Diego_008

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, mererdog said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, mererdog said:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

"Threads" does appear to be wrong, perhaps I should have said posts. As for "proofs", you said "evidence" which implies 100 percent to most people's perspective. An assumption you fail to clarify.

Whether philosophy discusses theory or not, it can be viewed as theory until conclusive evidence is provided. Of course, you'll disagree.

Explaining simple logic is part of dialogue and debate. If you find it silly, then don't engage.

How would you know when dealing with "some people who should know better" if you don't know those people, anyway? Never mind, that's asking to explain more silly logic.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Key said:

"Threads" does appear to be wrong, perhaps I should have said posts. As for "proofs", you said "evidence" which implies 100 percent to most people's perspective. An assumption you fail to clarify.

Whether philosophy discusses theory or not, it can be viewed as theory until conclusive evidence is provided. Of course, you'll disagree.

Explaining simple logic is part of dialogue and debate. If you find it silly, then don't engage.

How would you know when dealing with "some people who should know better" if you don't know those people, anyway? Never mind, that's asking to explain more silly logic.

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.

Edited by Diego_008

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Diego_008 said:

I did not say anything hostile.

Your phrasing is aggressively combative. This is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of communication and the common usage of language. If it is not your intention to be combative, I suggest putting some thought into your tone.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, mererdog said:

Your phrasing is aggressively combative. This is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of communication and the common usage of language. If it is not your intention to be combative, I suggest putting some thought into your tone.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Key said:

"Threads" does appear to be wrong, perhaps I should have said posts. As for "proofs", you said "evidence" which implies 100 percent to most people's perspective. An assumption you fail to clarify.

Whether philosophy discusses theory or not, it can be viewed as theory until conclusive evidence is provided. Of course, you'll disagree.

Explaining simple logic is part of dialogue and debate. If you find it silly, then don't engage.

How would you know when dealing with "some people who should know better" if you don't know those people, anyway? Never mind, that's asking to explain more silly logic.

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.

Edited by Diego_008

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

This forum is for persons 13+ NOT an adult site!

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, edcrain said:

This forum is for persons 13+ NOT an adult site!

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

For someone who hates people making any assumptions, you certainly do a lot yourself.

You think God taps only the educated to serve? You might be bettter versed at scripture or even more educated, but so what?

Christ was far more versed at scripture than his disciples and those He ministered to, the poor, and infirmed (which could also imply uneducated in those times). He taught and persisted to teach even when He seemed exasperated to perform miracles or answer questions.

Not everyone who comes here is extensively educated on philosophy, psychology, or even religion, and so on. But here they are. To learn and support each other.

Here's an idea: make THAT an assumption and educate and share as Christ did.

I can't fathom from your tone that you speak to adults much. Come off your high horse, lest God have you be struck from it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Diego_008 said:

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.

It is only illogical in the extreme to have extensive education and not share knowledge.

This isn't an exclusive Oxford scholars club, in case you didn't realize.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Key said:

For someone who hates people making any assumptions, you certainly do a lot yourself.

You think God taps only the educated to serve? You might be bettter versed at scripture or even more educated, but so what?

Christ was far more versed at scripture than his disciples and those He ministered to, the poor, and infirmed (which could also imply uneducated in those times). He taught and persisted to teach even when He seemed exasperated to perform miracles or answer questions.

Not everyone who comes here is extensively educated on philosophy, psychology, or even religion, and so on. But here they are. To learn and support each other.

Here's an idea: make THAT an assumption and educate and share as Christ did.

I can't fathom from your tone that you speak to adults much. Come off your high horse, lest God have you be struck from it.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Key said:

It is only illogical in the extreme to have extensive education and not share knowledge.

This isn't an exclusive Oxford scholars club, in case you didn't realize.

Sharing knowledge with a young person is fine. Engaging in learned debate with someone unequipped to do so is not.

Share this post


Link to post

As I have no need to stroke an ego, to flaunt any degree in education, nor to parry haughty expressions of contempt and condescension, I will now truly take my leave of this discussion and present you with the last word, as you seem to need it.

I'll observe and withhold any judgments from your view to ease your mind. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/24/2017 at 4:31 PM, Diego_008 said:

No. But with a degree in Philosophy, I DO know how Aristotelian Logic, and Basic Symbolic Logic, both work. But good luck to you.

Wouldn't that be argumentum ad verecundiam, also called the appeal to authority, setting yourself up to be the authority?

First off, I don't think anyone here has seen your said degree. Secondly, even if you do have said degree that doesn't make you an authority.

Are you published? If so where can I read some of your works?

I don't think I've seen anyone tick so many members of this forum off in so little time. Even the highly obnoxious Gnostic Bishop took longer than four days.

I've said what I came to say, you may now continue with your I'm Holier than all of you, I'm smarter than all of you, I'm more educated than all of you expression of your greatness.

Carry on.

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

Wouldn't that be argumentum ad verecundiam, also called the appeal to authority, setting yourself up to be the authority?

First off, I don't think anyone here has seen your said degree. Secondly, even if you do have said degree that doesn't make you an authority.

Are you published? If so where can I read some of your works?

I don't think I've seen anyone tick so many members of this forum off in so little time. Even the highly obnoxious Gnostic Bishop took longer than four days.

I've said what I came to say, you may now continue with your I'm Holier than all of you, I'm smarter than all of you, I'm more educated than all of you expression of your greatness.

Carry on.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Key said:

As I have no need to stroke an ego, to flaunt any degree in education, nor to parry haughty expressions of contempt and condescension, I will now truly take my leave of this discussion and present you with the last word, as you seem to need it.

I'll observe and withhold any judgments from your view to ease your mind. Enjoy.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/25/2017 at 6:53 PM, Rev. Calli said:

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

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.