tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7891170333337699715..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Atheism's cyanide pillVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger160125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66205869676289594622013-05-07T21:13:13.554-07:002013-05-07T21:13:13.554-07:00replace than religions with "that religions&q...replace than religions with "that religions"Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85898599905503573992013-05-07T21:12:13.240-07:002013-05-07T21:12:13.240-07:00Vic, PREDICTIONS? CYANIDE? What's your point? ...Vic, PREDICTIONS? CYANIDE? What's your point? Simplistic garbage. <br /><br />I'm perfectly happy not to predict the "win" of any particular religion, sect, or philosophy. Most people don't know much about either the Bible or philosophy. I predict rather than religions, including Christianity, will probably continue to mutate, diverge, speciate, based on a number of different factors, including the continuing investigations of science into how the cosmos, our brains and bodies function. Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81819116311388173102013-04-20T07:56:23.180-07:002013-04-20T07:56:23.180-07:00"2) No purely non-rational mechanically neces..."2) No purely non-rational mechanically necessary cause can ever give rise to a free result, nor a rational result;"<br /><br />Some mechanistic thinking machines work better than others. Addled by faulty religious programming, yours is not one of them.<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3195Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10261071237962297642013-04-20T01:03:12.112-07:002013-04-20T01:03:12.112-07:005) BUT, we human beings *do* reason;
6) THEREFORE,...5) BUT, we human beings *do* reason;<br />6) THEREFORE, there is a Creator-God -- which is the Necessary Being, and which is both rational and free ... which is to say, the Necessary Being is not a 'what', nut a 'who': he is <i>personal</i>.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88922927462418660382013-04-20T00:58:17.885-07:002013-04-20T00:58:17.885-07:00ME: "And, on average, [God-deniers are] as cl...<b>ME:</b> "<i>And, on average, [God-deniers are] as clear-thinking [as rocks].</i>"<br /><br /><b>I don't know what 'skeptical' means:</b> "<i>Unlike theists, who are WRONG about so, so much.</i>"<br /><br />So asserts the foolish materialist who also ultimately asserts that he himself does not, and cannot, exist.<br /><br />And yet, you (singular and collective) never can manage to <i>identify</i> even one thing about which Christians are so, so "WRONG". The nearest you (again, singular and collective) ever come to making a rational argument against Christianity goes like this:<br />1) IF there is a Creator-God, then Christians would be right about that, and I would be wrong;<br />2) BUT, Christians are stupid "faith-heads", who by definition (for I have defined the terms) do not believe what they believe for rational reasons;<br />3) ERGO, Christians are wrong. PLUS, they’re stupid.<br /><br />Notice, Gentle Reader, there is nothing <i>rational</i> about that; it a <i>rationalization</i> for the God-denier’s own refusal to reason about the reality of God – <br /><br />1) IF there is no Creator-God (*), then the only sorts of cause existing <i>ab initio</i> are those of non-rational mechanical necessity; <br />2) No purely non-rational mechanically necessary cause can ever give rise to a <i>free</i> result, nor a rational result;<br />3) THUS, *all* subsequent events in the history of the world are purely non-rational mechanically necessary;<br />4) BUT, “all subsequent events in the history of the world” includes our own ratiocinations –<br />4a) meaning that it is not a free-and-rational comprehension of the logical truth of some matter that enables us to say ‘X’ – nor, likewise, a free-if-irrational refusal to say ‘X’ that enables us to say ‘not-X’ – but rather, our saying ‘X’, or ‘not-X’, is simply the purely non-rational mechanically necessary <i>effect</i> of some prior purely non-rational mechanically necessary cause. Tomorrow, due to some other purely non-rational mechanically necessary cause, we may well say ‘Y’.<br />4b) THUS, is there is no Creator-God, then we humans do not, <i>for we cannot</i>, reason.