tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post853278928329418692..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: C. S. Lewis on Science and MiraclesVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54922054384808370572015-04-01T06:22:38.376-07:002015-04-01T06:22:38.376-07:00Perhaps the reason that they continuously deny the...Perhaps the reason that they continuously deny their own reality is that they really are not real, after all.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49787150973321110562015-04-01T06:19:40.516-07:002015-04-01T06:19:40.516-07:00^ Perhaps, in the Great Story, these rabid God-hat...^ Perhaps, in the Great Story, these rabid God-haters are essentially just "redshirts".Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47334822562031788162015-03-31T13:51:43.750-07:002015-03-31T13:51:43.750-07:00I knew you guys would go ballistic when I mentione...I knew you guys would go ballistic when I mentioned standing before God. But did I say anything about Hell? Hell, no! On my own view people will have to stand before God. At that point people who want Parsons-type evidence will get it. That is the long and the short of what my statement means. <br /><br />As someone who is eschatologically agnostic, I am not threatening anyone. I have some universalist sympathies myself, and I think I have the right to hope it's true, but I don't think I can affirm it. <br /><br />http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/05/hoping-for-universalism.htmlVictor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38829119303605288452015-03-26T18:40:07.149-07:002015-03-26T18:40:07.149-07:00I love it. The only distinguishing characteristic...I love it. The only distinguishing characteristic between your god and all the others is a capitalised letter. And apparently to you this capitalised letter makes the huge difference. Well, I have some bad news for you. All the other gods claim that very same characteristic, <b><i>G</i></b>anesha, <b><i>A</i></b>llah, <i><b>S</b></i>hiva, etc etc etc etc etc etc X a thousand. In fact I don't know of any God whosoever that has not claimed a capitalised name for itself. It is ...... common as muck.<br /><br />But then some people do live in an infantilised world where Daddy makes all the difference.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11817472355812401422015-03-26T18:36:45.787-07:002015-03-26T18:36:45.787-07:00I love it. The only distinguishing characteristic...I love it. The only distinguishing characteristic between your god and the all the others is a capitalised letter. And apparently to you this capitalised letter makes the huge difference. Well, I have some bad news for you. All the other gods claim that same characteristic, <b><i>G</i></b>anesha, <b><i>A</i></b>llah, <i><b>S</b></i>iva, etc etc etc etc etc etc X a thousand. In fact I don't know of any God that hasn't claimed a capitalised name for itself. <br /><br />But then some people do live in an infantilised world where Daddy makes all the difference.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86741046506402383392015-03-26T18:08:53.090-07:002015-03-26T18:08:53.090-07:00"But which one? There are thousands of them.&..."<i>But which one? There are thousands of them.</i>"<br /><br />Wrong, Linton. There is only one God... there are (I agree) thousands of gods. Huge difference.<br /><br /><i>Jezu, ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38822310142229242352015-03-26T18:04:30.046-07:002015-03-26T18:04:30.046-07:00"Well, you'll get the chance to see that ...<i>"Well, you'll get the chance to see that when it's time for you to stand before God."</i><br /><br />But which one? There are thousands of them.<br /><br />This is not philosophy Victor. This is unmitigated and unqualified theological wank. Just as you don't lose any sleep thinking about standing in judgement before Allah or Ganesha at end times, you will appreciate why it is [on second thoughts, I don't think you have the intellectual capacity] that I don't and will never lose any sleep whatsoever with your injudicious threat of my standing before your conjured phantasm.<br /><br />You see Victor, I have grown up mentally, matured philosophically, intellectually, psychologically and emotionally. I cannot fear a circumstance which is purely a figment of one's imagination. <br /><br />Your fear is not my fear. Your fear is not only unsound and irrational, but sophistic and unscientific. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17267578314684631912015-03-26T16:38:30.321-07:002015-03-26T16:38:30.321-07:00"Well, you'll get the chance to see that ..."Well, you'll get the chance to see that when it's time for you to stand before God."<br /><br />And now we see the REAL reason people believe. They're scared of the consequences of not believing. They've been told all their lives that if they don't believe, they'll burn in hell for all eternity. (And of course, some have developed a version of this narrative that is slightly more intellectually palatable.) <br /><br />So now you want to perpetuate the lie by threatening non-believers with the same story that has caused you to spend your life in fear. How shameful.<br /> im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71969947594321319892015-03-26T15:35:01.694-07:002015-03-26T15:35:01.694-07:00Well, you'll get the chance to see that when i...Well, you'll get the chance to see that when it's time for you to stand before God. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87314259495181963522015-03-25T21:32:16.297-07:002015-03-25T21:32:16.297-07:00"Once, after reading a paper Keith wrote argu...<i>"Once, after reading a paper Keith wrote arguing against miracles way back in 1985, I asked Keith what would kind of evidence he would find convincing. He answered by saying "If the galaxies in the Virgo cluster were to spell out the words "Turn or Burn, Parsons This Means You, I'd turn."</i><br /><br />I'd find that convincing. Anything less than that from a purported omni-max agent would be intellectual wank.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50114198234934940732015-03-25T17:39:46.143-07:002015-03-25T17:39:46.143-07:00"Fake. Poser."
