Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theodicy

18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:45:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

*starving children in Syria*

"All is well, Inshaallah"

*homeless people in US*

"It is going through God's plan"

*Tsunamis in Japan*

"God sent it"

Theodicy is more anti-God than atheism.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 2:33:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:45:48 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

*starving children in Syria*

"All is well, Inshaallah"

*homeless people in US*

"It is going through God's plan"

*Tsunamis in Japan*

"God sent it"

Theodicy is more anti-God than atheism.

What's wrong with theodicy being more anti-God than atheism?
To believe is to know nothing.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 4:37:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 2:33:25 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/31/2015 11:45:48 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

*starving children in Syria*

"All is well, Inshaallah"

*homeless people in US*

"It is going through God's plan"

*Tsunamis in Japan*

"God sent it"

Theodicy is more anti-God than atheism.

What's wrong with theodicy being more anti-God than atheism?

Little children condemning the actions without understanding the end results of those actions. Enjoy your childish games.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 5:48:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

- There is a serious deep lack of philosophical thought in Steven Fry's answer, it hurts.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 5:55:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 4:37:14 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 2/2/2015 2:33:25 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/31/2015 11:45:48 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

*starving children in Syria*

"All is well, Inshaallah"

*homeless people in US*

"It is going through God's plan"

*Tsunamis in Japan*

"God sent it"

Theodicy is more anti-God than atheism.

What's wrong with theodicy being more anti-God than atheism?

Little children condemning the actions without understanding the end results of those actions. Enjoy your childish games.

I don't understand your answer. Can you please clarify? You're all over the place.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 5:58:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:48:05 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

- There is a serious deep lack of philosophical thought in Steven Fry's answer, it hurts.

Please provide a deep philosophical answer then.
To believe is to know nothing.
Sterling.Dragon
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 5:59:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:48:05 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

- There is a serious deep lack of philosophical thought in Steven Fry's answer, it hurts.

Please tell me you're joking. If this is really what you believe, you truly have faith. Without such faith, you would understand better what Fry has stated. If that hurts, perhaps you should think a little deeper and more philosophically, yourself.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:03:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:58:48 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 5:48:05 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

- There is a serious deep lack of philosophical thought in Steven Fry's answer, it hurts.

Please provide a deep philosophical answer then.

- Where shall I start!? It's wrong & ignorant from top to bottom. I would be more inclined to give a full answer if you debate me on it, otherwise I am just too lazy to write anything down :P .
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:05:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:59:09 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
At 2/2/2015 5:48:05 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

- There is a serious deep lack of philosophical thought in Steven Fry's answer, it hurts.

Please tell me you're joking. If this is really what you believe, you truly have faith. Without such faith, you would understand better what Fry has stated. If that hurts, perhaps you should think a little deeper and more philosophically, yourself.

- You're probably talking about Mr. Fry here.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:10:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:03:08 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 5:58:48 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 5:48:05 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

- There is a serious deep lack of philosophical thought in Steven Fry's answer, it hurts.

Please provide a deep philosophical answer then.

- Where shall I start!? It's wrong & ignorant from top to bottom. I would be more inclined to give a full answer if you debate me on it, otherwise I am just too lazy to write anything down :P .

In order to be taken seriously, I expect you to provide an interesting argument. An emotional response isn't of interest to me. And there isn't anything to debate yet as we could be in agreement for all you know.
To believe is to know nothing.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:10:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

It's possible of course to make "God" (well at least come conceptions of God) compatible with any and all evidence, but evidence that fry points out too the last thing you would infer from such evidence is the existence of an all powerful, all knowing, all wise, just, etc etc personal being who takes an interest in human affairs.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sterling.Dragon
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:12:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:05:32 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 5:59:09 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
At 2/2/2015 5:48:05 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/31/2015 6:06:57 AM, Impartial wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Who disagrees? And why?

- There is a serious deep lack of philosophical thought in Steven Fry's answer, it hurts.

