tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post521472698916497323..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Is there Anything to Discuss?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63316137238988420992012-01-17T02:57:20.373-07:002012-01-17T02:57:20.373-07:00Ilion -
Sorry, I put my responses to two sets of...Ilion - <br /><br />Sorry, I put my responses to two sets of people (the ones with the hackneyed arguments and the ones refusing to argue) in the same rushed coffee-break comment. Sloppy.lvphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05046081885384137770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26613891751140361982012-01-17T02:54:07.729-07:002012-01-17T02:54:07.729-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.lvphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05046081885384137770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19576963461788518922012-01-16T20:52:15.964-07:002012-01-16T20:52:15.964-07:00Count Murmuroth: "Some folks - on both sides ...<b>Count Murmuroth:</b> "<i>Some folks - on both sides of the fence - don't want debate; they want deference. They give themselves away when, having failed to make their case, they complain that their opponents are unreachable.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Count Murmuroth:</b> "<i>Blimey, the comments thread on the Loftus post was depressing! ... Same old cringe-making arguments popping up ('Christians think it's irrational to believe in Zeus, so they should realise it's irrational to be theists at all! And they only believe because they're afraid of dying!). How can anyone claim to champion reason and still peddle this guff?</i>"<br /><br />I wonder; are you able to see the conflict -- and even contradiction, and self-condemnation -- between these two thoughts?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20216444761874694822012-01-16T09:33:50.497-07:002012-01-16T09:33:50.497-07:00Blimey, the comments thread on the Loftus post was...Blimey, the comments thread on the Loftus post was depressing! <br /><br />Same old cringe-making arguments popping up ('Christians think it's irrational to believe in Zeus, so they should realise it's irrational to be theists at all! And they only believe because they're afraid of dying!). How can anyone claim to champion reason and still peddle this guff?<br /><br />Some folks - on both sides of the fence - don't want debate; they want deference. They give themselves away when, having failed to make their case, they complain that their opponents are unreachable.lvphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05046081885384137770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64800360210060848012012-01-14T16:27:40.091-07:002012-01-14T16:27:40.091-07:00Ilion,
I'm pointing out that "speaking i...Ilion,<br /><br /><i>I'm pointing out that "speaking in tongues", even if it is odd, has nothing to do with snakes.</i><br /><br />That was the comment? Huh. Well, alright.<br /><br />BTW, what do you take high church and low church to mean anyway? I'm getting the impression it's a loosely used term.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1989209578879689392012-01-14T16:24:11.590-07:002012-01-14T16:24:11.590-07:00bravado+ignorane ≠ knowledge.
Repeating "you...<i>bravado+ignorane ≠ knowledge.</i><br /><br />Repeating "you're wrong!" over and over doesn't make it true, BDK. Though I loved your masterstroke of linking to your contrasting 'on target' evaluation of Rosenberg v Churchland. It's not that Churchland is just better, or so much better - he's SO, SO much better! Checkmate! ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85958624236980383172012-01-14T12:32:47.761-07:002012-01-14T12:32:47.761-07:00... about the whining I mentioned in the last post...... about the whining I mentioned in the last post: I had considered explaining just why BDK's silly attempt at reclassifying standard-issue atheistic whinging about the non-existent "Problem of Evil" as being examples of <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> fails (i.e. is itself absurd) … but, why bother? BDK ain’t listening to reason; if he were, he wouldn’t still be asserting atheism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89347625582661220242012-01-14T12:26:51.595-07:002012-01-14T12:26:51.595-07:00BDK: bravado+ignorane ≠ knowledge.
You still hav...<b>BDK:</b> <i>bravado+ignorane ≠ knowledge. <br /><br />You still have no idea what you are talking about.</i>"<br /><br />Yet, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/10/mark-nelson-on-reductio-versions-of.html#c8222320636017021125" rel="nofollow">whine</a> + disingenuousness (as see in just this thread alone) still = far worse than "≠ knowledge"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19511046785529548052012-01-14T11:13:46.309-07:002012-01-14T11:13:46.309-07:00"First, I don't think Ilion 'feels..."<i>First, I don't think Ilion 'feels' some way about Feser that's wholly hostile ...</i>"<br /><br />Indeed, Ilíon doesn't 'feel' anything about anything ... he <i>thinks</i> and <i>reasons</i>.<br /><br />"<i>... I think Ilion would even say he agrees with a lot of what Feser says. But he disagrees on some key points ...</i>"<br /><br />Probably more minor than 'key'.<br /><br />"<i>... and if I recall right (of course, Ilion can and will correct me if I'm wrong) he thought Feser wasn't intellectually honest on some point ...</i>"<br /><br />And he explained, in boring detail, *why* he had come to that conclusion.<br /><br />"<i>... and that was that.</i>"<br /><br />It was *because* Ilíon once thought so highly of Feser that his intellectual dishonesty so disgusts him that he no longer wastes his time on the man.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50079492104758831182012-01-14T10:53:43.022-07:002012-01-14T10:53:43.022-07:00"Man, were you really taking that as a high-c..."<i>Man, were you really taking that as a high-church Catholic versus low-church Protestant thing?<br /></i>"<br /><br />Not at all.<br /><br />I'm pointing out that "speaking in tongues", even if it is odd, has nothing to do with snakes.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28912598828211936402012-01-14T10:22:02.361-07:002012-01-14T10:22:02.361-07:00Crude:
bravado+ignorane ≠ knowledge.
