Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:31 am What I stated are researched evidence, i.e.
1. The atrophy of neurons with age.

You mean like Ben Franklin or Albert Einstein? Yeah, that old age thing's a real problem.

If your studies are any good, then they show that things like information management, general comprehension, mathematical skills and logic peak at around 50, and vocabulary at 60. While skills like visual searching and object assembly peak well before 30, (think of teens and video game skills) the very skills needed for philosophy are at their peak much later in life, as you can see.

But all of that is merely average. What you need to prove is that Flew was senile. For that, you have not one stroke of evidence. Moreover, you won't even read his book because you're so afraid you'll find the truth -- that you are completely wrong about his mental condition.

Interestingly, Flew said he became an Atheist at age 15. If I remember correctly, Richard Dawkins made the same decision at the ripe old age of 17. Just how intelligent and mature are you going to suppose these decisions were? How cerebral can a 15 year old be? But are we to conclude that the reason people become Atheists is that they are immature? We have no proof that Flew's decision to be a Deist was a product of dementia; but we have definite evidence that his decision to be an Atheist was childish.

Flew himself said, and I quote: "“My discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.”

He also wrote, "“Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.”

Are you going to tell me that these are the blatherings of a senile mind? Seriously? Does it look like that to you?

Read the book... you'll know you're wrong.

Show me where I am wrong in the above.

Just did.

Keikegaard wrote anonymously thus one need to understand the existential psychology beyond what is literal in "Fear and Trembling."

You need to read the book in order to talk about it. I have.

Btw, Keikegaard is regarded as one of the founder of existential psychology.

No. Existential philosophy...and theology. He was not a psychologist.

My advice is that you don't bluff...especially when you're arguing with somebody who has the books on hand, and has read them.

You have not countered any of my arguments above.
What I stated is fact or are supported with evidence.

I did state Flew was senile.
The principle is the most intelligent person can do the most stupid thing, e.g. believe in a God that is illusory.

Re Keikegaard an existential psychology,

• Existential therapy developed out of the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard. As one of the first existential philosophers, Kierkegaard theorized that human discontent could only be overcome through internal wisdom.
  https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about ... chotherapy

You will find Kierkegaard is mentioned in every article on what is Existential Psychology.

We have no proof that Flew's decision to be a Deist was a product of dementia; but we have definite evidence that his decision to be an Atheist was childish.

This the worst case of the generalization fallacy, that adopting a belief when as a teenager mean that is childish.

The fact is the majority of theists [90% of 7+ billion] acknowledged their theism when they were young.
If by your argument then they are childish?

For a young person to be able recognized himself to be [a]theist, indicate their high rational ability to differentiate what is real by reasoning from what is belief based on faith, i.e. without reason nor proof.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:44 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:17 pm As for the roots of Islamic terrorism, I think it is worth considering the relationship between Israel and the West, and history back to the Crusades.

Unfortunately you are very ignorant of the ethos of the ideology of Islam.

A claim you have no evidence for. I know much more about Islam than you do.
I do not get my information from the back of cereal packets.

Thus you don't have any reasonable credibility to counter my justified and substantiated views on Islam.

The Daily Mirror

ROLF
I do not read comic books.
Do be serious!!!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:44 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:17 pm As for the roots of Islamic terrorism, I think it is worth considering the relationship between Israel and the West, and history back to the Crusades.

Unfortunately you are very ignorant of the ethos of the ideology of Islam.

A claim you have no evidence for. I know much more about Islam than you do.
I do not get my information from the back of cereal packets.

You claim is not evident at all as I have not read of a single quote of the Quran from you.

If you claim you know more about Islam than I do, then tell me what sort of research you have done with the 6236 verses of the Quran and Islam.