Please tell me you're joking. If this is really what you believe, you truly have faith. Without such faith, you would understand better what Fry has stated. If that hurts, perhaps you should think a little deeper and more philosophically, yourself.

- You're probably talking about Mr. Fry here.

Not at all. Fry answered an hypothetical question with some very valid information. The gods contained within the bible/qur'an/torah are quite plainly of human construct and invention. It is that one fact that makes the gods contained within them such virulent monstrosities.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:13:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:10:10 AM, Impartial wrote:
In order to be taken seriously, I expect you to provide an interesting argument. An emotional response isn't of interest to me. And there isn't anything to debate yet as we could be in agreement for all you know.

- You're not wrong. I should've advanced an argument, I am just too lazy to do so, so instead I just expressed my opinion. Though, If you want to discuss further we can go over the subject point by point.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:17:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:12:15 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
Not at all. Fry answered an hypothetical question with some very valid information. The gods contained within the bible/qur'an/torah are quite plainly of human construct and invention. It is that one fact that makes the gods contained within them such virulent monstrosities.

- The reason behind such superficial & irrelevant answers is the lack of knowledge of scripture & philosophical thought. The World great Religions stood for thousands of years & encompassed a huge chunk of human thought, it's nonessential to think that a stupid argument like Fry's is gonna do any good to change that thought.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:18:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:13:05 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:10:10 AM, Impartial wrote:
In order to be taken seriously, I expect you to provide an interesting argument. An emotional response isn't of interest to me. And there isn't anything to debate yet as we could be in agreement for all you know.

- You're not wrong. I should've advanced an argument, I am just too lazy to do so, so instead I just expressed my opinion. Though, If you want to discuss further we can go over the subject point by point.

I'd like that. There isn't any rush though.
To believe is to know nothing.
Sterling.Dragon
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:33:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:17:52 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:12:15 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
Not at all. Fry answered an hypothetical question with some very valid information. The gods contained within the bible/qur'an/torah are quite plainly of human construct and invention. It is that one fact that makes the gods contained within them such virulent monstrosities.

- The reason behind such superficial & irrelevant answers is the lack of knowledge of scripture & philosophical thought. The World great Religions stood for thousands of years & encompassed a huge chunk of human thought, it's nonessential to think that a stupid argument like Fry's is gonna do any good to change that thought.

The largest problem you have is that you presume and assume. It is neither superficial nor irrelevant to point out that the "holy" writings, irrespective of their origin, are completely devoid of divinity. I have "knowledge of scripture." It is, specifically, this knowledge that turned me away from the bible. It is, specifically, deep philosophical thought that led me to draw the conclusion that neither was the bible/qur'an/torah authored by any divinity, but that faith in such superstitious nonsense is detrimental to human existence.

Fry didn't offer any argument. Fry was asked what he would say to a "god" if he died and went to "face" such a creature. What he offered was not only deeply thought out, but also very valid. The '...lack of knowledge and philosophical thought...' with which you dismiss his thoughts on this are PRECISELY what is required in order to ACCEPT such books. There is nothing sublime or elevated about these books. They are of human construct; of that I am convinced. The gods within them do not exist; of that I am convinced. How long a religion stands is not indicative of their value. It is indicative of the fact that humans are so afraid of not existing (in whatever form) that the supernatural and "afterlife" stories are more attractive than reality. When humans cling to faith, in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting its very foundation, they demonstrate an irrational fear of truth.

All holy books are detrimental to human existence. Period.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:36:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:33:49 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:17:52 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:12:15 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
Not at all. Fry answered an hypothetical question with some very valid information. The gods contained within the bible/qur'an/torah are quite plainly of human construct and invention. It is that one fact that makes the gods contained within them such virulent monstrosities.

- The reason behind such superficial & irrelevant answers is the lack of knowledge of scripture & philosophical thought. The World great Religions stood for thousands of years & encompassed a huge chunk of human thought, it's nonessential to think that a stupid argument like Fry's is gonna do any good to change that thought.

