂😂😂

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A new Mirror's Edge would be cool

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

second life would also be cool, wouldn't it?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

My first already sucks, so idk

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that'd be a valid reason for me to look forward for a second one if there would be any, having a first one makes second one more probable.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I actually made myself laugh.. loudly. 🤣 I think Carlin is speaking through me today.

Life itself should be all the wonder you need. Needing to fill this world with fictional comfort-zones, just to justify some sort of meaning to all of this? If Life was a person, she would be very upset with you. She is waay out-of-your league-drop-dead-beautiful. And you are cheating on her with your imaginary friend.

I mean - am I mean?

Fuck it. It needs to be said ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Enough already

4 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The way I see it, those who find faith need it. It fills something that they were missing. Those born into faith don't need it. It's something that's been crammed into their minds, and doesn't serve any good purpose. They would be better off being raised without it and finding it later in life if they need it.

In the end, religion is, in my opinion, more bad than good. Faith is fine, dogma is bad. Once you start believing that God wants you to behave a certain way, you open the way to intolerance and hatred of those who don't believe the same. Dogma has good things, like being nice to others, supporting charity, etc., but also what behaviours are bad and punishments, and behaviours which are only meant to appease God, and tend to get in the way of being with those who don't believe the same way (even if they believe in the same God).

Every religion has its good and bad aspects. Good people would see the good aspects, but they'd normally also be good without belief. People can be bad, and use religion for their needs. The problematic people are those who are good but are strict rule followers. They can easily get to where the letter of the law is more important than being a good human being.

The short of it, faith is okay, but the moment it starts making you stop looking at others based on who they are as a person, and instead how the conform to some dogma, it's better that you'd be without it.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 weeks ago.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Faith is a friend of mine from high school. I believe she now works at a Whole Foods.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that name, gives me Faith.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

guess i need to wait for my own disaster to come 😞😞😞😞

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ABC history is references and sources, that video lacks neither.
While some people might like it but it'll remain an unauthenticated source of history about earth.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh shit, I thought I posted the one video of universal truth.
From the Almighty Youtube.

I'll get an extra pair of hands, and work on my sources.

View attached image.
4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Funny that Man claims to know what had happened and what is yet to happen but can't find a vaccine for a virus, that creature needs some spanking, it's easy to claim to be all knowing but hard to prove it.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

My philosophy if anything is that "man" knows absolutely nothing. Hence my very strong distaste for "Faith"
We have figured out some quirks here and there. But "all knowing", what thee'heell-are you on about now? 🤣🤣

I don't even know what you are talking about half the time. Think I'm done here. It's too much (see gif)
But hey, I wish thee a good life stranger. Go with your God I guess - Not my omnipotent grand windom'ness.

View attached image.
3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I wish thee a good life stranger.

Same to you, regardless 😎😎

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'll stick with sheer strength of will. But to each his own.

4 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Tthe more positive attitude you have the more determination you get that's in case you refer to determination as strength of will.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Reality is 100% delusional, you have to believe in it to be active...... to do anything you have to 1) think out & 2) remember why are you doing all this - me calls it 'faith'. I believe in special relation to all integrity of the world, that could be achieved in all moments with you in a leading role here & now. If i fail, i know i was being disintegral with the sum of all things, i call this integrity 'world conscience'. I took it from tantric writings - middle age spiritual protocols of hindu yogis, who were trapped in north India under ruthless Mogols, who prosecuted them. Powerful shit, helpes me much to withstand world. Castaneda may help for starters if someone is interested :)

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

One learns something new everyday, thanks for sharing that.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do you also practice khecarī mudrā as prescribed by the hindu yogis?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I do my tongue excercises sometimes. But my main practice consists of chillumyoga + shavaasana = heals you any ailments, don't even have to believe in anything, just in the process itself, which seems obvious anyway! :)

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I've got faith of the heart.
I'm going where my heart will take me.
I've got faith to believe.
I can do anything.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

❤️❤️❤️❤️

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Faith is an absence of knowledge.

