You kids need to look back on history. Look at your standard of life compared to those of the past and in the current world. There people who hate you because to them your rich. Envy of others is just like hating somebody you spend energy on and get nothing out of it. Is the world unfair yes are all people the same (?) Just remember the arguments made can be turned back on you. The only thing government should do is stay out of the way of people. the smaller it is the less can go wrong. Between congress and the Senate over 5 hundred people and over 38 thousand lobbyist. Governments should only handle police fire military supported by taxes, and as let else as possible. People keep giving government more power, Then the rich or powerful will be the government plus they get to use force aka police, national guard and so forth.

Although you have an opinion, it's still inappropriate when it's not related to the topic IMO. Therefore it doesn't count.

Besides, all you described were man-made constructs and institutions. And they were designed as system to enslave individuals' will, as soon as they surrendered their human dignity over their addictions.

You can play word games all night long. People are not much different from less evolved animals. They want to eat sleep have sex, make little copies of them selves Just the fact people (mankind) will inherently make constructs/intuitions people build thing and want to protect them. With out some governing power, if somebody wants something from somebody else the could just take it. Dam (Darwin theory) that's just another man made constructs. By the way the name of this Your opinion dose not count correct?

Ok... I won't touch Yei's claim since I am more interested in yours. But I can never understand your interpretation unless you explain it to me. That is because your interpretation seems to be the opposite of mine. That's why I can't hit the correct points. It remains an ethic in a discussion to discuss what you want to discuss, not give them links for them just to arrive in a different interpretation. So if you still want to remain unethical by not discussing what you want to discuss, fine. I'll just try to touch every single surface of your argument until you get tired.

This is my interpretation of your argument. You believed that in order to do A, you must not do B. That is because humans can't do two things at once. In a moral scenario, you can't believe in a god unless you do not believe in a god. That is true. In programming essence:

if (beliefInGod == true)
{ //Then you can believe in a god }
else if ( beliefInGod == false)
{ //Then you can't believe in a god }

In essence, you might be correct. However, there is a flaw. Agnosticism offers a third alternative. Thus, it is possible that this is not suitable for a if-else if condition. That is because this may be an if-else if-else statement and the fact that three alternatives existed is enough to create a fallacy of false dichotomy because you tried to close your argument as an if-else if statement when it can be if-else if-else. If the agnosticism is a third alternative, then it is logically correct to believe that agnosticism opinion does count in a debate on moral reasoning. If the belief of agnosticism "counts", then it is safe to say that you are incorrect.

That is why I'm asking you to explain it to me. If you just think that I'm a know-it-all, then you must be assuming that I am a fool. If I am a fool, then why are you still not using your hands to explain it to me? How are you expecting someone you call a fool to understand something that a fool can't? However, if you are just doing this out of laziness, then you really should not reply unless it's because your own ego and pride.

Continuing with my stupid explanation...



This is my question. How is this correct? I can't actually understand what you meant by this. How is it different when I do this?



By the time it reached number 3, I sensed that this is wrong. I will dissect it for you. Look now I'm baby feeding you.

The first thing that you've been wronged is about the use of "ought". Definition from encarta msn below.



If this is something that we ought to do, then this is something that cannot be not done. If you say that doing (1) and (2) is what we ought to do, then it is incorrect to say that (1) and (2) can't be together because not doing one of them will lead to immorality and we are trying to avoid immorality since we seek for moral justice and correctness. With that, we must do both (1) and (2) because we ought to do it. And doing what we "ought" to do will lead to a moral life according to Immanuel Kant and his Deontology. That became your mistake.

The second mistake that you made was that (1) and (2) can be the same. Therefore, it is possible to do the two actions without conflict. That is because not doing the irrational means that you are doing the rational. And doing the rational means that you are not doing the irrational. Therefore, no conflict arose. That makes your (3) and (4) wrong again. Tsk tsk.

