The Noble Qur'an, Hadith, and other matters.

[RevTom]

9 minutes ago, Diego_008 said:

Again, your citing of various studies simply indicates that you are appealing to an authority that doesn't necessarily have any. You are of course free to do that but you need to recognize that you are doing exactly that. The church fathers, including Augustine, definitely have a bit more Authority that is more trustworthy for that matter than the ones you have cited. And again it is perfectly okay for you to reject belief in hell. you are free to do this. But in so doing you have to reject the entire hellenization of Christianity. Again you are welcome to do this. There is no objection to this, as long as you understand this is what you are doing.

 

You have to completely throw out Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas in order to do what you are trying to do. You are certainly welcome to do so. But in so doing what you have done is created yet another Protestant denomination. Since there are already 38000 of those, I do not know why you would want to create another. But feel free. There is certainly no reason to prevent you from doing this. But you have to recognize that that is what you are doing.

You know what? come over to Facebook or Twitter if you want to keep being contentious...I'm through with you here.

[Diego_008]

Just now, RevTom said:

You know what? come over to Facebook or Twitter if you want to keep being contentious...I'm through with you here.

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.

[Key]

15 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

I am more than happy to "conversate" (to use a colloquialism) with you. I am NOT happy to be insulted, however.

I must interject here. He did no insulting, YOU did, by equating that if he were not a Creationist, then he looked unintelligent.

You also stated earlier in the thread that if he wasn't familiar with any of the argument theories you presented, you'd be "happy to enlighten", did you not? But then when he admits to not knowing one, you simply dismiss him and deflect to other sources.

I don't understand where your combative dialogue comes from.

[Diego_008]

50 minutes ago, Key said:

I must interject here. He did no insulting, YOU did, by equating that if he were not a Creationist, then he looked unintelligent.

You also stated earlier in the thread that if he wasn't familiar with any of the argument theories you presented, you'd be "happy to enlighten", did you not? But then when he admits to not knowing one, you simply dismiss him and deflect to other sources.

I don't understand where your combative dialogue comes from.

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.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Diego_008

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Key said:

I must interject here. He did no insulting, YOU did, by equating that if he were not a Creationist, then he looked unintelligent.

You also stated earlier in the thread that if he wasn't familiar with any of the argument theories you presented, you'd be "happy to enlighten", did you not? But then when he admits to not knowing one, you simply dismiss him and deflect to other sources.

I don't understand where your combative dialogue comes from.

 

Thank you for understanding.  I don't need to be lectured to by a smug, condescending know-it-all.  It seemed best to walk away.  

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Diego_008]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Thank you for understanding.  I don't need to be lectured to by a smug, condescending know-it-all.  It seemed best to walk away.  

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Diego_008

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 minute ago, Diego_008 said:

How early 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 the calling me such made you look unintelligent.

 

If you want to look for smug and condescending individuals, I suggest you start looking in the mirror. If you refuse to do that, then you are no longer my problem.

 

 

 

When was I ever your problem?  Never mind.  Good by.  

 

[Diego_008]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

When was I ever your problem?  Never mind.  Good by.  

 

You became my problem when you insulted me. It is really that simple.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, Diego_008 said:

You became my problem when you insulted me. It is really that simple.

 

 

Good by.

 

 

 

[Diego_008]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Good by.

 

 

 

Have a nice day! 

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

For the record, he had evidence. Not 100% proof, but evidence, nonetheless. His logic ran along the lines of-

Creationists cite the Argument From Design as evidence.

You cited the Argument From Design as evidence.

You are therefore a creationist.

Faulty logic, to be sure, but no more so than your own response.

You felt insulted, but he did not insult you. He mistakenly came to the conclusion that you are something you are not. If you walk into a bank wearing a mask, it is not an insult for people to assume you are a robber, even if they are wrong.

To assume that only unintelligent people make mistakes is a fairly serious mistake to make.

[Diego_008]

26 minutes ago, mererdog said:

For the record, he had evidence. Not 100% proof, but evidence, nonetheless. His logic ran along the lines of-

Creationists cite the Argument From Design as evidence.

You cited the Argument From Design as evidence.

You are therefore a creationist.

Faulty logic, to be sure, but no more so than your own response.

You felt insulted, but he did not insult you. He mistakenly came to the conclusion that you are something you are not. If you walk into a bank wearing a mask, it is not an insult for people to assume you are a robber, even if they are wrong.

To assume that only unintelligent people make mistakes is a fairly serious mistake to make.

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.

[Rev. Calli]

9 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

Hello. I am pleased that you have responded to my post. The books that I mentioned are simply books of the Sunnah of the prophet. Although they are not given the considerable Holiness that the Qur'an is given, they are regarded with considerable respect. You might consider reading them as you might enjoy them. Sahi al Bukhari is one of the principal collections. There are approximately 5 of those within Sunni Islam. However the one I mentioned is one of the primary ones that is everybody's go to if you will. The Sunnah of the Prophet basically amounts to what he said, what he did, what he agreed to, and various things that he essentially did throughout his life. Riyad us Saliheen is a general collection of the Sunnah from various sources all of the five, that basically gives you an overview of Islam after the Qur'an.