1. As a reference, I spent 3 years on full-time basis [6-7 hours a day] reading and analyzing each of the 6236 verses of the Quran, plus part-time thereafter till the present.
2. I studied very basic Arabic and its grammar.
3. I have access to >50 English translations of the Quran.
4. I put the 6236 verses of the Quran in one column in Microsoft Excel and analyze each verse in terms of 1400++ categories.
5. From the above analysis I have extracted the main theme of the Quran and Islam
6. I have read tons of secondary sources to the Quran and Islam from Islamic experts, etc.

Thus you don't have any reasonable credibility to counter my justified and substantiated views on Islam.

The Daily Mirror

ROLF
I do not read comic books.
Do be serious!!!

I understand 'The Daily Mirror' itself is questionable, but in this case, the reference is to the source, i.e. the Magazine published by I.S.I.S and I have confirmed this point to verses in the words of Allah in the Quran.
In this case, I am not relying exclusively on the 'The Daily Mirror.'

If "The Daily Mirror" mentioned a quote from the Quran which relate to something critical, then I will read up the Quran to confirm whether it is true or not.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:44 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:44 am
Unfortunately you are very ignorant of the ethos of the ideology of Islam.

A claim you have no evidence for. I know much more about Islam than you do.
I do not get my information from the back of cereal packets.

You claim is not evident at all as I have not read of a single quote of the Quran from you.

Islam does not rely on just the Koran. It follows the entire body of knowledge of the scholarship through the centuries known as the Hadith.
Muslims realise that the Koran was written of its time, and not intended for literal interpretation in perpetuity.
So unlike fundamentalists and literalists most Muslims rely on the teaching of their modern imams who urge the compliance with the Five Pillars.
None of these pillars exhort violence to anyone.
And that is why 1.8 billion Muslims are peaceful, and that is also why you are an ignorant git.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:44 am 4. I put the 6236 verses of the Quran in one column in Microsoft Excel and analyze each verse in terms of 1400++ categories.

Upload the document. I want to see how you came up with 1400++ categories.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:07 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:44 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:42 am
A claim you have no evidence for. I know much more about Islam than you do.
I do not get my information from the back of cereal packets.

You claim is not evident at all as I have not read of a single quote of the Quran from you.

Islam does not rely on just the Koran. It follows the entire body of knowledge of the scholarship through the centuries known as the Hadith.
Muslims realise that the Koran was written of its time, and not intended for literal interpretation in perpetuity.
So unlike fundamentalists and literalists most Muslims rely on the teaching of their modern imams who urge the compliance with the Five Pillars.
None of these pillars exhort violence to anyone.
And that is why 1.8 billion Muslims are peaceful, and that is also why you are an ignorant git.

You are really ignorant on Islam.

The Quran is the sole and final authority of Islam.
The 6236 verses of the Quran is delivered directly is pristine form via angel Gabriel to Muhammad.

• Ḥadīth , pl. Aḥādīth, أحاديث, ʼaḥādīth[3] Arabic pronunciation: [ʔaħadiːθ], also "Traditions") in Islam refers to the record of the words, actions, and the silent approval of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. [4] and within that religion the authority of hadith as a source for religious law and moral guidance ranks second only to that of the Qur'an.

The flimsy argument for the acceptance of the hadith is dependent on certain verses where Allah commanded 'Obey Allah and his Messenger' which is rhetorical twisted to mean whatever Muhammad's words, action and presumptions.
As such there are some hadith that recommend Muslims how they should step into the bathroom and urinated like Muhammad, plus other stupid actions.
That is not what Allah meant by 'Obey Allah and his Messenger' which is limited to what Muhammad did in accordance to the Quran and not his personal whims and actions.

The Ahadith are the recordings by whoever of whatever was supposedly spoken, acted and presumed by Muhammad.
One set of genuine Ahadith was Bukhari 7000++ hadiths which was personally filtered by Bukhari from 700,000 records by tom, dick and harry. And this was done 200 years after the death of Muhammad. Use your common sense and judge whether such a process of confirming genuine hadiths can be reliable or not.
The same process is applied to the other sets of Ahadith.