So yeah, I present my case:

(1) An agnostic (is not a theist nor an atheist).
(2) A theist (is not an atheist nor an agnostic).
(3) An atheist (is not a theist nor an agnostic).
(4) You ought not to be (1) when you are (2) or (3).
(5) You ought not to be (2) when you are (1) or (3).
(6) You ought not to be (3) when you are (1) or (2). when
(7) (1) does not override (2) and (3) and (2) does not override (1) and (3) and (3) does not override (1) and (2).

Explanation? Doing (1) means denying the other two present alternative because you are ought to be one and the same goes to the other 2. Changing from (1) to (2) means denying (1) which justifies the fact that you cannot be (1) when you are already (2) unless you change again to (1) which makes you a deny (2). Looking from your sources:



Choosing at least 2 presents inconsistency because it will create conflict. If it can create conflict, the rules are not satisfiable. Therefore, you cannot be at least 2 of the 3. You can only be one.

In an if-else if programming...

if(beliefInGod == 0) //Atheist
{ //Then you do not believe in a god }
else if(beliefInGod == 1) //Theist
{ //Then you do believe in a god }
else if(beliefInGod == 2) //Agnostics
{ //Then you remain agnostic }
else
{ //Offers possible alternatives }

So yeah, I explained my points. Now it's your turn. Unless you are just someone who talks like he knows all yet can't explain his argument.

And I don't see why is Confucianism which is supposed to provide harmony be a form of totalitarian tyranny. In irony, BURNING OF THE BOOKS happened in Shi-Huang-Di's time which caused the death of thousands of Confucian scholars. If you are relating the philosophy at that time to Totalitarian tyranny, blame Shi-Huang-Di and his Legalism concept. I thought that Confucianism is supposed to be a gentle belief. And in anyway, utilitarianism would have called totalitarian tyranny as immoral and unjust because it fails to address the Benevolent Spectator principle and the Hedonistic Calculus.

Waiting for your "intelligent" reply....

Let's just say that your lack of discipline in analytical philosophy had made you intuitively ignorant to both logic and reasoning, including this.

Therefore you are no programmer when you're just a code monkey, and that's all you're good for. So don't quit your day job and try to philosophize Confucianism, when there's no consideration of individuality in the form of free will within the collectivist method.

Is it not true that even now the Islamic faith is in the core of their legislation? AKA no separation of the Islamic Church and State.

And what does mere three individuals' inability for analytical philosophy has anything to do with them ignoring my post?
Indeed. When analyzing people's behavioral patterns can show us just how much that we don't know about ourselves and each other.

Let's just say that you are just someone who tries to escape an argument because of his lack of discipline in analysis and ethics. It has made you look like an egocentric fool who do not know anything he says, much like a sophist. But I was quite optimistic that you'll at least try to argue on my points and interpretation. However, I've completely given up on you. You are an idiot who just knows how to insult someone, not to enlighten someone. I know that you do not want to enlighten someone because you just came to rock somebody's boat like nobody's business (which means you are a troll). But I at least expect that you will reply to one of my points. Geez.

I admit. I am somehow a code monkey. But that does not insult me. Because I know that I will be better someday. But you just called someone who just debates about agnosticism a code monkey. That's idiotic. You should not call someone who argues agnosticism as a code monkey especially since you know little of me. You've never seen me code programs. It's just basic if-else statements that even non-programmers can do.

And I'm quite misunderstood, I'm not trying to philosophize Confucianism. I'm trying to defend my claim in agnosticism. And I'm trying to define what is Confucianism. Define and philosophize are different terms.

So Mr. Idiot, I don't care what you try in your insult of me. But if you just don't like to reply at me because you feel like you've lost. I'll be saving you from embarrassment if you just stop replying to me. However, if you still wish to continue your insult, feel free. Because you should know that no matter how much you try to look intelligent by prolific words, you can't sugarcoat a stupid argument.

And your insulting opinions of me does not count because we are not trying to debate my nature, but the nature of agnosticism. So feel free to insult agnosticism, not me.

And what's one's true nature but the sum of one's methods? And the fact that you failed to construct a working "if-then-else-when" analogy of your agnosticism, can only means that you'll left holes in your defense like so:Diligent as you are, you won't think outside-the-box when you didn't apply yourself not to do what's easy and familiar to you. That's precisely because you're not passionate about what you do for a job as a code monkey, while your society rubs you off your will with its incentives.

