My idea of everything

[sthitapragya]

If you see above, you will find that he and I have been in a slanging match since the last three days calling each other names. That is hardly the mark of a good philosopher, is it?

Well, Popper and Wittgenstein, for example, were extremely good philosophers, but that didn't stop them bickering.

Okay, I can give you that. But wouldn't a good philosopher have just gone about proving me wrong? I claim that discussions on religion is not philosophy. All he had to do was say why I was wrong. Then I might have argued his argument and so on and we could have slowly devolved into bickering. But the first response of a good philosopher would be to address the flaw in the argument.

[uwot]

...wouldn't a good philosopher have just gone about proving me wrong?

Maybe, but as you point out, Immanuel Can is not a good philosopher.

I claim that discussions on religion is not philosophy.

All philosophy is at heart is storytelling. We are all exposed to more or less the same phenomena, and we all try to make sense of them. The thing that distinguishes philosophical discussions is their adherence to logic. Religious philosophy is just that philosophy which takes as a premise 'God exists'. There are philosophical arguments that aim to support that belief, but none of them hold water. Philosophy of religion includes questions like 'Why on Earth do people believe this claptrap?'

.All he had to do was say why I was wrong. Then I might have argued his argument and so on and we could have slowly devolved into bickering. But the first response of a good philosopher would be to address the flaw in the argument.

I agree, but then the flaws in Immanuel Can's reasoning have been pointed out at length, and he has yet to address them. He is not a good philosopher.

[Immanuel Can]

If you see above, you will find that he and I have been in a slanging match since the last three days calling each other names. That is hardly the mark of a good philosopher, is it?

Well, that's not my perception of it. Perhaps you can remind me...what "name" did I call you? I can think of none. Maybe you can quote me, and if I have offered you a single personal epithet of any kind, I will most certainly retract and apologize.

But actually, I don't think you'll find I've done it.

A good philosopher would simply have taken me up on my claim that discussion on religion is not philosophy and set about explaining to me why I was wrong and how discussions or religion could be considered philosophy. All I got was a tirade against atheists.

Interesting. You say you "can't do philosophy," but now tell us you know what it is and how it ought to be done. No remark: I just find it curious.

I think, though, that your comment about your absence of abilities need not remain applicable, if you prefer it not to be. At one time we all had to learn the rules of rational discussion, the structure of logic, the necessity of avoiding fallacies, the difference between discussing ideas and insulting persons, and the principle of charity, the goals of philosophical discussion...and so forth.

These are not difficult concepts, and if you're interested I see no reason why you couldn't become a philosopher. You could perceive discussion of religious ideologies to be inevitably stuck at the level of prejudice and preference, or you could perceive it as capable of reasons.

So why set the bar so low for yourself? Why not entertain the possibility that one day you could be, and take the methods of philosophy more to heart? You might find you like it. And there's no doubt you'd find yourself getting much further in your knowledge that way.

It's the road we've all been down. It's a good one. Why not try?

[sthitapragya]

These are not difficult concepts, and if you're interested I see no reason why you couldn't become a philosopher. You could perceive discussion of religious ideologies to be inevitably stuck at the level of prejudice and preference, or you could perceive it as capable of reasons.

That is pretty much impossible. I think discussions on religion cannot be structured on logic. And I am not getting into this argument with YOU because I have seen yours. So I spend my time reading quietly on the other topics and contributing in some.

So why set the bar so low for yourself? Why not entertain the possibility that one day you could be, and take the methods of philosophy more to heart? You might find you like it. And there's no doubt you'd find yourself getting much further in your knowledge that way.

How would you know? You are in the same boat as I am. The only difference is I know I not one.

[uwot]

Perhaps you can remind me...what "name" did I call you? I can think of none. Maybe you can quote me, and if I have offered you a single personal epithet of any kind, I will most certainly retract and apologize.

But actually, I don't think you'll find I've done it.

Irrational.

[Immanuel Can]

That is pretty much impossible. I think discussions on religion cannot be structured on logic.

Then I suppose you're right: no progress is possible.

You are in the same boat as I am. The only difference is I know I not one

.
This is you second major incorrect assumption about me. (Really, you desperately need to look up that thing called an "ad hominem." It's an error you make constantly in this conversation -- here it is again.) However, the truth need not be begged, and absent any recourse to logic, there's no way I can convince you of anything...at least, not by posting. I must suppose that you conclude that there's no use for logic there's no danger in fallacies either. I disagree, of course. So does standard philosophical consensus, as you will see if you look up ad hominem.