You still ...Crude:<br /><br />bravado+ignorane ≠ knowledge. <br /><br />You still have no idea what you are talking about.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10098504082211643082012-01-14T00:26:35.581-07:002012-01-14T00:26:35.581-07:00And for the record, in my youth, I too climbed wal...And for the record, in my youth, I too <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNq4iDSYOYY" rel="nofollow">climbed walls and spit fire</a> on a regular basis.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6026795609000937542012-01-14T00:23:29.801-07:002012-01-14T00:23:29.801-07:00Ilion,
What? Catholics play with snakes?
Man, we...Ilion,<br /><br /><i>What? Catholics play with snakes?</i><br /><br />Man, were you really taking that as a high-church Catholic versus low-church Protestant thing? I'm well aware of Catholic charismatics, and frankly I include them in my example - because this isn't a Catholic v Protestant example. Even if snake-handling and speaking in tongues is wholly legitimate, it still has the impression that it does - and that impression is all I was referring to.<br /><br /><i>No wonder in my very “low church” upbringing -- in which people did "spoke in tongues" ... and, allegedly, climbed the walls and spit fire -- Catholicism was regarded with extreme prejudice.</i><br /><br />Wait, what? Because Catholics did it too (were they using wrong snakes?)? Or because Catholics turned their noses up at it? I can't parse what you're saying here.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14444591482365845042012-01-14T00:17:57.776-07:002012-01-14T00:17:57.776-07:00Ben,
Obviously BDK likes Churchland the same way ...Ben,<br /><br /><i>Obviously BDK likes Churchland the same way I might like Feser. Obviously Crude feels about Churchland the same way Ilion feels about Feser.</i><br /><br />Not really. First, I don't think Ilion 'feels' some way about Feser that's wholly hostile - I think Ilion would even say he agrees with a lot of what Feser says. But he disagrees on some key points, and if I recall right (of course, Ilion can and will correct me if I'm wrong) he thought Feser wasn't intellectually honest on some point, and that was that.<br /><br />And I'm not all that animated against Churchland, or Rosenberg - I just don't think much of them. I mean really, take a good, hard look at what I said in this thread. I made it known I don't have a high opinion of Churchland (What a shock!), and I'm of the opinion that Rosenberg and Churchland pretty much end up on the same page at the end of the day - it's just that Rosenberg's blunt and a bad BSer. That's pretty minor. BDK didn't even ask what I meant or for clarification - just, boom, 'OMG you're wrong, wrong, wrong'. And writing off anything nutty either of the two say as 'provocation' and 'inessential'. I see in the other thread, even the materialism aspect isn't regarded as essential or worth dwelling on with regards to the topic. Hey, if I can rip out every page of a philosopher's book that I dislike and merely comment on the remainder, I can compliment everyone. (I bet Churchland has nice penmanship and writes a bitchin' appendix.)<br /><br />I guess that should be the takeaway point here. The big defender of Churchland here, who freaked out that I equated him with Rosenberg, bills himself as agnostic to leaning against Churchland on key issues, knocks the nutty stuff to the side as provocative and inessential, and apparently brackets even the materialism in the conversation. That's actually more of a slight than anything I said.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70798334098121759362012-01-13T21:49:43.136-07:002012-01-13T21:49:43.136-07:00Well, I didn't mean to say you have to engage ...Well, I didn't mean to say you have to engage everyone on the other side. So, if Richard Dawkins ignores Kirk Cameron, I wouldn't say he's open to criticism.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38573984115880577402012-01-13T16:30:11.978-07:002012-01-13T16:30:11.978-07:00Good, and maybe you will become an eliminative dua...Good, and maybe you will become an eliminative dualist, a real option that is nare explored. :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63141283098045907862012-01-13T12:03:49.864-07:002012-01-13T12:03:49.864-07:00Then I will see you there BDK.Then I will see you there BDK.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31273139478939632132012-01-13T11:32:25.590-07:002012-01-13T11:32:25.590-07:00BenYachov I'm done with this thread--am talkin...BenYachov I'm done with this thread--am talking about actual details in the next thread. If you want to talk details, substance, go there. <br /><br />As I said there, I am not an eliminativist, but agnostic lean against (at least for humans). But I do try to correct the confident yet incorrect pronouncements on what he has said.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85263981589869931002012-01-13T10:39:32.648-07:002012-01-13T10:39:32.648-07:00OTOH maybe that is an unfair comparison?