The largest problem you have is that you presume and assume. It is neither superficial nor irrelevant to point out that the "holy" writings, irrespective of their origin, are completely devoid of divinity. I have "knowledge of scripture." It is, specifically, this knowledge that turned me away from the bible. It is, specifically, deep philosophical thought that led me to draw the conclusion that neither was the bible/qur'an/torah authored by any divinity, but that faith in such superstitious nonsense is detrimental to human existence.

Fry didn't offer any argument. Fry was asked what he would say to a "god" if he died and went to "face" such a creature. What he offered was not only deeply thought out, but also very valid. The '...lack of knowledge and philosophical thought...' with which you dismiss his thoughts on this are PRECISELY what is required in order to ACCEPT such books. There is nothing sublime or elevated about these books. They are of human construct; of that I am convinced. The gods within them do not exist; of that I am convinced. How long a religion stands is not indicative of their value. It is indicative of the fact that humans are so afraid of not existing (in whatever form) that the supernatural and "afterlife" stories are more attractive than reality. When humans cling to faith, in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting its very foundation, they demonstrate an irrational fear of truth.

All holy books are detrimental to human existence. Period.

- Let me ask you: have you studied: Logic, Philosophy, Theology?
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Sterling.Dragon
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:36:17 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:33:49 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:17:52 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:12:15 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
Not at all. Fry answered an hypothetical question with some very valid information. The gods contained within the bible/qur'an/torah are quite plainly of human construct and invention. It is that one fact that makes the gods contained within them such virulent monstrosities.

- The reason behind such superficial & irrelevant answers is the lack of knowledge of scripture & philosophical thought. The World great Religions stood for thousands of years & encompassed a huge chunk of human thought, it's nonessential to think that a stupid argument like Fry's is gonna do any good to change that thought.

The largest problem you have is that you presume and assume. It is neither superficial nor irrelevant to point out that the "holy" writings, irrespective of their origin, are completely devoid of divinity. I have "knowledge of scripture." It is, specifically, this knowledge that turned me away from the bible. It is, specifically, deep philosophical thought that led me to draw the conclusion that neither was the bible/qur'an/torah authored by any divinity, but that faith in such superstitious nonsense is detrimental to human existence.

Fry didn't offer any argument. Fry was asked what he would say to a "god" if he died and went to "face" such a creature. What he offered was not only deeply thought out, but also very valid. The '...lack of knowledge and philosophical thought...' with which you dismiss his thoughts on this are PRECISELY what is required in order to ACCEPT such books. There is nothing sublime or elevated about these books. They are of human construct; of that I am convinced. The gods within them do not exist; of that I am convinced. How long a religion stands is not indicative of their value. It is indicative of the fact that humans are so afraid of not existing (in whatever form) that the supernatural and "afterlife" stories are more attractive than reality. When humans cling to faith, in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting its very foundation, they demonstrate an irrational fear of truth.

All holy books are detrimental to human existence. Period.

- Let me ask you: have you studied: Logic, Philosophy, Theology?

I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:04:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

So let's hear your sophisticated philosophical arguments and then we can judge how relevant your arguments and the arguments of others are.
To believe is to know nothing.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:13:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

You don't think some one like Fry has heard all the various explanations given ? Free will, fallen world, testing, punishment, create character, mysterious reasons etc etc I bet he has heard them all.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Sterling.Dragon
Posts: 115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:16:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

