tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2551523469253853684..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Courtier's ReplyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60854072422947665602011-02-26T18:26:00.241-07:002011-02-26T18:26:00.241-07:00that should read mcatheism-and-yuk-factor.htmlthat should read mcatheism-and-yuk-factor.htmlSaints and Scepticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09133878366479064658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29254789665065495522011-02-26T18:24:25.289-07:002011-02-26T18:24:25.289-07:00I think that Myers' double standards are revea...I think that Myers' double standards are revealed here-<br /><br />http://saintsandsceptics.blogspot.com/2011/02/mcatheism-and-yuk-factor.htmlSaints and Scepticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09133878366479064658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46819893249481836712011-02-24T21:17:57.696-07:002011-02-24T21:17:57.696-07:00The simple fact is that ridicule is a brainwashing...<i>The simple fact is that ridicule is a brainwashing technique</i><br /><br />mm, I don't think it is <i>necessarily</i>. Although, when a person uses it to the point that the person has followers praising ridicule as if it's just the grandest thing, better than rebuttal itself, then I think there's been some brainwashing done, subtle, but nonetheless there. Not the fault of ridicule itself, but of how the person manipulates its use.<br /><br />I don't condemn ridicule in an absolute sense. And if I did I likely would not live up to my own standard, which would be hypocritical on my part.<br /><br />What I do condemn is making is overwhelmingly substituting ridicule for serious dialogue, or making ridicule the default method of address towards the target.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31180698815713016042011-02-24T20:02:06.192-07:002011-02-24T20:02:06.192-07:00Crude, the 2:50 post was beautiful. You have a ta...Crude, the 2:50 post was beautiful. You have a talent for verbal smack-downs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50596733092485917512011-02-24T17:57:15.479-07:002011-02-24T17:57:15.479-07:00I agree with Crude.I agree with Crude.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6330012363456494772011-02-24T17:44:14.523-07:002011-02-24T17:44:14.523-07:00Probably.Probably.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47803592341521036322011-02-24T16:12:05.945-07:002011-02-24T16:12:05.945-07:00It also takes away from your criticisms of people ...<i>It also takes away from your criticisms of people like J. P. Holding when you get down in the gutter with them.</i><br /><br />I want to say: That's an insult to Holding. I'm not a fan of Holding's style, especially what I see on his blog. But if Holding and John got into a wrestling match, Holding is the one who would come out dirtier than he started.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83118958626460490962011-02-24T15:19:15.029-07:002011-02-24T15:19:15.029-07:00>I'm unsubscribing from this thread.
If on...>I'm unsubscribing from this thread.<br /><br />If only that where really true.....BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66025371348072220272011-02-24T14:50:46.460-07:002011-02-24T14:50:46.460-07:00Crude, who says I don't argue? I most emphatic...<i>Crude, who says I don't argue? I most emphatically do that. Yours is the kind of utter ignorance we will bury if that's the conclusion you derive from what I said here.</i><br /><br />You mostly flail, John. You don't argue so much as state arguments, then utterly melt and flail once the counter-arguments come in. "You are deluded!" is not an argument. "We will bury is you!" is not an argument. "I am tired of arguing!" is not an argument.<br /><br /><i>We come in many flavors, you see, and some of us, like me, will combine both mockery and argumentation depending on the circumstances. </i><br /><br />You're pretty much the bottom of the barrel, John. Notice I didn't throw Russell, Mackie, Flew or the rest in the same boat as you, despite my disagreements with their thoughts, even my low opinions of some of their arguments. It's because they generally don't have your track record: One of documented dishonesty, one of blatantly admitting you'll say whatever you can if you think the reaction you'll get is what you want, etc.<br /><br />You say "we", as if you're shoulder to shoulder with Hawking, Russell, and the rest. You're not, and all indications are you never will be. You can't seem to accept that - but that's fine. I've noticed that you are very committed to, emotionally invested in, your own delusions.<br /><br /><i>I have been arguing daily for about six years online.</i><br /><br />"Arguing", John. You're pretty much 5% argument, 35% 'buy or read my book damnit!', with the rest alternating amounts of "WE ARE WINNING I SWEAR" and "YOU IDIOT! FOOL!" It ain't impressive. You aren't even good at the mockery - there's no wit, no humor, and your emotionalisms are no substitute for either.<br /><br />Here's my advice, John: Pack it in. Call it a day. Leave atheism, philosophical and theological argument to the many people who are more capable than you, and get a real job. Something that plays to your skills - cubicle work. Data entry. Something along those lines.<br /><br />And here's the great thing, John: You can donate your money to atheist evangelists who are much, much better at this whole thing than you are. Really, you pay a lot of lip service to science and reason: If you want to advance the atheist cause, I'm giving you the most effective way you can contribute.<br /><br />Think about it.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45089734734403401332011-02-24T12:21:42.817-07:002011-02-24T12:21:42.817-07:00Loftus,