When you have no knowledge or clear understanding of something, you start TO BELIEVE.

I prefer KNOWING and BEING CERTAIN rather than BELIEVING.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Faith is an absence of knowledge

i disagree with that, at least that doesn't match with my understanding about Faith.

Faith relies partially on knowledge and facts, If i tell you for example that i'm capabable of changing your life for the best, if you believe it just like that it'd be a blind faith but if you learned that i'm so wealthy and a great business man, it'd give you a true Faith in my cababilities to change your life.

I might change my mind about changing your life but that won't change the fact i'm rich and wealthy therefor it's Faith.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

  • that won't change the fact i'm rich

Exactly. That is the fact. Which means I'm certain and I know you're rich, to a degree that I don't have to believe you're saying truth, because I know it for sure.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

now that you don't see me nor know anything about me, you wouldn't believe that i'm capable of anything unless i can prove it to you i'm rich and wealthy.

If i point out a multi-billion-dollar business and claim it to be mine without showing you the title, would you believe me if i gave you very detailed information about the business that you can trace yourself and no way in the world that some employee of mine would know it? and possibly a map to a secret safe?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you just want me to believe you, a person I do not know or even see, then I have to upset you.

The core issue here is that in any case you presume I have no chance other than believe in sertain things. But the thing is: the person is not strict to only believe. You can learn, check facts, find unswers and then comes the ultimate price: The Truth. When you know the Truth, you don't need to believe in it.

And most of the time believing in something is simply enough for people, Faith does not provoke them to find Truth.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

well, that was exactly what i was trying to say except for you assume that if something is certain then it's not faith but rather a fact.

now, I would like to elaborate more about my pooint of view, let me break Faith as follows:

  • Certanity knowledge: Example, " I have honey" and you believe me without a doubt based on your knowledge (you saw my beehive).
  • Certanity witness: Example, " I have honey" and you see it in my hands (might be other kind of liquid)
  • Absulote Truth : Example, " I have honey" you see it and taste it yourself.

So, Faith needs to be based on some certainty, if certainty is 100% then it ascend to be absolute truth.

Faith does not provoke them to find Truth.

this is an example of faith that is not based on certainty, certainty leads to Faith in things yet to happen.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 weeks ago.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You still need to learn to use the reply button.

If you lack knowledge and have to resort for faith, then it's quite obvious that your understanding is lacking.

Faith does not rely on knowledge and facts, otherwise it would just be knowledge..

No amount of silly wordplays and tricks will change this fact.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

thanks for the heads up.

i'm talking about my own understanding of Faith, this is how it works and if you have a different experince with faith it'd be all on you, would you like to know how my faith is based on knowledge instead of bla bla bla?

BTW, Faith is related to something to be, whether it's based on knowledge or nonsense and that is obvious in the example i gave.

now show me some respect if possible 👊👊👊

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And I'm explaining to you why your "understanding" is lacking because it's based on wordplays, nothing more. Religious people claim their religion is based on science when it couldn't be further opposite. Same with faith, if you claim it's based on knowledge then it's just that, knowledge. There is no experience needed for anything other than English.

"I have faith in myself to be able to do this" translates to "I know I am able to do this"
"I have faith in you to be able to do it" translates to "I know I can trust you to be able to do it"

If you need to have faith in something then it simply can't be knowledge. If you have knowledge, then you simply don't need faith.

I'll show respect for you when you stop trying to justify anything with silly wordplays.

3 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"I have faith in myself to be able to do this" translates to "I know I am able to do this"
"I have faith in you to be able to do it" translates to "I know I can trust you to be able to do it"

this sounds like gibberish to me, the rest sounds like nonsense, think i'll just pass.

View attached image.
3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just like everything you say then. Shouldn't you like it?

