Christianity

[Harry Baird]

"Religions" contain a combination of truths and falsehoods

every "religion" or "philosophy" or "ideology" offers itself as truth.

Yep, so, basically, what Dubious said at the start.

Not at all. Just because somebody "offers something AS truth" doesn't mean it IS truth. Those are separate questions.

Dube thinks truth can depend on consensus. It never does.

*Facepalm*

[Immanuel Can]

First up: your dishonesty is very apparent.

AAaaaadddd Hominem!

Totally irrelevant to any of the truth claims offered. Off topic...and a little sad.

But, thirdly, and much more kindly, I don't view you in purely negative terms.

Hilarious, given what you've already just said.

As I wrote earlier, I think that you have a strong intellect, that you're well read, and that when the circumstances are right, you are capable of mounting very strong rational arguments. Here are some examples of this kinder perspective from my private correspondences from early in the thread when I was privately sharing my thoughts on it:

I have just finished page 6/258. Sentiments so far: Immanuel Can is making a good showing, and I'm cheering him on to an extent (he is at least the most productive participant)

Other comments: IC has correctly and perceptively pointed out some inconsistencies in his opponents' positions (esp. those of RCSaunders, which echoed the reasons why I skipped some of that guy's (gal's?) posts). IC is no doubt a smart guy, and a good debater, even though, as you know, I don't agree with him about everything.

Fair enough. At one time, you were more balanced and reasonable. However, apparently, you've now changed your view. I'm now the source of all evil, deception and malice...

I came in support of you, Harry. I have no idea why you went postal, and then said things that weren't true. But you did. And when I pointed them out, with exactly what you asked for (a direct quotation) you simply moved on and ignored the evidence right there in front of your eyes.

Interesting. Apparently you're in a twist about something...but I have no idea what it is.

Just wanted you to know that I'm not writing you off, man. You have plenty of good strengths and make plenty of valuable contributions.

Well, now, which part of this message am I supposed to believe? The start, or the finish?

[Harry Baird]

First up: your dishonesty is very apparent.

AAaaaadddd Hominem!

Oh dear. You mistake personal criticism for ad hominem. Personal criticism stands or falls on its own merits. Ad hominem is at least putatively a fallacy of reasoning, and, plausibly, not even a genuine one at that.

Pray tell: which fallacious argument do you propose me to have been mounting with my "ad hominem"?

[Immanuel Can]

Pray tell: which fallacious argument do you propose me to have been mounting with my "ad hominem"?

Am I wrong to say you're dismissing my claims on the basis of character assassination? Can you say that, even after I gave you the direct quotation proving that's what you'd done?

But if you're not using a smearing of my character in hopes of dismissing my claims, then why are you doing it? Are you doing it because it's a kind of recreation for you? Because then, it has no purpose. It's just a bunch of gratutious insults.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Interesting. Apparently you're in a twist about something...but I have no idea what it is.

I have an interesting comment, too. Most who encounter you and have exchanges with you seem to end up in a similar ‘twist’. Many seem to have similar complaints.

Why is this?

You have no idea what Harry’s criticism is yet I discern it plainly.

What is (really) going on here, according to you?

[Harry Baird]

Am I wrong to say you're dismissing my claims on the basis of character assassination?

Absolutely and unequivocally. It is, definitively, the other way around: I criticise you personally because your claims are so obviously wrong, and because, although you are perfectly capable of realising as much, you appear not to realise it.

Now, please read the contents at the link with which I provided you. Your understanding of "ad hominem" is weak and self-serving, and the reality of "ad hominem" as a fallacy is, potentially, itself fallacious (see the link).

[Immanuel Can]

Most who encounter you and have exchanges with you seem to end up in a similar ‘twist’.

I have not found this. Harry's twist is his own, I would say.

I get along rather well with a whole lot of people. At one time, even with you...before you became addicted to a hypothesis you couldn't abandon or reform, and then got all snitty when I refused to play along with your error.

I can't help that. I never insulted you. I just refused your hypothesis, and said you owed us to define "Christian" precisely. Others have made the same comment. But you don't seem to notice.

