tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post466321292372615657..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Political Action by Atheists: Why Gnus are DifferentVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18408235298798027242016-10-03T10:48:53.579-07:002016-10-03T10:48:53.579-07:00New Atheism is just a drop in the bucket. There ar...New Atheism is just a drop in the bucket. There are far more dangerous ideologies spreading, in which simple questions like "is there a God" are not available for determining whose side someone is on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17160515355875531192014-11-03T13:40:09.212-07:002014-11-03T13:40:09.212-07:00Linton and others occasionally like to claim that ...Linton and others occasionally like to claim that History is on their side, and the inevitable triumph of atheism is right around the corner. Well, not so fast, according to <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks" rel="nofollow">THIS ARTICLE IN THE ECONOMIST</a>.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36141737230694387932014-10-27T05:38:46.132-07:002014-10-27T05:38:46.132-07:00No Bob. Not true. You know it is. I don't h...No Bob. Not true. You know it is. I don't have to lie. If my telling you that I had not used Wiki as the source is not good enough for you to accept there is little I can do about it. <br /><br />Indeed the Wiki source was one on the list [in fact there were two] that I cited to illustrate the many sources from which it could have come. Had I first seen it at say, one of the Cram101 books or at one of the other written sources, I would have cited it. <br /><br />I can't make it plainer than that. I can't stop you believing what you will, that is your prerogative. But what I can tell you, is your conclusion is wrong..Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89254921431083590692014-10-26T17:10:24.395-07:002014-10-26T17:10:24.395-07:00Linton,
I use that quote against myself when I d...Linton, <br /><br />I use that quote against <i><b>myself</b></i> when I do something regrettable for the second time.<br /><br />Now any fool can see that you plagiarized that Wikipedia article in your posting, with no "amateur detective work" required. All one has to do is compare the two side by side. Your protestations to the contrary, I think the case has been made, and you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36735668989900863432014-10-26T14:19:20.604-07:002014-10-26T14:19:20.604-07:00Bob
"Crude,
What did you expect? "As a d...Bob<br /><i>"Crude,<br />What did you expect? "As a dog returneth unto his vomit..."</i><br /><br />This sentiment I would expect from crude. It is after all, de rigeur for him, For a person who I thought valued the pursuit of truth even though you believe I am fundamentally wrong about supernaturalism and the existence of [putative] live non-human entities, I did not expect this from you. I can also understand why saying such a thing would emotionally make you feel better inside when we don't appeal to our own better angels. I guess it just shows how naive I was. <br /><br />Now to read your suggestion.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90519086703317010992014-10-26T07:28:05.616-07:002014-10-26T07:28:05.616-07:00Linton,
You really need to read THIS. And don'...Linton,<br /><br />You really need to read <a href="http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/08/writhings-nihilism.html" rel="nofollow">THIS</a>. And don't just skim it! It's worth deep reflection.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10256027436108605372014-10-25T21:20:56.877-07:002014-10-25T21:20:56.877-07:00What did you expect? "As a dog returneth unto...<i>What did you expect? "As a dog returneth unto his vomit..."</i><br /><br />Generally dogs won't do that after you grind their noses in it. I thought I did that with him, but hey, not everyone learns as quickly as a dog. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14701474725740367932014-10-25T20:34:37.712-07:002014-10-25T20:34:37.712-07:00Crude,
What did you expect? "As a dog return...Crude,<br /><br />What did you expect? "As a dog returneth unto his vomit..."B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2390535784427916542014-10-25T16:30:08.183-07:002014-10-25T16:30:08.183-07:00Oh God, I check in this thread and apparently Lint...Oh God, I check in this thread and apparently Linton's plagiarizing again?<br /><br />Even his intellectual failings are inevitably unoriginal.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57938960035040501982014-10-25T13:38:14.077-07:002014-10-25T13:38:14.077-07:00And according to you, the advent of democracy, dec...And according to you, the advent of democracy, declaration of the rights of man, the equality of women's roles, the abolition of feudalism, the demise of Monarchic and Religious power and influence, the sustaining influence of republicanism, are nothing more than the disastrous consequence of that chapter. <br /><br />Yes, I can see where you are coming from. You world be very happy to see the return of a Catholic theocracy,<br /><br />Incidentally, the 'reign of terror' reached a timely ending with its architect and leader, Robespiere being summarily 'dismissed' from the job, and as you and I would both agree the failed Stalin experiment took a little longer to reach the same conclusion.