<br /><br />(*) who is a Necessary Being, and who is personal – being both rational and free<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12731983322704984932013-04-19T18:41:36.027-07:002013-04-19T18:41:36.027-07:00While we're talking about Bulverism and the su...While we're talking about Bulverism and the substance of one's arguments, I will remind all concerned of what Bob said not so long ago:<br /><br />"I started out years ago naively thinking that we were all debating on a level playing field. I have since (sadly) come to accept the fact that atheists are by and large impervious to logic, reason, and argument. they are what they are because that is what they wish to be, and not because of any argument. Therefore, for an atheist to change his mind, he must first change his heart.<br /><br />I will continue to proclaim Truth and refute error, but I will leave the convincing of others to Someone far above my pay grade. "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64017445192812233312013-04-19T15:29:15.537-07:002013-04-19T15:29:15.537-07:00What? You can't recognize humor when you see i...What? You can't recognize humor when you see it? That wasn't "hate", but lighthearted banter amongst people who really ought to be friends (despite your continuing refusal to disown the tactics of the self-styled Westboro Baptist Church).B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81076482975313576652013-04-19T15:09:21.682-07:002013-04-19T15:09:21.682-07:00Bob
"No, in this case it's more like &quo...Bob<br /><i>"No, in this case it's more like "Papalintonism, Papalintonism!"</i><br /><br />That's right Bob. You are bashing me, not the substance of my argument. That is pure Bulverism. To wit:<br /><br /><i>"It would be Bulverism if I said that none of the persons I mentioned had ever made a coherent argument <b>on the grounds of their being who they were</b>.</i> <br /><br />Let's just go over that again: <i><b>""No, in this case it's more like "Papalintonism, Papalintonism!"</b></i> and <i><b>on the grounds of their being who they were</b>.</i><br /><br />In response you will now attempt to justify that Papalintonism has nothing to do with my character and therefore your comment does not constitute Bulverism. Your attitude and demeanour pretty much reflects a dispiriting mess of hate towards me personally, Bob. And that I find disconcerting. <br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56533632549762465962013-04-19T10:21:15.603-07:002013-04-19T10:21:15.603-07:00"And, on average, as clear-thinking."
U..."And, on average, as clear-thinking."<br /><br />Unlike theists, who are WRONG about so, so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86983667342269850602013-04-19T09:55:50.108-07:002013-04-19T09:55:50.108-07:00Martin: "And rocks. Rocks are atheists as wel...<b>Martin:</b> "<i>And rocks. Rocks are atheists as well.</i>"<br /><br />And, on average, as clear-thinking.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65344344600060472542013-04-18T13:01:27.768-07:002013-04-18T13:01:27.768-07:00But seriously, im-skeptical. If you actually do th...But seriously, im-skeptical. If you actually do think that's an example of Bulverism, then it's clear you don't understand the term.<br /><br />It would be Bulverism if I said that none of the persons I mentioned had ever made a coherent argument <i>on the grounds of their being who they were</i>. But I didn't do that. I was simply making an observation. (And an objective one, at that.)<br /><br />Big difference.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57840973339698584962013-04-18T12:03:29.705-07:002013-04-18T12:03:29.705-07:00No, in this case it's more like "Papalint...No, in this case it's more like "Papalintonism, Papalintonism!"B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10862663948178975962013-04-18T11:04:40.615-07:002013-04-18T11:04:40.615-07:00" The bald truth is that none of you [atheist..." The bald truth is that none of you [atheists] has ever expressed a coherent thought worthy of discomfort."<br /><br />Bulverism! Bulverism!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4926066007168462013-04-18T06:59:17.147-07:002013-04-18T06:59:17.147-07:00Papalinton,