But hey, not everybody can take opposition, and not every thesis stands up to simple questions.

Still, making a controversy over a theory into a basis for personal antipathy is a sign of fragility and the vulnerability of the perp. So apparently, you're not nearly so secure in your theory as you want people to believe you are.

[Immanuel Can]

I criticise you personally because your claims are so obviously wrong,

That is also a form of the ad hominem error.

Whether you agree with my claims or not, my character is not at issue in any of those claims. It neither helps nor hurts the truth value of my claims if I am a good or bad person. I could be a near-total liar, and that would not reveal to you whether my claims on a particular occasion were true or false. Likewise, if I make an errant claim, that does not give you any warrant to impugn my character. It's petty.

So yeah, ad hominem.

[Harry Baird]

Harry's twist is his own, I would say.

I have no "twist". I see as clearly as I can, and what I see is your twist. And that seeing is not merely my own. It appears that at least that Dubious and AJ have directly indicated to me since I joined this thread that they see eye to eye with me. Others have indicated as much though not directly (not surprisingly, as I have only recently entered this thread).

I get along rather well with a whole lot of people.

I'd like to hope that we can get along well too, although of course it is rather more difficult given my critique.

I [...] said [that AJ] owed us to define "Christian" precisely.

I agree with you. AJ has a vague and wishy-washy definition of Christianity, to the extent that it even exists. He really ought to clarify it. Your definition, in contrast, is admirably clear and plausible.

[Harry Baird]

I criticise you personally because your claims are so obviously wrong,

That is also a form of the ad hominem error.

Yeah, you still don't understand what ad hominem is, do you? It's (purportedly - again, read the link with which I supplied you) a fallacy of argumentation.

I'm not arguing, though, I'm criticising you personally.

You might not like to be personally criticised; you might strenuously object to it - but that doesn't turn that personal criticism into a logical fallacy. Wise up, dude.

Whether you agree with my claims or not, my character is not at issue in any of those claims.

Exactly. And I have not once asserted that it is. And so, we have here another straw man.

When a person constructs all too many straw men, then it's reasonable to personally criticise him for it.

Get it yet?

[uwot]

In my view this is an important revelation about what Plato believed.

And in many better informed views, it is a forgery. Who knows?

When I read what you write I recognize in you a man completely tied up in discursive ideas.

Uh-huh. Such as?

That is what philosophy is, for you -- the handling of and the domination if ideas.

I've been explicit and consistent. Philosophy, for me -- is story telling.

...I think it would be a struggle for you to gain any appreciation (or perhaps respect) for these modalities and traditions, yet if you were to do so you would I think better understand an important and influential trend not only in the Occident but as one modality that arises for man. The turn inward . . .

And risk becoming more like you? No thanks Gus.

[Immanuel Can]

Dubious and AJ

Dube is almost exclusively wrong. He's an absolute master of that. And his skin is only half a layer deep. As for AJ, he's addicted to a theory upon which I pushed him to provide a definition, and that made him irate. But he's got a huge hole in his pet theory, and doesn't like that I pointed it out. I can't help him with that. I regret that he's become snitty about it, but it wasn't my choice.

Now, I have people I disagree with and can be totally agreeable with. Gary is one: the guy probably doesn't agree with me on more than one or two issues, at most. And he's often quite abrupt, and even says things against God. But he's an honest man. I talk to him straight, and I respect him. When others have attacked him, I have defended him. We don't need to agree, in order to treat each other well. Or take Henry...I like the guy a ton, personally...but he's notoriously taciturn (and funny), and has different metaphysical views than I have. No problem. I've never made agreement with me a condition of civil treatment, or even friendship. Some people just don't like to be civil, though, and they mistake personal insults for arguments, and arguments for personal attacks. I have little time for either. And I can multiply the cases.

In sum, I would say I have the right friends here. And I have the right adversaries. And I'm quite pleased with that. It's exactly what one should hope.

I get along rather well with a whole lot of people.

