In response to Hawking's new stated position on God

[Ramadhan]

Christian, but if one is going to discuss faith one has to see the other persons position or argument - you cannot just assume or worse know that you are right can you?

You only like being devil's advocate in atheism debate, but I don't see you do much critical thinking, if at all, when it comes to your bible or the idea of a man-god.

By the way, you are out of the sin bin already?

 

[Ramadhan]

Funny, I actually didn't read yahya sulaiman's last post when writing my above post.
So some other people also saw that hugo just like playing devil's advocate just for the hell of it.

 

[Zafran]

Funny, I actually didn't read yahya sulaiman's last post when writing my above post.
So some other people also saw that hugo just like playing devil's advocate just for the hell of it.

Salaam

Yes he does - if you give him the taste of his own medicine you'll see the venom in him. Hes clearly not here for any serious discussion but to ram down his own old views which ultimatly are hypocritical because he doesnt dare to apply the same thinking to his own religion or views.

peace

 

[Trumble]

Hugo: All that sounds nice and fancy, but what it really amounts to is a euphemistic admission of deliberately wasting our time by playing devil's advocate. If you're so concerned for our open-mindedness then by all means "enlighten" us sincerely from your own true viewpoint.

IMHO playing devil's advocate is perfectly legitimate here, or in 'Comparative Religion'. What matters most is the quality of the arguments presented, not personal 'viewpoints', although of course those do have their place. The aim of such forums is mutual understanding and seeking to define the boundaries of disagreement, not proselytizing. There are other forums for muslims to do that, and anybody else shouldn't do it here at all.

 

[Ramadhan]

IMHO playing devil's advocate is perfectly legitimate here, or in 'Comparative Religion'. What matters most is the quality of the arguments presented, not personal 'viewpoints', although of course those do have their place. The aim of such forums is mutual understanding and seeking to define the boundaries of disagreement, not proselytizing. There are other forums for muslims to do that, and anybody else shouldn't do it here at all.

Apparently you haven't seen hugo's other posts apart from the ones in this thread.

 

[Zafran]

IMHO playing devil's advocate is perfectly legitimate here, or in 'Comparative Religion'. What matters most is the quality of the arguments presented, not personal 'viewpoints', although of course those do have their place. The aim of such forums is mutual understanding and seeking to define the boundaries of disagreement, not proselytizing. There are other forums for muslims to do that, and anybody else shouldn't do it here at all.

Devils advocate is just plain fooling around - your making an argument that you dont even believe in. The aim of mutual understanding cannot be reached like that - that can only be reached through sincerity and actaully having the courage to walk away when the disagreements are shown. With Hugo this has happend many times with the same arguments which end up with the same conclusion - Thats called wasting peoples time.

 

[FS123]

Christian, but if one is going to discuss faith one has to see the other persons position or argument - you cannot just assume or worse know that you are right can you?

Well, faith shouldn't be blind faith, but, I knew a guy who started to play devil's advocate for a serial killer then he started to build justification for serial killing. Later his mind started to believe serial killing is ok depending in certain circumstances. He is not a killer so as far as I know he haven't killed anyone, but he still believes serial killing is ok. No wonder, some people were complaining over the drama Dexter, in which, a serial killer is portrayed as a hero.

One friend of mine, wanted to try everything, it is not exactly trying to be devils advocate, but his thinking was along similar lines. So he tried heroin just to try it out and ruined his life. I guess trying everything isn't such a good thing.

Anyhow, i don't how to frame it in the current context, but I thought it those two cases were interesting and relevant in just trying to be devils advocate. But one thing i can say for sure, satan has many tricks to pollute the mind -- as the saying goes: "never give devil a ride, he will always want to drive."

 

[Trumble]

Anyhow, i don't how to frame it in the current context, but I thought it those two cases were interesting and relevant in just trying to be devils advocate. But one thing i can say for sure, satan has many tricks to pollute the mind -- as the saying goes: "never give devil a ride, he will always want to drive."

'Devil's advocate' has nothing to do with Satan, at least in the modern context, nor does it imply anything about the morality or otherwise of the arguments used. It's a perfectly respectable philosophical tool in which someone takes a position that they do not necessarily agree with, in order that the implications of that position can be considered and the argument as a whole progressed. Most, if not all, philosophers play devil's advocate within their own thought and writing both to test the soundness of their ideas, and to answer possible objections they have anticipated in advance.

 

[FS123]

'Devil's advocate' has nothing to do with Satan, at least in the modern context, nor does it imply anything about the morality or otherwise of the arguments used. It's a perfectly respectable philosophical tool in which someone takes a position that they do not necessarily agree with, in order that the implications of that position can be considered and the argument as a whole progressed. Most, if not all, philosophers play devil's advocate within their own thought and writing both to test the soundness of their ideas, and to answer possible objections they have anticipated in advance.

Take deep breathes and slowly read again what i said, before you misconstrue the post and write something.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Playing devil's advocate, at least when you haven't made it clear from the start that you are outwardly making no mistake of the fact that you're doing it, is insincere, dishonest, pretentious, and accomplishes nothing that cannot just as easily be accomplished via other means (such as hypothetical questions). And if anything, it's all the more reason not to do it if philosophers do it too.

 

[Hugo]

There seems to be an interesting, well to me at lest line of discussion here. Let me state it as best I can.

1. One cannot have a discussion with anyone if they are convinced that they KNOW they are right and whatever answer they give is also always right and indeed indisputable and whatever you say is indisputably wrong? Is this the usual Muslim position or are they open minded; ready to listen to counter arguments or opinions, willing to be critical; which in itself means being at least being open to the possibility they may be wrong?

2. It is no secret that most if not all Muslim majority countries silence contrary opinion of all kinds and indeed go much further and punish it in law. But as others have said, there is a peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; of hearing those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

So two questions and I invite your views/answers?