Time to take your lithiu..."Fake. Poser."<br /><br />Time to take your lithium pill. That's a good boy.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10028537303267289962015-03-25T15:12:24.930-07:002015-03-25T15:12:24.930-07:00Oh, look people, im-skeptical is going to make it ...Oh, look people, im-skeptical is going to make it *LOOK* like he/she knows how to think critically. Let's see...<br /><br /><b>We have a tendency to see faces in rocks or clouds. We link sensory data to something we know. That's how we make sense of things, and it works reasonably well, but it is not foolproof by any means. Perhaps you heard a voice and you automatically associated that sound with your daughter. Stranger things have happened. It could have been someone that sounded rather like your daughter, and she may have been talking about a cat.</b><br /><br />A voice? Are you freaking serious? There were no voices in the story. So it's clear to me that you're not even trying there. On to the next...<br /><br /><b>So your recollection of this event does not entail that that it is a completely accurate account of what happened.</b><br /><br />Oh, now THERE is a confident, well-thought-out, intelligent reply. Yes, im-skeptical, we're all aware that memories can be shaky.<br /><br />Thing is, we have THREE people who, to this day, agree on the events exactly as I wrote them.<br /><br />So, what's next? We're all lying? All drunk? All mistaken? <br /><br />It's got to be one of those, because we know what you won't do -- and that's be a person of his or her word.<br /><br />You see, skeppy, you're not about evidence or rational inquiry. You're about playing "tease the Christians" and it shows.<br /><br />Fake. Poser.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28120835403165559232015-03-25T15:07:15.447-07:002015-03-25T15:07:15.447-07:00You've been caught in a lie
False. You make f...<b>You've been caught in a lie</b><br /><br />False. You make false accusations of "lie" because you're a disingenuous gnu atheist who learn his tricks from Dawkins, i.e., don't address what your opponent ACTUALLY said, rather, distort it and dodge!!<br /><br /><b>After all, you were in a drunken stupor.</b><br /><br />Right. 2 light beers = drunken stupor. You are, like, the smartest, most rational person I know!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84176111846428478322015-03-24T15:25:30.271-07:002015-03-24T15:25:30.271-07:00Bob: For the record Keith Parsons does NOT say tha...Bob: For the record Keith Parsons does NOT say that no evidence would convince him. Quite the contrary, he gives what he thinks would have been a convincing scenario. See his scenario at 1:39. It's based on this passage by N. R. Hanson: <br /><br />'Next Tuesday morning, just after breakfast, all of us in this one world will be knocked to our knees by a percussive and ear-shattering thunderclap. Snow swirls, leaves drom from trees, the earthe heaves and buckles, buildings topple and towers tumble. <br />The sky is ablaze with an eerie silvery light, and just then, as all the people of this world look up, the heavens open, and the clouds pull apart, revealing an unbelievably radiant and immense Zeus-like figure towering over us like a hundred Everests. <br />He frowns darkly as lighting plays over the features of his Michelangelod face, and then he points down, at me, and explains for every man, woman and child to hear, "I've had quite enough of your too-clever logic chopping and word-watching in matters of theology. Be assured, Hanson, that i most certainly do exist!" '<br /><br />Once, after reading a paper Keith wrote arguing against miracles way back in 1985, I asked Keith what would kind of evidence he would find convincing. He answered by saying "If the galaxies in the Virgo cluster were to spell out the words "Turn or Burn, Parsons This Means You, I'd turn." Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57061859757086998592015-03-24T13:45:25.489-07:002015-03-24T13:45:25.489-07:00It's a bit much to characterize them as "...It's a bit much to characterize them as "four different stories", don't you think? Besides, I am quite certain that if they matched up word for word, you (without the least bit of shame) would be accusing the Evangelists of collusion. (Admit it, you would be.)<br /><br />Heads I win, tails you lose, right?<br /><br /><i>Jezu, ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88090994444416219012015-03-24T12:36:38.705-07:002015-03-24T12:36:38.705-07:00"I remember with crystal clarity"