So long as you are intransigent about the possibility of using logic to understand "religion," there is no likelihood of you entering into any deeper understanding; for there's no mechanism by which you could...you've cut yourself off from your best option. Of course, you are free to choose that.

But think about it...you could do better.

Be well.

[sthitapragya]

You are in the same boat as I am. The only difference is I know I not one

.
This is you second major incorrect assumption about me. (Really, you desperately need to look up that thing called an "ad hominem." It's an error you make constantly in this conversation -- here it is again.) However, the truth need not be begged, and absent any recourse to logic, there's no way I can convince you of anything...at least, not by posting. I must suppose that you conclude that there's no use for logic there's no danger in fallacies either. I disagree, of course. So does standard philosophical consensus, as you will see if you look up ad hominem.

So long as you are intransigent about the possibility of using logic to understand "religion," there is no likelihood of you entering into any deeper understanding; for there's no mechanism by which you could...you've cut yourself off from your best option. Of course, you are free to choose that.

But think about it...you could do better.

Be well.

It's not an ad hominem if it is a fact. You don't do philosophy.

And logic cannot be used to understand religious belief. What one believer believes differs from what others believe. You cannot agree on anything. How can that be logical? You believe in a god that is unknowable. How is that logical? The answer is, you have to feeeeeeeeeel it. That's not logic. You cannot even lay down on paper what you actually believe. If you can, and if you put it up, then maybe we can have a logical argument about your beliefs. You are a Christian. You still believe only some of the Bible. You also believe some of the old testament. You have never told me exactly what you believe and what you don't. There does not appear to be any logic to it. You will suggest there is logic, but I can only argue if I know exactly what you ignore and what you don't. But you refuse to do that.

It's basically a hodge podge of your own creation. Decide what you believe first. Then we might be able to discuss if there is any logic to it or not.

[Hobbes' Choice]

That is pretty much impossible. I think discussions on religion cannot be structured on logic.

Then I suppose you're right: no progress is possible.
.

No this means that progress IS possible.
Progress only happens when traditions can be challenged,

[Immanuel Can]

So let's see...you've called me unphilosophical, phobic, Atheist-hating, white, British, imperialist...

But I'M the bigot.

Then you invite me to proceed with conversation. Unfortunately, I really don't think we have enough goodwill coming from your side to do it.

As you will recall, I wrote to you:

Well, that's not my perception of it. Perhaps you can remind me...what "name" did I call you? I can think of none. Maybe you can quote me, and if I have offered you a single personal epithet of any kind, I will most certainly retract and apologize.

But actually, I don't think you'll find I've done it.

I'm still waiting for that quotation. If you'd gone looking and found one, you'd have quoted it. In fact, even if you knew of one off the top of your head, you'd have cited it. But I suspect you know that any investigation of the transcript would be an arduous and unrewarding process for you. So you didn't bother.

Had you bothered, no doubt you'd have seen dozens of insults -- including the (inadvertent?) insult to all Indians of saying they would not be capable of speaking in a particular way. But you'd have found that a'll those insults were your own products, not mine.

And had you been able to find one case of me floating such a name at you, you would have gotten the apology I promised -- even if I'd only accidentally done it.

But your silence shows you found nothing. (Again, if I'm wrong you should have no trouble proving it to yourself: the whole transcript is on this record.)

The abusive talk between us has been unilateral. That's what you'll find. So if the discussion became debased, you don't have to look farther than home to know who did that. But it's not the kind of discussion that is useful to continue. For you declare ardently that you will hate "religion" for no reason, embrace ad hominems , regard personal attacks as somehow informative, and refuse logic as a basis: and where logic is denied, even as a potential problem solver, there is no possibility of philosophy...or wisdom.

Rhetoric is boring. And the thought of competing to see who can insult the other more extravagantly seems quite pointless to me. So I'll decline your offer, thank you. I would prefer a conversation that has at least a remote chance of becoming philosophical. However, your declared antipathy to logic makes that inconceivable.

When you change that view, you may find you are actually a philosopher. I hope so, because it's a good thing to be. But under the conditions of discourse you lay out -- essentially that we should insult each other, not do philosophy, and that logic should not enter the discussion because it's "religion" we're talking about, you've made that impossible.

So I can say no more than this: be well.

[Immanuel Can]

Progress only happens when traditions can be challenged,

Agreed. But they have to be challenged by means of logic, evidence, reasons and a mutually-charitable dialogue. He's declared he's uninterested in any of the standard philosophical tools. And that means he just wants to rant against "religion," without any method of resolution in hand.

