Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote: Something is not right with you, Hobbes.

You're just now noticing that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:If a person kills others in the name of christ, or because God told that person to do it, then does that make christianity, itself, one of those "dealth-cults" also?

Of course not. Only if the belief system itself advocated that would we be wise to blame the ideology. We can hold an ideology responsible for what people do in obedience to it; we cannot hold any ideology responsible for what is done in disobedience to its precepts -- even by people who (inauthentically) invoke the name of the belief as warrant. That would be unjust.

A belief has to warrant the behaviour before we can blame it.

Islam does.

But that is what you keep saying. But where is the evidence that "islam", the ideology, can be "blamed"?

I have already explained, enough times i thought, that the three words "Kill the infidels" can be interpreted in so many ways. I have also explained that if "islam" really equated to violence, then there are about 1.5 Billion followers of islam who are then not really doing there "job". How do you explain this?

Furthermore, you also now want to "blame" a belief. But yet when I proposed earlier that I do not have a belief, partly because of the very reasons you are here now saying that beliefs can cause, you then tell me that I HAVE TO have beliefs. If, as you now say, beliefs can be blamed, would that then be a very serious reason to STOP BELIEVING all together?

From the onset of our discussion you have always appeared to be arguing against what you, yourself, believe and say.

What happens if i wanted to start having a belief in islam, would that be okay with you? Ah let me guess, "Of course not". You believe that people should ONLY start to have a belief in what you, yourself, believe in, am I right?

If a person's belief is that the christian god told that person to kill somebody, then, to Me, unlike what you would do, I could not nor would not "blame" God nor christianity nor the belief, itself. To blame any of these or any ideology or for that matter any thing other then the reason why a person killed another would just be ridiculous, to Me. The reason a person kills another body IS because they wanted to.

WHY a person or all people want to do what they do needs to be looked at. Then, if people seriously wanted to, prevent further killings in the future, instead of just sitting back and judging, then they would find the reason WHY a person wants/wanted to kill another in the first place, and then we would have part of the solution to prevent murder from ever happening again. It is really very simple really. (But that is another issue. I can not get people to the stage of seeing how to learn these things when they continually hold beliefs and make assumptions.)

This brings Me to what you said above, "Only if the belief system itself advocated that would we be wise to blame the ideology." Therefore, on your "logic" here, if a person, of the christian faith, states, "I killed another because God told me to", then that belief system itself that advocated the killing, which was supposedly directly from God, ItSelf, so of and from the highest of ideologies, then, as you believe it is the case, IS the ideology that, as you suggest, would be "wise" to blame. Have I got what you are trying to say here right in any way? If not, then try again.

But be careful how you reply to this because I will use your new statements as data and as evidence, in a logical way, to AGAIN prove that what you are now saying is actually refuting your own previous statements.

By the way, if as you suggest and say, "We can hold an ideology responsible for what people do in obedience to it", then how do you propose we disciple and/or punish the supposed "responsible" ideology? Is there some kind of prison we can put that ideology in to or some kind of fine that we can make it pay? What do you propose we can do with the ideologies, which you do not like, and how do you propose we go about doing that?

Last but not least, what happens with an ideology that states "An eye for an eye" and the follower of that ideology, i.e., a christian person, takes "An eye for an eye"? Does that mean that ideology, i.e., christianity, IS responsible for what people do in obedience to it, also? Ah let me guess, "Of course not". Is that because this ideology is the exact same one that you follow AND that revenge is okay "sometimes", when you think and say it is?

Could this be the reason so many people of the none islam faith, which follow an ideology that revenge of, let us say, 9/11, is totally justified?

On this sort of logic that followers of revenge killings say is justified, then how often do those same people ever stop and think about, if people who have been innocently killed, because of an attack, are then able to go out and take revenge, then SO CAN the "other" people, from a different ideology, can then ALSO commit revenge killings against "us". Thus could be THE REASON for 9/11 in the first place? The absolute stupidity of this is so blindingly obvious and ridiculous that is WHY so many people see 'revenge killings' as normal behavior, but they forget to see the 'revenge' word when "other" people take out (revenge) killings against them. Human beings can be and ARE so blinded by "their" faith, beliefs, ideologies, etc, that they forget there is no "us" and "them". ALL human beings are made up of the exact same things and are in and of the exact same race/species. Yet they continually forget this because they BELIEVE that they each have a right to BELIEVE in any thing, no matter how much it actually destroys and kills any or all of them. For the most intelligent species on earth human beings can be and ARE, at times, the most stupid species, also.