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91530325940933560922014-10-25T04:16:47.696-07:002014-10-25T04:16:47.696-07:00So I must assume you look approvingly upon such th...So I must assume you look approvingly upon such things as <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/A-French-Genocide-The-Vendee/dp/0268028656" rel="nofollow">The Vendee Genocide</a> or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" rel="nofollow">Reign of Terror</a>. Nice to know, when we consider your comments about how beautiful life will be under your hypothetical "humanist" regime in your longed-for future.<br /><br />And as for "the rise of Napoleon was simply a very brief period of flirting"... well then, I guess Stalin was just some sort of Bolshevik teenage crush. No, Linton, these two historical calamities were <i>intrinsic</i> to the events that caused them. Napoleon and Stalin were the inevitable consequences of their respective revolutions, and cannot be separated from them.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87321944803439350312014-10-24T19:49:53.953-07:002014-10-24T19:49:53.953-07:00Because of exams, I'll only be able to respond...Because of exams, I'll only be able to respond to this thread in a couple of weeks. Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81533749647923793062014-10-24T19:04:45.750-07:002014-10-24T19:04:45.750-07:00Bob
Your potted version of the French Revolution s...Bob<br />Your potted version of the French Revolution simply does not accord with what the overwhelming consensus of historians say about it. Read the final section under the heading, Historiography <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution" rel="nofollow">HERE at Wiki</a>.<br /><br />In all, out the maelstrom of the French Revolution the general consensus is that the phenomenon was on balance positive for Western Civilization as bloody as it was, leading directly to the advent of democracy, declaration of the rights of man, the equality of women's roles, the abolition of feudalism, the demise of Monarchic and Religious power and influence, the sustaining influence of republicanism, on which the foundations of the US and France for that matter are based.<br /><br />I'm no fan of war. And I can't change the past. Only catholics think the French Revolution was a disaster. And truth be told, it was. But a disaster with a good and positive outcome for all the reasons above.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90043434159808038082014-10-24T19:03:30.393-07:002014-10-24T19:03:30.393-07:00Bob
Your potted version of the French Revolution s...Bob<br />Your potted version of the French Revolution simply does not accord with what the overwhelming consensus of historians say about it. Read the final section under the heading, Historiography <a rel="nofollow">HERE at Wiki</a>.<br /><br />In all, out the maelstrom of the French Revolution the general consensus is that the phenomenon was on balance positive for Western Civilization as bloody as it was, leading directly to the advent of democracy, declaration of the rights of man, the equality of women's roles, the abolition of feudalism, the demise of Monarchic and Religious power and influence, the sustaining influence of republicanism, on which the foundations of the US and France for that matter are based.<br /><br />I'm no fan of war. And I can't change the past. Only catholics think the French Revolution was a disaster. And truth be told, it was. But a disaster with a good and positive outcome for all the reasons above.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47346739303543225852014-10-24T17:33:11.796-07:002014-10-24T17:33:11.796-07:00Wow. Just wow. How does one meaningfully respond w...Wow. Just wow. How does one meaningfully respond when someone has just spoken approvingly of one of the greatest disasters in human history? Simply unbelievable. And from an (almost) Brit <b>*</b>, to boot!<br /><br /><b>*</b> At the least, a member of the Commonwealth.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84084881449468776872014-10-24T17:26:30.483-07:002014-10-24T17:26:30.483-07:00Bob
