tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post744513595984935600..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Dawkins Model: A response to Keith Parsons as part of a dialogue on ridiculeVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger189125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52672280468435729092013-06-17T10:39:01.033-07:002013-06-17T10:39:01.033-07:00Just to make it clear, I will try to clarify my re...Just to make it clear, I will try to clarify my remark in the other thread, since you insist on interpreting my words in a way that I didn't intend. See if you can follow what I'm trying to say now.<br /><br />1. School boards are generally composed of elected community members who have little or no qualifications in public education.<br /><br />2. A large fraction of school board members are also religious. No implication is made or intended that being religious is what causes them to have no educational qualification.<br /><br />3. The religious membership of public school boards across the country are attempting to insert their religious agenda into public education. (This has been going on for decades, with varying degrees of success.)<br /><br />Bob, I shouldn't have to do this. You should be reasonable enough to take my words the way they were intended, without inserting your own additional meaning into them. If I didn't say something and there's a more reasonable interpretation of what I DID say, what right do you have to claim your own (less charitable) version what I meant? That's what I call intellectual dishonesty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42033059326965339832013-06-17T10:18:24.283-07:002013-06-17T10:18:24.283-07:00OK, I'll stick to your own words. "Those ...OK, I'll stick to your own words. "Those religious people" - sounds like a pretty broad brush to me. And just what makes a person one of "those religious people"? Is it believing in God? Maybe going to church? Perhaps it's OK as long as you "keep religion to yourself"? (In other words, take everything you hold most dear in the world and every value you recognize, and be damn sure no one else knows anything about them, and be doubly sure you don't actually make decisions based on what you regard as Ultimate Reality.) <br /><br />So just who are these "religious people", Skep? Are you going to ask candidates for the school board whether or not they are (let's say) Christians, and if so, would you oppose them on those grounds? <br /><br />Note this well - <b>I am not putting any words in your mouth</b>. What I <i>am</i> doing is giving you the opportunity to repudiate the possibly wrong impression your words have given. 'Cause what I just wrote is very much the impression I'm getting from <i>your words</i>. If I'm wrong, then here's your chance to correct me.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54358557258838695732013-06-17T10:04:50.934-07:002013-06-17T10:04:50.934-07:00"But if that was the case, then why did he ev..."But if that was the case, then why did he ever mention it?"<br /><br />Why mention it? Because those religious people are trying to push their religion on the public schools, that's why. Nothing more to it than that. Stop reading words into my mouth that I didn't say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20127826305292329442013-06-17T09:22:51.299-07:002013-06-17T09:22:51.299-07:00Sorry, but I ain't lettin' up. Call me a m...Sorry, but I ain't lettin' up. Call me a mind reader here, but the original intent of his first posting was crystal clear. He was trying to sneak in the idea that faith was "ridiculous" but atheism wasn't. He was subsequently tripped up in his own argument, and has been backpedaling furiously ever since.<br /><br />Note his similar behavior on the thread two above this one, where he by clear implication disqualifies any "religious" person from serving on a school board (or at the least, disapproves of their presence). When I call him out on this, he runs for cover using a hyper-literalist parsing of his language as his only defense, denying he meant any such thing.<br /><br />But if that was the case, then why did he ever mention it? There is no plausible positive motive for his doing so, and much reason to believe it was intended as a slam.<br /><br />(Now watch him deny this.)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7380684315181528252013-06-17T08:56:44.536-07:002013-06-17T08:56:44.536-07:00As much as it kills me, I'm going to have to s...As much as it kills me, I'm going to have to side with im-skeptical on this one. He did say "more often" earlier: he never denied that Christians do sometimes use ridicule. Maybe he was a bit unclear about it, but he clarified it later and the principle of charity says you should give your opponent the benefit of the doubt when it comes to interpreting his words. There have been plenty of cases where me being unclear in what I was saying created apparent contradictions, and when the contradictions were pointed out I clarified what I meant and showed that the contradiction was only apparent. We should assume, unless we have independent reason not to, that im-skeptical is doing the same.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51555004733944618742013-06-17T07:43:08.087-07:002013-06-17T07:43:08.087-07:00Bob,