There is absolutely NO belief that can warrant the behaviour before "we" can blame it. That IS just a totally unintelligent statement. There is also NO belief that could even be reasonably accepted that in any way allows, permits, or leads to just the abuse of any thing, and not just the abuse of people. To say that people have a right to a belief or opinion that leads to the abuse of any thing is what IS totally unjust in this "world".

That is enough of Me now. Your turn.

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Something is not right with you, Hobbes.

You're just now noticing that?

No, it's something extra problematic.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: No, you just want to deflect the fact that you counsel suicide on the net.

Only to you.

Yes. You counseled me on more than one occasion to kill myself. Something is not right with you, Hobbes.

Do not worry you have the protection of the Forum.
I'm not trying to instruct you to kill yourself. Please live a long and happy life.

We don't have a way of deciding anything, ken.

You believe opinions are just opinions, and we must always remain "open" no matter what proof, evidence or data appear. This means there is no basis of resolution. Nothing either one of us says can -- in your view -- be allowed to convince the other, or we won't be "open."

Interestingly, though, you're not "open" to me being right and you being wrong about us needing a method of resolution. That's ironic, and if you were open to realizing it, automatically undermines your claim to be "always open." But then, since I suppose even that datum will not be regarded as determinative by you, there's no way to make that point.

That's your prerogative. But it leaves me nothing with which to work; and given your suppositions, we have no way to advance discussion here.

Best wishes.

Immanuel Can wrote:We don't have a way of deciding anything, ken.

You believe opinions are just opinions, and we must always remain "open" no matter what proof, evidence or data appear. This means there is no basis of resolution. Nothing either one of us says can -- in your view -- be allowed to convince the other, or we won't be "open."

Interestingly, though, you're not "open" to me being right and you being wrong about us needing a method of resolution. That's ironic, and if you were open to realizing it, automatically undermines your claim to be "always open." But then, since I suppose even that datum will not be regarded as determinative by you, there's no way to make that point.

That's your prerogative. But it leaves me nothing with which to work; and given your suppositions, we have no way to advance discussion here.

Best wishes.

AGAIN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT HEARD A WORD I HAVE SAID.

AGAIN YOU ARE TRYING TO RUN BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ARGUE.

ken wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:We don't have a way of deciding anything, ken.

You believe opinions are just opinions, and we must always remain "open" no matter what proof, evidence or data appear. This means there is no basis of resolution. Nothing either one of us says can -- in your view -- be allowed to convince the other, or we won't be "open."

Interestingly, though, you're not "open" to me being right and you being wrong about us needing a method of resolution. That's ironic, and if you were open to realizing it, automatically undermines your claim to be "always open." But then, since I suppose even that datum will not be regarded as determinative by you, there's no way to make that point.

That's your prerogative. But it leaves me nothing with which to work; and given your suppositions, we have no way to advance discussion here.

Best wishes.

AGAIN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT HEARD A WORD I HAVE SAID.

AGAIN YOU ARE TRYING TO RUN BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ARGUE.

You have only subjective opinions, but Immanual Can has the hotline to God and so what he says is objective.

ken wrote:AGAIN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT HEARD A WORD I HAVE SAID.

AGAIN YOU ARE TRYING TO RUN BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ARGUE.

I wasn't "assuming" anything. I was repeating exactly what you said: you want to remain "always open." Did you not say that? And you have three times rejected any basis for resolving issues of dispute. These were not assumptions. And I have no need to run, since you are "always open" to whatever I say, regardless of its rightness or wrongness -- properties which you claim you don't even believe apply.

Ironic. Very ironic. You're so heated up you're typing in capitals. It's almost like you're not "always open" at all...

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:AGAIN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT HEARD A WORD I HAVE SAID.

AGAIN YOU ARE TRYING TO RUN BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ARGUE.

I wasn't "assuming" anything.

If you care to stop for a minute or two and take notice of what you say, then you will see the assumptions.

You wrote, "We don't have a way of deciding anything, ken.

You believe opinions are just opinions, and we must always remain "open" no matter what proof, evidence or data appear. This means there is no basis of resolution. Nothing either one of us says can -- in your view -- be allowed to convince the other, or we won't be "open."

Interestingly, though, you're not "open" to me being right and you being wrong about us needing a method of resolution. That's ironic, and if you were open to realizing it, automatically undermines your claim to be "always open." But then, since I suppose even that datum will not be regarded as determinative by you, there's no way to make that point.

That's your prerogative. But it leaves me nothing with which to work; and given your suppositions, we have no way to advance discussion here.

Best wishes."

Take a look, you will notice you wrote ten sentences, besides the very last sentence and the third last sentence the REST are ALL assumptions. And, by the way are all totally WRONG assumptions.