I'd like to hope that we can get along well too, although of course it is rather more difficult given my critique.

It's easy. Just don't get personal, and we'll get along fine. You don't have to agree with me. In fact, your more interesting if at least sometimes you don't.

I [...] said [that AJ] owed us to define "Christian" precisely.

I agree with you. AJ has a vague and wishy-washy definition of Christianity, to the extent that it even exists. He really ought to clarify it. Your definition, in contrast, is admirably clear and plausible.

Well, now...look at that. We're getting along well again.

[Harry Baird]

As for AJ, he's addicted to a theory upon which I pushed him to provide a definition [...] [H]e's got a huge hole in his pet theory

I am very curious as to your elaboration on this. What, in your view, is AJ's (pet) theory, how has he failed to define it, and what is the hole in it?

Now, I have people I disagree with and can be totally agreeable with.

If you can accept (biting) criticism, then perhaps you and I can engage in a dynamic of this sort.

It's easy. Just don't get personal, and we'll get along fine.

I can't make that promise. Sometimes, it's appropriate to call out personal failings. Maybe we can get along anyhow?

You don't have to agree with me. In fact, your more interesting if at least sometimes you don't.

Likewise. We learn from disagreements... but there are limits.

I [...] said [that AJ] owed us to define "Christian" precisely.

I agree with you. AJ has a vague and wishy-washy definition of Christianity, to the extent that it even exists. He really ought to clarify it. Your definition, in contrast, is admirably clear and plausible.

Well, now...look at that. We're getting along well again.

Yep, just so long as you and AJ recognise that it's not clear-cut. Sometimes I'm going to side with one of you; at other times with the other. I have to reveal up front though that if the answer you failed to explicitly provide to my direct question is, "Yes, I am a Biblical literalist", then I'm going to be siding a lot more with AJ than with you.

[Immanuel Can]

As for AJ, he's addicted to a theory upon which I pushed him to provide a definition [...] [H]e's got a huge hole in his pet theory

I am very curious as to your elaboration on this. What, in your view, is AJ's (pet) theory, how has he failed to define it, and what is the hole in it?

Oh, we just talked about that.

He has a theory that "Christianity" is a culture, a Western European culture, associated with basically everything everybody who ever used the word "Christian" ever said or did. And he thinks we've lost this culture, and somehow are going to rejeuvenate the West by reclaiming something from it.

That's why I've been after him to define his most important term, "Christian." But he won't. It's almost as if he loves the flexibility it gives him, to be able to theorize about everything and nothing in particular at the same time. He seems irritated at the very idea he should have to say what he means, as if he supposes there's some kind of universal definition of "Christian" that everybody already agrees on, so he shouldn't have to do that.

Now, I have people I disagree with and can be totally agreeable with.

If you can accept (biting) criticism, then perhaps you and I can engage in a dynamic of this sort.

Why "bite"? It's pointless.
Be as oppositional and skeptical as you want...that's why I'm here. If I wanted fawning agreement, this isn't the right website.

But there's no reason to get personal, or insulting, or assassinate character, or put irrelevant things into a normal discussion. Avoid that, and we're good...whether you agree with me or not.

It's easy. Just don't get personal, and we'll get along fine.

I can't make that promise. Sometimes, it's appropriate to call out personal failings. Maybe we can get along anyhow?

"Personal failings" are on a different website. You can probably find one, I'm sure. This one's about propositions, arguments, evidence, proof, rationality, and so on. So let's just stick with the claims and counterclaims, and we'll be good.

You don't have to agree with me. In fact, your more interesting if at least sometimes you don't.

Likewise. We learn from disagreements... but there are limits.

Yes: they have to be reasoned and relevant. If they're not, then they're beyond the limits of the useful for anyone.

... if the answer you failed to explicitly provide to my direct question is, "Yes, I am a Biblical literalist", then I'm going to be siding a lot more with AJ than with you.

You'd better define "literalist," then. It means a bunch of different things, depending on who uses it.

[uwot]

...I'm going to be siding a lot more with AJ than with you.

Well, duh!