USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
Watching grown men argue that their religion is better than someone else's religion like they are 12-year-olds arguing that Superman can kick Batman's ass is definitely something to see - especially when Jonah Hex would beat both of them.
Watching grown men argue that their religion is better than someone else's religion like they are 12-year-olds arguing that Superman can kick Batman's ass is definitely something to see - especially when Jonah Hex would beat both of them.
Right, those philosophy of religion guys must be total dumb nerds, which is why every prestigious university in the world has a philosophy of religion program. The guys that joined a forum for card games and don’t know anything about philosophy of religion must be the smart ones.
I'm not sure the philosophy of religion devotes a lot of time on who's religion is better.
In other less relevant posting.
Iran closes Strait of Hormuz again over continued US blockade of its ports, state media says
I'm not sure the philosophy of religion devotes a lot of time on who's religion is better.
I'm sure that is certainly one of many aspects of religion they discuss. (Maybe, not which is 'better', but rather which ones have more rational grounding than others.) And at least they have the requisite knowledge to make an intelligent assessment, as opposed to most here who use phrases like "Sky Daddy."
One question for Victor - if the US retrieves the uranium dust and gives it to Russia is that like the ultimate outcome for you and you would regard if that happens Iran should be regarded as the victor?
what a stupid question
It’s bundy, someone who chose a serial killer and rapist of dozens of women as his screen name.
I mean he has a point, you either think democratic elections are important or you don't. You can't keep playing both sides of this.
If Victor is playing both sides, he isn't trying very hard. He has been relatively clear that he is OK with degradation of democracy if the government in question says that it is necessary in order to pursue an anti-Western agenda.
A few years ago, I would have used "leftist" rather than "anti-Western" in the above sentence, but i now think the former is less of a motivator for Victor than the latter.
If only there were mods active in this thread who could stop all the derails and personal attacks.
Oh well, nothing to do I guess.
I don't know why this comment is directed at me.
In any case, you probably should prefer the status quo. Periods of heavier moderation historically have resulted in your account getting banned eventually for the usual reasons.
IRGC right now
That is pretty bad if they gave him clearance to go.
I'm not sure the philosophy of religion devotes a lot of time on who's religion is better.
In other less relevant posting.
Iran MP threatens impeachment of foreign minister over comments
Iranian lawmaker Morteza Mahmoudi said Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi would face impeachment over his social media remarks, accusing him of repeated “ill-timed” statements during a sensitive wartime period.
In a post on X, Mahmoudi said that “if it were not for the excuse of war,” Araghchi would have been impeached for his “Twitter message.” He said this was not the first time the foreign minister had made what he described as “strange and untimely statements” during critical moments, adding that such remarks had an impact on global oil and energy markets
Iran lawmaker says Araghchi would face impeachment over Hormuz tweet
Iranian lawmaker Morteza Mahmoudi said Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi would have faced impeachment over his recent tweet if not for wartime considerations, accusing him of repeatedly making ill-timed remarks that help calm global oil and energy markets.
April 17 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that Chinese *President Xi Jinping was "very happy" about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, and that he looked forward to their meeting in China.
"President Xi is very happy that the Strait of Hormuz is open and/or *rapidly opening," Trump said on Truth Social. "Our meeting in China will be a special one and, potentially, Historic. I look forward to being with President Xi — Much will be accomplished!," he added.
I'm wondering if the new Iranian regime Trump's mentioned are the Iranians with ties to Xi vs the IRGC faction. Maybe a palace coup sort of thing. It was weird when Araghchi announced the Strait was open amidst the blockcade since that's a big bargaining chip.
Watching grown men argue that their religion is better than someone else's religion like they are 12-year-olds arguing that Superman can kick Batman's ass is definitely something to see - especially when Jonah Hex would beat both of them.
Usually you pick some bland take that contains at least some common sense. This is just idiotic.
Religion is a core element of culture. Religion has formed across cultures and across time. Is there no connection to how women are treated in the Muslim majority countries than Christian majority countries? If there is a difference, is it totally detached from their religion? If not religion, what’s your theory? Is it racial? Since Muslim majority countries are non white while Christian majority are, is it just a morally inferior race developing these morally repugnant social norms?
Here’s another theory. Once upon a time…ok last summer, I was walking my dog the day after the pride parade. There were stickers all over the light posts. I forget the exact quote but they said something like there’s no free Palestine without something something queer people. Free Palestine was a big left wing thing in the summer. So was the pride parade. Oh I’m just going to link the two together completely forget that a pride parade in Palestine would be their equivalent to Canadas assisted suicide program. Is this kind of what you’re doing here? Like oh I have no criticism for that religion vs Christianity because they rank lower on my progressive oppression hierarchy chart. It doesn’t matter if their religion and culture are the worst offenders of my progressive values, I’ll just shuffle and duck that, pretend it’s not even real
I'm not sure the philosophy of religion devotes a lot of time on who's religion is better.
I was ignoring his characterization of the topic and focusing on what he was responding to. But absolutely there are debates in philosophy of religion of which form of theism is correct or if atheism is correct or if reincarnation/eastern religion is correct. even topics like divine simplicity, trinitarianism vs unitarianism, the nature of the “ultimate” (there’s an entire SEP article on that) are all clearly discussed.
what exactly do you think they are talking about if not that?
1. The Field and its Significance
2. The Meaning of Religious Beliefs
2.1 Positivism
2.2 Wittgensteinian Philosophy of Religion
3. Religious Epistemology
3.1 Evidentialism, Reformed Epistemology, and Volitional Epistemology
3.2 The Epistemology of Disagreement
4. Religion and Science
5. Philosophical Reflection on Theism and Its Alternatives
5.1 Philosophical Reflection on Divine Attributes
5.1.1 Omniscience
5.1.2 Eternity
5.1.3 The goodness of God
5.2 God’s Existence
5.2.1 Ontological arguments
5.2.2 Cosmological arguments
5.2.3 Teleological arguments
5.2.4 Problems of evil
5.2.5 Evil and the greater good
5.2.6 Religious experience
6. Religious Pluralism
Lol yes if you know anything about philosophy of religion you would know that you just backed up what I just said.
“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 (e.g., the laws of nature, the emergence of consciousness) and of historical events (e.g., the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, the Holocaust). Philosophy of religion also includes the investigation and assessment of worldviews (such as secular naturalism) that are alternatives to religious worldviews.”
ok
I guess you don’t read before you post a source right? Because those were the first two sentences. Literally what I was saying, that philosophy of religion does deal with evaluating which worldview is correct. What exactly did you think they were doing chez?
By the way with religious pluralism, which seems to be the position being advanced by some in this thread, it reminds me of the old joke. If you have 5 standards and try to turn it into 1 universal standard, you’ll be left with 6 standards.
It has been argued that Hick has secured not the equal acceptability of diverse religions but rather their unacceptability. In their classical forms, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity diverge. If, say, the Incarnation of God in Christ did not occur, isn’t Christianity false? In reply, Hick has sought to interpret specific claims about the Incarnation in ways that do not commit Christians to the “literal truth” of God becoming enfleshed. The “truth” of the Incarnation has been interpreted in such terms as these: in Jesus Christ (or in the narratives about Christ) God is disclosed. Or: Jesus Christ was so united with God’s will that his actions were and are the functional display of God’s character. Perhaps as a result of Hick’s challenge, philosophical work on the incarnation and other beliefs and practice specific to religious traditions have received renewed attention (see, for example, Taliaferro and Meister 2009). Hick has been a leading, widely appreciated force in the expansion of philosophy of religion in the late twentieth century.