What exactly are you even trying to accomplish? Try to prove that religious faith is somehow backed up by knowledge?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What exactly are you even trying to accomplish? Try to prove that religious faith is somehow not backed up by knowledge?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't feel any need to try to prove a simple fact. What knowledge do you imagine it's based on then? Anything at all that doesn't require believing in something imaginary would be fine.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As i mentioned above, my faith is based on certanity i have enough knowledge about it and not imagination

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What exactly do you know then? Knowledge can always be shared and is the same for everyone.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Knowledge can always be shared and is the same for everyone.

I partially agree with that except for I needs a valid reason to share the knowledge i have, that can be a request from you or any other reason i see valid before deciding to share knowledge, also, there must be a common respect between you and me as a condition not only to share knowledge but aslo to continue having a discussion with you.

Knowledge can never be the same for everyone unless it’s shared.

I'll show respect for you when you stop trying to justify anything with silly wordplays.

This was clearly stating that you don't have respect for me nor for my right to express my opinion and you wanted to confiscate that right.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Right, so you don't know anything and thus you can only share your "knowledge" with people who already believe in the same imaginary things.

Respect is earned, not begged for.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Right, so you don't know anything and thus you can only share your "knowledge" with people who already believe in the same imaginary things.

Ill logic, faluire to process information and a weak attempt for misinterpretation, let me explain your failure:

I share my knowledge if you ask me for it (a reason) but if you have too much arrogancy not to ask for it then it falls all on you, who cares?

Respect is earned, not begged for.

ill manners and lack of decency would only earn you a place on my ignore list.

3 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What exactly do you know then? Knowledge can always be shared and is the same for everyone.

Umm. You will share if I ask for it, but you refuse to share when I asked for it.

I share my knowledge if you ask me for it

And you talk about ill logic, when you fail to comply even with your own rules.

Hating minorities and imagining that you have some right to judge them already got you on tons of lists and you imagine I'm the one with ill manners and lack of decency? Yeah right, I'm not a hateful bigot like you.

You're the one with delusions about having any useful information to share, by being silent you're only proving me right. Do whatever you want but stop pretending to know anything when the only thing you can do is come up with excuses to not say what you know. Simple as that.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i think i need to report you again.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How about you report yourself? Stop spamming useless reports that get discarded months or years later, the staff has already enough work without your nonsense.

But I'm glad that we agree that you don't have any knowledge you could share.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It never get discarded, last time i reported you you got corrected and your comments were deleted, suppport team is doing a great job, such individual such as yourself sir needs discipline from time to time.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's what you imagine happened? Your reports are in the pile for months to come still just like every other user report people spam for no reason. You do realize that they are able to read the forum without your reports and react to what they see on their own? Yes they are doing a great job made unnecessarily harder by spammed reports. Also I deleted my own comments when they weren't needed because that other person's comments were deleted. Go read my comments there again if you're still wondering about things.

You're the one who needs discipline to stop hating other people because they don't believe in your specific imaginary friend and act according to rules made up by nomads thousands of years ago that have no meaning in modern world. I'm still waiting for any bit of knowledge that you might have, but seeing your talk above it must be some imaginary mumbo jumbo like what material the imaginary friend used to build humans.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Starwhite i'm still impressed that you stomp in every cave to give the troll a clap :D

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

he stomps in every cave cause he likes to do wierd things, you may join him hahaha.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

hm lets see, am i so bored to talk to an obviously homophobic religious fanatic scumbag? nope

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No, I like to bash trolls like you who imagine their hate is somehow superior and justified by superstition.

You're the one that seems to live in a cave based on your knowledge of how human rights work.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

why do you think i hate Ithresh, just because i don't want to continue the discussion according to the rules?

this was a discussion between me and him and we agreed to stop, now what's your problem?
and what's your problem if i believe in imaginary things? you may leave the post if it bothers you
why you insist to make a conflict here?

