Friday, November 17, 2017

Mark Linville on an atheist retort to religious morality

A common atheist retort: "Would you rape, pillage, and plunder if you did not have the Bible to tell you not to?"
The implication is that this would be a superficial morality. And it would indeed.
Reply: Theists and atheists alike refrain from such acts because conscience tells them that it is wrong. The question is whether they have equally good explanations for why we should suppose that conscience is a reliable guide to truth.

108 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...

Conscience, alone, is not a reliable guide to truth; one needs to use critical thinking to evaluate whether the intuition provided by their conscience is going in the right direction. Religion, or lack therof, does not change that I think.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo,

"Whether the intuition provided by their conscience is going in the right direction" seems to be circular. "Right direction" under atheism is a notion dictated by that same conscience, and two people with exact opposite moral beliefs on an issue can both correctly claim that their intuition provided by their conscience is going in the right direction, despite the impossibility of both being correct. How do we decide who, if either, is correct?

John Moore said...

Equally good explanations?

Atheists think conscience is reliable because conscience evolved in us. Reliability means we can rely on it to help us survive in the future. Something that evolved is likely to be in tune with evolutionary fitness.

Religious people think conscience is reliable because God gave it to us. Reliability means we an rely on it to guide us in doing God's will. Something that God gave us is likely to be in tune with God's will.

Victor Reppert said...

That was a nice piece of apologetics, John. Religion evolved within us, so it must be in tune with evolutionary fitness. Dumping it as a delusion might cost us our lives.

John Moore said...

Or else religion might be like the appendix, something that once served a useful purpose but now often gets infected and needs to be surgically removed.

brownmamba said...

This theistic retort seems to concede the debate to the atheist about ontology (by acknowledging that grounding morality in God's will is arbitrary) and shifts the debate to epistemology. However, for an epistemological argument to get off the ground, one has to actually establish the nature of moral facts (the ontology) first. In other words, we have to think hard about what it means to be right or wrong about morality in order for an epistemological argument to have any force.

For example, if one says that moral facts are grounded in the "transcendant" such as Platonism, then it seems that the theist has an advantage epistemologically. But why believe this is true?

Stardusty Psyche said...

OP Theists and atheists alike refrain from such acts because conscience tells them that it is wrong.
--Indeed. The source of our sense of ought is ourselves. Morality is personal, lacking an objective source, subjective, and relative.

OP The question is whether they have equally good explanations for why we should suppose that conscience is a reliable guide to truth.
--We shouldn't, but that is all we have available, tough luck for us, the universe doesn't give a damn.

Dave Duffy said...

"the universe doesn't give a damn"

I finally some someone who speaks for the UNIVERSE!

Zgob ermn said...

Dave D, that take down was funny :) naturalist-atheists often speak from both side of the mouth. How in the world (in the naturalist-atheist world) can Stardusty actually KNOW this as a fact? Of course he can't, but then he speaks as if it's an obvious truth. At best he can only propose this as an interpretation that logically follows when taking naturalism as an axiom. But then this "the universe doesn't give a damn" mentality is damnably anti-human, for human self-consciousness inextricably involves deep moral experience. Of course, for the "god" of the naturalist--nature and its blind forces--such human experiences are mere brainfarts or illusions. But then even many in their camp say that such illusions are indeed still necessary to hold society together.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Zgob ermn said...

" Dave D, that take down was funny :) naturalist-atheists often speak from both side of the mouth."
--The response was indeed funny. Your serious analysis is blockhead.

" How in the world (in the naturalist-atheist world) can Stardusty actually KNOW this as a fact?"
--Ok, genius, the universe is not a brain, or a mind, or anything else somebody dreamed up on their last hallucinogenic retreat. That's the point.

" Of course, for the "god" of the naturalist--nature and its blind forces--such human experiences are mere brainfarts or illusions."
--Get over yourself, it was ironic, and got an even funnier response. Prattling on in seriousness about it totally kills the delivery.

" But then even many in their camp say that such illusions are indeed still necessary to hold society together."
--We will be a great deal better off when we at last rid ourselves of the god delusion, but I have no realistic hope of living to see that day.

Miguel said...

Reminder Strawdusty takes PNC to be a provisional postulate.

So you can ignore his diatribes on morality as madness, as well. Nothing for him is really objective after all, except to the level of the approximations he likes to talk about, but these require PNC to be absolutely true in order to even work as real approximations, so you can discount that as well.

Zgob ermn said...

"We will be a great deal better off when we at last rid ourselves of the god delusion" -- Hmm. Like Stalin's Russia? Or Mao's People's Republic of China? Or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge? These were the most serious attempts--concrete historical attempts--to rid society of the "god delusion" as you put it. So, were they "a great deal better off"? For those wanting to redo the failed experiments, there's always North Korea. Interested?

"but I have no realistic hope of living to see that day" -- Vic's link to an Aeon article (why science will never destroy religion) gives empirical data to your pessimism. The concluding paragraph is telling--

"Religion is not going away any time soon, and science will not destroy it. If anything, it is science that is subject to increasing threats to its authority and social legitimacy. Given this, science needs all the friends it can get. Its advocates would be well advised to stop fabricating an enemy out of religion, or insisting that the only path to a secure future lies in a marriage of science and secularism."

You may want to read the whole thing yourself. https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-is-not-going-away-and-science-will-not-destroy-it

Legion of Logic said...

Society would be a lot better off without the secular rot we experience all around us. If we could rid ourselves of the naturalism delusion, think how great society would be.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said...

" If we could rid ourselves of the naturalism delusion, think how great society would be."
--What aspect of naturalism is delusional? Perhaps you believe you are god dreaming and the rest of us are just figments of your divine imagination?

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "What aspect of naturalism is delusional?"

By naturalism I would be referring to metaphysical naturalism so there would be no need for some heavenly Matrix. And in practice I am simply granting myself as much authority to call differing opinions delusional as you yourself do, as I'm always amused when I see the tactic employed against a belief I have zero reason to even suspect is a delusion.

The only thing more fun is calling a leftist a bigot and not letting up.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "What aspect of naturalism is delusional?"

" By naturalism I would be referring to metaphysical naturalism so there would be no need for some heavenly Matrix."
--We observe the universe. That is the heavenly matrix.

" And in practice I am simply granting myself as much authority to call differing opinions delusional as you yourself do,"
--People who claim to communicate with invisible beings are delusional.

You might find that insulting, well, so be it.

All around us the material is manifest and evident to the senses. The air we breath, the pavement beneath our feet, and on and on and on in the physical world.

Naturalism is what is evidenced to us every day of our lives all day long in myriad ways. Your god is nowhere to be found but in your imagination.

There is no equivalency between the god delusion and the naturalistic reality.

A person is born, lives for some decades, then dies and the body rots so the mind is gone from us never to be heard from again. If the brain is injured the mind is damaged.

If you go to hear a person speak and the crowd speaks to that person that is reality. If you go to a building and everybody inside is speaking but there is nobody in sight they are speaking to that is a mass delusion.

Imagine you are in a dark jungle, you come upon a tribe of people, painted and dressed in ceremonial garb, dancing and chanting around the fire. What do you think of those people? Do you hate them? Think they are subhuman? Or do you simply think they are superstitious and deluding themselves into thinking their imagined gods are real?

That's what it is like for me to go to church on Sunday. The room looks to me like a mass of primitive thinkers chanting in unison to their imaginary spirits.

Dave Duffy said...

"That's what it is like for me to go to church on Sunday. The room looks to me like a mass of primitive thinkers chanting in unison to their imaginary spirits."

A rational first impression, until you get to know the primitive thinkers who show up when your daughter is in a car accident or you throw your back out and need help mowing your lawn.

Of coarse we think we are more clever than most. Big deal.

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Dave Duffy said...