My story hasn't changed. I NEVER denied...Bob,<br /><br />My story hasn't changed. I NEVER denied that Christians use ridicule, and I went to the trouble of clarifying my remarks, I showed what I said that directly contradicts YOUR assertion, yet you still hold to this stupid attack on my integrity. It's precisely what I expect from the likes of crude, but I am greatly dismayed to find that you refuse to admit you're wrong. You said you wouldn't let me get away with it - well I'm not letting you get away with it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64956258197866235882013-06-17T06:31:17.211-07:002013-06-17T06:31:17.211-07:00Crude,
You might as well give it up. You're n...Crude,<br /><br />You might as well give it up. You're never going to get the champion squirmer to ever admit to his squirming. Note that even in his denial of changing his story, he changes his story! Now <i>that's</i> quality squirming!<br /><br />The reason you're getting so frustrated, Crude, is because you regard language as a means of <b>communication</b>, not of obfuscation.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11048106602826371822013-06-17T04:47:58.016-07:002013-06-17T04:47:58.016-07:00Let's see if I can follow your contorted logic...Let's see if I can follow your contorted logic. <br /><br />I proved that you were WRONG. Unequivocally, undeniably WRONG.<br /><br />You now claim that in a single comment, after saying Christians use ridicule less frequently than the so-called "gnus", in giving examples of those who prefer to take a different approach, that erases the first part of my comment, as though I never said it? And you go on to claim that I don't understand my own words? <br /><br />Wouldn't it be easier to stop squirming, stop your incessant lying, and just admit it? You are WRONG. And if you had any integrity at all, you might be more interested in truth than just trying to score cheap points in an argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45065106728828228092013-06-17T00:57:33.362-07:002013-06-17T00:57:33.362-07:00First I contradicted myself about whether Christia...<i>First I contradicted myself about whether Christians use ridicule. I showed that you were lying, so the story morphs into my whining about it</i><br /><br />Skep, my story didn't 'morph'. I stayed consistent, and pointed out exactly where you denied that Christians could use ridicule on atheists. Hence the 'and then'.<br /><br />You may want to go back and reread what you wrote - your comprehension ain't inspiring here. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10830923159949435112013-06-16T22:36:59.248-07:002013-06-16T22:36:59.248-07:00So now your story changes. First I contradicted m...So now your story changes. First I contradicted myself about whether Christians use ridicule. I showed that you were lying, so the story morphs into my whining about it. Nice try, Crude, but you are still as dishonest as the day is long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25682041302899408112013-06-16T19:58:56.045-07:002013-06-16T19:58:56.045-07:00Skep, you said that Christians don't see athei...Skep, you said that Christians don't see atheism as ridiculous but merely lacking in understanding. You talked about how "Christians would relish the opportunity" to heap ridicule on atheists - which is a damn clear indication that you think they can't do it.<br /><br />And then you whined about the ridicule being heaped on atheists.<br /><br />As usual, Skep, when you're cornered, you bullshit. That's not the surprise - but the worst part is, you bullshit poorly. For once, please... sharpen your thinking a little after a situation like this. If you can, anyway.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9743234096993930632013-06-16T15:21:41.760-07:002013-06-16T15:21:41.760-07:00"You already had your contradiction pointed o..."You already had your contradiction pointed out by Bob, and you've already bullshitted about it after the fact."<br /><br />Here's what I said: "One would wonder why the theists don't use this approach to dealing with atheists more often." Note the last two words. That is an explicit acknowledgement or what you and Bob both insist that I denied, only to contradict myself later. The only bullshitting is on your part. You don't get to make up your own meaning for my words unless honesty doesn't matter to you, which is clearly the case for you (having done the same sort of thing over and over again). Crude will be crude. So be it.<br /><br />Crude, you did exactly as I predicted. That's sheer dishonesty, and I expected nothing else from you. But I did expect more from Bob.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53801196048211006422013-06-16T13:17:23.678-07:002013-06-16T13:17:23.678-07:00I predict you will do neither.