1.) If it is absolutely hopeless for ...Papalinton,<br /><br />1.) If it is absolutely <i>hopeless</i> for you to reason with Bob, or for that matter any other Christian, then <i>quit wasting your time arguing here</i>. You don't <i>need</i> to come to Dangerous Idea to say the same stupid, predictable things over and over again. You can go to Loftus's blog, where the commentariat won't understand a word that you're writing, but they'll give you an up-vote merely for writing something against Christianity. <br /><br />2.) You are a shit-for-brains arguer. You have never--<i>ever</i>--delivered a robust argument, and where you fail to argue, you succeed at leaving <b>overwritten, tangential, beside-the-point</b> comments. Sure, you encounter some vehemence for that; but the vituperation you receive <i>isn't</i> just from Christians. To say, as you did, that the vehemence is a confirming indicator of the discomfort apologists feel when they are, thanks to you [there's that misplaced sense of nobility I spoke of in an earlier thread], confronted face-to-face with reality, not only flat-out contradicts what you say in a later comment about the impossibility of arguing with Christians, because you start <i>bragging</i> that you are getting them, but it also is a confirming indicator that you possess very little in the way of self-assessment. What all the aspersions people throw at you <i>should</i> confirm is that <b>you're doing this wrong</b>. You should do this in a way that makes friends, creates respect--in general, in a way that facilitates good feelings between you an others. You're not doing that, so either go away or change.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91497428243251883142013-04-18T03:19:41.472-07:002013-04-18T03:19:41.472-07:00Bob
"The bald truth is that none of you has e...Bob<br /><i>"The bald truth is that none of you has ever expressed a coherent thought worthy of discomfort."</i><br /><br />Not one coherent thought worthy? Now that is amusing given that the bald truth is how does one engage let alone argue against the preposterous proposition of an unseen, unknowable and ineffable no-thing? How does one argue against a mythos?<br /><br />In many ways Bob, the stuff you hold in your head is by its very nature not open to any form of coherent argument. I would even venture to add that much of what I do, much of what atheists do is rightly shadow boxing. The irony though is not about the boxing but boxing against a literally genuine and veritable shadow. If one vehemently believes he is one of the select, one of the chosen few in a world of godlessness, how does a reasoned person disabuse him of that neurosis? <br /><br />Whether or not an unseen, unknowable and ineffable no-thing exists, the idea isn’t germane to dealing with our issues, be it global, national, local, or personal. What is compelling me to continue fighting the shadow, is that this mythical artifice is brought into the public policy forum and attempts to ingratiate itself into the livs of others in the most unwarranted and gratuitous way. <br /><br />I am reminded of Remy de Gourmont, 20thC French philosopher:<br /><br /><i>"God is not all that exists. God is all that does not exist."</i>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75257822147581761422013-04-18T01:12:49.382-07:002013-04-18T01:12:49.382-07:00" If any Christian on this site argues that t..."<i> If any Christian on this site argues that there must be something wrong with someone's position because of their atheistic motivations, kindly point it out to me."</i><br /><br />Ah! The potency of self reporting. <br />Gang leader, "If any of you guys beat up that attendant that I was keeping an eye on , I want you to tell me now."<br /><br />Gang member 1, "Not me, Boss." Gang member 2, "Not me, Boss." Gang member n, "Not me, Boss."<br /><br />Simplistic really,<br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68382856084873859892013-04-17T19:32:13.080-07:002013-04-17T19:32:13.080-07:00I sometimes question people's motivations but ...I sometimes question people's motivations but not so much for their overall non-belief or belief but mostly for their belief in non-essential secondary matters.<br /><br />For example I still think if Paps gave a little ground and concluded Jesse was right about the bogus nature of the OTF he wouldn't stay an atheist like Jesse he would return to Young Earth Creationist fundamentalism.<br /><br />;-)Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78364905115985258172013-04-17T19:19:32.587-07:002013-04-17T19:19:32.587-07:00>If any Christian on this site argues that ther...>If any Christian on this site argues that there must be something wrong with someone's position because of their atheistic motivations, kindly point it out to me.<br /><br />To be fair I would nominate Ilion but that is it.<br /><br />(Now I have opened a can of worms. Oh well.)