If you read the Ahadith, you will find many of them are very very stupid, irrational, very violent [more than the Quran] and just terrible.

This is why I always state, whichever hadith is to be acceptable it must aligned with the doctrine of the Quran - the words of Allah.

The Five Pillars of Islam are merely basic precepts within the Quran for ordinary Muslims.
To progress further a Muslim must advance to the 6 Pillars of Iman,
https://madrasatelquran.com/the-six-pil ... -in-islam/
then the Muslim will qualify to be called a Mushin.

There are higher stages of Islam, i.e. the Pillars of Taqwa, i.e. God-consciousness there the believer is entitled to higher rewards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqwa
the believer will progress to be a Muttagin.

The higher the Muslim advance the more Pillars and the 6236 verses of the Quran that one has to comply with and this will include the terrible evil and violent verses in the Quran.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:44 am 4. I put the 6236 verses of the Quran in one column in Microsoft Excel and analyze each verse in terms of 1400++ categories.

Upload the document. I want to see how you came up with 1400++ categories.

I am not sharing my above work since it need polishing and I intend to publish it somewhere.

There are 3000++ literary elements [concepts, abstract terms, etc.] within the 6236 verses and 77,449 words in the Quran.

For example one very obvious category is reference to 'non-Muslim.'

If you read through the 6236 verses, there are verses that had something to say about the non-Muslims, thus we can tick them under the column-non_Muslim. The actual results is there are 3400++ verses or 55% of the 6236 verses that refer to the non-Muslim.
There are only 975 verses that contain the term disbeliever, i.e. words with KFR roots [kuffar, kafir] as its variant. But there are thousands in term of pronouns, i.e. they, those, them, you, under various names, etc. that refer directly to the non-Muslims.

From the 3400++ verses related to non-Muslim we find out what are the sub-categories, e.g. favorable, or unfavorable.
If unfavorable what are the nature, e.g. condemnations, condemned as what, condemned to hell, dehumanizing, hated, angry_with, do not befriend them, kill them, war against them, etc. I have 100+ of such sub-categories that are negative to non-Muslims.

One thing is very obvious, out of the 3400+ verses with reference to non-Muslims, there are only less than 15 verses that has any semblance of being good to non-Muslims. These good verses are subsequently abrogated by later verses or overwhelmed by the tsunami of negative, evil and violent verses directed contemptuously against non-Muslim.
What is to be taken note of is the degree of contempt directed non-Muslim which can range from mild to terrible.

Another main category are verses where Muslims are mentioned.
There are only about 1731 verses i.e. 28% of the 6236 verses that as specifically related to 'Muslims'.
Just imagine a holy book for Muslims but 54% mentioned the non-Muslim contemptuously whereas only 28% is related to Muslims specifically. Under this I have another 100+ sub-categories.
This 'us versus them' driven by the heavy evil and negative 54% against non-Muslim is a loaded cannon to fuel genocide which is already evident.

I have 20 main categories with the major ones having 100++ sub-categories, thus resulting in an overall 1400++ categories, [main, sub, and sub-sub].

I have also flowcharted the 20 main categories into one single theme.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:11 am You have not countered any of my arguments above.
I did state Flew was senile.

I countered that, in two ways: one, that "old" does not infallibly entail "senile," and two, that there is good, hard evidence in Flew's last book that he was not at all senile. In fact, he announced his conversion to Deism at an academic symposium at New York University.

Re Keikegaard an existential psychology,

• Existential therapy developed out of the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard. As one of the first existential philosophers, Kierkegaard theorized that human discontent could only be overcome through internal wisdom.
  https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about ... chotherapy

Did you read what it says?

It says, "Existential therapy was "developed out of"..." not "was the same as." Kierkegaard was, as they also say, an "existential philosopher," not himself a psychologist. It was other people, who were psychologists, who took some of the possible implications of existentialism, and turned them into a psychological theory and a therapy. It was not Kierkegaard.