" A rational first impression, until you get to know the primitive thinkers who show up when your daughter is in a car accident or you throw your back out and need help mowing your lawn.

Of coarse we think we are more clever than most. Big deal. "

Incoherent garble.

Are you stoned or what?

Dave Duffy said...

Thanks

Hugo Pelland said...

I think Dave's point is that, when it comes to judging people around you, calling them primitive thinker is not a good way to come to know them, to understand them, or to help them.

Joe Hinman said...

If you go to hear a person speak and the crowd speaks to that person that is reality. If you go to a building and everybody inside is speaking but there is nobody in sight they are speaking to that is a mass delusion.

so if you can't see it it's delusional, that means physics is delusion, quantum theory is delusion,casualty is delusion.

Imagine you are in a dark jungle, you come upon a tribe of people, painted and dressed in ceremonial garb, dancing and chanting around the fire. What do you think of those people? Do you hate them? Think they are subhuman? Or do you simply think they are superstitious and deluding themselves into thinking their imagined gods are real?

you are actually going to crunch so you you have people to feel Superior to these people. You are too immature to observer them as humans but impose upon the upon them antiquated colonial and exploitative ninetieth neutron capitalistic images.that's what make you feel pissoir? that's deluional

That's what it is like for me to go to church on Sunday. The room looks to me like a mass of primitive thinkers chanting in unison to their imaginary spirits.

I jut have feeling what the people would say it's like to have you show up.Here's that guy who needs to feel superior clinging to antiquated 19th century nonsense.

Joe Hinman said...

in pot modern society we appreciate indigidious people for their achievements we don't mock them as "Primitive."

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger Dave Duffy said...

" A rational first impression, until you get to know the primitive thinkers who show up when your daughter is in a car accident or you throw your back out and need help mowing your lawn.

Of coarse we think we are more clever than most. Big deal. "

Dusty:
Incoherent garble.

Are you stoned or what?

wow, hey Bruce what you doing this far from Gotham?

Joe Hinman said...



God in the Age of Science

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "There is no equivalency between the god delusion and the naturalistic reality."

There's not a single reason to doubt the reality of a god and the obvious impossibility and untruth of atheism.

I could keep this up forever just to illustrate how easy it is for someone to assert their own opinions as fact and those who disagree as delusional, like you are doing, but I don't actually want to insult all atheists.

The whole point of my little exercise here isn't to insult the beliefs of atheists, but rather to put on full display your sheer overbearing arrogance and faith in your own powers of reasoning, which don't rate that level of confidence. God is a reasonable conclusion based upon the evidence available to us, and your opinion doesn't change that fact.

Hugo Pelland said...

Well said Legion.

Zgob ermn said...

Stardusty -- "All around us the material is manifest and evident to the senses. The air we breath... pavement... and on and on and on in the physical world. Naturalism is what is evidenced to us every day... Your god is nowhere to be found but in your imagination."

Stardusty is like this ant at the foothills of the Himalayas who took pride in his skeptical prowess. He boasted that he had traveled east and west, north and south, climbed the highest trees, scaled the largest rocks, rafted down streams on leaves--risked his very life to find evidence for this so-called "Mt Everest". After this great scientific adventure, he came back to his colony and declared with great conviction and confidence, "This Mt Everest--that biggest and tallest of all things that many of you believe exists--is pure myth. If this is the biggest and the tallest of all things then i would have seen a glimpse of it. But I have seen no such thing. Nada. I've seen it all--rocks, boulders, stones, grass, trees, soil going up and soil going down, you name it I've seen it, been there done that--but not an iota of glimpse of this Mt Everest that, ironically, is believed to be the tallest and the biggest in all the world. No evidence. Your Mt Everest is nowhere to be found but in your imagination. Stop believing this nonsense!"

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said..
November 19, 2017 10:52 PM.

" I think Dave's point is that, when it comes to judging people around you, calling them primitive thinker is not a good way to come to know them, to understand them, or to help them."
--How should one approach the thoughts of hunter gatherers engaged in rituals to their gods? Would you think "wow, what an incredibly advanced culture, they are all dressed up in ceremonial garb and chanting in unison to a set of imaginary beings"?

No, people have imagined all sorts of spirits for a very long time, most of which are long forgotten, but only to be replaced with new spirits of one imagined sort or another. To think those imagined beings are real is delusional, particularly when one imagines to be actually talking to some spirit, the spirit is listening, and then the spirit talks back, or works a miracle of some sort.

This delusional thought process and related behaviors are typically benign, and sometime even have practical benefits toward charity and restraint from antisocial behavior.

At other times the god delusion turns powerfully destructive, leading to invasion and genocide because it is imagined god has ordained it to be so.

Perhaps the most lethal widespread god delusion in our world today is Islam. The murderer calls out to his imaginary god before he commits his mass murder, believing god is looking down in favor and will grant him eternal paradise for committing mass murder.

Go to thereligionofpeace.com to see how ugly the god delusion can get.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Zgob ermn said...

" Stardusty is like this ant at the foothills of the Himalayas who took pride in his skeptical prowess."
--What an absurd analogy, I suppose you think it is quite clever and somehow instructive.

I am just a spec compared to the observable universe. I know that. And I know how we go about discovering that enormous reality beyond our little planet.

Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream, or a vague feeling, or in some superstitious attribution of a natural event to the workings of the unseen magic being.

More me personally, god is quite literally a childish belief, it is something I could only believe as a child before I could think rationally for myself.

There is no equivalency between the god delusion and natural reality. To see how horrible the god delusion can get go to thereligionofpeace.com

Joe Hinman said...

Hugo Pelland said..
November 19, 2017 10:52 PM.

" I think Dave's point is that, when it comes to judging people around you, calling them primitive thinker is not a good way to come to know them, to understand them, or to help them."
--How should one approach the thoughts of hunter gatherers engaged in rituals to their gods? Would you think "wow, what an incredibly advanced culture, they are all dressed up in ceremonial garb and chanting in unison to a set of imaginary beings"?

anthropologists don't look at the people they study that way any more,
that's really old fashioned it went out of vogue with tomb raiding and plunderer artifacts to take back to the university. It's obvious you are not a social science major, Because o one thinks the way you do now, Yes they would look at the people you call "primitive" and see structural functionalism in their ceremonies.,


No, people have imagined all sorts of spirits for a very long time, most of which are long forgotten, but only to be replaced with new spirits of one imagined sort or another. To think those imagined beings are real is delusional, particularly when one imagines to be actually talking to some spirit, the spirit is listening, and then the spirit talks back, or works a miracle of some sort.


you have no basis or the claim there is no spirit, Consciousness seems more irreplaceable now than it ever has,consciousnesses is spirit. That is a commonplace of German philosophy. Tell me would you really be so ignorant as to classify William James and Alfreda North Whitehead with "overprotect" people? Whitehead believed in papscyhism that's just a jumped up animism,

Joe Hinman said...

This delusional thought process and related behaviors are typically benign, and sometime even have practical benefits toward charity and restraint from antisocial behavior.

At other times the god delusion turns powerfully destructive, leading to invasion and genocide because it is imagined god has ordained it to be so.

Perhaps the most lethal widespread god delusion in our world today is Islam. The murderer calls out to his imaginary god before he commits his mass murder, believing god is looking down in favor and will grant him eternal paradise for committing mass murder.

Go to thereligionofpeace.com to see how ugly the god delusion can get.

November 20, 2017 7:05 AM


pretensions and self aggrandize

Joe Hinman said...

Perhaps the most lethal widespread god delusion in our world today is Islam. The murderer calls out to his imaginary god before he commits his mass murder, believing god is looking down in favor and will grant him eternal paradise for committing mass murder.

Go to thereligionofpeace.com to see how ugly the god delusion can get.

how about the 100 million people murdered by the atheist delusion in the 20th century?