You already had yo...<i>I predict you will do neither.</i><br /><br />You already had your contradiction pointed out by Bob, and you've already bullshitted about it after the fact. What's the point?<br /><br />By 'I predict you will do neither' you mean 'I predict I will say you did neither'. But your ability to judge anything reliably has already been shown as defunct. Remember when you discounted and article critical of the Gnus by saying 'It's a conservative paper!!!' and that was the end of your refutation? That's emblematic of how you think - and why you're a lightweight. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75792626669400049072013-06-16T09:40:10.645-07:002013-06-16T09:40:10.645-07:00OK, point out where I contradicted myself in this...OK, point out where I contradicted myself in this thread, or admit you're wrong. I predict you will do neither.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72009161960606347332013-06-15T23:03:47.683-07:002013-06-15T23:03:47.683-07:00For what it's worth, I don't expect crude ...<i>For what it's worth, I don't expect crude to ever admit he's wrong, because there is no honesty in him.</i><br /><br />I admit I'm wrong plenty of times, and there are plenty of times I'm wrong. I'll even admit I'm wrong to someone like Ilion, which is a distasteful thing, believe me.<br /><br />The difference is, I actually strive to tell when I'm wrong, and I try to avoid being wrong in the first place. You? You go out of your way to actually numb yourself to the possibility. It's too scary to contemplate.<br /><br />Which is why, intellectually, you're easy pickin's. Other atheists, not so much.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46915769454755451802013-06-15T22:03:33.676-07:002013-06-15T22:03:33.676-07:00For what it's worth, I don't expect crude ...For what it's worth, I don't expect crude to ever admit he's wrong, because there is no honesty in him. But Bob, I'm sorry for you if you sink to his level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29846314672837174372013-06-15T21:59:35.798-07:002013-06-15T21:59:35.798-07:00For what it's worth, go back and read what I s...For what it's worth, go back and read what I said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47383825601823516142013-06-15T13:35:21.947-07:002013-06-15T13:35:21.947-07:00For what it's worth.For what it's worth.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74473560647058385092013-06-15T13:02:15.650-07:002013-06-15T13:02:15.650-07:00What does FWIW mean?
Not being a texter, I'm ...What does FWIW mean?<br /><br />Not being a texter, I'm not fluent in Text. Maybe it means "Future War Is Wisdom"? or maybe "Fast Women in Wabash"? or even "Flatulent Wombats Impugn Wobblies"? <br /><br />But I have to agree with everything that follows the acronym.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18437550740286136732013-06-15T12:55:15.069-07:002013-06-15T12:55:15.069-07:00@B. Prokop:
FWIW, when discussion changes directi...@B. Prokop:<br /><br />FWIW, when discussion changes direction from the arguments to the character of the interlocutors -- *because* of their behavior, say patent intellectual dishonesty -- it is as sure a sign as any that it is time to cut off dialogue, as it is just a waste of time and a cluttering of the combox.<br /><br />If one is feeling particularly uncharitable, there will be ample opportunities to have a good laugh at the expense of their foolishness, but this too soon gets old, as it is a rather coarse form of entertainment, and it is not exactly conducive to a well-formed character.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54520029110144114392013-06-14T19:34:46.567-07:002013-06-14T19:34:46.567-07:00Yes, Bob, you've graduated to the status of Cr...Yes, Bob, you've graduated to the status of Crude. You've pointed out that Skep can't go a single thread without contradicting himself or exposing himself as clueless.<br /><br />Welcome to the club!Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39316115787927336662013-06-14T19:21:40.694-07:002013-06-14T19:21:40.694-07:00Skep