Logic is not a prerequisite to theology. As a matter of fact, theology is virtually devoid of (any real) logic. Nothing that rests on faith can claim to be logical. Logic is a subcategory of philosophy, not a prerequisite.
Now, you make a claim that something is "too sophisticated" for Fry, but you haven't demonstrated how or why. You have offered nothing but the attempt to make your precious philosophy an unattainable esoteric realm of superiority. Theology, while at one time perhaps useful or even necessary, has outlived its usefulness. The arguments that you wish to label "stupid" or "ignorant" are only true in the pompous minds of self-proclaimed philosophers. William Lane Craig comes to mind. My study of philosophy (and their thoughts on logic) have, admittedly, been limited to only some of the "greats," but there is precious little left for the realm of philosophy to cover... Logic is a tool applied to thought. While logic may have been formalized by Aristotle, it is not an end, to itself. It is an often ignored tool of validating the reasons behind belief.
Where the bible is concerned, logic is not used, and sole arbiter cannot be claimed by any religion or religious school of thought. There is so much that is IL-logical, that must be accepted, in order for the bible to be considered anything more than garbage, that philosophy is the only place that the bible can find any footing. You may condescend all you like, from the Ivory Tower of pomposity. Your attempt to elevate philosophy above all other things does not invalidate Fry's words. Again, Fry did not offer an argument, and your dismissal is both vacuous and invalid. While you speak of philosophy and its merits, you have offered nothing in refutation, other than an empty dismissal. If you can show how or why his statements are irrelevant, your assessment is as easily dismissed by others as his are by you.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:16:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

It just so happens that when people disagree with you, such things are too sophisticated. Should they agree with you, however...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:18:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:04:06 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

So let's hear your sophisticated philosophical arguments and then we can judge how relevant your arguments and the arguments of others are.

- That's the whole point: they are sophisticated. If you're not a student of Philosophy, you won't understand them. Although, if want me to exhibit some, debate me, I am too lazy otherwise.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:20:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:16:49 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

It just so happens that when people disagree with you, such things are too sophisticated. Should they agree with you, however...

- Hi there, thought you disappeared.

- You seem to have misunderstood me, what I said is: ' there are - sophisticated- philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity'. I am not particularly defending any position here, I am merely stating the fact that laymen arguments are irrelevant.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:24:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:18:01 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 7:04:06 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

So let's hear your sophisticated philosophical arguments and then we can judge how relevant your arguments and the arguments of others are.

- That's the whole point: they are sophisticated. If you're not a student of Philosophy, you won't understand them. Although, if want me to exhibit some, debate me, I am too lazy otherwise.

There is no debate to be had. I asked "who disagrees with him, and why?" You're yet to bring anything to the table, whereas others have.
To believe is to know nothing.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:24:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:19:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
Theodicy. noun
1.1 - an attempt by apologists to square the circle.

- I see what you did there, although not entirely True. Good thing there is no such notion in Islamic Thought.

- Where are we on the debate subjects?! I am free now.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:27:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:20:46 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 7:16:49 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:46:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:38:02 AM, Sterling.Dragon wrote:
I have studied philosophy and the theology in which I was raised -- christianity. I have not formally studied logic, as such. Why do you ask?

- Exactly! (btw, you could not have possibly studied Philosophy or Theology without studying first Logic).

=> Point being, there are philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity, they are just too sophisticated for someone unfamiliar with Philosophy, such as Steven Fry. & so, the ignorant argument either advanced by Theists or Atheists that are not well grounded in Philosophical or Theological thought are just stupid ignorant arguments, & thus are irrelevant.

It just so happens that when people disagree with you, such things are too sophisticated. Should they agree with you, however...

- Hi there, thought you disappeared.

- You seem to have misunderstood me, what I said is: ' there are - sophisticated- philosophical arguments that involve the notions of good, evil, justice... for or against Deity'. I am not particularly defending any position here, I am merely stating the fact that laymen arguments are irrelevant.

and I am stating you are presenting a moving bar for people to demonstrate an informed opinion. There is no specific criteria of information regarding this stuff, but by your opinion, there is. I have no doubt that should some one explain their studies (beyond those that have already volunteered), such a dismissal will occur. Its hard to ask for qualifications or credentials to opine when no such standard is tangible.

Anecdotal, without fail, every time I am told by some one whom is supposed to know better about a function that is universal to a wide range of people, laymen included, invariably the self appointed expert continues to have to make exception for when they are a) dead wrong and b) contradictory or c) clearly making it up. It was the truly wise that shut up, watched, listened, and revised their 'information' to match both their own and other's experience.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...