Originally posted by lucifershammerBy comments on quotes:
If there is a strawman argument there - point it out. If it's valid, I'll happily apologise.
First two are irrelevant because they state cases that do not contradict my point. I mentioned "there are cases where P" and you simply stated "but there are cases where non-P". Strawmen since I'm not claiming "all cases are P".
Third one is a reformulation of what I said making it sound as a contradiction.
Fourth and fifth are irrelevant.
Sixth avoids the issue.
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't accept it was ridiculous. Whodey made a broad condemnation of muslims based on a stereotype. I find that unacceptable
That is quite an overgeneralization. Which other goals beside self-defence are commonly accepted as justifications for violence?
Does that goal apply to the case in question? I think not. Aardvark made the ridiculous hitler parallel and whodey first refuted it by the absurd and then said that actually there was something in common, but that didn't contrad ...[text shortened]... obe. I find it strange from what I read in this thread, is there a history of it with this guy?
Originally posted by whodeyNice post. Had I read this earlier I wouldn't have taken such an abrasive position to argue from. Please accept my apologies
Thanks. It is nice to have some support around here for a change. I am in no way a racist. After all, I am a follower of Christ who was Jewish and a decendent of Abraham. Likewise, most Middle Eastern Arabs are also decendants of Abraham. That is why it makes me sick to see brother killing brother over there. Forget how Muhammad might think about such v ...[text shortened]... sue, but it is one that has been eating at me for a long time and I suspect many of you as well.
Originally posted by PalynkaMy objection was to stereotyping. I think you've lost the plot here
[b]If someone believes e.g. Hitler and Mohammed share a view of violence which is somehow less general, they should post the evidence.
Again, the burden of evidence falls on aardvark, not the one that refuted it. It is an ad hitlerum from the start and whodey spin it in his favour (but still an ad hitlerum). I agree that also this comparision makes no s ...[text shortened]... ch a reasoning and not by continuing falling under the Hitlerian fly-trap that leads nowhere?[/b]
Originally posted by PalynkaPoor choice of words by me. I meant, the ultimate objective truth of a religion, like the ideal perfection you can read about in Halitose's latest Spiritual Quote, is a chimera. In your view, the interpretation of a religion's sacred text is always changing, can never be a transcendent object.
It is not a chimera, it is a social phenomenon. In what way is a religion without believers a religion? It becomes mere historical myth.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not anti-religion nor my view entails that there is no transcendence.
In your view, the interpretation of a religion's sacred text is always changing, can never be a transcendent object.
All the theist needs is the conscience that he is a mere man and therefore his views will influence his interpretations of a sacred text. Sacred texts can still be guiding lights and keep a divine nature.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn terms of writing skill, there can be absolutely no comparison. I have read both books. Rushdie is a virtuoso writer. Dan Brown is a hack. The DaVinci Code reads like a screenplay. A bad one.
By Salman Rushdie. One Catholic scandal, one Muslim. Yes or no?
Actually I think a person would have a hard time coming up with two more disparate writers.
Originally posted by PalynkaTrue. I think the point LH is trying to make, is that such a critique would be superficial at best and may not bear an accurate reflection of the sustainability of the said religion's theology.
I didn't said that religion should be criticized by a divorce with theology, I'm just saying that not only scholars are entitled to criticize religion.
Exactly in the same way that you don't need to be a scholar to embrace it.
Originally posted by PalynkaSo you agree that irrespective of subjective interpretation, there is still objective truth?
I'm not anti-religion nor my view entails that there is no transcendence.
All the theist needs is the conscience that he is a mere man and therefore his views will influence his interpretations of a sacred text. Sacred texts can still be guiding lights and keep a divine nature.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, I'm an atheist. For the theist, it can definitely exist but it cannot be know as "the truth".
So you agree that irrespective of subjective interpretation, there is still objective truth?
What I'm attacking here is the idea that scholars are "keepers of the religious truth".
Originally posted by PalynkaAs an atheist you make a claim, which you consider objective spiritual truth i.e. there is no god. Why then can the theist not also have a claim to spiritual truth? Isn't this stance a little off balance?
No, I'm an atheist. For the theist, it can definitely exist but it cannot be know as "the truth".
What I'm attacking here is the idea that scholars are "keepers of the religious truth".
Originally posted by HalitoseAnd similarly, not believing in invisible unicorns is a claim about invisible mythical creatures?
Atheism is a spiritual claim: it is a negation of the spiritual (more specifically God).
If so, so what? Is it therefore on a par with believing in invisible unicorns, because that is a similar "type of claim"?