Do you see now?

We have no proof that Flew's decision to be a Deist was a product of dementia; but we have definite evidence that his decision to be an Atheist was childish.

This the worst case of the generalization fallacy, that adopting a belief when as a teenager mean that is childish.

But wait: you're making the same fallacy. You're assuming that old means senile.

That's what I'm pointing out: your argument, IF TRUE, cuts against Atheism far, far better than it cuts against Flew's Deism. At least in the case of his Deism, we know he knew more than he did at 15. We have not one stroke of evidence his conversion to Deism was caused by dementia, and good evidence in the book that it wasn't...and yet, you have affirmed it as if it were some kind of known fact. But a fact we really DO know is that the same man was a 15-year-old child when he first took hold of Atheism. And we know for sure that 15 year olds think plenty of immature things.

Your argument, then, if you and I take it seriously (which we should not) devastates the credibility of Flew's Atheism, but lacks any proof at all that Flew was senile when he became a Deist. If I were an Atheist, I just wouldn't try to use such a bad argument.

The (ahem!) argument being presented here is about a valuable as caricaturing Judaism by talking about this man.


Fact is that Jews come in many forms.






Take your pick

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:05 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:11 am You have not countered any of my arguments above.
I did state Flew was senile.

I countered that, in two ways: one, that "old" does not infallibly entail "senile," and two, that there is good, hard evidence in Flew's last book that he was not at all senile. In fact, he announced his conversion to Deism at an academic symposium at New York University.

Correction;
I did NOT state Flew was senile.

The above point is supported by later points.
I stated the most wise and intelligent person can do very silly and stupid acts when dominated by subjective emotions and existential drives.
Then they will use their intelligence to defend their faith in the existential issues like theism or deism.

Re Keikegaard an existential psychology,

• Existential therapy developed out of the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and Soren Kierkegaard. As one of the first existential philosophers, Kierkegaard theorized that human discontent could only be overcome through internal wisdom.
  https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about ... chotherapy

Did you read what it says?

It says, "Existential therapy was "developed out of"..." not "was the same as." Kierkegaard was, as they also say, an "existential philosopher," not himself a psychologist. It was other people, who were psychologists, who took some of the possible implications of existentialism, and turned them into a psychological theory and a therapy. It was not Kierkegaard.

Do you see now?

You are the one who is blinded.
What Kierkegaard proposed within theology is common existential psychological principles within all humans.
DNA wise all human beings are embedded with trembling and fears when cornered with the threat of death.

The existential solution within theology is for one to cling to God as a security blanket, but that underlying process is existential psychology.
Others deal with existential psychology in various forms without God, e.g. non-theistic Buddhism, existential psychotherapy, etc.

We have no proof that Flew's decision to be a Deist was a product of dementia; but we have definite evidence that his decision to be an Atheist was childish.

This the worst case of the generalization fallacy, that adopting a belief when as a teenager mean that is childish.

But wait: you're making the same fallacy. You're assuming that old means senile.

Note my mistake and correction.
I do not equate old means 100% senile.

That's what I'm pointing out: your argument, IF TRUE, cuts against Atheism far, far better than it cuts against Flew's Deism. At least in the case of his Deism, we know he knew more than he did at 15. We have not one stroke of evidence his conversion to Deism was caused by dementia, and good evidence in the book that it wasn't...and yet, you have affirmed it as if it were some kind of known fact. But a fact we really DO know is that the same man was a 15-year-old child when he first took hold of Atheism. And we know for sure that 15 year olds think plenty of immature things.

Your argument, then, if you and I take it seriously (which we should not) devastates the credibility of Flew's Atheism, but lacks any proof at all that Flew was senile when he became a Deist. If I were an Atheist, I just wouldn't try to use such a bad argument.