I'll allow that perhaps you read the Wikip...Bob<br /><i>I'll allow that perhaps you read the Wikipedia article and the words made such an impression on you that they subconsciously came out when you made your posting, but I don't really believe that. The phraseology is not so striking that it would readily lend itself to passive memory."</i><br /><br />Misplaced conjecture, Bob. Speculation, not evidence. <br />And What? 'Not so striking ... '? Give the amateur detective stuff a rest, will you?. The phrase, 'the dramatic decline of powerful monarchies and churches heralding the rise of democracy' might not lend itself to your passive memory, given the content, but it surely was burned into mine. You would have dismissed it out of hand, because it doesn't fit your apologetical narrative. I did not. I'd hardly forget that little pearl. But had I read it at Wiki, it would have been cited.<br /><br />What you think or believe is not relevant. Your belief system, such as it is, is governed by supernatural superstition no less and you have a proclivity to believe and imagine all sorts of weird and wonderful concoctions. Delightful and amusing as they are, they are hardly substantive.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66216255044861489672014-10-24T17:23:50.995-07:002014-10-24T17:23:50.995-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88005384475982234602014-10-24T16:45:43.539-07:002014-10-24T16:45:43.539-07:00Bob, only the apologists' interpretation of th...Bob, only the apologists' interpretation of the french Revolution deem it a bad circumstance because the dramatic decline of powerful monarchies and churches { :) ] was so singularly momentous from which they were never to recover the halcyon days of hegemonic glory. Indeed the French Revolution ushered in the portentous advent of democratic rule that was to reverberate right throughout the Westenr world.. Governing by monarchic and religious fiat had been utterly smashed. <br /><br />The rise of Napoleon was simply a very brief period of flirting, particularly by Bonaparte and his ruling minions out of self-interest, a somewhat anachronistic reversion to capture the nostalgic past when monarchic and religious totalitarianism commanded absolute obedience. It didn't work.<br /><br />I can understand why 'the cult of reason' French Revolution would get under noses of apologists such as yourself. Religion did indeed lose bigtime. And its role and power continues to decline in the western world just as <a href="http://blogs.christianpost.com/dear-ephesus/empty-churches-the-decline-of-cultural-christianity-in-the-west-17067/" rel="nofollow">Christian Post</a> recounts here in its review of one of the latest books on the matter. But have heart, Bob, I think you'll find solace in the very last paragraph or so which have been added in to bolster your spirits.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24739944781968452832014-10-24T16:01:47.780-07:002014-10-24T16:01:47.780-07:00"What evidence has he provided[?]"
I th..."<i>What evidence has he provided[?]</i>"<br /><br />I think the two passages side by side is sufficient evidence. The probability of such similarity being purely by chance is vanishingly small. I'll allow that perhaps you read the Wikipedia article and the words made such an impression on you that they subconsciously came out when you made your posting, but I don't really believe that. The phraseology is not so striking that it would readily lend itself to passive memory. <br /><br />But again, of far greater importance... you're not seriously defending the French Revolution, are you? If so, this is HUGE. That's about 2 millimeters away from praising the October Revolution. I do hope you're not going to do <i>that</i>!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-554744388681526702014-10-24T15:44:43.773-07:002014-10-24T15:44:43.773-07:00Bob
"You have to actually disprove Cale's...Bob<br /><i>"You have to actually disprove Cale's accusation and refute his evidence."</i><br /><br /> Oh, I don't think so. That is not true. I don't have to disprove anything, not even Cale's assertion. The onus of proof is on Cale. What evidence has he provided to date that the quote came directly from the Wiki source? <br /><br />At best all Cale has done is pursue a 'guilty by association' or 'guilty by assertion' case. Hardly a ringing endorsement for his brief of evidence. <br /><br />No, Bob. I don't have to lie, even about this instance. Not in my nature to do so. When I mess up, I 'fess up.<br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42102595275820379242014-10-24T15:08:44.575-07:002014-10-24T15:08:44.575-07:00"as if the revolution was bad thing"
Wa..."<i>as if the revolution was bad thing</i>"<br /><br />Wait a second! This is way more important than mere plagiarism. Are you actually saying it <i>wasn't</i>? Linton, I never expected you to be such a revisionist historian. Next thing you'll be telling me is that Admiral Nelson wasn't that great? Never took you for a Bonapartist.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57289696993988947412014-10-24T14:42:04.398-07:002014-10-24T14:42:04.398-07:00Have been away on family business and I haven'...Have been away on family business and I haven't been able to get at the computer.<br /><br />Now, Cale.