Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are equivalent in terms of function, they are tantamount in terms of value and significance:
rules of conduct, moral code, ethical guide, foundational to a sacred path, identified with a specific religion, of key and fundamental significance, core principles.
They are equivalent in terms of function: rules of conduct, moral guide, foundational to a sacred path, identified with a specific religion. They are tantamount in terms of value and significance.
a person's word choice and loaded language reveals a lot about them. For instance if they refer to their own views opinions and outlook as "truth" (or even "Truth") while labeling the views opinions and outlook of others different from their own as "ill-informed" "nonsense" "claims" "asserted" "biased" "emotion-driven" "opinion"
If their views opinions and outlook actually comport to reality, then referring to them as "truth" is perfectly legitimate.
If views opinions and outlook of others are demonstrably ill-informed, nonsensical and biased then describing them as such is perfectly legitimate too.
What is not legitimate is to label anything you don't like and/or don't agree with as a personal attack intended to maliciously hurt your feelings.
If their views opinions and outlook actually comport to reality, then referring to them as "truth" is perfectly legitimate. If views opinions and outlook of others are demonstrably ill-informed, nonsensical and biased then describing them as such is perfectly legitimate too. What is not legitimate is to label anything you don't like and/or don't agree with as a personal attack intended to maliciously hurt your feelings.
for example, the views expressed in post above are your opinions.
I may hold different views. those would be my opinions.
level playing field. that's how it is with opinions. and views. and outlook.
when there is no double standard, no agenda.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-09-2022 at 04:20 PM..
for example, the views expressed in post above are your opinions.
I may hold different views. those would be my opinions.
The views expressed in my post are not my opinions.
This is how science, epistemology, critical thinking, logic works and this is not just my opinion either.
This approach is accepted by any and every serious practitioner in science and philosophy.
My statements above are not controversial.
If you don't agree then there can be no serious, productive conversation with you since you insist on a rule that would only be acceptable in Wonderland - whatever you say goes.
Sure you have a right to have your opinion. But unless you realize (like everyone else in a rational world, not in the Wonderland) that your opinion can be challenged b/c it can be wrong, ill-informed, nonsensical, biased, incoherent, etc., you should not be expecting to be taken seriously.
The views expressed in my post are not my opinions.
This is how science, epistemology, critical thinking, logic works and this is not just my opinion either.
This approach is accepted by any and every serious practitioner in science and philosophy.
My statements above are not controversial. If you don't agree then there can be no serious, productive conversation with you since you insist on rules that would only be acceptable in Wonderland - whatever you say goes.Sure you have a right to have your opinion. But unless you realize (like everyone else in a rational world, not in the Wonderland) that your opinion can be challenged b/c they can be wrong, ill-informed, nonsensical, biased, incoherent, etc., you should not be expecting to be taken seriously.
the views expressed in post above are also opinions. they are not science. nor does "any and every serious practitioner in science and philosophy" hold the opinions expressed in post above. i would be surprised to find these phrases used in any peer reviewed science journal: "Wonderland" "ill-informed" "nonsensical" "imaginary" "deluded" "mind-reader" "in a rational world" "incoherent." To say there can be no serious productive conversation with those who disagree or hold different views, is problematic in any discussion. It demonstrates a lack of logic and a marked absence of critical thinking. (And even more so for those who claim to be "a serious practitioner in science and philosophy.")
Philosophy includes the Philosophy of Religion. For instance, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the themes and concepts involved in religious traditions as well as the broader philosophical task of reflecting on matters of religious significance including the nature of religion itself, alternative concepts of God or ultimate reality, and the religious significance of general features of the cosmos. Philosophy of religion involves all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, value theory (including moral theory and applied ethics), philosophy of language, science, history, politics, art."
"Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals, while some journals (such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, Sophia, Faith and Philosophy, and others) are dedicated especially to philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion is in evidence at institutional meetings of philosophers (such as the meetings of the American Philosophical Association and of the Royal Society of Philosophy)."
Is it your opinion that they are not "serious practitioners in philosophy" ?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-09-2022 at 08:22 PM..
the views expressed in post above are also opinions. they are not science. nor does "any and every serious practitioner in science and philosophy" hold the opinions expressed in post above. i would be surprised to find these phrases used in any peer reviewed science journal: "Wonderland" "ill-informed" "nonsensical" "imaginary" "deluded" "mind-reader" "in a rational world" "incoherent." To say there can be no serious productive conversation with those who disagree or hold different views, is problematic in any discussion. It demonstrates a lack of logic and a marked absence of critical thinking. (And even more so for those who claim to be "a serious practitioner in science and philosophy.")
Philosophy includes the Philosophy of Religion. For instance, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the themes and concepts involved in religious traditions as well as the broader philosophical task of reflecting on matters of religious significance including the nature of religion itself, alternative concepts of God or ultimate reality, and the religious significance of general features of the cosmos. Philosophy of religion involves all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, value theory (including moral theory and applied ethics), philosophy of language, science, history, politics, art."
"Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals, while some journals (such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, Sophia, Faith and Philosophy, and others) are dedicated especially to philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion is in evidence at institutional meetings of philosophers (such as the meetings of the American Philosophical Association and of the Royal Society of Philosophy)."
Is it your opinion that they are not "serious practitioners in philosophy" ?
the views expressed in post above are also opinions. they are not science. nor does "any and every serious practitioner in science and philosophy" hold the opinions expressed in post above. i would be surprised to find these phrases used in any peer reviewed science journal: "Wonderland" "ill-informed" "nonsensical" "imaginary" "deluded" "mind-reader" "in a rational world" "incoherent." To say there can be no serious productive conversation with those who disagree or hold different views, is problematic in any discussion. It demonstrates a lack of logic and a marked absence of critical thinking. (And even more so for those who claim to be "a serious practitioner in science and philosophy.")
Philosophy includes the Philosophy of Religion. For instance, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the themes and concepts involved in religious traditions as well as the broader philosophical task of reflecting on matters of religious significance including the nature of religion itself, alternative concepts of God or ultimate reality, and the religious significance of general features of the cosmos. Philosophy of religion involves all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, value theory (including moral theory and applied ethics), philosophy of language, science, history, politics, art."
"Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals, while some journals (such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Religious Studies, Sophia, Faith and Philosophy, and others) are dedicated especially to philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion is in evidence at institutional meetings of philosophers (such as the meetings of the American Philosophical Association and of the Royal Society of Philosophy)."
Is it your opinion that they are not "serious practitioners in philosophy" ?
Great post, Tzaph. Thank you for all this information. I did not know about the journals you have mentioned above. I will be looking them up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