Note my correction.
When I have other things to and rush for time, I do not have time for precise scrutiny to read the post a few times.
Corrected:Flew conversion is NOT due to senility nor dementia.

Flew had sufficient intelligence and wisdom [perhaps above average at that time].
But the existential impulses from a different part of the brain overwhelmed his intelligence and wisdom in this existential dilemma and drove him into Deism.

There are many Deists, e.g. Einstein, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Thomas Jefferson, etc. These are all intelligent and wise people. They are not senile nor stupid people.
What is common with them is their existential dilemma subliminally drove them into Deism. Note Deists are intelligent and wise enough to avoid childish blind faith in theism [personal God].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:04 am Corrected:Flew conversion is NOT due to senility nor dementia.

Fair enough.

Flew had sufficient intelligence and wisdom [perhaps above average at that time].

His book is good evidence that this is true.

But the existential impulses from a different part of the brain overwhelmed his intelligence and wisdom in this existential dilemma and drove him into Deism.

This, on the contrary, is simply rubbish. You have not one stroke of real evidence that this is what Flew did. And, as you have "corrected" above, it's utterly implausible on the available evidence.

There are many Deists, e.g. Einstein, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Thomas Jefferson, etc. These are all intelligent and wise people. They are not senile nor stupid people.

Yes, this is quite true.

What is common with them is their existential dilemma subliminally drove them into Deism. Note Deists are intelligent and wise enough to avoid childish blind faith in theism [personal God].

And this is the totally made-up bit.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:04 am Corrected:Flew conversion is NOT due to senility nor dementia.

Fair enough.

Flew had sufficient intelligence and wisdom [perhaps above average at that time].

His book is good evidence that this is true.

But the existential impulses from a different part of the brain overwhelmed his intelligence and wisdom in this existential dilemma and drove him into Deism.

This, on the contrary, is simply rubbish. You have not one stroke of real evidence that this is what Flew did. And, as you have "corrected" above, it's utterly implausible on the available evidence.

I don't have any direct evidence.

However I have provided how I inferred the above from facts listed above.

What is common with them is their existential dilemma subliminally drove them into Deism. Note Deists are intelligent and wise enough to avoid childish blind faith in theism [personal God].

And this is the totally made-up bit.

Note my point above.

What I have researched is all religions [theistic and non-theistic] are reducible to the existential dilemma and existential crisis arising from the subliminal fear of death.
In the case of the Abrahamic religions, this subliminal fear is soothe by an assurance of eternal life when one believe in the respective God.

I am a reasonable expert on Islam and the main focus of Islam is the eschatological element and it would not be different with the other Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Judaism.

Do you have any idea what sort of weightage would the eschatological element bear within Christianity? If you are ignorant of it, you don't have much credibility to speak for Christianity?
I believe based on the knowledge [not fully] on Christianity, the eschatological element is primary. Otherwise what else, if any they are reducible to the eschatological element.


The consideration of the finitute of a human being and its associated existential crisis is also a focus with Hinduism and non-theistic Buddhism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:11 amThe principle is the most intelligent person can do the most stupid thing, e.g. believe in a God that is illusory.

The principle is the most intelligent person can do the most stupid thing, e.g. believe in a person that is illusory.

I took my meds today, and came up with the above response..did you like it?

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:11 amThe principle is the most intelligent person can do the most stupid thing, e.g. believe in a God that is illusory.

The principle is the most intelligent person can do the most stupid thing, e.g. believe in a person that is illusory.

I took my meds today, and came up with the above response..did you like it?

You took the wrong meds.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:24 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:11 amThe principle is the most intelligent person can do the most stupid thing, e.g. believe in a God that is illusory.

The principle is the most intelligent person can do the most stupid thing, e.g. believe in a person that is illusory.

I took my meds today, and came up with the above response..did you like it?

You took the wrong meds.

Prove a person exists as an empirical thing evidenced or believed to be real?