I assure you I'm thinking critically....<b>Loftus</b>,<br /><br />I assure you I'm thinking critically. I've taken note of your professed standard for the acceptance of truth claims, then juxtaposed that standard against truth claims you've made, and found the latter wanting. Can't you see the discrepancy?<br /><br />Why more attacks and name-calling? Why not just straighten this out? Is it really that hard to say, "Okay, I was wrong there?" <br /><br />Is my "walled in by pride" comment starting to make sense yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88143415337975292792011-02-24T11:56:33.600-07:002011-02-24T11:56:33.600-07:00cl, you are ignorant. If Vic wants to be the educa...cl, you are ignorant. If Vic wants to be the educator then perhaps he should start by educating you about critical thinking.<br /><br />I'm unsubscribing from this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25837656998228666572011-02-24T11:45:53.463-07:002011-02-24T11:45:53.463-07:00Loftus:
"As I said, you do in fact demand th...<b>Loftus</b>:<br /><br /><i>"As I said, you do in fact demand that I must show your faith impossible before you will see it as improbable."</i><br /><br />Actually, all I ask is that you be consistent and just make a decent argument every now and again. You can't wax poetic about positive evidence and then argue from the gaps--at least, not if you wish to be taken seriously. Calling people foul names isn't going to cut the mustard, I'm afraid!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75431575812053240952011-02-24T11:36:59.599-07:002011-02-24T11:36:59.599-07:00Vic:
"[mockery] attempts to persuade without...Vic:<br /><br /><i>"[mockery] attempts to persuade without proving."</i><br /><br />In direct contradiction to his own standards, persuasion without proof is John's MO. Consider:<br /><br /><i>"We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true."</i> [Loftus]<br /><br />...then,<br /><br /><i>"[science] has also shown us there was no Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt."</i> [Loftus]<br /><br />Note the glaring inconsistency, not to mention the irony of John arguing from the gaps, much like the "deluded" he mocks and derides!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60927682837950659862011-02-24T11:12:21.482-07:002011-02-24T11:12:21.482-07:00The simple fact is that ridicule is a brainwashing...The simple fact is that ridicule is a brainwashing technique. It attempts to persuade without proving. The claim that proof has been given and theists won't listen is a lame excuse. In the long run, it doesn't do any good to get people to get the right answer for the wrong reason. Intelligent people who think that other people are trying to brainwash them will become resistant to these tactics. The nonbelievers who have raised the toughest problems for my faith are never the ones who use these kinds of tactics. It's hypocritical to criticize others for being brainwashed and then use brainwashing tactics yourself. It also takes away from your criticisms of people like J. P. Holding when you get down in the gutter with them.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8911644729073265542011-02-24T09:10:06.662-07:002011-02-24T09:10:06.662-07:00John, an atheist's intended effect of using ri...John, an atheist's intended effect of using ridicule against a belief, is not only <i>intellectually</i> a turn-off (if) this is his preferred strategy of addressing views he disagrees with, but it also <i>looses</i> its potential 'funniness', if it is evident that the atheist's ridicule reflects extremely poor thought. <br /><br />Take Richard Dawkins, for him to ridicule the Ontological Argument by way of saying a being who can create a universe, while <i>not</i> existing is greater than a being who needs to exist in order to create the universe, conclusion therefore God does not exist -- that's not funny. A logically-contradictory response clothed as ridicule, does not defeat the argument it targets.<br /><br />And this is a lot of times what happens when a person fixates <b><i>too much</i></b> on wanting to ridicule -- focusing too much on the ridicule at the expense of critically thinking through whether the ridicule is, ironically, ridiculous itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68852895666328529982011-02-24T08:03:11.052-07:002011-02-24T08:03:11.052-07:00>> [Christians] have ALWAYS laughed, derided...>> [Christians] have ALWAYS laughed, derided, mocked, imprisoned, tortured and killed atheists.<br /><br />Just switch the words "Christians" and "atheists" around, and there's a lot of historical truth in that sentence.<br /><br />To paraphrase Dean Wormer of Animal House: "Rude, blind and stupid is no way to go through life, son."Melmoth the Wandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15130512701199083736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88319488604022189132011-02-24T06:26:17.086-07:002011-02-24T06:26:17.086-07:00Eric, Christian arguments are failing. As they do ...Eric, Christian arguments are failing. As they do atheists will laugh more. The reason for the ridicule is because it's becoming patently obvious Christians have no good arguments. And I help provide the arguments. It's not a laughter out of any ignorance, you see, although some do this. It a reasoned based laughter. Christian arguments are patently false so therefore we laugh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79828455496638227062011-02-24T06:18:58.954-07:002011-02-24T06:18:58.954-07:00Vic, I've provided some examples.