I have already explained how each of your assumptions now are wrong previously. You are just repeating what you have written before.

Immanuel Can wrote: I was repeating exactly what you said: you want to remain "always open." Did you not say that?

Yes I did say that so that IS RIGHT. When you do, on the very rare occasions, repeat what I have written, then you get it RIGHT. AND, asking for clarification works a treat also.

And you have three times rejected any basis for resolving issues of dispute.

I have NEVER rejected any basis for resolving issues of dispute. So, that is just another WRONG assumption. Do you notice the difference between when you copy word for word what I actually do write, and ask for clarification, and the difference when you ASSUME something? If you can NOT notice the difference, then I will spell it out for you.

When you repeat exactly what I write, then you will ALWAYS get it right. When you ask for clarification, then I can explain what IS right. BUT, when you just ASSUME you on MOST occasions get it totally WRONG. Spot the differences?

Immanuel Can wrote: These were not assumptions.

YES they ARE. There were many of them.

Immanuel Can wrote:And I have no need to run, since you are "always open" to whatever I say, regardless of its rightness or wrongness -- properties which you claim you don't even believe apply.

I really can NOT fathom what is going on in that head right now. You are so TRYING to avoid the real issues that you are baffling your own self here.

Immanuel Can wrote:Ironic. Very ironic. You're so heated up you're typing in capitals.

I am writing in capitals because I do NOT know how else to make you hear what it is that I am actually saying.

Immanuel Can wrote: It's almost like you're not "always open" at all...

Now how in hell did you come to that totally WRONG assumption?

But I do NOT know why i continually ask you questions, you ALWAYS avoid them and run.

So My three points were and still are:

AGAIN YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE TOTALLY WRONG.

First point was proven once again by your over ten assumptions again this time, which are also totally wrong here.

AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT HEARD A WORD I HAVE SAID.

Second point is obviously proven by your own statements.

AGAIN YOU ARE TRYING TO RUN BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ARGUE.

Third point stands because again you do NOT want to challenge Me.

If you were NOT trying to run you would ask Me clarifying questions AND you would challenge Me on what I have said. You will NOT do this either because you are afraid of the outcome or because of some other reason. If you do NOT say which one it is, then we can only guess what others will make of this.

Either do what I do, i.e., challenge you and clarify with you if I think something is just not right with what you say, or run away. Your choice.

ken wrote:Either do what I do, i.e., challenge you and clarify with you if I think something is just not right with what you say, or run away. Your choice.

Define exactly, in one sentence: when you say one thing, and I say another, how shall we decide who's right?

There's your challenge.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Either do what I do, i.e., challenge you and clarify with you if I think something is just not right with what you say, or run away. Your choice.

Define exactly, in one sentence: when you say one thing, and I say another, how shall we decide who's right?

There's your challenge.

How about we let others decide?

ken wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Either do what I do, i.e., challenge you and clarify with you if I think something is just not right with what you say, or run away. Your choice.

Define exactly, in one sentence: when you say one thing, and I say another, how shall we decide who's right?

There's your challenge.

How about we let others decide?

How about if each of you hold your own view, and let the other go. Is either view a matter of life and death, or are they just random opinions that don't really matter to anyone else?

ken wrote:How about we let others decide?

On what basis will we accept their decision? We have no way of adjudicating anything yet.

You asked me for a challenge: I gave it to you. One question, and one-sentence answer.

Where is it?

thedoc wrote:How about if each of you hold your own view, and let the other go. Is either view a matter of life and death, or are they just random opinions that don't really matter to anyone else?

I think that's where the buck stops, thedoc. He's never going to admit a basis on which we can conclude anything, so for him all opinions are eternally going to appear equal.

So without any means of adjudication of the rightness or wrongness of an opinion, ken's gone as far in terms of knowing anything as he's going to go. There's no future for a discussion like that, so I'm content to take your advice. I'll let him go his own way.

Back to the OP, I suppose...

.





Here ya go! -




.......................................................



Sunday July 31, 2016 Pope Francis refused to equate Islam with violence saying Catholics could be just as deadly & warning Europe was pushing its young to terrorism.


"If I have to talk about Islamic violence I have to talk about Christian violence. Every day in the newspapers I see violence in Italy, someone kills his girlfriend, another kills his mother-in-law, and these are baptized Catholics."


"How many of our European young have we left empty of ideals, with no work, so they turn to drugs, to alcohol, and sign up with fundamentalist groups?"


"You can kill with the tongue as well as the knife,"



"I don't think it is right to equate Islam with violence. In almost every religion there's always a small group of fundamentalists. We have them too."
~ Pope Francis








.........................................................




.