Joe Hinman said...

pol pot and the vie king murdered people in critique ways, cutting off heads and Burgundy alive all in the name of God hatred, the atheist delusion.

I trust you all realize that is not pro Vietnam war propaganda, I protested the war in Vietnamese from 1966 when I was 10 to the day we pulled ot, but the Viet Kong were not innocent lambs.

Legion of Logic said...

I can easily demonstrate the Stardusty Delusion with his last post.

Stardusty: "Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined"

Assumes that all gods were imagined, an assertion that you can't demonstrate beyond simply stating it is so because you think it is so.


Stardusty: "hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream, or a vague feeling, or in some superstitious attribution of a natural event to the workings of the unseen magic being"

Another imposition of your opinion as defining reality. Just because God doesn't make himself available upon request for atheistic scientists to experiment on him does not mean he isn't real. This is simply a variant of the meaningless objection from some atheists that since God does not behave like you think he does, then he doesn't exist. And that is another variant of your habit of forming an opinion and declaring those who disagree to be flawed in their reasoning because they disagree with you.

Nor is the God of Christianity dependent upon being instrumentally responsible for natural phenomena in order to have evidence and good reasons to believe in him.


Stardusty: "More me personally, god is quite literally a childish belief"

Says the guy too childish to properly capitalize "God".


Stardusty: "it is something I could only believe as a child before I could think rationally for myself."

"With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone." - Oscar Wilde

Again, you declare that since YOU could only believe in God as a child that God-belief is childish. The Stardusty Delusion is in high gear in this post.


Stardusty: "There is no equivalency between the god delusion and natural reality."

There is no requirement to either believe in God (a reasonable conclusion based on evidence) or believe in natural reality. God is responsible for natural reality, so I can happily believe in God without rejecting a single aspect of natural reality.


Stardusty: "To see how horrible the god delusion can get go to thereligionofpeace.com"

Please hold while I go tally up the body count due to secular motivations. I suspect my calculator might not go that high.

Legion of Logic said...

Edit: "since God does not behave like you think he does" should have been "since God does not behave like you think he should".

SteveK said...

Legion
All of Dusty's rants against religion deserve a "so what?" response. Naturalism is meaningless so the answer is do whatever you want. We are doing that and Dusty doesn't like it. Like everything else, his opinions are meaningless.

Legion of Logic said...

SteveK,

I can't elevate them to the status of "so what" until there is enough evidence supporting them to consider them worth actual discussion. Prior to "so what" is "prove it".

Humanity would be better off if no one believed in God or any other deity, says Stardusty. Belief in God or any other deity is delusional, says Stardusty. God is imaginary, says Stardusty.

Prove it, I say, or else I can simply chalk that sheer overconfidence up as the Stardusty Delusion.

Zgob ermn said...

Stardusty— (Response 1)

("Stardusty is like this ant at the foothills of the Himalayas…”) -- You say “absurd analogy,” I suppose you think it is quite clever and somehow instructive.” You say “absurd.” But in the next breath you seem to be getting the point, only to miss it badly in the end. Tsk tsk tsk.

“I am just a spec compared to the observable universe. I know that.”
And yet and yet, like that ant at the foothills of the Himalayas, you insist on pontificating on your all-encompassing, all-comprehending ant-knowledge , “Your Mt Everest is like all the other great mountains of the world that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream…” Hmm. An ant has the capacity to scale stones, rocks, boulders, dandelions, even trees. But would absolutely and helplessly be flummoxed when it comes to a full scale mountain (how much more Mt Everest!). An ant just does not have the capacity to comprehend such a phenomenon.

So, if God truly is a reality (I invite you to allow the argument)—the Judeo-Christian conception of God> an Absolute Transcendent Spirit-being, the very Ground of Being (Paul Tillich), origin of and utterly distinct from the cosmos—then can you, a being that's “just a spec compared” to this Being (a major understatement!), ever really comprehend God? Honestly, Stardusty?


"Everything we know about Nature is in accord with the fundamental processes of Nature that lies outside of space-time." Henry Pierce Stapp


--“nowhere to be found” as in an a priori ATHEISTIC methodological naturalism? (I have no problem with MN as an SOP for science, but I do have a problem with an a priori atheistic MN.)


“More me personally, god is quite literally a childish belief, it is something I could only believe as a child before I could think rationally for myself.”


Alright. I side with Einstein here (quotes from W Isaacson’s Einstein: His Life and the Universe)


"There are people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views… What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos… The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."


So Stardusty, “still feeling the weight of the chains”???

Zgob ermn said...

Stardusty— (Response 2)

“There is no equivalency between the god delusion and natural reality.”

Yes, the “god delusion” of your own expectations—one that you demand to be able to point at, somewhere in the universe of physics and chemistry. You forget that Moses condemned this as IDOLATRY a looooong time ago.

Moses warning his people (Deut4), “saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb… do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure—the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. And when you look up to the heavens and see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, do not be led astray and bow down to them and serve them…”

IOW, to look for and expect to find God in the same manner as looking for “stuffs” and expecting to find stuffs in the cosmos, is absurd and really not very bright, it’s really childish.

--“To see how horrible the god delusion can get go to thereligionofpeace.com”—You don’t have to convince me about the absurdities people do for a religious ideology. However, 2 things I’d like you to respond to:

1) Can you show an actual and accurate example of a followers of Christ—one understands and follows the Lord’s teachings to ‘love your enemies’, ‘do good to them that hate you’, ‘when you’re slapped in one cheek, give the other also’, etc etc—that committed such horrible deeds?

2) In a previous response, I challenged your confident assertion that humanity "will be a great deal better off when we at last rid ourselves of the god delusion" -- Like Stalin's Russia? Or Mao's People's Republic of China? Or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge? These were the most serious attempts--concrete historical attempts--to rid society of the "god delusion" as you put it. So, were they "a great deal better off"? For those wanting to redo the failed experiments, there's always North Korea. Interested?

So Stardusty, will you confess, concede, admit that the horrible, monstrous brutality of the 20th century—the most murderous century in all of known history—was a result of atheistic-eradicate-God-from humanity-ideologies mentioned above? And that by sheer quantity/volume, the so-called religious crimes are like kindergarten play compared to such? Shall we start counting bodies now?

Dave Duffy said...

I don't have a problem with Star's critique of primitive cultures. There is much belief in those cultures that is destructive. However, his (her?) analogy is childish.

Suppose Star walked in and observed me playing peek-a-boo with my one of kids, or suppose Star were to walk in and observe a marriage ceremony at my Anglican Church where people say all kinds of weird sounding things. His first impression is revulsion? So what, the guy (woman?) sounds childish.

Joe Hinman said...

I don't have a problem with Star's critique of primitive cultures. There is much belief in those cultures that is destructive. However, his (her?) analogy is childish.

the basic analogy is just wrong headed. Modern liturgy shows a sophisticated level of development. We all know there are destructive ideas in the primitive. That's cliche.

Legion of Logic said...

Dave: "I don't have a problem with Star's critique of primitive cultures. There is much belief in those cultures that is destructive."

Which is likely what future generations will say about the modern West. I could point out serious, often fatal, flaws in our culture all day long that have nothing to do with religion and could even be linked to the lack thereof.

Since there is no evidence that God belief is primitive, there's no reason to care what Stardusty's anti-theistic bigotry causes him to be repulsed by.

Joe Hinman said...

Since there is no evidence that God belief is primitive

the thing with theology is belief in God has kept pace with modern thought.The scientistic types like Dusty wont examine theology to understand that. But go read Whitead then tell me he's a primitive thinker,

Legion of Logic said...