CheersVic, <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/02/christians-demand-that-i-must-show.html" rel="nofollow">I've provided some examples</a>.<br /><br />CheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42865052499932614172011-02-24T05:01:04.373-07:002011-02-24T05:01:04.373-07:00Crude, who says I don't argue? I most emphatic...Crude, who says I don't argue? I most emphatically do that. Yours is the kind of utter ignorance we will bury if that's the conclusion you derive from what I said here. <br /><br />And I know Christians are laughing at me. They have ALWAYS laughed, derided, mocked, imprisoned, tortured and killed atheists.<br /><br />We no longer fear you, your God, or your threats of hell! We're now publicly laughing at you. Get the point. And I'm saying that's a good thing. It's abut time. <br /><br />And in case it has also escape your brainwashed minds there still exist today your Russell's, Flew's, and Mackie's. What, do you live under a rock or something? There are philosophical atheist works like Oppy, Rowe, Sobel, Everitt, Martin, too many to name. Keith Parsons thinks they have done such a good job there is nothing left for him to do. And there are biblical secularist scholars like Hector Avalos, Burton Mack, Bart Ehrman, William Dever, too many to name. And there are scientists like Stephen Hawkings and Victor Stenger, too many to name.<br /><br />We come in many flavors, you see, and some of us, like me, will combine both mockery and argumentation depending on the circumstances. <br /><br />I have been arguing daily for about six years online. I tire of arguing with people who continually move the goal posts, who continually seek out the tiniest loophole to drive a truckload of Christian assumptions through, who refuse to see the implications of the current state of the human mind, and who refuse to see the obvious and clear impact of my Outsider Test for Faith. <br /><br />I've heard it all. And it disgusts me. As I said, you do in fact demand that I must show your faith impossible before you will see it as improbable. Not only that, but you refuse to see what you're doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55513233381271935072011-02-24T00:46:20.048-07:002011-02-24T00:46:20.048-07:00Loftus,
"Now atheist are laughing more than ...<b>Loftus</b>,<br /><br /><i>"Now atheist are laughing more than arguing."</i><br /><br />Accordingly, theists are face-palming more than responding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48859959184668982932011-02-23T21:15:59.842-07:002011-02-23T21:15:59.842-07:00Tell me, who is again , that believes:
. in dea...Tell me, who is again , that believes: <br /><br />. in dead putrescent corpses getting up and walking?<br /><br />. people can walk on water<br /><br />. that snakes talk<br /><br />. in a coupe of fish and bread can feed 4-5,000 <br /><br />. that exodus actually happened<br /><br />. that Adam has no navel, and<br /><br />. Eve has no navel<br /><br />Theists, how do you know? You weren't there.<br /><br />Courtier's reply, indeed.<br /><br />SheeshPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57545722154727664622011-02-23T18:31:47.082-07:002011-02-23T18:31:47.082-07:00"Of course, that depends on how you are inter..."Of course, that depends on how you are interpreting the criticisms of people like Ruse. A charge of ignorance of theology on matters not relevant to the existence of God is one thing, a charge of ignorance of matters that are relevant to the question of theism is quite another."<br /><br />I agree. But I can at least make sense of the CR when it's used by atheists agaisnt atheists, since both already agree that treatises on imaginary fabric are just that. What those texts say may matter when dealing with those who think the emperor is clothed, but not 'in-house,' as it were. But when the CR is directed by an atheist toward a theist, it's blatantly question begging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30693794511997260502011-02-23T18:21:29.384-07:002011-02-23T18:21:29.384-07:00Of course, that depends on how you are interpretin...Of course, that depends on how you are interpreting the criticisms of people like Ruse. A charge of ignorance of theology on matters not relevant to the existence of God is one thing, a charge of ignorance of matters that are relevant to the question of theism is quite another. And it depends on what arguments you're using. If you are Bible-bashing, then you need to know something about Bible interpretation. If you are arguing against first cause arguments, then you need to know what those arguments are.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63932317107396977962011-02-23T17:23:30.556-07:002011-02-23T17:23:30.556-07:00"The legitimacy of this response depends on w..."The legitimacy of this response depends on what aspects of theism are relevant to the arguments Dawkins and company are making. It is a matter of what is relevant to the reasons for rejecting Christianity or theism."<br /><br />I agree, though I think this has to be qualified with, "as the CR (Courtier's Reply) is now understood." As Brandon at Siris has pointed out, the CR as it was originally crafted only makes sense as a response by an atheist to an atheist. That is, when an atheist like Michael Ruse tells Richard Dawkins that he needs to learn theology, Dawkins can in a sense rightly respond, "What do you mean? We both can see that the emperor is naked; why must I study texts on imaginary fabrics?" Now, however, the CR is almost exclusively used by atheists against theists. In this context, the CR is ridiculous, for the issue is whether the emperor really is naked; to assume that theology is akin to treatises on imaginary fabrics is to beg the question.<br /><br />But, to the extent that the CR has now morphed and branched into at least two forms: the first is something like, "I don't need to learn theology to see that it's nonsense, since I can see that the emperor is naked," and I think that Victor's response to this version is spot on; the second form is, "you can't just refer me to this or that theologian, or to this or that book -- you have to make some effort to present the arguments themselves." This is fair as far as it goes (depending on the context of the discussion, of course), but it's nothing at all like the original CR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16343181443192361972011-02-23T17:22:34.476-07:002011-02-23T17:22:34.476-07:00Fair enough, Victor. Your house, your rules. Just ...Fair enough, Victor. Your house, your rules. Just had to ask after seeing this crap a time too many.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com