<br />This is really interesting stuff. I'm curious. Point me to the substance of your argument from the references Josh offered where:<br /><br />Fargothey, <i>""Four virtues have been traditionally picked out as the most important in the ethical order. <b>They are called cardinal virtues, from the Latin cardo, a hinge, because they are the four hinges on which the other virtues swing</b>"</i> and,<br /><br /> Sullivan , <i>""The moral virtues, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, <b>are called cardinal (from the Latin word meaning 'hinge') because they are virtues 'on which the moral life turns and is founded.</b>"</i><br /><br /> use the almost identical content, words and phraseology that were independently arrived at? And how did they do that? More importantly how did Feser independently arrive at the almost exact same words?: <i>"<b>They are so called because they are traditionally regarded as the “hinge” (cardo) on which the rest of morality turns</b>"</i><br /><br />My, my! Cale. How serendipitous that according to your logic they all 'independently' came to use the almost exact same words, to arrive by independent thinking the almost exact same words. [Methinks a miracle occurred here] <br /><br />You ask:<br /><i>'"1. Do you admit that you were mistaken in claiming that those websites you linked to earlier came up with that phrasing independently? <br /><br />2. Did you yourself go to wikipedia and copy from it? Come on Linton, be honest here."</i><br /><br />!. I made no such claim. They are your words put in my mouth. The claim I make is that the words and phrases are too common, 'common knowledge', 'common source material' for which referencing and attribution is not needed, exactly the same reasons that Josh puts for his case. The words and phrases about the cardinal virtues and thehinge analogy were simply in too common a use in the public domain to warrant attribution. And it is the very point that I made on Feser's blog with my 'egg on my face' concession. Feser was right to use the cardinal virtues phraseology without citation or attribution. And that's the point Josh makes.<br /><br />2. On the matter of the second question, the short answer, no. The slightly longer response, I heard of the cosy incestuous relationship between powerful monarchies and churches and the antecedents that precipitated the French Revolution in this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T90YrwV40U8" rel="nofollow">You Tube video</a>. All the more interesting, my curiosity was initially prompted by Bob's earlier abstruse comment about the French Revolution and the 'cult of reason', sating it as if the revolution was bad thing.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71351091218937946102014-10-23T20:00:39.906-07:002014-10-23T20:00:39.906-07:00This is absolutely surreal. Linton is called out o...This is absolutely surreal. Linton is called out on his plagiarism, and Cale provides the damning evidence. Linton's response? Rather than denying the charge, he simply labels the person who caught him in the act as someone of "<i>Low moral standard [and] low ethical commitment to the truth</i>". Huh?<br /><br />Interesting strategy:<br /><br />Prosecuting attorney - "This person was caught in the act of robbing the bank."<br /><br />Suspect - "How dare you say that? You, sir, are a person of low moral standard and low ethical commitment to the truth!"<br /><br />Newsflash, Linton. Simply by saying "You have had your proverbial rear end served on a platter with stuffed quince" doesn't make it so. You have to actually disprove Cale's accusation and refute his evidence.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64970836940534669142014-10-23T19:35:17.270-07:002014-10-23T19:35:17.270-07:00“Josh's citation does no such thing”
You previ...“Josh's citation does no such thing”<br />You previously conceded that you had incorrectly accused Feser of plagiarism.<br />Your words: “Re Dr Feser and plagiarism. Not correct.<br />Egg all over my face.”<br />Do you now retract that apology?<br /><br />You originally posted some links to various sites around the internet. Do you still maintain that they were writers who just happened to stumble upon a particular phrase, or do you admit that they were copying and pasting from wikipedia? Take that Cram101 book. Can't you see how it is blatantly plagiarised from wikipedia? Go back to the page in the book which you linked to and compare the entries on that page to the wikipedia pages:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution<br /><br />They are 100% matches.<br /><br />I addressed what you posted: how about actually defending your assertions, rather than going on yet another round of free association? Have a go, you mug.<br /><br />With regards to your quips about “the god myth” and “the myth of dead putrescent corpses revivifying” I’ve repeatedly told you in the past that I’m quite happy to debate you on these topics. How about showing me just how intellectually formidable you are Linton?Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2857312444223462632014-10-23T19:26:41.233-07:002014-10-23T19:26:41.233-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.com