Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

[Prince of Dhump]

So we both agree that using intuition is not a reliable method to arrive to the truth of a conclusion?

nonetheless..lets take intuition out of the question
and ill also admit the creation line of argument is kind of flawed

let me approach in another way to make my point clear

say i goto a jungle..
and i see some pieces of wood
ill swiftly pass by them
but if i see them arranged in a proper order, the next instant ill start looking for someone who has put them in order

im sure u will agree that there is order in the universe..should i not look for someone who has place all these bodies in order

 

[Prince of Dhump]

You asked if there is any kind of specification and I gave you more specific terms.

but when u give dictionary meaning of atheism and someone else give u other specific version of it u will tell them to stop making things up..
its not nice ?

 

[Vitamin_C]

Yes but do you think that order always necessarily require an artificial/intelligent designer?

nonetheless..lets take intuition out of the question
and ill also admit the creation line of argument is kind of flawed

let me approach in another way to make my point clear

say i goto a jungle..
and i see some pieces of wood
ill swiftly pass by them
but if i see them arranged in a proper order, the next instant ill start looking for someone who has put them in order

im sure u will agree that there is order in the universe..should i not look for someone who has place all these bodies in order

 

[Sohail Shuja]

The point of doing good is not the allure of a heaven or the fear of a hell. You do good things because you want other to do good things to you. You pursue your happiness without hurting other people because thats what you want others to do to you as well.

Other than that we have natural tendencies to do good things because it ensured our survival as a species. We have a natural instinct to take care of our children and our tribe/family. There maybe some psychopaths here and there but traditionally they were either killed or ostracized from the tribe (which almost always meant death).

Now where is the proof of that if you do good to others, then others will do good to you? Most importantly, how do you determine what is good and what is not?

 

[Vitamin_C]

1. From rational consideration of the consequences of my actions
2. My actions have an effect on people around me and the actions of the people around me have an effect on me. If we are going to live cooperatively and share space we have to recognize that impact.
3. My freedom to swing my arm should not hit someone's nose and I have no right to impose my will over someone else's will.
4. Basically it is an understanding of reality and not an assertion of authority.
5. And if there is any ambiguity, people can have a sober discussion on the rule while keeping in consideration societies'/everyone's interests, well-being, safety and happiness.

Most importantly, how do you determine what is good and what is not?

 

[Prince of Dhump]

Yes but do you think that order always necessarily require an artificial/intelligent designer?

you cannot whimsically throw ideas without substantiating them with examples

if u think order can be established without an intelligent designer then give one such example..just one wherein something else instead of intelligent designer is responsible for order

 

[Vitamin_C]

Im not throwing around ideas, I asked you a simple question.

you cannot whimsically throw ideas without substantiating them with examples

if u think order can be established without an intelligent designer then give one such example..just one wherein something else instead of intelligent designer is responsible for order

 

[Prince of Dhump]

Im not throwing around ideas, I asked you a simple question.

why are u playing with words ?
the fact that u asked this question means u think order can be established without intelligent designer
i simply asked can u back ur idea with an example
if so give one plz

 

[Vitamin_C]

That was not a trick question, there is order and patterns everywhere you look in nature. From Galaxies to solar systems to DNA and Molecules to the protons and elections in Atoms. Infact the most complex and orderly objects in universe are not made but products of nature and much of our engineering is based on mimicing nature.

why are u playing with words ?
the fact that u asked this question means u think order can be established without intelligent designer
i simply asked can u back ur idea with an example
if so give one plz

 

[Iconoclast]

Now where is the proof of that if you do good to others, then others will do good to you? Most importantly, how do you determine what is good and what is not?

That's like expecting a cow not to smack ya in da rear because you're a vegetarian.
It's easy for him to determine that. If Bill Maher has said it then it must be true. Who dismisses religion, mocks god and in the same breath speaks for Israel how they're close to his heart because they took their land, united by faith.

 

[Prince of Dhump]

again ur not understanding my point

anything..just give me one example that i know of..which i,by my intuition, will call it creation but sceince/evidence will say the opposite

The universe

That was not a trick question, there is order and patterns everywhere you look in nature. From Galaxies to solar systems to DNA and Molecules to the protons and elections in Atoms. Infact the most complex and orderly objects in universe are not made but products of nature and much of our engineering is based on mimicing nature.

ur not picking the if statement here..

im telling u that ill admit that the order in nature does not necessitate an intelligent designer if u can give me an example of an orderly something which u see and claim that this order was not established by an intelligent designer

 

[Prince of Dhump]

That was not a trick question, there is order and patterns everywhere you look in nature. From Galaxies to solar systems to DNA and Molecules to the protons and elections in Atoms. Infact the most complex and orderly objects in universe are not made but products of nature and much of our engineering is based on mimicing nature.