Construal, misconstrual, shapeshifting, mis-s...Skep<br />Construal, misconstrual, shapeshifting, mis-shaping and morphing have been bread-and-butter of Apologetics for over two millennia. The religiose are the artful dodgers that have made Apologetic 'scholarship'[?] the slipperiest of the snake-oil merchandise. Remember the bit from Dr Parsons:<br /><i>"Come on. You just can’t come up with anything more ridiculous than someone who honestly thinks that all human woes stem from an incident in which a talking snake accosted a naked woman in a primeval garden and talked her into eating a piece of fruit."</i><br /><br />Now ain't that the truth. You just can't come up with anything more ridiculous. No matter how one tries to squeeze this actual belief through the prism of reality, it comes out as redolent of a dog's breakfast as it entered. And *we* are demanded to take them and their beliefs seriously. Seriously? But the irony of ironies here is that one *can* come up with heaps more ridiculous, juvenile and asinine beliefs that add to the cacophonous din of cognitive dissonance; talking burning bushes, talking donkeys, walking on water, strike a rock with staff and water flows, pillars of cadaverous salt, zombies from the grave, etc etc etc etc etc.<br /><br />The best that Christian Apologetics can be characterised as 'truth' and 'reality', is demonstrated so accurately demonstrated <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/dog-butt-looks-like-jesus-photo_n_3436086.html" rel="nofollow">HERE, but you must watch and listen to the video too.</a>. This is the state of conversation that reflects contemporary community sentiment about religions more broadly. It's a wake-up call to Christians. <br /><br />Lapa Pinton may well be parodying me. I have no way of telling. But I am pleased that I have that degree of influence. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And I do love a good laugh, even if it is on me. The bottom line is that the message remains the same honest message.<br /><br />As much as the 'Immaterial Essence Brigade' have attempted to impugn and sully your character, Skep, its integrity remains untroubled and composed.<br /><br />There is no going back to the good old days of old-town religion. That option died in the Enlightenment. <br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79027914946268434632013-06-14T18:46:28.018-07:002013-06-14T18:46:28.018-07:00Congrats, Bob. You have graduated to the status o...Congrats, Bob. You have graduated to the status of crude. I suspect that the reason you don't comprehend what I say is that you don't bother to pay any more than cursory attention to what I say. And that's what makes it so difficult to carry on a conversation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35200010396820190142013-06-14T18:24:52.182-07:002013-06-14T18:24:52.182-07:00I will say, I admire Lapa Pinton's skill with ...I will say, I admire Lapa Pinton's skill with the imitation. Someone's very attention to communication patterns.<br /><br /><i>And you don't do this with trivia like what we're discussing here. You routinely do it concerning the most fundamental issues.</i><br /><br />Why, it's almost as if reason or science or even sincere skepticism isn't the point after all.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6924612743891633382013-06-14T16:53:58.976-07:002013-06-14T16:53:58.976-07:00Amusing how Skep, when caught in talking out of bo...Amusing how Skep, when caught in talking out of both sides of his mouth, even while backpedaling, accuses others of "picking nits". <br /><br />Sorry, but I'm not letting you get away with this one. You were hoping to score some sort of point in your earlier posting - heavily implying that, since Christians do not ridicule atheism, atheism is not ridiculous (as is, in your mind, Christianity).<br /><br />But later, when someone posting under the pseudonym Lapa Pinton, skewers Papalinton by copying his over-verbose writing style, you then claim "see, gnus are not the only ones using ridicule, so what is Victor complaining about?" or words to that effect.<br /><br />(For the record, we have no idea where "Lapa Pinton" stands on the Big Issues. He could very well be an atheist appalled by Paplinton's postings, which for the most part give atheism a bad name.)<br /><br />When called out on this contradiction, you deny ever having said the first, despite the fact that anyone can read your own words for themselves. But anyone who dares to set the record straight is "picking nits". That is why you, Skep, are one of the most infuriating people on this website to attempt a conversation with. You are as slippery as an eel, and you treat everything as a zero sum gain contest with winners and losers. You stick with a statement only so far as you think it will score you a point. But the moment you feel the "game" going against you, you'll abandon everything and say the reverse.<br /><br />And you don't do this with trivia like what we're discussing here. You routinely do it concerning the most fundamental issues.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com