I can't be bothered.

[uwot]

But they have to be challenged by means of logic, evidence, reasons and a mutually-charitable dialogue.

Uh huh. And you think calling all atheists 'hard' atheists and irrational is charitable?

[sthitapragya]

So let's see...you've called me unphilosophical, phobic, Atheist-hating, white, British, imperialist...

But I'M the bigot.

Nope. Not necessarily British. Not imperialist. But definitely white and American Christian. Not a white American. A white American Christian. You see, there is something about the white American Christian that stands out miles away. Tell me I am wrong. Tell me you are not a white American Christian. You might not be one of those who forwards the Amen posts on facebook because you are too sophisticated for that. But basically the same category. There are other white American Christians who are different. More understanding and caring. But you are the sophisticated brother of the facebook amen guys.

Well, that's not my perception of it. Perhaps you can remind me...what "name" did I call you? I can think of none. Maybe you can quote me, and if I have offered you a single personal epithet of any kind, I will most certainly retract and apologize.

That is the problem. There is no single thing you say. You are too sophisticated for that. It is the gist of what you say. The generalizations you make about atheists. They all point to me too. That is the name calling I am talking about.

But actually, I don't think you'll find I've done it.

Nope. I am not a good enough lawyer for that.

I'm still waiting for that quotation. If you'd gone looking and found one, you'd have quoted it. In fact, even if you knew of one off the top of your head, you'd have cited it. But I suspect you know that any investigation of the transcript would be an arduous and unrewarding process for you. So you didn't bother.

There is no quotation. your bigotry comes out in what you write.

Had you bothered, no doubt you'd have seen dozens of insults -- including the (inadvertent?) insult to all Indians of saying they would not be capable of speaking in a particular way. But you'd have found that a'll those insults were your own products, not mine.

I will repeat. Indian Christians cannot talk the contemptuous way you do. It is not possible for them.

And had you been able to find one case of me floating such a name at you, you would have gotten the apology I promised -- even if I'd only accidentally done it.

There are no accidents.

But your silence shows you found nothing. (Again, if I'm wrong you should have no trouble proving it to yourself: the whole transcript is on this record.)

My silence is simply because we are still bickering over petty issues which you seem to consider to be philosophy.

The abusive talk between us has been unilateral. That's what you'll find. So if the discussion became debased, you don't have to look farther than home to know who did that. But it's not the kind of discussion that is useful to continue. For you declare ardently that you will hate "religion" for no reason, embrace ad hominems , regard personal attacks as somehow informative, and refuse logic as a basis: and where logic is denied, even as a potential problem solver, there is no possibility of philosophy...or wisdom.

Again. It is a matter of perspective. You may not have the guts to tell me to my face what you think of me, so you couch it in your general attack on atheists. I call it as I see it. You are a religious bigot.

Rhetoric is boring.

My language is not good enough to be called rhetoric. For that you will have to look in a mirror.

And the thought of competing to see who can insult the other more extravagantly seems quite pointless to me. So I'll decline your offer, thank you. I would prefer a conversation that has at least a remote chance of becoming philosophical. However, your declared antipathy to logic makes that inconceivable.

That can never happen with you. You don't do philosophy.

When you change that view, you may find you are actually a philosopher. I hope so, because it's a good thing to be. But under the conditions of discourse you lay out -- essentially that we should insult each other, not do philosophy, and that logic should not enter the discussion because it's "religion" we're talking about, you've made that impossible.

So I can say no more than this: be well.

I can never be a philosopher till I am discussing religion. The two don't meet. That is why I am comfortable here. That is why I do what I do. I argue. I have not yet philosophized because it is impossible when discussing religion. And neither can you. It is simply not possible to philosophize about something where logic and reason have to be put aside. The sooner you accept that the better.

Oh and if you were a philosopher, this is my argument you would have focused on instead of the boohoo you wronged me post you put up :

"And logic cannot be used to understand religious belief. What one believer believes differs from what others believe. You cannot agree on anything. How can that be logical? You believe in a god that is unknowable. How is that logical? The answer is, you have to feeeeeeeeeel it. That's not logic. You cannot even lay down on paper what you actually believe. If you can, and if you put it up, then maybe we can have a logical argument about your beliefs. You are a Christian. You still believe only some of the Bible. You also believe some of the old testament. You have never told me exactly what you believe and what you don't. There does not appear to be any logic to it. You will suggest there is logic, but I can only argue if I know exactly what you ignore and what you don't. But you refuse to do that.

