I began today’s endeavors in exercise of Philosophy in engagement in direct messaging (DM) with someone who made a friend request, and replied to my polite inquiry as to why with an intention to “revert” me to Islam, though I have never been Muslim. I speculate that she has a prejudice that anyone who can analyze the passages in a translation of the Qur’an, and criticize them, must have been Muslim. If so, her evaluation of me is shallow, and I do not expect her to have any success in this effort.
Nevertheless, it might be an opportunity to help her free her mind from the dogmatic and superstitious shackles of Islam, and of Islamic culture, so, I am drawing boundaries -no hate speech, no dehumanizing- and requiring a commitment to honest and open dialog. It’s not going well so far, however, in that she objected to my no-dehumanizing rule. I predict that she will not accede to my requirements, and I’ll post the interchange for exposure (not personal: I don’t even know if her account name and display name are genuine), and delete her friend request. If she becomes abusive, I’ll even block her.
Following that, I had occasion to deny committing Argumentum ad Populum, and, in a separate reply, object to a Category Error, as well caution against a Fallacy of Composition, though I did not specify that.
Update on that DM dialog: she became deflecting and, then, abusive, so I discontinued, blocking her. I saved the conversation, and I’m deciding whether and how to post it.
Later, I engaged a correspondent on his counter-definition, giving some falsification, then showing why the etymology to which he referred was consistent with my definition of religion.
In the evening, I defended my proof that there is no god against an objection that existence is evidence of a god, and I refuted that objection.
Views: 99