 

Of course, the Shia have their own collections of sooner, which are different than those of the Sunni. But, that starts getting into questions of Islamic Division, and I won't go there right now as it's quite a mess.

 

I basically agree with your statement. I think that the Quran is quite lovely, and the misinterpretations have resulted in all the disasters that Islam has faced. The same of course, can be said of the Bible. It's misinterpretation has resulted in quite a mess for Christianity. But, many religions have similar problems. Perhaps this is because religions are led ultimately by men. We hope they are Guided by God, we pray that they are Guided by God, and we really wish that they make the right decisions. But arrogance and unfortunately absolute Surety in what they believe result in, well, some disasters.

Please pardon the unusual paragraphing and capitalization of this post. I am doing this speech to text and therefore the results can be a little bit off. I look forward to hearing from you.

3

Greetings to you my brother,

 

Thank you for providing me with an explanation of the other books you had mentioned.  I will perhaps at some point read it.  But to be honest, I had a hard enough time getting thru the Qur'an.  In truth tho, there are parts of the Holy Bible I find difficult to read, so I guess this is something else the blessed Qur'an and the Holy Scriptures of my faith  have in common 

 

God is so great that any of the writings that we as humans deem to be inspired cannot possibly encompass all there is to know about the Creator of all things.  Indeed they are all inspired by God, but written for a people of a particular time and place, helping them to come to a relationship with God in ways that make sense to their culture and in ways they can understand.  When we insist that one of these writings contain all revelation, all knowledge of the Creator, we show our arrogance.  I see these books, as well as others that have been deemed as sacred in other faith traditions, as doors that open up and lead us all to different rooms, but in the same house.  A house where we are all a part of the same family, with the same parent who loves us and cares for us.  A parent who wants us to love each other as we are loved.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

i found it amusing when he told me he had a degree and knew more than i. assumptions, which diego accused johnathan of making.

 

[Key]

14 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

I'm sorry, but of any philosophers I know of, these arguments are viewed as possibilities in theory, not evidence. And it sounds to me that you, whether intentional or no, hold those with no class experience in philosophy as beneath you.

He made assumptions, and so did you. You felt insulted, despite a logical conclusion, though in error, and insulted in return, also based on a logical conclusion, also in error. Perspectives differ from one person to another, thereby assumptions may run rampant.

If misinterpretations are not your problem, then it shouldn't be theirs when you do, either.

I am not intending to attack or insult you, but rather giving you an outsider perspective.

But as I've seen in these threads, it doesn't seem to matter. Somehow you'll feel I did and respond as such. Thus creating only the feeling of dread of any communication. So, I'll bow out as well. It would seem more mature than to engage in schoolyard mudslinging, especially when I only sought to clarify another view.

[mererdog]

14 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

I have not found that to be the case. Of course, I tend to pay more attention to the people who quote Nietzche, Kant, and Humes than people who quote Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas, so there is an obvious bias there. Do you have any studies to back the claim, or are you just going by personal experience?

[mererdog]

14 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

No. It shows only that he is imperfect. Any assumption of ignorance or unintelligence is simply a result of bias.  And he fell for the association fallacy, not reductio ad absurdum. It is a sort of blind spot he has. It is, of course, also the fallacy that sees missing a shot as evidence of not knowing how to make a shot.

Edited August 26, 2017 by mererdog

[Diego_008]

7 minutes ago, Key said:

I'm sorry, but of any philosophers I know of, these arguments are viewed as possibilities in theory, not evidence. And it sounds to me that you, whether intentional or no, hold those with no class experience in philosophy as beneath you.

He made assumptions, and so did you. You felt insulted, despite a logical conclusion, though in error, and insulted in return, also based on a logical conclusion, also in error. Perspectives differ from one person to another, thereby assumptions may run rampant.

If misinterpretations are not your problem, then it shouldn't be theirs when you do, either.

I am not intending to attack or insult you, but rather giving you an outsider perspective.

But as I've seen in these threads, it doesn't seem to matter. Somehow you'll feel I did and respond as such. Thus creating only the feeling of dread of any communication. So, I'll bow out as well. It would seem more mature than to engage in schoolyard mudslinging, especially when I only sought to clarify another view.

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.

[Diego_008]

10 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I have not found that to be the case. Of course, I tend to pay more attention to the people who quote Nietzche, Kant, and Humes than people who quote Plato, Aristotle, or Aquinas, so there is an obvious bias there. Do you have any studies to back the claim, or are you just going by personal experience?

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.

[mererdog]

1 minute ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

That isn't what I said, nor is it what I meant. Why so hostile?