Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Who the fuck knows what Bruce Jenner thinks? Has he ever been a woman? Does he even know what that means? He only knows what it means to him. To me, his idea of what it is to be a woman, might be bollocks! How would he or I know what each other thinks about what it is to BE woman?

Not material. He can "think" all kinds of things. He can "think" whatever he/she wants. It won't change the basic law of logic known as "The Law of Non-Contradiction." ?

Except that is only a childish fiction that you like to think of. In the real world things are more complicated.

Immanuel Can wrote: Not true at all. Christians are not anywhere told to believe whatever people happen to say. That's a modern relativist fiction, and one that doesn't even make sense on relativism's own terms. If it were true, then we'd have to allow that Charles Manson is God...because he says it, and it's "not nice" to doubt people. Clearly that's bizarre.

"No True Scotsman fallacy."

Look it up, and learn.

Artisticsolution wrote

People talk shit...it's the Christian people who I hold more accountable because they should know better.

You appear to believe that a 'Christian' is beyond all transgression. Human nature can be described as corrupt, depraved, and thoroughly sinful, and according to Scripture "'He who is not with Me is against Me'" (Matt. 12:30). Failure to believe in Him is sin.(John 16:9, so there is no neutrality in being a sinful non christian.

Some people believe a priest can forgive, on behalf of, how unChristian is that and yet he professes to be Christian and his followers accept this without question. The meaning of Christian is being swallowed up by ignorance and prejudice.

Vor wrote:he meaning of Christian is being swallowed up by ignorance and prejudice.

Haven't you got this arse-about? Surely ignorance and prejudice are the defining characteristics of Christianity, just as they are for all forms of religious belief?

" Belief is the antithesis of knowledge".....Bertrand Russell

Obvious Leo wrote:" Belief is the antithesis of knowledge".....Bertrand Russell

This is not at all what Christians understand generally as "belief."

It's convenient for Russell, and for other superficial detractors like Dawkins or Hitchens, say, to redefine "belief" or "faith" as something untenable, and then declare Christianity summarily irrational since it involves "belief" or "faith". But these are merely propagandists playing word games, and nothing more. They simply don't know -- or don't want to know -- what they are talking about.

Don't be surprised if such an ersatz definition fails to impress Christians -- it simply doesn't reflect what they think they are doing, so that particular shot goes wide of the mark every time. It doesn't stop the Dawkins-Hitchens set from trying it regularly, though.

Immanuel Can wrote:Don't be surprised if such an ersatz definition fails to impress Christians -

Don't worry I won't be. The Christian capacity for self-deception is legendary.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Don't be surprised if such an ersatz definition fails to impress Christians -

Don't worry I won't be. The Christian capacity for self-deception is legendary.

Well, among those who don't want to look at what Christians really believe, it probably is...but if it's "legendary" there, it's only in the sense of "mythical."

But hey, don't take my word for it...in under two minutes, you can get the same story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUhbyQ66Buc

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, among those who don't want to look at what Christians really believe,

Please don't presume to instruct me in what Christians are required to believe. I got enough of it from the men in frocks to last me for ten lifetimes, which is why I took up philosophy instead. Surely one is entitled to feel safe from proselytising apologists in a philosophy forum.

OP is quite naïve and overly simplistic.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:" Belief is the antithesis of knowledge".....Bertrand Russell

This is not at all what Christians understand generally as "belief."

It's convenient for Russell, and for other superficial detractors like Dawkins or Hitchens, say, to redefine "belief" or "faith" as something untenable, and then declare Christianity summarily irrational since it involves "belief" or "faith". But these are merely propagandists playing word games, and nothing more. They simply don't know -- or don't want to know -- what they are talking about.

Don't be surprised if such an ersatz definition fails to impress Christians -- it simply doesn't reflect what they think they are doing, so that particular shot goes wide of the mark every time. It doesn't stop the Dawkins-Hitchens set from trying it regularly, though.

This is so desperate.
With a single stroke he fells Russell, Dawkins, and Hitchens. But through his utter ignorance he dismisses John S. Mill, and many others too, including such great thinkers as Spinoza and Einstein.
I think in doing so he establishes the truth behind these thinkers' rejection of the sort of BLIND Faith that Imm Can is utterly immersed in.

Immanuel Can wrote:But hey, don't take my word for it...in under two minutes, you can get the same story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUhbyQ66Buc

Same old same old.
Nothing WLC could say changes the fact that faith is erzatz knowledge. It is fantasy taken as knowledge that both you and WLC exhibit. Clothe it in as much reasonable sounding cotton wool, as you like, but nothing changes the fact that faith is empty, worthless, and clearly dangerous in many cases.

This childish video might satisfy the empty mind of a christian wishing to assert his 'trust' in his religion. But consider what it is actually doing. It compares the view of a Engineering teacher, with the deluded view of WLC.
NOT Russell, not Hitchens, nor Dawkins.
Then the goal post is changed from reality to definition bashing.

Despite the obvious flim-flam, mr Immanual Can, the Engineering professor has you by the balls, because no matter what WLC claims about his delusion he does have a reasonable belief. He has no warrant to 'trust' in what he 'reasonably' believes. His delusion, as does yours lies in the obfuscation and self deception that gives him grounds for his trust.

If you were more honest you would realise how well the Engineering professor has you sussed. But you are not only dishonest with us, you are also dishonest with yourself. You really need to get a life.

HexHammer wrote:OP is quite naïve and overly simplistic.

You must be happy as a pig in shit, because simple is exactly what you seem to like.

Obvious Leo wrote:Please don't presume to instruct me in what Christians are required to believe. I got enough of it from the men in frocks to last me for ten lifetimes, which is why I took up philosophy instead. Surely one is entitled to feel safe from proselytising apologists in a philosophy forum.

Ah. I see. So two presumptions on your part:

1) You already know everything you need to know about Christians...more, in fact, than they know themselves.

2) It is not out of court for a poster on a philosophy forum to "call out" Christians (backtrack in the messages, and you'll see), but it is somehow inappropriate for a Christian to respond...though, in fact, they'll be called cowardly if they don't.

It seems you're making it a little hard for a reasonable person to do the "right" thing (see strand topic).

First words on the entire strand...

The following applies to Christian's only...

This is a no brainer Christians!

Since, as you can readily see, this strand is "to Christians only," would you wish to correct your view? Is it maybe the case that you're on the wrong strand yourself? But that's alright...I'm sure Christians are kind enough to invite you to stay anyway.

I have too much self-respect to get entangled in an argument with any disciple of a charlatan like Craig. Furthermore I don't give a fuck what people choose to believe because I'm a philosopher and beliefs are not a legitimate subject for philosophical enquiry.