 

[IAmZamzam]

There seems to be an interesting, well to me at lest line of discussion here.

I’m glad that at least one of us finds it interesting.

One cannot have a discussion with anyone if they are convinced that they KNOW they are right and whatever answer they give is also always right and indeed indisputable and whatever you say is indisputably wrong?

I can’t even tell whether that’s a statement or a question, let alone what it’s saying. My response is thus, to the degree that I know what you're talking about: you’re on a message board. If you don’t want to see people acting in the way you’ve described, stop attending message boards, because you’re living in a dream world if you think you can escape it. The thing bothers me too. You know what I usually do when I’m faced with it in a thread of conversation I have no natural, sincere quarter in? I stay the eff out and mind my own business. I leave the people of the thread to handle themselves, and God to handle them all individually for their sins. I suggest you do the same.

Is this the usual Muslim position or are they open minded; ready to listen to counter arguments or opinions, willing to be critical; which in itself means being at least being open to the possibility they may be wrong?

This has nothing to do with “the Muslim position” on anything, but only with the way you misled us with your insincerity. There’s a reason why people usually say something like “if I may play devil’s advocate here” before they do it: because to do otherwise is tantamount to deception.

It is no secret that most if not all Muslim majority countries silence contrary opinion of all kinds and indeed go much further and punish it in law. But as others have said, there is a peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; of hearing those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

What are you, a speechmaker for a politician? None of the above paragraph has anything to do with anything.

 

[Hugo]

I can't even tell whether that's a statement or a question ...

Fair enough so I will make it more plain but as usual you responses are full of the usual ad hominems. So my question to you is do you agree with the following propositions:

1. There is a peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion for it robs the human race of hearing those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.

2. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Nobody is silencing anyone and nobody is exchanging anything for anything: we're just tired of you arguing with us for the sake of it (as I am tired of you and others misusing the term "ad hominem"), and while what you said in your last post is true, it has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Nothing. To. Do. With. Anything. Unless it's just as an excuse for you to be argumentative.

 

[Hugo]

Nobody is silencing anyone and nobody is exchanging anything for anything: we're just tired of you arguing with us for the sake of it (as I am tired of you and others misusing the term "ad hominem"), and while what you said in your last post is true, it has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Nothing. To. Do. With. Anything. Unless it's just as an excuse for you to be argumentative.

If it is true as you affirm here that there should always be full and free exchange of opinion then its hard to see that it has, as you say "no bearing on anything" but surely it implies that one should never silence opinion. So can you explain why in Islam that freedom of expression is so limited. For example, why cannot one say and publish openly in an Islamic country (if I can put it like that) that they consider the Qu'ran to be nothing more than fable and then offer an explanation? There need be no intention to insult (though I would not even see that as a barrier) anyone just a free expression of a considered opinion?

I suppose what I am saying is that if a man’s thinking leads him to call into question ideas/customs which regulate the behaviour of those around him, to reject beliefs which they hold, to see better ways of life than those they follow, it is almost impossible for him, if he is convinced of the truth of his own reasoning, not to betray by silence, chance words, or general attitude that he is different from them and does not share their opinions. Some, like Socrates, would prefer to face death rather than conceal their thoughts. Thus freedom of thought, in any valuable sense, includes freedom of speech?

Note. Ad Hominem
You commit this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic Fallacy. This attack may undermine the arguer's credibility as an authority, but it does not undermine their reasoning because the reasoning stands or falls on the evidence. The major difficulty with labelling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant. For example, attacks on a person for their immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in the church/mosque. (In you post you suggest that I am arguing for the sake of it which may or may not be true but but clearly it vis irrelevant to any evidence I bring.)

 

[IAmZamzam]

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IS NOT THE TOPIC. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM YOUR OWN EXPOSURE.

You want to argue for the sake of it and I'm not going to grant your wish any further. Have you not noticed that I'm the last person in this thread foolish enough to still be talking to you (though no more!)? Have you not noticed how many different people in this and other threads have told you that they're not indulging you anymore because they know what you're trying to do? Everyone knows what you're about, not just we in this thread! Why don't you just find a new message board to troll on? You're busted here.

 

[Hugo]

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IS NOT THE TOPIC. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. YOU ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM YOUR OWN here.

Well you have made your point clear, for you freedom of thought even has nothing to do with anything. So how could you possibly discuss Hawkin's view or any other since you deny the very principle that makes any learning of value. Perhaps you are right, there is nothing in this board for me because there is nothing to doubt, nothing to explore, it's all been decided.

 

[جوري]

there is nothing in this board for me

Have a good one--so long-- hope you are man enough to actually fulfill your word!

 

[IAmZamzam]

Technically, lily, he never gave it. And I personally don't expect him to leave this board anytime soon, if ever. He seems to have some compulsion to pick fights with people so that he can get pseudo-intellectual and speech-y about it when called for it and (in his own mind) feel/look superior to everyone else.

 

[جوري]

People are as smart as they are educated-- if peddling in common ''persuasive'' rhetoric from lowly islamophobic site as a reflection of intellect, it would leave our dear friend Hugo with a few dilemmas the most obvious is his cognitive conservatism and the second is his manipulative sociopathy. Neither which is welcome on this forum.. I can't for the life of me figure why his ban was week long only considering his patent seething hatred and preferred display of ignorance despite repeated attempts from most members to correct him. I think he is best suited for a KKK type site where like minded ignoramuses and certainly not teaching in so-called Islamic countries where he reaps Muslims Money while leaving his stinking droppings wherever he treads.

Of course he can't help himself.. he is a lurker and a troll!

p.s by no means is my comment a reply to Yahya..