Those who assumed too little becomes creature of habit. And that's precisely what your opinion accounts me about you and your agnostic method.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. So the connection between the posts is that Islamic theocracies were mentioned in both? Not much of a connection.




That statement almost makes sense, but I see your point; that argument was obviously complete nonsense. Like Seraph said, agnosticism is the only rational way to go because it is intellectually honest, while atheists/theists are just following intuition, which is not better or worse, but definitely not rational.

I see. You are doing the method of insulting me because insulting is your true nature.



I am still wondering why should an construction of an analogy lead to a hole in a defense.

But let's break your stance one by one.



I'm not going to argue with your intuition. But normally speaking, I am not asking explanation on how logic and rationality works. I have the gist on how they work. What I need is explanation from your thoughts. I doubt that I can fully understand your thought unless I get the explanation on how your thought process works. That requires you to explain to me your points and arguments. Everyone do not need to know how logic and rationality works because logic and rationality is intrinsic in human nature. That's why I keep asking you to explain your stance because no matter how efficient I use my logic and rationality, I would never understand what you are saying to me frankly because there was no explanation given to me.



I do not object if-then-else-when analogy, I only object their usage.



Ah... now I'm beginning to understand your point. I was misled by your (1), (2), (3), and (4) in the past argument that I didn't understand it well. I seem to understand my mistakes. Sorry. But there are questions...

A. Are agnostics the only beings capable of doing the analogy that you presented? If we try it like this:


That opens a stance that even theist and atheist are capable of understanding the rational. Because theist thinks that the concept of a creator is rational and atheist that the concept that there is not creator is rational, we can then attest the validity of rationality. Rationality then became a vague concept. That moves to problem B.

B. What is rationality?

If we do your analogy...

If rationality is vague
Then rationality is subject to skepticism
Else rationality is clear

Then if rationality is vague, then all opinion accounts into skepticism. If all opinion accounts into skepticism, then all opinion from agnostics, theists, and atheists does not count.

C. Shouldn't an agnostic be one of the most open-minded individual?

In contrast to your point about agnostic being a close-minded individual, I seem to assess that you do not know what you are talking about. An objective truth is possible if and only if the truth is true for people of all size and shapes. Looking at the definition of an objective truth, can you say that atheist arrived at their objective truth? Can you say that theist arrived at their objective truth? Using your analogy...

If Atheist arrived at their objective truth
Then Theist ought only to abide the atheist's objective truth
Elseif Theist arrived at their objective truth
Then Atheist ought only to abide the theist's objective truth
Else Both parties reach a contradiction
When Two Objective truth cannot exist at the same time.

We can say that atheist and theist are also close-minded individuals because it took their stance longer than what is necessary to arrive at the objective truth. With that, your argument that agnostics opinion does not count is already broken. However, I will continue.

D. If this can't be objective truth, then can this be subjective truth?

Yes, it could be subjective truth. However, by saying that theist's truth and atheist's truth are both subjective would mean that the agnostic's truth is also subjective. If it is subjective truth, then clearly the opinion of theist, atheist, and agnostics are equal in terms of truth.



I'm not yet in the working class... I'm still a student.

Well it's not my fault that you're not good with abstract thinking. Otherwise you would've realized that there's no individual values and standards in a Muslim society, when their Islamic faith is their institution of collective methodology. Thereby all religions are just institutions of methodology, which systematically replace individual preferences with religious doctrines.

Therefore all religious and spiritual views are in fact relevant, especially when they represent a set of human cultural standards and values, that's not originated from the study of natural laws. But rather they were from the beliefs of supernatural.

Also, what Seraph said wasn't true, when there's this method called logical intuition:

Can't help it when you find me analyzing you insulting. If it makes you feel better though, you can pay a behavioral analyst and get the same result for your worth.

And what the heck with this "no explanation" claim of yours? When the explanations were all in the hyperlinks throughout my replies. Or do you just want to be fed with knowledge without you seeking them for yourself?