I see now who is hateful and disrespectful, when you have manners come and we'd have a discussion.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Let me storm in here and defend myself.

i don't want to continue the discussion according to the rules

First, I never imposed any rules. Never have I said "you don't follow my rules so I will not present evidence to you". As far as I remember I asked for two things:

  1. I asked you to answer all my points, because otherwise this will happen:
    I present to you many different arguments, you pick the weakest and attack it, ignore the rest. Then you may assume since you questionably disproved one all the rest are also disproven. This is simply not the case. I wanted to defend against this type of behaviour prematurely.
  2. I asked to discuss one issue, come to an agreement and move on to the next. This one you never abided by. For example, you never agreed to "burden of proof" yet you jumped to another topic. And what did I do? I followed you.

The only time that can be interpreted as a threat from me to discontinue the discussion is when you started to attack me instead of my arguments. We moved past it, we continued the discussion.

this was a discussion between me and him and we agreed to stop

No, I did not agree to stop. You accused me of misquotation several times, yet here we are. Care to show where I agreed to stop this discussion?

and what's your problem if i believe in imaginary things

He tries to make you a better person. Give the guy [sorry if you're not a guy, but this is most probable] the benefit of a doubt, apply Hanlon's razor and apply the principle of charity. https://effectiviology.com/principle-of-charity/

On the topic of your discussion

You simply use different definitions for word "Faith":

  1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

"I have faith in myself to be able to do this" translates to "I know I am able to do this"

Here Starwhite states that in this context Faith is used in meaning [1].

If you lack knowledge and have to resort for faith, then it's quite obvious that your understanding is lacking.

Here Starwhite clearly uses Faith with meaning [2].

You are arguing about definitions and it really is silly wordplay and nothing more. Please read https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JqQq2HXFpjJRWub2o/arguing-definitions

Also, my first post was about it and you seemed to agree [you did not dispute it and nothing you said contradicted it so I inferred that you agree]. And now you argue about it all over again.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I never said you hate them specifically. You're just making up the rules on the fly to suit your imagination instead of relying on facts.

Go discuss somewhere other than a public forum if you want to keep the discussion private, here everyone is free to comment.

You still imagine anyone respects the opinions of a hateful bigot? That anyone cares what you imagine is hate or not?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just in case you won't read other responses, I think this https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JqQq2HXFpjJRWub2o/arguing-definitions illustrates what happened here.

Notice how I in my first post started with definitions. I did it to avoid this situation precisely.

So when you described this as "wordplay" you were correct, but you did not back it up. I'd say that clearly stating possible definitions and where which was used would help.

Also, in case you missed it, the proof unaguitarra is talking about is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYajKl-Xr6c
Why unaguitarra is not willing to share it left and right is perplexing to me too.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Some YouTube video is proof of what exactly? That cats invented and rule the Internet? :P

I don't see the need to back up claims that I think are obvious for everyone to see. Unlike you I'm a practical person who values the TL;DR instead of writing an academic essay about the subject. Your way is of course much more solid since it takes everything into accord, but mine favors the people who aren't reading a wall of text anyways. But it's also nice that there are people like you willing to spend the extra effort for the people who read it and start thinking about things.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That video is a well constructed argument [but false]:

  1. Quran contains description of human development
  2. It was not possible to be discovered by science at the time, so Quran made a prediction
  3. It was later proved true by science

This is in essence an attempt to disguise it as a scientific method.


My motivation was this: he seemed a reasonable person, a reasonable person can be persuaded by arguments. so I tried my best to construct the most effective arguments.

Usually I simply don't reply.

But I agree, my answers do seem unnecessarily long.

Maybe its the isolation and I'm so desperately wanting to have conversations with other people that I engaged in this debate. I don't know.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I like my almost scientifically proven fact that our Creator was a cosmic sized Duck better if you saw it. :D

Your arguments are quite valid but thinking reason and religion can coexist is silly in my experience. A valiant even if futile effort.