I wouldn't even describe it as "keeping pace" with modern thought. I'd say that God belief transcends just about anything an atheist can throw at it using scientific discoveries. It's like claiming since I know how a car engine works that Ford doesn't exist. The only people who get in trouble over scientific discoveries are those who insist upon claiming that select phenomena cannot possibly have a natural explanation, but there is nothing inherent in Christianity that requires such a proposition.

Calling God belief "primitive" indicates a profound ignorance as to what both science and theology are, their scopes and limitations. Just because something doesn't "progress" doesn't mean it is either primitive or incorrect.

bmiller said...

@Legion,

Just because something doesn't "progress" doesn't mean it is either primitive or incorrect.

Who knows? Someday Scientific progress may discover that circles are really squares 😉

Miguel said...

Year of Our Lord 2017
Still discussing with Strawdusty

Miguel said...

Bmiller,

Strawdusty actually believes that, since he takes PNC to be provisional. But he's a moron, so, whatever.

bmiller said...

@Miguel,

Don't be surprised when he starts up! 😲

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said..November 20, 2017 10:02 AM.

I can easily demonstrate the Stardusty Delusion with his last post.

Stardusty: "Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined"

" Assumes that all gods were imagined, "
--Sorry Legion, you're off your game. Non-sequitur.

" Just because God doesn't make himself available upon request for atheistic scientists to experiment on him does not mean he isn't real"
--Same is true of magical invisible unicorns, so what?

"Again, you declare that since YOU could only believe in God as a child that God-belief is childish."
--Strawman, I said for me personally. Are you angry or something? You typically post more rationally than this.


Stardusty: "To see how horrible the god delusion can get go to thereligionofpeace.com"

"Please hold while I go tally up the body count due to secular motivations."
--Right, all the people who killed for not god.

Din't yo mama never tell you two wrongs don't never make no right?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. November 20, 2017 8:54 AM.

" how about the 100 million people murdered by the atheist delusion in the 20th century?"
--The 20th century was the least violent and most healthy one on record. Apparently the rise of atheism is a good thing :-)

Stardusty Psyche said...

Zgob ermn said.. November 20, 2017 6:35 PM.


" And yet and yet, like that ant at the foothills of the Himalayas, you insist on pontificating on your all-encompassing, all-comprehending ant-knowledge ,"
--You are obviously unfamiliar with how scientifically minded people think. Science is provisional.

Joe Hinman said...

" And yet and yet, like that ant at the foothills of the Himalayas, you insist on pontificating on your all-encompassing, all-comprehending ant-knowledge ,"
--You are obviously unfamiliar with how scientifically minded people think. Science is provisional.

the ideology of scinetism is not scientific,

Joe Hinman said...

" how about the 100 million people murdered by the atheist delusion in the 20th century?"
--The 20th century was the least violent and most healthy one on record. Apparently the rise of atheism is a good thing :-)

what other century had two world wars, 2 atomic bomb attacks, and 100 million tortured and murdered in totalitarian states!

Least violent on record? who write your material? Steve Bannon?

Joe Hinman said...

"Please hold while I go tally up the body count due to secular motivations."
--Right, all the people who killed for not god.

already did it, 100 million murdered by atheism

here

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "Same is true of magical invisible unicorns, so what?"

Unless someone says magical invisible unicorns are the creators of the universe and are therefore not detectable by science unless the beasts happened to choose to do so, then this is a poor analogy. If someone is just asserting them because reasons, then there is no comparison at all.


Stardusty: "Strawman, I said for me personally."

I find a bit of discordance between "personally" and "quite literally", since the latter is not something I would think to use to describe a mere opinion about someone else. "You quite literally have horrible taste in music...in my opinion" doesn't sound very consistent. You did say it was your personal opinion, though, so I will grant that I didn't focus on the entire statement.


Stardusty: "Right, all the people who killed for not god."

Communism has been known to be horribly anti-theistic, so yes those brands of political ideology are indeed killed for "not god". It's only fair to lump in all forms of atheistic expression and then oppose them all, right? Or maybe some discernment is in order for both. Hmm.

The vast, vast majority of violence in human history, from wars to riots to individual actions (along with non-violent crimes) are committed for non-religious reasons. I see no rational basis for an entire movement that centers on trying (and failing) to get rid of God belief.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said..
November 22, 2017 12:48 AM.

" what other century had two world wars, 2 atomic bomb attacks, and 100 million tortured and murdered in totalitarian states!"
--Anecdotal. Violence declined in the 20th century.

Another anecdote: The bloodiest American war, for Americans, was our civil war, by far.

" Least violent on record? who write your material? Steve Bannon?"
--When you learn to think scientifically you will control for the effects of increased media exposure and documentation of violence and how that affects your subjective impressions regarding the prevelance of violence.

It is a statistical fact that violence declined in the 20th century.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-decline-of-violence/

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said..
November 22, 2017 5:43 AM.

Stardusty: "Same is true of magical invisible unicorns, so what?"

" Unless someone says magical invisible unicorns are the creators of the universe and are therefore not detectable by science unless the beasts happened to choose to do so, then this is a poor analogy. If someone is just asserting them because reasons, then there is no comparison at all."
--Zeus dunnit.


Stardusty: "Strawman, I said for me personally."

" I find a bit of discordance between "personally" and "quite literally", since the latter is not something I would think to use to describe a mere opinion about someone else. "You quite literally have horrible taste in music...in my opinion" "
--Gee, Legion, you are uncharacteristically off your logic, should I LOL?-)

*For myself, that song sucks* would be analogous.



Stardusty: "Right, all the people who killed for not god."

" Communism has been known to be horribly anti-theistic, "
--You need to brush up on your logic. Nobody kills for not god. Nobody cries out not god is great as they pull the trigger.


" The vast, vast majority of violence in human history, from wars to riots to individual actions (along with non-violent crimes) are committed for non-religious reasons. "
--Religion is just one motivation for genocide, greed for money and power is another.

Getting rid of religion won't get rid of the greed motivation, just the god motivation.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said..
November 22, 2017 12:48 AM.

" what other century had two world wars, 2 atomic bomb attacks, and 100 million tortured and murdered in totalitarian states!"
--Anecdotal. Violence declined in the 20th century.

Another anecdote: The bloodiest American war, for Americans, was our civil war, by far.

It's not a contest, if you think that social policies prove the truth of social theories in a 1x1 correspondence I have bad news for you, no real social critic or social scientist will agree with that. Atheism has no sterling track record,leave it at that.

" Least violent on record? who write your material? Steve Bannon?"
--When you learn to think scientifically you will control for the effects of increased media exposure and documentation of violence and how that affects your subjective impressions regarding the prevelance of violence.

control is real important to hate group atheism isn't it? it's basically a form of fascism.You suggestion that if we control for media the level of violence of Pol Post and Mao will drop that is really insane. Their atrocities are well documented if anything understated,

It is a statistical fact that violence declined in the 20th century.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-decline-of-violence/

that's immaterial. you are not analyzing the levels relative between atheism and non atheists, If you look at the whole sure it goes down but only because non atheists reduced their violence. I also wonder if your tats include war? Do they deal with war the same as with individual violent crime? What about death squads and torture?

Joe Hinman said...

your link

Joe Hinman said...

this is typical of the way Dusty argues, He's offered a red herring to chase he leads us off on a facile trail. He says violence has declined, but my argument was that atheism murdered 100 million people in the 20th century,(which he never denies). saying that violence has declined is totality irrelevant. Communism has declined too,with it atheists in charge of countries declined.


If anything Dusty's argument bolsters mine, it shows violence declining at a time when atheism is less in charge of nations. Thus lending credence to the theory that atheism spawns violence,murder, and repression.*

*no I don't really believe it but every time they argue that religion is evil and leads to these things I will argue this,I can draw just the same kind of cases they can.

Legion of Logic said...