It do..."I remember with crystal clarity"<br /><br />It doesn't mean that those memories are accurate. Many people have been imprisoned for chimes of which they were innocent, based on the testimony of people who were dead certain about what they saw.<br /><br />Which brings me to the gospels. If those memories were so clear, why don't the gospels tell the same story? Four different gospels, four different stories. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1852377463830334382015-03-24T12:19:15.511-07:002015-03-24T12:19:15.511-07:00But I am glad that you bring up the issue of memor...But I am glad that you bring up the issue of memory. It is often used as an argument against the accuracy of the Gospel narratives. "How," the reasoning goes, "can any possible eyewitness remember the events of 30 years ago?" (given the oft-presumed date for the writing of the Gospels <b>*</b>)<br /><br />Well. I'm here to tell you that <b>I</b> remember with crystal clarity events far older than that. I can see like it was yesterday the day in <b>1960</b> when my father took my older and me to Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, Arizona to see John F. Kennedy arrive by airplane. That's more than 50 years ago! Right this moment, as I type these words, I can see him walking from the airplane into the terminal. We were standing on the roof (one could do such things back in those pre-security days). I remember being more interested in the training facility for firefighters on the opposite side of the runway than I was in seeing JFK. (Hey, I was just a kid!)<br /><br />Now if I can recall that day so well, just think about what detail I'd remember had I witnessed a miracle! I imagine that I'd be able to give a pretty accurate account.<br /><br /><b>*</b> I'm allowing (for now), solely for the sake of argument, a relatively late dating of the Gospels. I personally think there's good and sufficient reason to believe they were composed far earlier than it is fashionable amongst some scholars to say they were - most likely between A.D. 40 and 60, with the entire New Testament (except Revelation) complete prior to A.D. 70.<br /><br /><i>Jezu, ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71624992372379877202015-03-24T11:30:06.588-07:002015-03-24T11:30:06.588-07:00Ah, but it's not only my memory in play here. ...Ah, but it's not only my memory in play here. My wife (now deceased) remembered the story well, and would repeat it now and then at social occasions. My daughter (still alive, of course) remembers the cat running out the front door and our timely return home. Now I am the only one to have heard the voice, but I can recall the tiniest details about the incident. It was at a Sunoco station (now a "Good to Go"), last pump in on the left side, driving our Volvo S80 (which I gave away about 5 years ago), no other cars at the station (so no one nearby to be talking), early winter but I was already wearing my heavy grey coat (long since tossed) and light gloves, overcast sky and a bit of wind. Very unlikely to the point of unbelievable that my memory, so clear in such miniscula, would be faulty about the Main Event.<br /><br /><i>Jezu, ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61538019539356842202015-03-24T11:05:54.644-07:002015-03-24T11:05:54.644-07:00"how do you square what unquestionably occurr..."how do you square what unquestionably occurred with pure materialism?"<br /><br />The first thing to note is that <i>something</i> occurred, but exactly what it was is not beyond question. The mind can play trick on us, and don't dismiss this - it happens all the time. <br /><br />We have a tendency to see faces in rocks or clouds. We link sensory data to something we know. That's how we make sense of things, and it works reasonably well, but it is not foolproof by any means. Perhaps you heard a voice and you automatically associated that sound with your daughter. Stranger things have happened. It could have been someone that sounded rather like your daughter, and she may have been talking about a cat.<br /><br />Another thing to understand is that memory of events is not what we think. It's not like a recording that can be faithfully replayed. It is subject to alteration. It changes as our understanding or beliefs about the event change. It is subject to suggestion. We fill in details or even change them, and then "remember" those details as if they actually happened. So your recollection of this event does not entail that that it is a completely accurate account of what happened.