Let me try again ?

pls read carefully ill try to summarise ur line of arguments and try to make my point clear

Lets say while ur discussing with me u have 3 frend with u there

u tell ur first frend that im talking with a man

he tells u ur an illogical person..he can be a man or a woman
ur second frend calls u both illogical and tell u ur both wrong bcz the person ur talking with is maybe a man a woman or LGBT....

now comes ur third frend..there are two scenarios ill write for him here

1. he calls u all illogical senseless people and tell why are u classifying the person ur talking with as human..he might be human, he might not be human

2.he calls u all illogical senseless people and tell why are u classifying the person ur talking with as man woman LGBT ..he might be a ghost


how will u react to ur 3rd frend for scenario 1 and 2

 

[Vitamin_C]

In both scenarios I would tell him that he is talking nonsense because
1. Non humans dont talk,
2. Ghosts and any other supernatural entities do not exist

Let me try again ?

pls read carefully ill try to summarise ur line of arguments and try to make my point clear

Lets say while ur discussing with me u have 3 frend with u there

u tell ur first frend that im talking with a man

he tells u ur an illogical person..he can be a man or a woman
ur second frend calls u both illogical and tell u ur both wrong bcz the person ur talking with is maybe a man a woman or LGBT....

now comes ur third frend..there are two scenarios ill write for him here

1. he calls u all illogical senseless people and tell why are u classifying the person ur talking with as human..he might be human, he might not be human

2.he calls u all illogical senseless people and tell why are u classifying the person ur talking with as man woman LGBT ..he might be a ghost


how will u react to ur 3rd frend for scenario 1 and 2

 

[Prince of Dhump]

In both scenarios I would tell him that he is talking nonsense

so should i repeat ur words for u
1.when u try to say that order might be established by an intelligent being or it might not
2.when u try to say that what we see out there in universe is not what it is..like it might be a simulation

 

[Vitamin_C]

So you are comparing the 1. ability of a non-human to talk which has never been documented before... To 2. ability of nature to generate order that can be readily witnessed and has been extensively documented.

Are you actually that stupid that you cannot see the flaw in that analogy or are you just acting stupid?

so should i repeat ur words for u
1.when u try to say that order might be established by an intelligent being or it might not
2.when u try to say that what we see out there in universe is not what it is..like it might be a simulation

 

[Prince of Dhump]

ability of nature to generate order that can be readily witnessed and has been extensively documented.

1. are u implying that nature is an entity that has the ability to generate order ?
2. are u implying that nature is an intelligent designer that generate order ?

 

[Vitamin_C]

na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/

noun

1. 1.
   the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

1. are u implying that nature is an entity that has the ability to generate order ?
2. are u implying that nature is an intelligent designer that generate order ?

 

[Vitamin_C]

You can define Atheism as much as you want but you do not have authority over my personal beliefs and position, I define my own position.

I do not know whether or not a God exists. If you say that a God exists then I do not believe you until you provide me evidence that he exists as the default position facing any claim in the absence of evidence is disbelief.

Your only reply to me is to try to change my position to something that it is not so that its easier for you to attack or to argue against wording or definitions. That is intellectually dishonest and exposes your bias and duplicity.

You know my position, you can call it atheism, hinduism, agnosticism or whatever the hell you want to call it I do not care. But please do not be dishonest and try to steer the argument towards semantics rather than my actual position.

Finally, someone has called him out on playing on both sides of the wicket. Vitamin_C has a knack of choosing the end that suits him best and jumps to the other side as soon as he is trapped plumb on the other end. Who can blame him, the likes of Shoaib (Iconoclast), Dennis Lillie (Sohail Shuja) and Brett Lee (yourself) are spearing in yorkers and bouncers left, right and center and he has no clue which way the ball is swinging, when it's actually reversing. ? Anyways, jokes apart......

Let us examine his definition of Atheism, since he clearly considers himself above and beyond the "founders" of atheism and of course has a better understanding of the subject than anyone but himself.... ?

So according to Mr. Vitamin, oxford dictionary states the atheist is defined as:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So, now there are two scenarios, one drawing a definite picture (i.e. disbelieves) vs. an ambiguous definition (i.e. lacks belief). If I were to take the latter as the right description, then against all odds what Vitamin is saying is actually right. However, for the time being, I will stick to a more definite picture and opt for the former description i.e. disbelieves. Disbelief is simply refusing to believe in something, in this case existence of GOD. So, technically by sticking to that argument I am rejecting the possibility of a GOD.

I would like to further strengthen my argument by providing the definition of atheism from Cambridge dictionary. Here's Cambridge dictionary defining atheism for you:

the belief that God does not exist.

Here's the source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism

Mr. Vitamin continue feeding your ego all you want but by now the readers have seen who is being a pompous dickhead and dishonest to the infinite degree. You've been exposed.

In all honesty, I was expecting a better show from Vitamin_C. He truly has disappointed me. Refusing to touch on subjects like dark matter, entropy etc. just goes on to show, how much understanding he has of the physical principles often provided by atheists. I guess he should call for reinforcements, perhaps calling the likes of Qarar, BlackSheep and Janbaazkarachi would serve him well. Though I have seen them jumping ships from atheism to agnosticism in the past too. ?

 

[Prince of Dhump]

na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/

noun

1. 1.
   the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/

noun

1. 1.
   the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

fine..
but it begs the question..
when nature creates order..does that order come into being randomly
or is the process of order-build-up a directed one

 

[Vitamin_C]

Sometimes it is random sometimes it is directed. For example the protons and electrons around an atom are not random but can be explained by atomic theory.

The stars around the blackhole in the center of the galaxy are random but they follow a set path which we can calculate with mathematic formulas.

Evolution is a process that creates extremely complicated tools such as eyes, wings, brains etc and it is guided by natural and sexual selection.

There are certain aspects of nature that are chaotic and certain aspects that are structured, ordered and act according to a pattern.

fine..
but it begs the question..
when nature creates order..does that order come into being randomly
or is the process of order-build-up a directed one