<br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13006388979339748912013-04-17T18:07:39.399-07:002013-04-17T18:07:39.399-07:00Saying that Bulverism is a fallacy is simply to sa...Saying that Bulverism is a fallacy is simply to say that you can't refute someone's position by pointing out an ulterior motive they might have for believing in it.<br /><br />Here's the way the whole thing works. Once an argument is given, the focus goes away from the person to the argument they use. <br /><br />If someone gives an argument for the claim that smoking really doesn't cause cancer, then it isn't a refutation of their argument to point out that the person is paid by the cigarette companies. They might, for all that, have a good argument. Now if they are saying "I'm an expert, trust me, smoking really doesn't cause cancer," then the fact that they are paid by the cigarette companies is a problem. But if you can evaluate the argument, you should do that, as opposed to just considering the source. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76893086566220721172013-04-17T18:02:28.665-07:002013-04-17T18:02:28.665-07:00If any Christian on this site argues that there mu...If any Christian on this site argues that there must be something wrong with someone's position because of their atheistic motivations, kindly point it out to me. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50400826108764028012013-04-17T18:02:25.593-07:002013-04-17T18:02:25.593-07:00In philosophy all's fair in war and war.
The ...In philosophy all's fair in war and war.<br /><br />The trouble with tu quocque is that it a total cock-up as it is with Bulverism. <br /><br />Bulverism is in the eye of the beholder.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58588927334059105932013-04-17T17:56:30.194-07:002013-04-17T17:56:30.194-07:00Christians can and do commit the fallacy. All I as...Christians can and do commit the fallacy. All I ask is for people to realize that the motive arguments cancel one another out. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2546212820903876872013-04-17T17:56:05.895-07:002013-04-17T17:56:05.895-07:00"a confirming indicator of the discomfort apo..."<i>a confirming indicator of the discomfort apologists experience</i>"<br /><br />Boy, talk about projection! <br /><br />I have news for you, Papalinton. <b>Nothing</b> that you, or BeingItself, or im-skeptical (to name just a few) have written has ever caused me the least bit of "discomfort". The bald truth is that none of you has ever expressed a coherent thought worthy of discomfort. <br /><br />Pity, maybe. Perhaps laughter. At times even exasperation. Mostly I just feel sorry for you. But discomfort? In your dreams.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37865084612959268012013-04-17T17:08:47.412-07:002013-04-17T17:08:47.412-07:00"Tu quoque is also a logical fallacy."
..."Tu quoque is also a logical fallacy."<br /><br />True. If you use it in a logical argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86320119709785637482013-04-17T17:02:02.489-07:002013-04-17T17:02:02.489-07:00Victor
'On Bulverism/ad hominem circumstantial...Victor<br /><i>'On Bulverism/ad hominem circumstantial, it does seem to be a stock in trade of atheists (no matter how good your arguments are, ..."</i><br /><br />Yes, I was amazed at the countless times you repeatedly chided Yachov, CI, Morrison, etc etc for the Bulverism towards Dennett, Harris, et al. One need only to review the numerous occasions that I have been subjected to personal attacks, character assassinations, threats of even physical violence. All that flashes by you as if of no consequence and no relevance. The trouble for you, and of which you are unable to rebut or refute, are that my arguments have been robust and they have been delivered robustly. Mind you the personal attacks do not unduly concern as I chose to comment here. They are to me in their vehemence a confirming indicator of the discomfort apologists experience when they are confronted face-to-face with the reality of the underlying mythical superstition they hold to so resolutely. Reminds me so much of the remarkable similarity of the attitudes Christians share with Hindus, and Jews, and Muslims, and Scientologists as they hold so resolutely to their particular gaggle of noisy myths. And boy, they are 'noisy'.<br /><br />You seem to be a rather disjointed and indiscriminate invoker of the Bulverism rule. Try not exercising the pious elevation of one's own stature. It really isn't a good look.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com