Your part B was incomplete because rationales aren't vague when they are actually clear methods and motives. Therefore apply the correct variable again and this time, complete the whole analogy while still retaining the framework of:
And I shouldn't remind you how your part C and D were wrong, when your part B was incomplete as it was.

Then I'll complete my B.

If rationality is vague
Then rationality is subject to skepticism
Else rationality is clear
When the basis of rationality and an objective truth about god are provided

Now, you can go tell me what's wrong with C and D...

Forgive me. But I do not know any programming language with "when".

EDIT: I doubt your framework is correct when I'm just stating conditions... I'll rework it if you tell me that the framework you gave is what's necessary. But unless you are the type of person who can understand my thoughts using that framework, then I doubt that you understood paragraph that is not in that framework. Rendering all my explanation useless.

What will happen to irrationality when rationality became vague? That's why your condition for rationality was wrong while you veered off from the original framework once again.

Take your time to proof read your own work, even play around with it and see how it'll turned out. Otherwise you'll be wasting both my time and yours every time you got it wrong.

For example:

I care about rationality not about irrationality.

Oh geez... If all you care about is the framework of your stupid argument, then take time to review your syntax. You'll see that your syntax is clearly wrong as well.

And why should I care about the framework? You didn't even bother reading the ones that are in paragraph form. I'll repeat my points.



--

Now, if we try using your stupid framework that I can not even ascertain it's validity.

If rationality ought to be vague
Then rationality ought not to be clear
Else rationality cannot do both.
When vagueness does not override clarity and clarity does not override vagueness.

I won't try to change the C because your stupid syntax is only limited into 2 choices. But if you use your brain to think... You'll get this...

If atheist arrived at their objective truth that god does not exist, Then theist ought to abide in the atheist's objective truth, else if theist arrived at their objective truth, Then atheist ought to abide at the theist's objective truth. Else, both parties will reach in a contradiction When no 2 different truths can exist at the same time.

If you still want to argue about the framework because you cannot understand my point without that self-made framework, then I do not have any choice anymore other than to accuse you of trying to escape my argument because you never even present your counterargument rather than attacking the if-else statements... Now why should I care about irrationality?

So that if you don't want to be just another code monkey, then you need to consider something different that your usual preference. Otherwise:Beside, if you don't then you've just proven that:Because while subjective truth is just an individual perspective or preference, objective truth OTOH are:That's why while the theists already based their subjective truths on only the supernatural rationales, the atheists OTOH are still rationalizing their objective truths among themselves regarding only what's natural. While the agnostics are rationally screwed between the rock and a hard place.

So all of the typing I've done is just wasted because you only read and replied to that one sentence.



Theist based their subjective truth on the supernatural. Atheist based their subjective truth (not objective) on what's natural. While agnostics seek for objective truth basing on what's natural and supernatural. Thinking that if supernatural exists, supernaturals are objective truth. And if supernaturals does not exist, supernaturals are objective lie. However, the problem with agnostics is that they can't choose one of the two because they do not know whether supernatural does exists or not. BUT, that is also a subjective truth. And in essence, you can't prove that an agnostic is a close-minded person because all 3 parties are still rationalizing in their belief. Extremist, however, are different.

With the pdf file that you've shown however, I seem to think that you view theist as extremist, when in fact that not all of them are. That creates an irony that may label you as an extremist. That's why you need to clear your claim.

In anyway, objective truth is an irrefutable truth. And you can't create an irrefutable truth by being honest.

When they are excuses for you not to consider irrationality, what other option do I left but to assume your motive of refusing to comply?

For example, as soon as you disregard irrationality, you'll have no method to quantify what's rational from what's irrational. Now with regarding to theology, how can you thereby tell which belief is the rational one? When they all claim that only them and no one else are authentic. Also, without establishing the authenticity of your supernatural perspective, how can you even begin rationalizing your own supernatural experiences?

And there are objective truths among atheists' rationale, and they're called natural laws. And natural laws are based on empirical knowledge, when empirical knowledge are accumulated from natural experiences, while natural experiences are quantified by individual authenticity, and authenticity is justified by logic.