I know that I like such debates especially when I'm right. It has always baffled me that people who don't like them still join in for some reason. But now we can blame the damn virus for everything so all good.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

funny, i heard a nice quote once " the father will always clap for the bride"

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You will have to explain that joke. Is it related to muslim wedding ceremonies somehow?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 weeks ago.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i voted yes for "faith" equal at "hope", or faith but without the religious aspect

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that was exactly the purpose of the poll question, no worries.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

TL;DR Yes, we need faith, whether anyone likes it or not.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

❤️❤️❤️❤️

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is faith, and yes i do believe all of you need Faith

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 weeks ago.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How so? Would you mind elaborating more how religions made extreme ideology out of faith?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Islamic terrorism, Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism are terrorist acts against civilians committed by violent Islamists who claim a religious motivation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

just to name a few

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Almost all religious violence has been done in the name of the God of Abraham, the exact same one that Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship as their angry male Wargod that gives justification for killing and raping enemy tribes because they worship the exact same God in a bit different way.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

how about someone using LGBT as a cover up for raping? would it be fair to blame LGBT for that?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-convicted-of-raping-woman-who-he-allegedly-befriended-by-pretending-to-be-gay/

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How is any of that related? Did the guy believe gays are gods who told him to go rape a woman? Are you still obsessed with sexual minorities being evil somehow?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No, I’m not obsessed with anything, I’m just showing you someone claimed to be gay for a cover up to gain women trust, it wouldn't be fair to blame LGBTQ for such things, i'm just showing you how hateful you are towards religions and how shallow your reasoning is, religions is not to be blamed for anything is to be done in its name unless the religion itself encouraged it.

you haven't participated with any useful piece of information till now but running your mouth in bitc** way, would you mind to step aside for a moment cause your words is just poisoning the atmosphere but if you insist I guess I have no option but to either ignore you or descend to your level which I doubt I would do.

Stop your hatred towards religious people if you want to be treated the same
Now let me know which one you choose, respecting people of faith and be respected by them? Or promoting an Idea that LGBTQ is just hateful towards religions?

even if you choose to be hateful i wouldn't blame LGBTQ for that.

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah sure you're not obsessed, you just have to bring it up all the time for other reasons, I get it.

I'm hateful? Try the religions who hate everyone and everything that doesn't worship the same angry male Wargod in the same exact way.

So religions can't be blamed for anything bad people do in their name? By that logic they can't be credited with anything good either so they just become meaningless and people have free will to do whatever they want.

You imagine you have provided some kind of useful information to anyone ever? You're the poisonous one here with your hatred. You have said you will ignore me couple times already but never have. Why is that? Do you imagine I will stop making fun of your silly hatred if you don't respond? That others will start to just ignore your poison? My level is so far up from you that you can't even see that far up blinded by your hate.

How do I want different treatment from religious people, sexual minorities or anyone for that matter? I'd like nothing more than others to show me when I'm actually wrong AND prove it with logic. Please do so and I will be the first to admit I was wrong. Until that imaginary day I will keep treating you as what you are. If you want that to stop it's up to you to evolve to the level of a decent human being first.

Your choices are really strange? I respect people who earn that respect with their words and actions, not people who imagine a bearded pig sits on top of a cloud giving them the right to hate everything different. You have shown already that you imagine the sexual minorities are after to get your rights to marry several pigs but I still have to ask you once again: WTF do you imagine I have to do with that community? Or they with my actions?

Yes why would you? Other than you blaming them for everything else wrong in your own life.

Are you in the picture here? https://www.haaretz.com/gay-man-thrown-off-building-by-isis-1.5345376

2 weeks ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

if you think ISIS represent me or Islam then this women raper represent you and all LGBTQ community cuz he claimed to be gay and turned to be an evil monster.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-convicted-of-raping-woman-who-he-allegedly-befriended-by-pretending-to-be-gay/

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

They share your hate for the sexual minorities, so why wouldn't they represent you? You're full of hate for gays, they are full of hate for gays, looks the same to me. You're the one choosing to belong in the same group as them, not anyone else.

I'm not lying or raping anyone so I don't have much anything in common with that guy. Please come up with something that at least makes a tiny bit of sense.

I really hate repeating this question once again but since you really seem to be so dense: WTF do you still imagine I have to do with that community? Can you finally answer this or are you just too stupid or trolling for it? Are you so blinded by your hate and fear that you see them lurking everywhere just to get you?

