Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[Roustabout]

So is the theist position that almost any argument is circular, but by theological definition Gods nature is immune from this criticism?

Depends who you ask. There are circular arguments.
There are also sound arguments for God and for morality being grounded in the being of God. Arguments for God are not, “therefore the Bible is true, and my moral position is right.”
I haven’t seen Crush make those.

 

[Roustabout]

Why is referencing expert opinion as evidence for a proposition a logical fallacy? Is it a logical fallacy for our justice system recognizing expert testimony as evidence?

Here is the link to the survey. 14.6% affirm theism.

Expert opinion. My mechanic is an expert, but I don’t take much stock in whether he believes in god. The current trend in philosophy and academia tends to shape the interest of those who pursue it. Hell, one of my doctors believes the little wooden figures on his mantle are actual gods but still manages to adhere to science when treating me.

I’m sure you are also aware there are other surveys that put it much closer to 60-40.

I’m also aware you’d much rather move the argument here than where it’s been.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Expert opinion. My mechanic is an expert, but I don’t take much stock in whether he believes in god. The current trend in philosophy and academia tends to shape the interest of those who pursue it. Hell, one of my doctors believes the little wooden figures on his mantle are actual gods but still manages to adhere to science when treating me.

Are you saying philosophers aren't experts at philosophy?

I’m sure you are also aware there are other surveys that put it much closer to 60-40.

Link?

I’m also aware you’d much rather move the argument here than where it’s been.

Where is here? Did you have me right where you wanted me before? Lol.

 

[rjd970]

Depends who you ask. There are circular arguments.
There are also sound arguments for God and for morality being grounded in the being of God. Arguments for God are not, “therefore the Bible is true, and my moral position is right.”

I haven’t seen Crush make those.

What am I not understanding? We are accused of smuggling in morals from Christianity, because we can't provide an objective reason why we have ours. Meanwhile, the theist position just seems to be "we don't have to".

Since God's code is based in His nature and He couldn't not be as He is, then it is objective, as opposed to subjective or arbitrary.

I think we're both well educated and read enough to know that treating the need for a cause to the necessary being is absurd. He is axiomatic.

It is. As I just posted to rjd, if He wasn't perfect in every way, He wouldn't be God, thus it was a necessity that He be Him as He is to be Him as He is. Yes, this is axiomatic, which we've both agreed is to be expected in the self-referential, self-existent Necessary Being.

The other position presented is simply asking why someone should believe this that already doesn't.

His attributes are presented as being axiomatic, but given all the arguments against them, including ones I've presented on this forum, that isn't the case in a strict sense.

That aside, I’m still not seeing a reason God is needed to know what’s right and wrong if at the end of the day the answer is God is uncaused while at the same time requiring that I find that cause.

This is the reason for my question on the difference between self-referential and viciously circular. Unless I'm mistaken, the theist position is simply it isn't circular because I believe it isn't. Which is fine, but unless there is a compelling reason for me to believe the same, then nobody is smuggling anything. We are all in the same boat here.

 

[Burger]

 

[Roustabout]

Are you saying philosophers aren't experts at philosophy?



Link?



Where is here? Did you have me right where you wanted me before? Lol.

You’re reaching.
So, when the majority of philosophers were theist did that make them right?

I think the field has defined who becomes a philosopher. The majority of institutions of higher learning were religious. Something happened in the last 200 years
You aren’t even consider a philosopher if you study at a Christian school. Your consider a “Christian” philosopher.

It’s pretty obvious what you respond to and what you ignore.

 

[Roustabout]

Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part I) | Psychology Today
Article is by an atheist btw

 

[Roustabout]

What am I not understanding? We are accused of smuggling in morals from Christianity, because we can't provide an objective reason why we have ours. Meanwhile, the theist position just seems to be "we don't have to".







The other position presented is simply asking why someone should believe this that already doesn't.





This is the reason for my question on the difference between self-referential and viciously circular. Unless I'm mistaken, the theist position is simply it isn't circular because I believe it isn't. Which is fine, but unless there is a compelling reason for me to believe the same, then nobody is smuggling anything. We are all in the same boat here.

External referent.
We both treat morality as if there is an external referent. Who is being consistent?

 

[Roustabout]

Won’t be watched by any of these ostriches but fantastic video. Islam is EVIL.

 

[Wafflestomper]

You’re reaching.
So, when the majority of philosophers where theist did that make them right?

Obviously not, but they were still experts in their field. Doctors have been wrong about things like the causes of specific illnesses but we still respect their opinions on medical issues even though they aren't omniscient. Their opinion on medical issues is still worth considerably more than a laypersons.

It certainly doesn't rise to the level of logical fallacy to use that as evidence. Ad populum is an appeal to popular opinion of people who aren't experts.

I think the field has defined who becomes a philosopher. The majority of institutions of higher learning were religious. Something happened in the last 200 years
You aren’t even consider a philosopher if you study at a Christian school. Your consider a “Christian” philosopher.

So you think people like Ed Feser, WLC, and Alvin Plantinga aren't considered "real" philosophers? Based on what?

Why 62% of Philosophers are Atheists (Part I) | Psychology Today
Article is by an atheist btw

This is based on the same survey I linked. If you open the link to the Plantinga interview it references the Philpapers survey. 62% accept atheism and 11% lean towards it. Only ~15% accept or lean towards theism.

 

[Roustabout]

Obviously not, but they were still experts in their field. Doctors have been wrong about things like the causes of specific illnesses but we still respect their opinions on medical issues even though they aren't omniscient. Their opinion on medical issues is still worth considerably more than a laypersons.