Finally, your baseless accusation of my view on atheism, has once again shown me just how close-minded you are. When you ignored my claim as to what my stance is.

Just how long will you continue your close-mindedness before you got fooled once again by your own ignorance, now that's something for you to know and for me to find out more.

I don't get what you are talking about? Is this because you tried to invalidate all of my claim because I never addressed irrationality? If so, you are just playing with words. Just because I do not intend to tackle about irrationality does not certainly mean that I used my claim as an excuse. You can't disregard the "your-so-called-excuse" as invalid because there is truth within the claim. I don't see why you think that I do not have a motive to comply when I clearly see that you also have no motive of complying to me either.

I don't get what you said that once I disregard irrationality means that I lose my method of quantifying what's rational or what's not. I think that it's actually quite obvious for me to tell what's rational and what's irrational without even caring on what's irrational. That's because if something is not rational, then it is irrational. Which means that as long as you can ascertain what is rational, it follows that you can also ascertain what is irrational. What I disregard about irrationality was about how I used then in your if-then-else-when framework.

Now, regarding on your question about theist tell that their belief is the correct one. It is because of faith. Now, if it is faith, then the claim of the theist must be subjective truth, and it is not objective truth. That is because you can never prove anything with faith. I'm not the right person to ask me that question since I'm not a theist. But I can ascertain that it's because of their faith. Now that if you think about it, wouldn't your claim mean that theist are the most close-minded individuals? Because they claim that everything was created by a higher being without them actually experiencing supernatural activities.

Natural laws are not laws for the atheist. Natural laws exists also within the agnostics and the theists. For Christians, their natural laws is god's will. They say that the natural law is created by god. However, you seem to have mistaken on your definition. There are two types of natural law. The one what I've just typed about, the natural law which talks about moral or political doctrines. And the second, the Physical law which is about science. However, that law also exists in the agnostics and the theists. However, it is different for theist when it comes to creation and order of things. John Locke, the father of empiricism, believe in god himself. Saying that we are God's property.

I never actually called you an atheist, but an extremist.

Just how long will you try to argue and call me ignorant is something that I can't answer. But I ask you this question. DOES THE OPINION OF AN AGNOSTIC COUNT? It seems you lost track on what's the topic is. You never even proved to me that an agnostic's opinion cannot count.



If you don't care about the rationalizing of an agnostic, then you should not argue with one.

Now, when you reply back. Make sure that you answer the question on whether the opinion of an agnostic count or not. And tell me where the opinion of an agnostic is applicable or not. This is all my argument is about.

I don't think you understood the posts that you said were saying the same thing. But now your point is something completely different. Yes, in some Muslim societies, there's already set social values and standards, just like every other society. Yes, religions can do that, many things can replace individual preference with other doctrines.



That doesn't make what Seraph said untrue. Solid conclusions based on intuition of any kind are not intellectually rational, you need real evidence.

The only time when an agnostic individual's opinion counts for anything, is when I use it to analyze human behavioral patterns. Thereby I can determine for myself just what kind of people the agnostic individuals are, due to their opinions as their motives.

The human laws as institutions of methodology that systematically replace individual preferences with man-made ideas and concept that's not based on nature, are not called natural laws. Or do you suppose copyrights and social support for homelessness were natural laws? When they're actually entitlement based on beliefs. That management was a natural law? When it's actually man-made because we all have individual autonomy, mastery, and purpose of ourselves. Do you believe that someone like me, who wants to redesign the human society based on humanity, won't know for himself what are rationales that were based on human nature? When I've been studying human motivational and behavioral patterns like nobody's business.

Therefore I am not extreme. When I am simply myself with my own individual autonomy, mastery, and purpose in my life. While you as an agnostic OTOH will never be your own master of yourself, when you refuse to be challenged.

Then do you think we humans are naturally born individualists, or we're self-made collectivists? Therefore just who are truly living in an artificial illusion of institutionalize methodology? Are they the majority who blindly obey the social norms without question, while they disrespect and antagonize the minority? Or something else altogether? That's what Seraph meant when he said:
I question my thinking, therefore I feel authentic when I'm done questioning.