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you deserve a really big fat F U C K Y O U cuz you're just an idiot.

I'm not lying or raping anyone so I don't have much anything in common with that guy. Please come up with something that at least makes a tiny bit of sense.

neither am i, i don't have anything to do with ISIS, i'm not killing nor throwing people off buildings you idiot.

I really hate repeating this question once again but since you really seem to be so dense: WTF do you still imagine I have to do with that community? Can you finally answer this or are you just too stupid or trolling for it? Are you so blinded by your hate and fear that you see them lurking everywhere just to get you?

i'm not imagining, you keep bringing it up everywhere like an idiot when we were done with it already in the other thread, i hope you've finally realized how idiot you are now cuz if you haven't, sorry can't help you with that, you'll remain an idiot for good.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So now you want to fuck me? I guess that's some kind of progress.

You seem to have a lot in common with ISIS to me. Did they refuse your membership application because you just want to hate others but not throw them off roofs? Do you think that makes you a good person?

I keep bringing what up exactly? Imagine bit harder until actual words come out instead of more imagining. Sorry for a rude wake up, but you're still the hateful bigot and still the idiot here. Do you see anyone agreeing with your hate? Do you imagine an idiot like you calling anyone else an idiot makes any kind of difference? Can you use actual logic to prove me wrong? Or at least say anything that makes the tiniest bit of sense?

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So now you want to fuck me? I guess that's some kind of progress.

don't celebrate yet, i didn't say i wanted to fuck you, it was just another way of saying "you're an idiot" :)

and please don't repeate my words try to be more creative, i say you're poisonous you reuse it at me, i call you an idiot you reuse, how old are you by the way? are you a kid?

I keep bringing what up exactly? Imagine bit harder until actual words come out instead of more imagining. Sorry for a rude wake up, but you're still the hateful bigot and still the idiot here. Do you see anyone agreeing with your hate? Do you imagine an idiot like you calling anyone else an idiot makes any kind of difference? Can you use actual logic to prove me wrong? Or at least say anything that makes the tiniest bit of sense?

this thread is about Faith, it's not about your sexual insecurity, if you're a gay you should be proud of yourself, if you don't have faith or you hate people of faith you're are more than welcome to F U C K O F F for good. (f u c k o f f means you leave and never show me your ugly face again, i don't want you to think that i want to sex you up)

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You're still the only idiot here no matter what words you use to prove it. You're the one who acts like a poisonous idiot and then starts blaming it on others. Your own actions prove this to be true, while you have nothing but your words as proof of anything regarding me. So which do we trust more, actual things you still keep saying that prove you to be the poisonous idiot or just your poisonous idiot words that I would be one? Also I'm most likely far older than you so you're the kid here.

You're the one that imagines faith equals hatred. Please explain exactly what sexual insecurities do I have? I'm quite secure about myself so I don't need imaginary pigs on top of clouds telling me how to live my life and which groups of people to hate. You still haven't explained one bit why do you imagine things like what if I were gay? Does it somehow justify skipping all logic in your ranting because you imagine I'm something you were taught to hate by a book?

Yes wouldn't it be nice if all the logic and sense in the world just went away and stopped ruining your imagination with facts? Do you really imagine I'm going anywhere just because you wish so? Wake up :D

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You just demonstrate your total ignorance about history if you actually believe that all the phenomena you describe here don't predate any form of monotheistic spiritualities whatsoever, by far.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Where exactly did I say anything like that?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I have one interesting notice in this topic: Abraham Maslow

Probably all of us know his hierarchy of needs, but none knows that it's his 'false', old version... We all learn his pyramid in school, but seems like he was researching his topic for the whole life and 3 years before death (if I remember correctly) he updated his pyramid, but somehow none was interested in newer version (push the lie, since it's more suitable!). Well I should also add some thoughts of Blaise Pascal, but I guess it would be too much for silly or too sad people.

