• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Diego_008

  1. Anyone who makes an illogical request more than once is indeed foolish, in my mind.
  2. By the way, I was not referring to a post on a forum either. I am writing a graduate school textbook on the history of the Holy Roman Empire, and another book on Lutheran Liturgy and its translations into English in the last three centuries. The fact that YOU thought I was referring to writing Forum posts makes me wonder what is wrong with you, in all sincerity.
  3. This, of course, implies that you have no brain. I am NOT going to give out my name on the Internet! Whilst I do not think that you are a psychopath (lacking in sense yes; a psychopath, no), there are plenty of psychopaths out there. I already have indicated where I live. Giving out my name, when I have a wife and child to protect, would be the height of STUPID. I don't care if you challenge me or not. I am well aware of my skills, and the books that attest to said skills. You can question all you want. The more fool you.
  4. Greetings: You, my brother, are making some sense! This, I can appreciate. As far as languages go, I am fluent in two (my native English and my very nearly native Spanish), I can curse extremely well in Yiddish, I have some decent knowledge (including but not limited to cursing) of one of the many constructed languages, and can make my tortured way, horribly slowly and with much agony, through a Greek Testament. I have three degrees, one of which simply superceded one of tge others, as it is advanced. I too, graduated college with honours aplenty. I was honoured in both my degree programmes, and would have qualified for scholarships had I continued in Philosophy, but I chose to continue in History, in which I was honoured, but not to the same level. Ergo, though I was accepted easily to continue my studies, I think I only got a few scholarships, whereas had I continued in Philosophy, life would have been easier. Re: the Noble Qur'an, I don't blame you for missing much of it. Understanding it without first knowing the History of Arabia and surrounding lands would be difficult. Even WITH that knowledge, the text is often quite cryptic. UNlike the Bible, it does not follow a particular pattern. The Surahs (Chapters, although the word "Surah" is used in Arabic only to describe the divisions of the Qur'an, and another word is used for other books; hence, most scholars retain the Arabic term) are not placed in order of their revelation by date. In fact, some of the verses of the longer Surahs were received at different times than others! In general, the order is longest to shortest, with the exception of Surah 1, which is an opening prayer, sometimes compared to the Lord's Prayer in terms of its importance. With this unusual structure, understanding the Qur'an almost REQUIRES a person to know the Prophet Muhammad's personal history as well as the general history of Arabia. There are quite a few good biographies of the man out there, by both Muslims and non-Muslims. I have "The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet". It is written by a Muslim, and is supposed to be one of the best out there. I have not yet begun reading it, so I cannot state that from personal knowledge. I have two others, one by an Ahmadiyah Muslim (they are commonly regarded as heretics by orthodox Muslims, particularly in Saudi Arabia and in their native Pakistan), which I have read, and I can say is good, and one by a non-Muslim which is decent, albeit very old (1936, if memory serves). If you DO intend to reread the Qur'an, might I suggest Abdullah Yusuf Ali's ttanslation with Commentary? It is well regarded, and tends to steer clear from polemics. Mohammed Muhsin Khan's is good, but gets a bit polemical. Well, I noticed two replies that came in, so I must get to them. I shall bid you fond adieu for the present. I look forward to hearing from you.
  5. Well, I am not sure "high entertainment" applies as a descriptor, but it certainly has been interesting.
  6. I apologise for my delay in responding to your delightful post. I think the only thing in the Qur'an that does give me pause is the statement that Christ did not die on the Cross, but only appeared to do so. Either he DID die there, or he did not. There can be no two ways about it. But, that becomes a very lengthy topic. Of course, it IS an alternative way of explaining the Resurrection, which I suppose has a certain logic. I do agree that one religion probably does not contain ALL the truth. To make such a claim, one would have to be insufferably arrogant. I shall not go so far as to state such a point of view categorically. I DO believe that there ARE objective facts that either are true or false. Getting around that seems impossible. But acknowledging that all religions worthy of the name have some truth is simply common sense.
  7. Actually, I do not have a degree in Education. I leave such matters to my Beloved Wife, who can teach children. I claim no such skill. I actually could care less what judgements you wish to post or not. But if you DO post, at least be logical.
  8. Actually, no. Good try. A fire chief claiming he knows how to fight fire is not committing such a fallacy. The same thing holds here. I am hardly going to display my name and credentials over the Internet, as I am not an idiot. I am a Professor, and a writer, to answer your question. In fact, I am writing now. I never claimed to be smarter than anyone. To each their gifts. I do not care what a person believes. It is still a free country, at least in that regard. But if someone says that there are two different kinds of logic, both acceptable, I shall call them out on such nonsense. If one does not want to be called out, avoid outlandish statements, and you will not be.
  9. Sharing knowledge with a young person is fine. Engaging in learned debate with someone unequipped to do so is not.
  10. My, my, mon frere, such irritation. It does not become you to threaten me, or anyone, with Godly punishment. In fact I have no problem communicating with persons less educated than myself. The problem I DO have is such a person pretending otherwise. Just as I would not presume to discuss Mathematics or Economics or Scientific Disciplines (as in the Hard Sciences; I am perfectly competant in most of the Social Sciences) in any way beyond the general, and I certainly would not attempt to have a learned debate on those subjects with anyone trained formally therein (or even INformally) it strikes me as utterly foolish for a person who has not got a clue what they are talking about philosophically to attempt a debate with someone who does. I suggest very strongly that before you start threatening people with Godly punishment, you get off your OWN high horse. You might find other people to be better at the metaphorical equestrian arts about which you so arrogantly speak than you are.
  11. I am of course happy to chat with young persons. But I shall NOT hold deep academic discussions with them that would require having taken collegiate courses in Religion, Philosophy, and possibly History and Linguistics. To do so would be illogical in the extreme.