Really I think that is a disservice to speak as broadly as "religion" and "atheism" when attributing motives. I could say that left-wing political beliefs murdered tens of millions of people, but that ignores that not all left-wing people are Communists. Yet that is the exact tactic used by shallow thinkers when they try (and miserably fail) to blame "religion". There is no evidence that being a "theist" makes someone more dangerous than an atheist.

Anti-religious bigots, who by nature do not apply reason to anything touching on God belief, aren't going to apply fair standards, though. While it's satisfying to intentionally apply their same tactics and make them own Stalin and Mao, neither is reasonable. But I guess so long as one side insists upon being unreasonable, there's no point in Christians not doing the same, right?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said...

" But I guess so long as one side insists upon being unreasonable, there's no point in Christians not doing the same, right?"
--So, two wrongs make a right after all in your view.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty,

The goal is to get unreasonable atheists (in this context) to stop acting like "religion" is a useful or fair term to describe motivation. My choices come down to either taking a "high road" and accomplishing nothing (this is the Internet after all) or having some fun and using people's unreasonable tactics against them, which surprisingly often has yielded success in making them realize how absurd those tactics are.

The difference is, like Joe said, when I use that tactic, I qualify by saying I don't actually believe it. A progressive atheist can't be held accountable for a Communist any more than I can be for ISIS. Anti-religious bigots don't agree with this fact, as it ruins their rationalization for criticizing "religion".

Reason requires discernment, which is why the New Atheist movement can be dismissed as irrational.

Hugo Pelland said...

Legion,
With all the noise on this thread, I forgot to reply to your very first comment at the top:
""Whether the intuition provided by their conscience is going in the right direction" seems to be circular. "Right direction" under atheism is a notion dictated by that same conscience, and two people with exact opposite moral beliefs on an issue can both correctly claim that their intuition provided by their conscience is going in the right direction, despite the impossibility of both being correct. How do we decide who, if either, is correct?"

"Right direction" is certainly not dictated by conscience under Atheism. It cannot even possibly be the case as, without a god to give that conscience in the first place, we have to rely on our understanding of the world to confirm whether our conscience appear to yield the correct view.

Under Theism, however, it is possible to argue that one's conscience is all that is needed. If we accept that it was given by a god, who can make us think the right things, we don't need to check it against anything else. I am not saying that's what god believers do, obviously, as most people do not rely on their conscience alone, but it is possible. The problem of course is that, as you said, people who believe in gods can disagree completely on what is the "right direction", instantly proving that they are wrong to claim that their conscience is god-given.

So, you tell me, under Theism, how can you argue against someone that claim that their conscience, and conscience alone, is correct in making morale judgement because they believe that it's God who told me so?

Moreover, it seems to me that you made a mockery of what it means to evaluate what is the "right direction" using secular means. You essentially implied that it's all just an opinion, that nothing can be said to be morale or not, unless we accept there is a god. This is absurd. But maybe that's not what you meant...

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said...

" Moreover, it seems to me that you made a mockery of what it means to evaluate what is the "right direction" using secular means. You essentially implied that it's all just an opinion, that nothing can be said to be morale or not, unless we accept there is a god. This is absurd. But maybe that's not what you meant..."
--Sometimes theists know more about atheism than certain atheists know.

Without a source for objective moral truths we have no objective moral truths. Individual human beings, philosophers, scientists, or whole organizations of such individuals all lack a source of objective moral truths.

It is all just an opinion. Morals are subjective, not objective, among human beings, all the wishful thinking protestations of misguided atheists notwithstanding.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stardusty Psyche, I am already well aware of your nonsensical rejection of any form of objective truths, moral and otherwise, but it's worse than in this case. Even if I agree with you, tentatively, we can and do agree, as a society, on many things, making them objective in a restricted sense. And I believe you said that you agree with that before. Therefore, in such cases, the fact that we have some limited objective morality, it is enough to make us accept the notion that our own conscience is not enough, on its own, to come up with value judgement. We must rely on more than just our subjective opinion to come up with what we think is "the right direction".

In short, useless, misguided and, well, insulting comment on your part as usual, because you just couldn't help that first sentence of yours, right? This must mean something, psychologically speaking; I need to research that. What kind of mental disorder, or personality trait to take it more lightly, makes one always want to insult others, always want to look superior by diminish others' point of view. It's very interesting that you keep doing that. Do you realize it yourself?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said...

" Stardusty Psyche, I am already well aware of your nonsensical rejection of any form of objective truths, moral and otherwise,"
--That is not precisely my claim. Cogito ergo sum, I am self aware therefore I exist in some form, is objectively true. At least one correlated objective truth is that something exists, as opposed to absolutely noting at all. Further, existence must be sufficiently complex to account for the complexity of my perceptions.

There are no counter proposals available of any sort, even the wildest and most speculative.


" In short, useless, misguided and, well, insulting comment on your part as usual, because you just couldn't help that first sentence of yours, right? "

*Sometimes theists know more about atheism than certain atheists know.*

W L Craig knows the simple logical fact of objective morality on atheism, it cannot exist. Many atheists are deeply uncomfortable with this simple logical fact. Such atheists go through strenuous mental gymnastics to try to somehow derive an objective morality on atheism. It cannot be done, and sometimes it is the outsider who sees the truth the insider is blinded to.

Hugo Pelland said...

You did not answer my question... do you realize that you always include insults? Or 'almost' always, obviously; you don't literally do it in every single comment. But what do you get from this? Would you do it without the anonymity of the nickname Stardusty Psyche?

I am sorry but I will not address your claims until you answer that. No problem if you don't want to; it must be uncomfortable for you to admit to this trait of yours, so I understand if you keep ignoring it. Not the first time I mention this...

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said...

" You did not answer my question... "
--You made several points, the issue of perceived insult seemed least important to me. Apparently it is most important to you.

"do you realize that you always include insults? "
--I realize that many of my statements are perceived as insults by those immersed in the culture of hypersensitivity.

*Sometimes theists know more about atheism than certain atheists know.*

That is a demonstrably true statement. I have given the example of W L Craig considering objective morality on atheism. That is a documented example of a theist with a clearer understanding of atheism than some atheists have.

If you find that insulting that is on you.

Hugo Pelland said...

SP, whether I am offended is irrelevant. If you write an insult, it's an insult, period. That sentence, *Sometimes theists know more about atheism than certain atheists know.*, on its own, doesn't mean much of course. But are you really going to pretens that it was not an insult? You quoted what I said and replied with that, added that some people are blind, and that some cannot understand simple logic. You then want to pretend that this is not an insult? It cetainly is not some logical deduction nor well-phrased argument! It was nothing but a direct insult on my capacity to use logic and reason.

Now, to be clear, I am not offended by that... I have been exhanging that kind of online comments for almost 15 years now, and yours are not the worst obviously. It's part of the deal when writing to anonymous random people.

What's strange with you is that I really don't know whether you're doing it on purpose, and I never asked anyone before so I don't know how common your delusion is, or if you're just a hypocrite. You insist that this wasn't an insult, and you doubled down on your opinion by just stating more insulting stuff about being hyoersensitive, yet another insult about a personal trait.

Am I insulting you right now by the way? You will not be offended of course, but yes, I am definetely insulting you. Let's make it clearer: you are too stupid to realize that what you write almost never contains any argument. I don't think you're a hypocrite, no, I think it's more likely that you're just not smart enough to realize the mistakes in your approach, regardless of you being right or not.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said...

*Sometimes theists know more about atheism than certain atheists know.*,
" But are you really going to pretens that it was not an insult? "
--Actually I had in mind a sort of class based self deprecating acknowledgement that would reinforce the converse, that sometimes atheists know more about theism than certain theists do.

Apparently that implication was too subtle.