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84287757071325576922015-03-24T10:39:40.867-07:002015-03-24T10:39:40.867-07:00"Now, quit being such a poser and tackle this..."Now, quit being such a poser and tackle this thing like a true skeptic, not a gnu atheist wannabe. Go ahead and tell us something besides a bunch of chickenshit dodgery"<br /><br />You've been caught in a lie (and still desperately trying to walk back your own statement). Now where's your apology for the accusations of slander? Here's some skepticism for you: I am skeptical that you even knew what was going on that night. After all, you were in a drunken stupor. I am skeptical that you can provide an accurate description of the events. And being in your little Jesus box, when things didn't end up the way your inebriated mind expected, rather than trying to reconstruct what really happened, you attributed it to a supernatural event. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51023796623086024002015-03-24T09:56:52.678-07:002015-03-24T09:56:52.678-07:00I'm genuinely interested, Skep. How do you exp...I'm genuinely interested, Skep. How do you explain <i>my</i> story? (Forget cl's for the moment.) Now remember, not only am I <b>not</b> claiming that it was any kind of "miracle", I positively deny that it was anything of the sort. <br /><br />That being cleared up, how do you square what unquestionably occurred with pure materialism?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46509470526856210662015-03-24T09:12:17.480-07:002015-03-24T09:12:17.480-07:00You told me you didn't actually see the object...<b>You told me you didn't actually see the objects move.</b><br /><br />Ah, now it all makes sense: you're so bad at critical thinking and reading that you omitted some very crucial punctuation from what I wrote two years ago in order to make it look like I said something I did not. Wow, you take 'em right from the Dawkins / Cult of Gnu playbook: don't tackle what your opponent says head-on, rather, distort what they say, call them a liar and get out of jail free because you know your paltry worldview can't account for all the facts.<br /><br />Yes, I wrote:<br /><br /><b>Nobody "saw" it, we all heard it. We were all looking at the TV, then heard a weird, electric "zap" sound, then we all saw the games, instantaneously in a different place.</b><br /><br />You see those quote marks, genius? Yes, I said nobody "SAW" it -- note the use of quote marks -- because it happened SO FAST there was NO VISIBLE TRAJECTORY, you JACKASS. We were all in the room. No room for tricks.<br /><br />See, you're TRYING to make it sound like we weren't present and that there was room for trickery, but that's a dishonest reading of my words. We all "SAW" the event in the sense that we were all present throughout all points-in-time-X during the entire event.<br /><br />Now, apologize for calling me a liar, since the only way you can make that claim is by distorting what I said. Read the comment: it CLEARLY states that we were ALL THREE PRESENT. Nobody left the room, which would be required for a trick to be played.<br /><br />Now, quit being such a poser and tackle this thing like a true skeptic, not a gnu atheist wannabe. Go ahead and tell us something besides a bunch of chickenshit dodgeryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52706740477654491122015-03-24T08:56:36.675-07:002015-03-24T08:56:36.675-07:00OK, I took the time to find it. Here is where you ...OK, I took the time to find it. <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2012/09/debunking-defeasibility-test.html?showComment=1348790044570#c6839149495081328772" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is where you admit that you didn't see it.<br /><br />It says: "Nobody "saw" it, we all heard it. We were all looking at the TV, then heard a weird, electric "zap" sound, then we all saw the games, instantaneously in a different place."im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67231636446315795852015-03-24T08:40:24.746-07:002015-03-24T08:40:24.746-07:00"You'd rather slander other people as lia..."You'd rather slander other people as liars than even attempt to assess a report critically. You're a straight poser im-skeptical, and you should be called out for it."<br /><br />It isn't slander if it's true. You told me you didn't actually see the objects move. That was before I made my comment in your blog. Now you're denying it. That makes you a liar.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48295456799145988372015-03-24T05:30:09.140-07:002015-03-24T05:30:09.140-07:00Interesting perspective on being in a box (in the ...Interesting perspective on <a href="http://www.lentreflections.com/lent-day-35-new-wineskins/" rel="nofollow">being in a box</a> (in the penultimate paragraph).<br /><br /><i>Jezu, ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com