  12. I again assume that the current persons to whom I am speaking are adults, irrespective of the age at which persons are permitted on the Forum. If that is inaccurate, please so indicate. I have no intention of holding regular communications of a debate-like nature with someone who is NOT a legal adult. So your point is actually a non-point.
  13. And when I suggest that "some people should know better", I ASSUME I am speaking to persons of legal adult age, who I ASSUME (and perhaps such assumptions are unwise) have adult educations. There is little excuse to not have such. Ergo, as I am NOT speaking to children, the people to who I AM speaking should indeed "know better". It is as simple, and as logical, as that.
  14. It IS a matter of logic, despite your failure to recognise it as such. When having a philosophical debate, one should not resort to common, and inaccurate, uses of language. It is precisely this use of language, in a society (that of the USA), which is largely only 8th Grade literate (most newspapers are written at that level, and even the NY Times is only written at a 12th Grade level), that has produced the disastrous state of things in the USA. It is no wonder that non-Americans tend to laugh us to scorn, and humiliate us in most educational and other related benchmarks of success (or in our case as Americans, the lack thereof). I personally shall not follow this disgraceful trend. You are of course free to do so if you wish.
  15. Actually, I specifically stated that the evidences I provided were not 100% evidence. In Philosophy, the term "evidence" is often used interchangeably with "proof". The word "theory" is not used, as that is the term of scientists and the Scientific Method. Again, if you cannot use simple logic, I would encourage you to cease speaking, or at least review a logic textbook before you continue.
  16. I did not say anything hostile. I made an observation. There is a difference. The fact that you do not see this indicates where your lack of logic is.
  17. Actually, he fell for BOTH fallacies. He reduced my perspective to the absurd, AND he fell for association. So, there you are. And again, I committed no fallacy. I never said he WAS unintelligent. I said he made himself APPEAR to be. You know, if English comprehension is a concern for you, I have classes on English that I teach beginning in a few days. I am sure I can fit you in if you would like.
  18. So, you attempt to have an argument about God based on atheist philosophers. And you reject the very bedrock of our civilisation (Plato and Aristotle). How silly of you.
  19. Actually, I am only in two threads. And one is an introduction, where no argument is happening. So using the plural "threads" would appear to indicate that you do not read very thoroughly. Again, I did NOT say he was unintelligent. I merely said he made himself APPEAR to be. There is a difference. Ergo, no insult occurred. Every philosopher I have met considers the arguments I made to be proofs, albeit not 100% proof. Philosophy does not discuss theory. It discusses proof. Therein lies a difference between it and other disciplines, a difference you appear to have neglected. I do not feel insulted by you. Rather, I find it a bit silly that I should have to explain simple logic to people who should know better.
  20. Most of us who have taken Philosophy courses, and have a degree in the subject, cite the Argument from Design as evidence of an intelligent Creator. That does NOT imply any acceptance even of Christianity, let alone a particular interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (commonly called Primeval History by scholars). I shall acknowledge that I am Christian. But to make a Reductio ad Absurdam Argument, as he did, implies having not even taken an introductory Logic course, let alone any Philosophy classes beyond that. There is nothing wrong with that. We all have our strengths. But do NOT try to argue with logic if you do not understand the basics thereof. It is perfectly logical for ME to point out that doing so makes a person LOOK unintelligent. I did not say he was. I said he made HIMSELF appear to be. The fact that he, AND you, both misinterpreted what I said is NOT my problem.
  21. You became my problem when you insulted me. It is really that simple.
  22. How utterly immature of you. You are the one who called me a creationist with absolutely no evidence to support that. I simply indicated that I was not and that calling me such made you look unintelligent. If you want to look for smug and condescending individuals, I suggest you start by looking in the mirror. If you refuse to do that, then you are no longer my problem.
  23. Actually, by assuming that I am a Creationist, he DID insult me. And I DID enlighten him. I told him where he could find the information that he needed. I at the time did not have the time to engage in a conversation when I was able to tell him exactly where he needed to go to get the information he sought. It is that simple really. I'm not being combative at all. I simply don't like being insulted. When I am insulted, I tend to fire back pretty strongly. That is one of my not so decent traits, I admit, but welcome to reality. People are people, and they tend to do things like that. I actually never said anything about him not being a creationist and therefore being unintelligent. What I did say, is that if he assumed that I was a creationist, that he looked a bit unintelligent. I am not a creationist. Ergo, I would hardly accuse him of necessarily being one. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. It might assist you before you attack me.
  24. I neither have Facebook nor Twitter. Neither one serves any purpose whatsoever. Why would I want Facebook especially since given the fact that they don't even have a phone number that you can call when you need assistance. All you get is a voicemail telling you that there are no people to help you. Twitter is just beyond illogical. Trying to make complete academic statements in 140 characters is completely ridiculous. You can certainly be free from here if you wish. It's up to you whether to continue the debate. The fact that you have been unkind, unfriendly, impolite, and outright disrespectful seems not to disturb you at all. That's perfectly fine with me. But please note you still have not defended your case adequately. All you have done is appeal to Authority that frankly has none. As far as Christianity goes, appealing to the church fathers has far more Authority than appealing to various figures of the 20th century all of which assisted the Church of England and many other churches to lose their Orthodoxy completely as well as their orthopraxy. Again, I have no problem with you believing entirely as you wish. You are perfectly free to worship leprechauns if that is what you want to do. I am simply suggesting that you recognize that in doing what you are attempting to do you are rejecting the church fathers and two thousand years of church tradition. You're welcome to do that but recognize that that is what you are trying to do.