It's basically a hodge podge of your own creation. Decide what you believe first. Then we might be able to discuss if there is any logic to it or not"

But as expected, you ignored that part."boohoo, you wronged me" was more important to you.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Progress only happens when traditions can be challenged,

Agreed. But they have to be challenged by means of logic, evidence, reasons and a mutually-charitable dialogue. He's declared he's uninterested in any of the standard philosophical tools. And that means he just wants to rant against "religion," without any method of resolution in hand.

I can't be bothered.

When you have religion; "logic, evidence, reasons and a mutually-charitable dialogue." is null and void because religion is based on unfounded and unverifiable assumptions and premises, and so even if your reasoning, and logic is rock solid all your conclusions are meaningless. Even what evidence you have, poor as it is, is gathered with the assumption of god, and is not valuable for that reason.

[Immanuel Can]

When you have religion; "logic, evidence, reasons and a mutually-charitable dialogue." is null and void because religion is based on unfounded and unverifiable assumptions and premises, and so even if your reasoning, and logic is rock solid all your conclusions are meaningless. Even what evidence you have, poor as it is, is gathered with the assumption of god, and is not valuable for that reason.

Actually, I entirely understand. You're just channelling precisely what I said earlier about Atheism: it has nothing to say about "religion," because it assumes that Philosophy of Religion must be roughly equivalent to "Philosophy of Superstition." It thinks there's nothing to discuss.

So what is any Atheist doing here? It can only be blowing smoke. It can't be for any serious philosophical exercise -- just as you said above.

But then, why are they here? Why would they not go to, say "Political Philosophy," or "Aesthetics," or "Philosophy of Sport," for that matter? For they freely admit there's nothing to really know about the subject, and they claim philosophy, reasons and evidence can have no part in it anyway; so why hang around and bullyrag people who believe in it? Why not just flick their teeth and walk away, disgusted and indifferent to all the people (about 92% of the world, at the moment) who happen to remain at least nominally "religious"?

Answer: they can't leave it alone, because Atheists are not nearly so secure as they try to self-present as being. They doubt their disbelief constantly, and (I think with justification) are terrified they're actually wrong. So only a continual torrent of resistance and abuse of all things "religious," and Christianity and Judaism in specific, keeps them from the grip of Atheistic angst. They know they're blowing smoke: so they blow a whole lot of it. Eventually, they hope, they will be able to believe their own nonsense; they just have to repeat it fervently enough, and with sufficiently powerful incantations of oaths.

Sociologist Peter Berger talks about this practice. He calls it "worldview maintenance." The Atheist worldview cannot be maintained without continual servicing by the chanted mantras of Atheism, like "Belief in God is irrational," "Religious people are crackpots," and the one you suggest above: "Religion has no evidence." Left to its own quiet concerns, Atheism quickly becomes fearful and lonely. Any vigour it has at all is derived from maintaining its tense hatred of Theism.

In this connection, I love the Atheist bus campaign in England: "Don't worry: there's probably no God," it says. That's funny. "Don't worry...this elevator will probably not plunge to the basement and kill you." "Don't worry...the tiger's probably not hungry." "Don't worry...some grenades are duds..."

And yet, what could be more serious -- the presence of a hungry tiger, the prospect of being blown to bits by a grenade, or the real, impending presence of a Judging God who has been insulted, scorned and rejected by the very people He created, and defied to do anything about it? Where's the real cause for terror on the part of the Atheist?

I'm opting for the latter.

Good luck keeping up the ol' worldview. It's going to be a lifelong activity.

[Hobbes' Choice]

When you have religion; "logic, evidence, reasons and a mutually-charitable dialogue." is null and void because religion is based on unfounded and unverifiable assumptions and premises, and so even if your reasoning, and logic is rock solid all your conclusions are meaningless. Even what evidence you have, poor as it is, is gathered with the assumption of god, and is not valuable for that reason.

Actually, I entirely understand. You're just channelling precisely what I said earlier about Atheism: it has nothing to say about "religion," because it assumes that Philosophy of Religion must be roughly equivalent to "Philosophy of Superstition." It thinks there's nothing to discuss.

So what is any Atheist doing here? It can only be blowing smoke. It can't be for any serious philosophical exercise -- just as you said above.
.

yes and I told you that atheism is not a religion but you stubbornly refused to admit that.