It certainly doesn't rise to the level of logical fallacy to use that as evidence. Ad populum is an appeal to popular opinion of people who aren't experts.



So you think people like Ed Feser, WLC, and Alvin Plantinga aren't considered "real" philosophers? Based on what?



This is based on the same survey I linked. If you open the link to the Plantinga interview it references the Philpapers survey. 62% accept atheism and 11% lean towards it. Only ~15% accept or lean towards theism.

I think they are.
Why don’t you ask Feser?
I’m sure he’d love to catastrophic spider with you.

 

[Burger]

Won’t be watched by any of these ostriches but fantastic video. Islam is EVIL.

Christianity was the same way until the Reformation... The Qu'ran says a reformation is sacrilege.

 

[rjd970]

External referent.
We both treat morality as if there is an external referent. Who is being consistent?

But now we are back to the beginning again. What is that external reference and why should I believe it? If it boils down to a self-referential God then it is question begging and the theist is in a no better position than the atheist who says morality is simply defined by evolution, reason, science, debate, or whatever.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Map of Freedom | Democracy Web

 

[rjd970]

Map of Freedom | Democracy Web

Yep. Pretty clear as to how compatible Islam is with freedom and democracy. When embassy’s burn and people are murdered over cartoons of Muhammad it shows the priority religious ideas have over something as a basic as free speech.

 

[Wafflestomper]

But now we are back to the beginning again. What is that external reference and why should I believe it? If it boils down to a self-referential God then it is question begging and the theist is in a no better position than the atheist who says morality is simply defined by evolution, reason, science, debate, or whatever.

If there is a good argument for the necessity of God as the basis for morality you probably won't see it here.

 

[volsportsfan]

If there is a good argument for the necessity of God as the basis for morality you probably won't see it here.

To me, the Bibles doctrine on eternal justice ( everlasting reward or everlasting punishment ), it's superior teaching of morality ( compared to anything else man has come up with. Whether athiests or any other religion ), fulfillment of prophecy, and by it's historical authenticity ( Michael Grant says that if we use the same historical methods for the Bible that we use for any other ancient historical work, then the tomb was empty, and the apostles were convinced they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead ), all this together infers / helps us perceive - that the God it ( the Bible ) also speaks of, is reasonably true. The word of God, the Bible, in my opinion is God inspired and helps us come to Him in faith. We have a great evidence for the reality of the one true God, in the Bible, the word. The word of God is sharper than a two edged sword, in the beginning was the word, heaven and Earth shall pass away but my word shall not, your word o Lord - is everlasting, my word that proceeds out of my mouth will not return unto me empty, the word that I have spoken will judge him on that last day etc

 

[Roustabout]

Christianity was the same way until the Reformation... The Qu'ran says a reformation is sacrilege.

You’re an idiot if you believe that.

 

[Purple Tiger]

You’re an idiot if you believe that.

Why is he an idiot? Throughout its history, the members of the Christian Church have committed violent acts in the name of God. The Christian word was spread with the sword in some places in Europe and throughout South America. There was a 100 year war in Europe between the Protestants and Catholics. People used the Bible to condone slavery. Jews were attacked and murdered in by European Christians in pogroms for almost 1900 years. Until Bartolomé de las Casas got the practice stopped in the 1600s, a Christian was basically free to do anything he wanted with an "inferior" unbeliever.

Acknowledging our faith's ignoble past does not make us less Christian. Refusing to acknowledge our past might.

 

[volsportsfan]

Oh, and I left off maybe the best of all. 2 Tim 3:10-17. That from a child ( thank God for Godly teachers! ) you have known the holy scriptures ( the word, the old testament being taught when he was a child, plus the circulation of the new scriptures by word of mouth and by letter ) that are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The old, a great witness, and the new, an even better and everlasting covenant, together pointing us toward the one true God. I also love vs 10-13, as Paul is telling Timothy that he didn't just preach the superior word of God, he lived it. He lived Luke 11:42. Judgement / justice, and love of God ( which teaches us to truly love others also ). These two together equalling a life of merciful justice.

 

[Burger]

You’re an idiot if you believe that.

Might want to read a history book with The Inquisition in it.

 

[Electric Orange]

I will occasionally drink an Irish Car Bomb, but no typically I don't mix my Guinness with anything.

Bump for Irish Car Bombs

 

[Electric Orange]

French soldiers will be allowed to 'OPEN FIRE' if lives are threatened by Yellow Vest rioters | Daily Mail Online

 

[Roustabout]

Why is he an idiot? Throughout its history, the members of the Christian Church have committed violent acts in the name of God. The Christian word was spread with the sword in some places in Europe and throughout South America. There was a 100 year war in Europe between the Protestants and Catholics. People used the Bible to condone slavery. Jews were attacked and murdered in by European Christians in pogroms for almost 1900 years. Until Bartolomé de las Casas got the practice stopped in the 1600s, a Christian was basically free to do anything he wanted with an "inferior" unbeliever.

Acknowledging our faith's ignoble past does not make us less Christian. Refusing to acknowledge our past might.

I actually do acknowledge the problems I. Christian history. He was saying the Christian church was essentially the same as Islam. That is stupid and if he believes that, he’s an idiot.

 

[Roustabout]

Might want to read a history book with The Inquisition in it.

The inquisition was a horrible thing, but it’s a wart on a beautiful institution. Islam is one big wart. Huge difference. The fact that the inquisition stands out on Christian history ought to tell you that.