" It was nothing but a direct insult on my capacity to use logic and reason."
--It was a statement of fact that is relevant to a theist telling an atheist that the atheist has no basis for objective morality. Why are you getting all butt hurt about this?

"I don't know how common your delusion is, or if you're just a hypocrite."
--Gee, maybe I should get all insulted now...

" I am definetely insulting you. Let's make it clearer: you are too stupid to realize that what you write almost never contains any argument."
--Hilarious


Hugo Pelland said...

Right, you're just going to think that's funny. No self-reflection at all. No acknowledgment that what you wrote are insults, regardless of intent or being offended. And you think I am butthurt when I specifically said I am not.

Look, I don't care what you say about me. Perhaps people who called you a troll were right after all. I don't know what you're trying to do. But if you do care, I think that it would serve our "side" better if you stop acting like an asshole. Because that's why I mention that to you, and not the theists, right? I don't care if they write insults instead of arguments, they don't improve their positions. But because I agree with you on 95% of what you write, I wish you focused on supporting these ideas instead of acting like a juvenile moron who just want a good laugh at those you "think" are dumber than you.

Legion of Logic said...

Hugo,

I think the best bet here would be for me to further flesh out exactly why I say what I do, and then you can point out where you believe I've gone astray. This is in regards to a moral action being in the "right direction".

Starting with the basics, if atheism, then no god. The universe has no more intent behind it than a rock sitting on the ground somewhere. Regardless of how it got here, it simply exists and has the features it does because of reasons.

So, if the universe has no intent behind it, then life emerged solely because the universe happened to have the properties to allow it. Evolution and natural selection over time led to humanity, who have a system we call "morality" that dictates whether an action is “right” or “wrong”, good or evil, etc, based upon the impact it has upon ourselves and others. We are social animals because evolution “coded” that behavior into our genetics, so we generally tend to pay attention to whether our behavior is harmful to others and try to avoid it if it is. We enjoy being liked and are averse to being disliked, at least in our “in-group”. We tend to avoid temptations if getting caught would result in a punishment, but we also tend to weigh the risk to reward potential and do it anyway if the payout is worth it.

This is not even remotely objective, however. Simply because a majority of us tend to have similar views on certain actions like murder and theft doesn't actually mean those views are correct, as in factually accurate. Theft is bad on an individual level because of the hurt it causes others and on a societal level due also to the mass instability such behavior would produce if left unchecked, but then again this statement is built upon the presumption of social stability and general happiness being desired by a majority of individuals.

For the person who doesn't care if he hurts someone else, is preventing him from taking something he wants moral from his perspective if it deprives him of his own happiness? As I see it, his moral system is “wrong” not because it fails to take into account the impact it has on others, which cannot be demonstrated to be the "correct" standard, but because it conflicts with the majority opinion on acceptable behavior. Majority rules, but might does not actually make right.

Without an objective standard to compare a moral system by, it would seem to me that morality is more like fashion sense, which is not based upon anything factual but rather is dictated by the opinions and standards of a society. Obviously the consequences and subject are far more important with morality, but the conformance or violation of both looks to be based upon personal thoughts combined with majority rule, neither of which possess objectivity as a standard.

If we can't use biological urge or societal standards as a basis for something being in the "right direction", then what standard can we use?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said.. November 24, 2017 9:35 AM.

" Right, you're just going to think that's funny. No self-reflection at all."
--Listen, genius, I have written thousands upon thousands of words in great detail of logical argument here, and many other places. I'll give you an example of why your assertion is so preposterous:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=6725134901932984729&page=16&token=1511542460872

" And you think I am butthurt when I specifically said I am not."
--You sure are going on like you are, but ok, if you say so...

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Legion,

First, I think the detail we disagree on, and it really is just a detail imo, is what objective morality means, or refer to.

The way I see it, there has to be some objective morality, independant of any subjective opinion, as it is the logical consequence of living in an objective reality with objective facts. It is best illustrated with examples. Let's say we have 2 individuals with identical backgrounds, doing exactly the same work under the exact same conditions, for the same employer with the same outcome, yet getting paid significantly different wages. We should be able to agree that this is objectively unjust. If the employer does that on purpose, regardless of their opinion on the matter, they are doing something immoral.

What's tricky is that most situations worth talking about are not like that. They are way more complicated, and not everybody agrees. Therefore, amd I know this sounds like a contradiction, it is often nearly impossible to figure out what is objective right to do. We have to do our best and try to figure out what we think is the right thing to do, and thus rely on not only our conscience, but also our assessment of the context, societal values, and whatever else is relevant for that particular judgement call.

Whether a god exists or not does not change any of that in my opinion. It could be that there is some divine standards we should try to live by, but given that we clearly don't agree on anything regarding what the god(s) think, we're stuck with trying to assess what the right direction is using the exact same means available to us.

Moreover, there is always a huge problem with bringing divine minds into the equations. Either concepts such as justice are defined based on what the god wants, making the right direction subjective, dependant on that mind's subjective opinion, or the right direction is objective and independant of any mind, making the god merely aome source of objectivity but not an active participant in any way. The latter is the only truly objective standard, but is indistinguishable from the godless world, which I beliebe we live in anyway.

So in short, I think the attempt to reject any kind of moral values from a godless world does not follow from our observations of objective facts about the world we live in. We can and do discuss what it means for actions to be just, honest, moral, brave, etc... regardless of whether there is a god to guide us in the right direction. It's up to us to figure that out using our conscience, but not only our conscience.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said...

" Let's say we have 2 individuals with identical backgrounds, doing exactly the same work under the exact same conditions, for the same employer with the same outcome, yet getting paid significantly different wages. We should be able to agree that this is objectively unjust."
--Why "should" we? Who says so? What says so?

"What's tricky is that most situations worth talking about are not like that. They are way more complicated, and not everybody agrees."
--Not everybody agrees on your simpler example, like for instance the employer.

" it is often nearly impossible to figure out what is objective right to do"
--You have not established that it is ever possible to determine an objective morally right thing to do.

Hugo Pelland said...

SP said:
"Listen, genius [...]"
From the thread you linked to:
"Feser is very bad a making rational arguments. Even his fellow theistic apologists recognize the unintelligibility, shoddy reasoning, and blank assertions masquerading as deductions of logic."

That's what I meant; you must include useless bits like that. Bmiller was arguably worse than you btw...

And again, it's a shame because your analysis of Fraser sounds great imo, for what I read so far.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said...

The link I gave you goes to
November 24, 2017 9:54 AM
which does not contain the text you quoted. If you want to go back there are over 3000 total posts, a large percentage mine, and thousands of my words written in great detail of argumentation.

You said
"what you write almost never contains any argument."
which is a somewhat stunningly false statement, as evidenced by the very recent post I linked and hundreds of others.

*Feser is very bad a making rational arguments. Even his fellow theistic apologists recognize the unintelligibility, shoddy reasoning, and blank assertions masquerading as deductions of logic.*
--That is a true statement. I have demonstrated the truth of that statement so many times Feser cannot stand it any more and has taken to deleting my comments because they so thoroughly expose how bad his arguments are.

It is also a true statement with respect to highly noted theists like David Bentley Hart and W L Craig. Craig has called Feser's position "unintelligible". Hart has called Feser's work so many derogatory words it makes my statement mild by comparison.

Yet, bmiller parrots Feser, but that is typical of his little sycophants. Bmiller will dig up some old Feser blog post that contains some half baked assertion, take that as authoritative, and paste it in as though it somehow made sense and he was making some great point.

I don't respect Feser for the simple reason that his "arguments" are little more than scattershot assertions and he has proven himself to me to be a thin skinned petulant little twerp of a man completely incapable of engaging those who disagree with him on the rational merits.

If that bothers you somehow that I would point these things out, oh well.

Hugo Pelland said...

SP,

You don't get it, and I must repeat that it's fascinating that you would not get it... I will try to explain, again, what I am talking about.