View attached image.
3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

They really teach you that in school?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Lol, have you ever been to school?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Before you were born I'd imagine based on your young foolishness. Do you even have schools where you live?

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think he meant that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs is taught in schools. My school had it. But we did not cover it fully, it was school after all. I certainly did not know that he had more than one version of it.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We didn't cover any psychological theories in our school since they aren't relevant to any of the subjects we had. That stuff belongs in Uni if you major in psychology. If they really teach kids these days every controversial theory one person has come up with then it's something different since we were taught actual knowledge and skills. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#Criticism

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah I may be misremembering and it was actually covered in a psychology course when I was at university. To be clear, this was not my major, it was one of many general knowledge courses we had.

We had a class in school about human behaviour, social contracts and rule of law and I thought it was mentioned there, but now I seriously doubt it.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah it seems it's taught in other fields in uni as well, just not in math or CS. :)

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not to make false impressions here, I am also a math and computer security major.
It really depends on the university I guess.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

do you deal with security issues the same way? quick googling?

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ad hominem again.

Links I found after thorough googling:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Embryology_in_the_Quran
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientist%27s_Interpretation_of_References_to_Embryology_in_the_Qur%27an

If you still want to make sure there are no contradictions in Quran:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contradictions_in_the_Quran
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_contradictions
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_errors

If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest that we first discuss your proof video, and then any other proofs you might have.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ad hominem again.

no it's not, i'm just asking cuz this is how you dealt with religions, i have a reason to ask that question so it's not Ad hominem again.

If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest that we first discuss your proof video, and then any other proofs you might have.

Lol, i think i suggested and insisted that we don't continue unless we agree on that evidence first based on your rules but you wanted all to be wall of text for nothing.

quick googling brought some nice stuff from attackers perspective, i guess another quick googling would bring you an answer to those from defenders perspective and then you can judge both based on you're logic.

i'm not inviting you to any religion nor i really care, if that quick googling is enough for you then it's good for you, you already showed that even if something in quran was true or accurate then it's just a prediction that just happen to be accurate or true, can't put up with this logic sorry.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Quick googling and only a minor thing like thousands of years of history is what your religion has against it. When has it ever done anything good?

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

do you deal with security issues the same way? quick googling?

no it's not, i'm just asking cuz this is how you dealt with religions, i have a reason to ask that question so it's not Ad hominem again.

The fact that arguments can be found quickly thanks to Google does not undermine them. How I come up with arguments is irrelevant.

This is an attack on my way of finding arguments, hence ad hominem.


quick googling brought some nice stuff from attackers perspective, i guess another quick googling would bring you an answer to those from defenders perspective and then you can judge both based on you're logic.

Did just this, right here in the PS section: https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/jQmSgt1

Do you even read any of the stuff I link? You answered 14 minutes later. The two articles from last post specifically discuss arguments for prediction, there are more arguments that were stated in the youtube video.


even if something in quran was true or accurate then it's just a prediction that just happen to be accurate or true

I showed to you why I think this is not a prediction:

  1. Nobody expected our current view of human development based on Quran before we found it out by other means.
  2. It is extraordinarily vague to be a prediction. Many different processes fit it. If humans really were made from clay, it would fit.

Links to illustrate my idea:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RgkqLqkg8vLhsYpfh/fake-causality
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge

And if we assume this is a prediction after all, it is a wrong one. There are numerous things, but one thing stands out in particular to me: there is no "bones are then covered with flesh" stage. Bones are formed after muscles begin forming. Bones are not covered, they form inside already formed flesh.


you already showed that even if something in quran was true or accurate then it's just a prediction that just happen to be accurate or true

Quote me please. I said:

If this is a correct prediction, it adds weight but does not prove Quran to be true

I guess I need to elaborate. Even if we assume that this is a true prediction, is it not a 100% proof that Quran is written with the help of an omnipotent being:

  1. There are other predictions in Quran. We should examine each of them and see if any of them turn out to be false.
  2. The more specific a prediction is, i.e. the easier it is to disprove it, the more "weight" it has. This prediction is extremely vague, because it operates in terms such as clay/mud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

lol, we had it for the 1st time in high school, it was during economy lessons (2 years obligatory for everyone in any high school). But of course they taught us only old version without Transcendence.

later I had it on University, many times, while my 'direction' of study was not really connected to that.

