Eren stated the following: David is now pretending that Ive said that pure thought is sufficient to cause violent events. To explain to David for a second time, the fact that not all thoughts cause actions doesnt entail that all actions arent caused by their cognitive correspondents. If David thinks that this relieves all mental processes about religion from responsibility, hes even more stupid than we already think he is. So, Again, Id like to ask David how the acts committed by the Islamic state have no causal relationship with religion. My response:Again you did not say anything about pure thoughts being a sifficient cause. On the contrary you stated that thoughts were causal agent. But my resasoning showed you that your claim is false. Again; 1, Thoughts are not causal agents. 2. If thoughts are not causal agents, then actions are not the consequences of thoughts. 3. Therefore, necessarily, actions are not the consequences of thoughts. Again; your Ad hominem attack (namely saying i am stupid) will corrupt the quality of your mind and character. You are only wounding your soul. Again; 1. The waging of war requires a causal agent. 2. Thus, if thoughts are not causal agent, then thoughts are not the cause of the waging of war. 3. Thoughts are not causal agents. 4. Therefore, necessarily, thoughts are not the cause of the waging of war. To your question; namely: how the acts committed by the Islamic state have no causal relationship with religion? My response is as follows: 1. The waging of war requires a causal agent. 2. Thus, if relgion is not a causal agent, then religion cannot cause the waging of war. 3. Religion is not a causal agent. 4. Therefore, necessarily, religion cannot cause the waging of war. So, there is no causal relationship between the acts that are committed by the Islamic state and religion. The only part religion plays is as follows: It provides grounds and ideologies for war. Yes the Koran provides grounds for war. But; what conditions must be satisfied before such grounds are admissible? That is a hermeneutical question. It is also a question that pertains to the Islamic exegises of the Koran. Thus, it is impossible to know if the Koran sanctions Jihad, because there are many interpretations of the Koran. Thus how can you blame the Koran or religion for what the Islamic state is doing, since you do not know which interpretation of the Koran is correct? For without knowing which interpretation is correct it is impossible to blame Islam or the Koran for what the Islamic state is doing. For the Islamic state may be practising Islam incorrectly. Even the crusades that were fought by Christians were not sanctioned by Jesus. Thus, how can we blame the religion that Jesus founded for the wars that the popes fought? Of-course we cannot, because those wars were not sanctioned by Jesus. On the contrary those wars were sanctioned because of vice and greed. The bible was simply misinterpreted in order to justify the crusade. 18 mins · Like David Salako Eren sated the following: FInally, David, youre too stupid to realize that my causal chain is a reflection of YOUR reasoning. I know that we dont blame war on genetics and reproduction. YOU were the one confusing these things. Youre so stupid, though, half the time you dont even understand what youre saying yourself. So...were still waiting for an argument that relieves religion from responsibility? (On a different note, your gravity argument was the biggest joke my philosophy class has ever witnessed. Thanks for that laugh.). My response is as follows: Again; you use of Ad Hominem (namely: you stated that i am stupid) is bad for the quality of your mind and character. Moreover, we know that you cannot refute an argument; or rather an argument does not become invalid/unsound because you called the person who constructed it stupid. No; logic (that is, the science that treats forms of thinking) is creterion by which all arguments are evaluated for validity and soundness, and not stupid. My gravity argument is biggest joke your philosophy class has ever witnessed. Lol.... Then your philosophy class does not know how to do philosophy. I am even convinced of this. For you are a clear example of someone who does not know how to do philosophy. By the way you have not refuted the argument. So why are you laughing.. You see to fail to realise that the standard by which all arguments are evaluated (for truth value, soundness, and validity) is logic, and not laughter or the amount of people who are laughing. So yet again your actions are not philosophical. MOREOVER you have committed the red herring fallacy by the things you have written, because it has nothing to do with the etiology of war. Please try again because you have been defeated by a better philosopher.
Posted on: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:12:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015