It is mainly about your inability to avoid including insults in your comments. I also mentioned that your comments almost never include arguments, but that may have been an exaggeration; I am willing to admit that as it's only the impression I have of the comments I ran into.

But as I just said, the main point is about insults that you include, and that thread you linked to does serve as an example. I had to scroll up to your second-to-last comment to find that paragraph which is nothing but a long insult. It was so quick to find, and it's not just 1 word, it's an entire paragraph!

And again here, in your random statements about Fraser (why should I care?) you included another paragraph as to why you don't respect Fraser, calling him a 'thin skinned petulant little twerp of a man'. I mean... wow... that's how you answer to me pointing out that you write too many insults?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said...

SP,

" You don't get it,"
--I get that you don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

" I had to scroll up to your second-to-last comment to find that paragraph which is nothing but a long insult."
--An absurd claim. What are you reading?

This is the date stamp I sent you
Stardusty Psyche said...

*The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.*
--This is an excellent basis for science. David Bentley Hart has opined that if Aquinas were alive today, being the deep thinker he was, he would have made great use of modern physics, but he did the best he could with the Aristotelian physics of his day.

* Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,*
--False. An object in uniform linear motion is not being put in motion by another.

* for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion;*
--False. An object in uniform linear motion is already actualized in motion of a particular kinetic energy and is not potentially in motion for that particular kinetic energy.

" whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act."
--True, a thing moves inasmuch as it actually has a particular amount of kinetic energy.

" For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality."
--False. An object in uniform linear motion is already fully actualized in its particular kinetic energy respect. It's only potentiality of motion is to gain or impart kinetic energy in mutually causal temporal interactions with other objects.

November 24, 2017 9:54 AM Delete



WTF are you even talking about?

" 'thin skinned petulant little twerp of a man'. I mean... wow... that's how you answer to me pointing out that you write too many insults?"
--That is an accurate assessment of a lot of blog owners, in this particular case, Edward Feser. It's not an insult when it is true.

Victor isn't like that, for example. I can totally disagree with him on whatever and you can tell from his response he is not angry about it, rather, it is like, ok that's what you think, I don't agree, so whatever, chill.

That's how a man with strength of character responds to a direct challenge, he either engages directly, or lets it go, either way, it isn't temper tantrum time. Feser isn't like that. Feser throws little public hissy fits like a petulant child, and when a man continues to challenge him he just deletes the comments without ever engaging on the merits. That's what a thin skinned petulant little twerp of a man does.

grodrigues said...

@Hugo Pelland:

Just a minor correction: it is *Feser*, not Fraser.

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes, Feser, good point!

Hugo Pelland said...

SP,
"WTF are you even talking about?"
You. Just you.

Zgob ermn said...

Stardusty – “You are obviously unfamiliar with how scientifically minded people think. Science is provisional.” There, there, Stardusty. It’s time to take your own medicine.

1. Stop making dogmatic statements like the ff.-- “Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream”


2. Recognize that proper scientific method is limited in its range of application (as descriptive, dealing with natural phenomena), and not this be-all-end-all of knowledge (but if you’ve swallowed Rosenberg’s full-throated, full throttle scientism, then you’re a hopeless case).

More sane science would be on the side of Medawar, “The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things – questions such as “How did everything begin?” “What are we all here for?” “What is the point of living?” (Sir Peter Medawar)

The monotheism of Judeo-Christianity speaks of a God that is ontologically utterly outside of (transcendent) nature, though also intimately near (immanent) it as a spiritual presence. Thus, God is not a proper scientific hypothesis. The best that science can do is look at nature, follow the evidence as far as it can go. But when science reaches its proper limits, other cognitive tools must then be utilized to properly assess potential competing hypotheses for their explanatory power vis a vis nature. What is the best explanation? That explanation (outside of, but logically consistent with the scientific evidence) then is analyzed in the light of competing metaphysical worldviews eg., naturalism/reductive materialism, theism, pantheism, panpsychism, vitalism or what have you. These explanations then can become valid premises that can form as basis for a philosophical argument, say, for God’s existence.

Among other good works, veteran cold-case detective J Warner Wallace did this in his God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (for a comprehensive summary, here http://www.apologetics315.com/2015/10/book-review-gods-crime-scene-by-j.html).

Thus, science qua science can neither “prove” nor “disprove” God’s existence. To attempt to do so is sorely naïve, unsophisticated, and unnuanced. However, science can be utilized as one among the various cognitive tools available to gather evidence to form premises that either strengthen the case (a philosophical, metaphysical case) for God’s existence or nonexistence.

There, there, Stardusty, take your medicine and start being “scientifically minded” and stop that bad habit of making such dogmatic statements about God’s nonexistence, e.g., “Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream.”

bmiller said...

@Hugo Pelland:

SP,
"WTF are you even talking about?"
You. Just you.


Hey. I get it that you think my responses to Strawdusty on that thread were over the top, but I invite you to keep trying to maintain a dialog with him and see where it leads you. How many times have you already had to repeat yourself?

I can tell you that no matter how many times you try to explain a concept, he will not understand it while maintaining that he does. My advice to you is to just cease to engage with him. That is why most of people who host blog sites have chosen to do, whether theist or atheist. He's been banned on both.

I still respond to him on that old thread in the same manner he responds to me. I'd rather keep the conversation confined to the dialectic rather than the rhetoric but that is not his preference. So I can either cease to interact with him or engage him on his own terms.

So please don't mistake a rhetorical discussion for a dialectic discussion.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi bmiller,

Thanks for your comment. My intention was not to label you as worse than SP in general; I was referring to just that 1 comment that you happen to have written. So it's good to hear that you were merely replying to him the way he replies to you, as it indicates that you generally don't endorse his approach, regardless of whether you agree or not.

However, you should re-read your last post. Are you suggesting to try to engage or ignore? You iterally said both! LoL

But in any case, I totally get the last sentence: please don't mistake a rhetorical discussion for a dialectic discussion.
That's always good to keep in mind.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Zgob ermn said...


" 1. Stop making dogmatic statements like the ff.-- “Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream”"
--Why would I stop making true statements such as that? Where is this god of yours? The greatest thing in existence is invisible and scientifically undetectable? You live in your dreamworld, literally.

"
2. Recognize that proper scientific method is limited in its range of application"
--Right, science is limited in application to reality. If you want to explore fantasy religion is one way to do so, science is not.

"The monotheism of Judeo-Christianity speaks of a God that is ontologically utterly outside of (transcendent) nature,"
--Garbled nonsense.
If god exists then god is natural and material and does nothing to solve the great existential riddle.

" theism, pantheism, panpsychism, vitalism or what have you. These explanations"
--Those are idle speculations of fantasy that explain nothing.

" cold-case detective J Warner Wallace did this in his God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe"
--Cold case detectives use evidence. There is no evidence for god, only idle speculation based on ignorance.

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger bmiller said...

" whether theist or atheist. He's been banned on both."
--Indeed, I get banned almost everyplace I go. Few can handle the truth.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
--Indeed, I get banned almost everyplace I go. Few can handle the truth.

You're sick, delusional; seriously, get counselling or find a different hobby. It has nothing to do with what's true. Both people who agree and disagree with you say the same about YOU, the person behind that nickname you're using. You have something like a narcissistic personality disorder, or at least that's what you show online, behind your anonymity...

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Hugo Pelland said...

" You're sick, delusional; seriously, get counselling"
--Hilarious.
Do they like you over at freethoughtblogs?

On atheism there is no sound basis for objective morality. Deal with it, it's not difficult.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "The greatest thing in existence is invisible and scientifically undetectable?"

There's not a single reason to believe that he should be detectable by science. There's a true statement for you to ponder.


Stardusty: "Right, science is limited in application to reality."