It's just something totally basic for everyone IMO.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Looks to me it's so basic that we didn't need to teach some controversial theory about it that one guy came up with. Teaching obvious basic things isn't very productive.

Still, academically, Maslow's theory is heavily contested.

Better to focus on actual science that's been proven to be right and agreed about I'd say. Also ones that might have any potential use later in life.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for sharing it.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I've definitely learned about Maslow's Hierarchy of needs in university, but not in school. It was brought up in the business portion of both my degree and Master's, since it's relevant to business.

Not the above version though.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your post reminded me of a joke about faith :)

A priest is in a great flood, the water level is quickly rising, but he has faith that the lord will save him. As the water is up to his knees, an old man in a rowboat sails on up.
"Hey there," he says. "Need a lift?"
The priest shakes his head. "No, for I have faith that the lord will save me. Use your boat to find those more in need."
The rowboat heads off, and soon the water is up to the priest's chest. As he's struggling, a large motorboat rides up with a young couple on it.
"Hey!" the man says. "Jump on, we'll take you to safety!"
The priest again shakes his head. "No, I have faith that the lord will save me. Find those more in need."
The couple heads off. The water is now up to the priest's neck, and he's having issues staying afloat. A rescue boat loaded with supplies comes racing up to him.
"Grab my hand!" the captain yells. "We gotta get out of here!"
"No!" The priest yells. "There are others who need help. I assure you, the lord will save me!"
Reluctantly, the rescue boat rides off. Sadly, the water becomes too much for the priest to deal with... he goes under, and he never comes up.
He finds himself in heaven, absolutely stunned. After going through the pearly gates, he walks straight up to God himself.
"Lord," the priest says, "I spent my life devoted to you. I truly believed that you would protect me through the hardest times in my life. Yet when I needed you most, when my life was at stake, you weren't there for me!"
"What are you talking about?" God replies. "I tried like three times!"

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Although i refrain from jokes about religions, but this one is actually explaining how faith should be, believe in God and follow his means and laws, a mean for survival in that case was to jump in any of those boats.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I've seen that same anecdote with different characters before....in a tv series or a book...

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The joke is probably as old as the idea of a god meddling in human things.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm too introverted to let him bother me :P

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You need faith if you are gonna cast miracles or use sacred weapons

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You're talking about real gods, the topic is about imaginary ones.

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I never put any points in faith in either one

3 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Did you feel like I was putting words in your mouth in some way?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

See below, but yes: what?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

lmao I can't even figure why he'd say that

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

stop making a fool out of yourself, think for a moment.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Are you talking to yourself now? Have you ever thought about stuff or just blindly believed everything some book says?

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i mean look how foolish you look like trying to put words in rafanime mouth.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Aha, where do you see this actually happening? You don't even have the faintest idea what they were talking about...

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hello? Have you even tried to have your first thought ever yet? Or just want to keep on looking foolish? Either works for me so no worries.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So did you have a chance and time to finally think about anything yet? :D

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Since I play Far Cry 5: Faith is one of three secondary antagonists in Far Cry 5 and Inside Eden's Gate, she was also the adoptive younger sister of Joseph Seed. Faith was the herald of the Henbane River region. :)

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's one lovely experience with faith, thanks for sharing it.

2 weeks ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Any bets on what OP's next topic is gonna be?

Concentration camps, pros vs cons? I know what you're thinking, another controversial post, no it's not but rather spiriutal and intellectual, rick-rolled? 🙂🙂

1 week ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

no that's a different story, Faith isn't that bad or good, is it?

Edit:
you may expect another controversial post, you got me really good at that.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh boy, can't wait for that.

1 week ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.