In terms...OTOH maybe that is an unfair comparison?<br /><br />In terms of base hostility I would compare Crude's contempt for Churchland with Ilion's contempt for Feser.<br /><br />But that is not to say Crude hostility isn't based on principled objections to Churchland's thought & a principle set of reason for believing he is bullshiting.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6767140199976530632012-01-13T10:37:16.025-07:002012-01-13T10:37:16.025-07:00"The fun of skepticism is attacking ideas you..."<i>The fun of skepticism is attacking ideas you dislike - going on defense for EM is a great way to come across as crazier than a guy speaking in tongues and juggling snakes.</i>"<br /><br />What? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-QDOcDGDWA" rel="nofollow">Catholics</a> play with snakes? No wonder in my very “low church” upbringing -- in which people did "spoke in tongues" ... and, allegedly, climbed the walls and spit fire -- Catholicism was regarded with extreme prejudice.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10767420020900412352012-01-13T10:31:32.753-07:002012-01-13T10:31:32.753-07:00"Obviously Crude feels about Churchland the s..."<i>Obviously Crude feels about Churchland the same way Ilion feels about Feser.</i>"<br /><br />I'd say "what an ignorant idiot" ... but idiots don't choose to be ignorant.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43053768806931392882012-01-13T07:40:03.391-07:002012-01-13T07:40:03.391-07:00@Crude & BDK,
What are the differences betwee...@Crude & BDK,<br /><br />What are the differences between Churchland vs Rosenberg on EM assuming there are such?<br /><br />Why is Churchland allegedly better than Rosenberg on this topic or not?<br /><br />Obviously BDK likes Churchland the same way I might like Feser. Obviously Crude feels about Churchland the same way Ilion feels about Feser.<br /><br />OK I get that & full dis-closer I am predisposed to reject EM regardless & am predisposed to Feser(who has read Rosenberg) review of Rosenberg and Churchland.<br /><br />But never the less I would prefer to see specifics here then BDK: "Churchland is awesome & Rosenberg sucks!" vs Crude: "Both suck! But Rosenberg is more honest about the suck!".<br /><br />That would be a more enjoyable discussion. If either of you guys are up for it. <br /><br />If not that is OK too.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69870626580738321872012-01-12T21:00:24.363-07:002012-01-12T21:00:24.363-07:00Rosenberg's view isn't just a more "b...<i>Rosenberg's view isn't just a more "blunt" less bullshit filled version of Churchland. You have no idea what you are talking about.</i> <br /><br />This is a load of bull and you know it. No, BDK, Rosenberg is not off on his own with a position utterly alien to the Churchland view. I'm sure you can find some differences - no two philosophers are ever going to be utterly alike on as broad a topic as this. But when you get down to it, yes, Rosenberg is pretty much what you get with EM if you're blunt and aren't quite as good at blowing smoke.<br /><br /><i>But you have presented an ill-defined enough target to be able to deny that you have actually said anything substantive. I might agree with that.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I gave my brief and straightforward opinion and little else. Your response has basically been to say "Nuh-uh!" and insist I'm wrong. And also imply that it was the "Christian blogosphere" that thought Rosenberg's view was nuts. Like it or not, both Rosenberg and Churchland are regarded as pretty out of it even among self-described atheists and materialists.<br /><br /><i>If you ever want to actually exchange ideas about the issues</i><br /><br />Tell me when you find someone worth spending said time with. I'll add them to the short list.<br /><br /><i>At any rate, my evaluation of Rosenberg is on target, points out hte contrast with Paul Churchland,</i><br /><br />I know! You not only said Churchland was so much better, but so, SO much better! What a contrast - God, it's like night and day!Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24899720661717382282012-01-12T20:37:46.161-07:002012-01-12T20:37:46.161-07:00Crude: Rosenberg's view isn't just a more ...Crude: Rosenberg's view isn't just a more "blunt" less bullshit filled version of Churchland. You have no idea what you are talking about. But you have presented an ill-defined enough target to be able to deny that you have actually said anything substantive. I might agree with that.<br /><br />"I just don't have the time to engage in this shit anymore - I'd rather converse with people, or present an idea. Not fight the same ten jackoffs who aren't even saying anything salient."<br /><br />If you ever want to actually exchange ideas about the issues, rather than pass barbs about who finds whom insane, go to the next thread where we will discuss Victor's published responses to Churchland.<br /><br />At any rate, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-there-anything-to-discuss.html#c9130245173570103506" rel="nofollow">my evaluation of Rosenberg</a> is on target, points out hte contrast with Paul Churchland, and I'm not going to write any more about Rosenberg (I certainly wasn't trying to defend him) because I prefer to go after the best representation of a position, not the worst.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36394643772142982052012-01-12T19:21:57.613-07:002012-01-12T19:21:57.613-07:00VR: “If you are going to argue for something, then...VR: “If you are going to argue for something, then, in one way or another, you've got to engage the other side.”<br /><br />This isn’t true, as anybody who posts on websites knows; some comments are so stupid, ill-informed, and obviously motivated by unrelated emotional and psychological issues that the best response is to ignore them. I think you would have trouble disagreeing, as I think I saw that you have recently announced that you will not allow anonymous comments here. In other words, we all have thresholds for engaging with “the other side,” and ignoring is clearly one that you also espouse.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.com