Close. Science is limited to one aspect of reality, that which is detectable by current scientific methods. God, for those who think for themselves, would not be one of those things unless he chose to be.


Stardusty: "If god exists then god is natural and material"

I assume nature is used synonymously with the universe, so God is not part of that by definition.


Stardusty: "Few can handle the truth."

All assume themselves the bearers of the truth. Few can demonstrate it.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "There is no evidence for god, only idle speculation based on ignorance."

Name what we don't know that would change things if we knew it.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty: "There is no evidence for god, only idle speculation based on ignorance."

ps 14:1

200 studies in peer reviewed journals by social scientists aree taht:

(1) RE is good for yiou

(2) RE is universal to all cultures and faiths

(3) coreligionist culturally bound and should not be universal yet it is,that's a good reason to think there is an external reality being experienced.

(4)RE fits the criteria we use to make make epistemic judgement, thus can and should be trusted as a valid indication of reality

those bits of evidence certainly warrant belief,any rational thinking person would have to accept that warrant is evidence,

grodrigues said...

"Feser isn't like that. Feser throws little public hissy fits like a petulant child, and when a man continues to challenge him he just deletes the comments without ever engaging on the merits."

Now that Stardusty has been banned from Prof. Feser's blog and his inane, kooky drivel relentlessly deleted, it is already noticeable a marked increase in average sanity and intellectual quality. The air just smells better, the world is a little less ugly.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. November 25, 2017 2:41 AM.

Stardusty: "The greatest thing in existence is invisible and scientifically undetectable?"

" There's not a single reason to believe that he should be detectable by science. "
--God is said to strongly interact with the observable universe, so your statement is false. One can speculate a deistic god, or even and active god that uses its infinite powers to remain hidden, but that is not the bible god.

The bible god does things like talk to people, cause floods, cause pestilence, and work miracles of various sorts. That makes the bible god scientifically detectable, at least whenever it decides to come out of hiding.


Stardusty: "If god exists then god is natural and material"

" I assume nature is used synonymously with the universe, so God is not part of that by definition."
--False, by definition the universe is all that exists. If god exists then god is part of the universe and is natural. Therefore the great existential riddle is not solved by the speculation of god, only pushed back a step.


Stardusty: "Few can handle the truth."

" All assume themselves the bearers of the truth. Few can demonstrate it."
--Then consider yourself lucky to have encountered one of the few in I :-)

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Joe Hinman said.. November 25, 2017 3:36 AM.

" (1) RE is good for yiou"
--A comforting falsehood is not a truth

" (2) RE is universal to all cultures and faiths"
--But not all individuals.

" (3) coreligionist culturally bound and should not be universal yet it is,that's a good reason to think there is an external reality being experienced."
--Human fantasy is the much simpler explanation. Everybody has dreams, sometimes they seem very real, but they are just our imaginations.

" (4)RE fits the criteria we use to make make epistemic judgement, "
--Only if you have a very low bar, accepting fantasy as reality.

"thus can and should be trusted as a valid indication of reality"
--People who think their dreams are experiences of real outside entities have a mental pathology.

" those bits of evidence certainly warrant belief,any rational thinking person would have to accept that warrant is evidence,"
--Dreams are a warrant to believe in a brain that processes distorted images internally.

Stardusty Psyche said...

grodrigues said.. November 25, 2017 5:34 AM.

*Feser isn't like that. Feser throws little public hissy fits like a petulant child, and when a man continues to challenge him he just deletes the comments without ever engaging on the merits.*
... "kooky drivel relentlessly deleted, it is already noticeable a marked increase in average sanity and intellectual quality. "
--Hilarious.
Now you little sycophants can go back to your little circle jerk. I guess that makes you feel good. Feser clearly enjoys being stroked off by your ilk.

Men of strong character engage with those who disagree. Petulant twerps delete rational counter arguments.

Feser is completely incapable of engaging me on the merits, as are you, and every A-T Feser fanboy on his site.

I completely dismantled the First Way and the Second Way after I told Feser that a man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation. He has never provided any rational counter arguments in any of his posts, and neither have you.

That's because he has none, nor do you.

Hugo Pelland said...

***** Stardusty is ill, a short story *****

Stardusty: It's clear that A, B, C are false

Person 1: I agree

Person 2: I disagree, A and B are true

Stardusty: Person 2, you are wrong because of A', B'. And you're an X, a Y and a Z

Person 2: No, because of A", B"

Stardusty: Already told you A and B are false, such a typical X, Y, Z

Person 1: Can you drop calling them X, Y, Z?

Stardusty: Ah you also cannot think straight regarding A, B and C

Person 1: No, already told you I agree with you about A, B and C

Stardusty: Haha you cannot take it either, such an X,Y,Z, my wisdom offends you

Person 1: No, it's the use of X, Y, Z that I find useless, as we're discussing A, B and C

Stardusty: What are you talking about? You cannot accept the truth about A, B, C!

Person 3: By the way, he's been banned for repeated use of X, Y, Z....

Stardusty: Ya! Men of strong character engage with those who disagree on A, B, C. Petulant twerps delete rational counter arguments, they're such X, Y, Z

Person 1: That's crazy, we keep telling you that it's the use of Xs, Ys and Zs that is counterproductive when discussing As, Bs and Cs

Stardusty: Consider yourself lucky to have encounter someone like me

***** The end... maybe? For me it is...*****

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

However, you should re-read your last post. Are you suggesting to try to engage or ignore? You iterally said both! LoL

Well, what I meant was that I choose to engage him on that thread, but I wouldn't advise others to do so.

As you can tell, he doesn't get what people are talking about and frankly doesn't care. People finally give up discussing things with him because of this and he considers that a victory. So logic and dialectic are not on the table with this one.

Hugo Pelland said...

Fair enough @bmiller

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hugo Pelland said..
November 25, 2017 11:23 AM.

***** The end... maybe? For me it is...*****
--Sure, when you can't justify the assertion of objective morality on atheism just start complaining about perceived insults and then make up some fantasy conversation and you are done.

Are you sure you are not a theist? I mean, why not call me a troll too, just for good measure?

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

As you can tell, he doesn't get what people are talking about and frankly doesn't care. People finally give up discussing things with him because of this and he considers that a victory. So logic and dialectic are not on the table with this one.

And right on cue he provides a perfect example.

But it's even better. After you point out to him that name-calling and insults are irrational in a dialectic discussion, he complains that you, pointing that fact out, are insulting him and then for good measure he calls you another name.

Can't make this stuff up.

grodrigues said...

"I completely dismantled the First Way and the Second Way after I told Feser that a man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation."

Has Stardusty ever sought medical help? I hear the new generation of antipsychotics like Risperdal and Clozaril are being put to good use for symptomatic treatment of delusional disorders with less side-effects than the typical, conventional antipsychotics.

Stardusty Psyche said...

grodrigues said...

"I completely dismantled the First Way and the Second Way after I told Feser that a man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation."

" Has Stardusty ever sought medical help?"
--Have you ever made an extended, on-topic post of rational argumentation? If so, I have not noticed it, could you send me a link to the post where you went point by point and refuted my arguments on the merits?

No? Didn't think so.

Here, I will give you a shot at it though, I mean, since you are such a great mathematician and mathematical physicist I am sure that debunking my arguments on the merits will be very easy for you.
Here is the intro
http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7970#p7970

Here is one
http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7971#p7971

Here is another
http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7972#p7972



Joe Hinman said...

I think he;s been watching young Sheldon too much

Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

Dusty has upped his dose of crazy pills, I see.

Jake Elwood XVI said...

There is always one.

Before Stardusty Pysche we had Papalinton.

Before Papalinton, we had. Oh I forget his name, but his website had all the hallmark stylings of the crazy people, html 2.0.