tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1230471717584468867..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Where do these conversations go wrong? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14927776460427988142016-09-17T17:16:18.004-07:002016-09-17T17:16:18.004-07:00grod: "But I am not one to hide behind techni...grod: "But I am not one to hide behind technicalities, so my response is since when it is an insult to tell the truth?"<br /><br />I think that grod invents trivial and picayune objections in order to pretend that he has good reasons to believe what he does without having to really examine his silly beliefs. <br /><br />Because the above is true, it is not an insult. <br /><br />Love your style, grod. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60539254730722680572016-09-16T04:29:49.664-07:002016-09-16T04:29:49.664-07:00@jdhuey:
"And here is why these conversation...@jdhuey:<br /><br />"And here is why these conversations go wrong: flinging insults."<br /><br />First, there has been no conversation for it to be terminated by "flinging insults" or otherwise. Second, strictly speaking I did not fling any insult because the sentence starts with "Or it could be that", so I did not make a claim. But I am not one to hide behind technicalities, so my response is since when it is an insult to tell the truth? The evidence is all over the thread. Want proof? Well, by your own pinciples it is illogic to demand such a proof.<br /><br />Technical note: consider the predicate P(x) in one free variable given by "if x is jdhuey then x is a clueless idiot". It is easy to see that "jdhuey is a clueless idiot" is logically equivalent to P(jdhuey); that the latter is logically equivalent to the universally quantified statement Ax P(x) and that this statement in itself is, by double negation and the De Morgan laws for quantifiers, logically equivalent to not (Ex not P(x)) which is a negative existencial statement. You have not deigned to clarify, but the implicature of your claims is that it is illogic to demand proof of negative existentials, so it is illogic to demand proof of the particular claim I made.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49861433614968034172016-09-13T12:10:58.659-07:002016-09-13T12:10:58.659-07:00>Or it could be that I am taking umbrage at the...>Or it could be that I am taking umbrage at the antics of a pair of clueless idiots. You choose the one you are most comfortable with as I couldn't care less.<br /><br />And here is why these conversations go wrong: flinging insults.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26649871211573008512016-09-10T16:14:30.647-07:002016-09-10T16:14:30.647-07:00"... drone gnutoids ..."
In general, I ..."<i>... drone gnutoids ...</i>"<br /><br />In general, I very dislike the internet custom of adding "-tard" to the descriptors of those one dislikes, but, in this instance, I'll make an exception (primarily because if flows so well) ... How about "gnutards"?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1494872258937374712016-09-10T13:35:22.989-07:002016-09-10T13:35:22.989-07:00Ahh.. gotcha!Ahh.. gotcha!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12451301139461630022016-09-10T12:43:23.607-07:002016-09-10T12:43:23.607-07:00@B. Prokop:
"Knowing both Russian and Englis...@B. Prokop:<br /><br />"Knowing both Russian and English, I can say with confidence that, as beautiful as Russian is (and it is very beautiful), English is by far the richer language, because of its "bastardized" history, being a messy conglomeration of German, French, Latin, Greek, Spanish, and you name it."<br /><br />Right, but Nabokov's remarks (repeated at different times, in different circumstances and in different rhetorical dressings) are not about the comparative merits of both languages, but about his own personal tragedy of having lost a language, a history and a tradition, and having to adapt to and make use of a, to quote myself, "second rate, bastardized English".grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88227563622217383712016-09-10T11:59:00.522-07:002016-09-10T11:59:00.522-07:00"Most of the time I find myself pretty bored ..."<i>Most of the time I find myself pretty bored just a few sentence into your comments.</i>"<br /><br />I wasn't going to say anything about this, but since others have commented..<br /><br />Since when is length a sign of affectation? I suppose <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i> is "long winded and rambling"? How about Augustine? Tolkien? Herman Wouk? I guess we all need to confine our thoughts to 140 characters? Perhaps all wisdom needs to be displayable on a bumper sticker? 'Cause in that case, perhaps we could all just post "John 3:16" over and over again? After all, it says everything that needs to be said. Why elaborate?...<br /><br />grodruiges,<br /><br />Knowing both Russian and English, I can say with confidence that, as beautiful as Russian is (and it is <i>very</i> beautiful), English is by far the richer language, <i>because</i> of its "bastardized" history, being a messy conglomeration of German, French, Latin, Greek, Spanish, and you name it.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45326414711240299942016-09-10T11:01:37.010-07:002016-09-10T11:01:37.010-07:00@Cal Metzger:
"Most of the time I find mysel...@Cal Metzger:<br /><br />"Most of the time I find myself pretty bored just a few sentence into your comments."<br /><br />What can I say? I actually agree with you here. What I do know is Mathematics (and Physics to a lesser extent) and Mathematical writing is of the most excruciatingly boring kind. English is not my primary language, and my particular brand of it is dreadfull, dreary and dull, the coarse, crude trading tool of mercenaries, hacks and lawyers. I am no Joyce or Nabokov; and even Nabokov would all his life mourn the having had to trade his infinitely rich and supple mother tongue for a second rate, bastardized English.<br /><br />But style is orthogonal to substance. And on the substance, quite predictably, you have nothing of relevance to say. The accusation of "intellectual fop" leaves me dead cold -- I care even less about it than you care about my opinion of you. It is the last refuge of an intellectual scoundrel, the unwitting compliment he pays to his betters. And after all is said and done, a dull writer is still preferable over a morally shallow, clueless idiot. Which is also one of the most witless, vapid and insufferably dull of the drone gnutoids I have ever had the displeasure to read.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56373754633055393842016-09-10T09:35:55.574-07:002016-09-10T09:35:55.574-07:00Your deficiency in attention span ("I get bor...Your deficiency in attention span ("I get bored reading... ") might explain your inability to parse or make any real arguments, Cal. Also, grod has his PhD in Mathematics, so he isn't affecting the style of an intellectual fop. He is an intellectual fop. You, however, write like you *maybe* have a BA in something stupid, like Business or Communications. I'd not be offering any critique of someone else's writing style without first addressing issues with your own.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8868422148743247352016-09-10T08:39:41.068-07:002016-09-10T08:39:41.068-07:00grod: "But aside from this, it could be that ...grod: "But aside from this, it could be that I am indeed taking umbrage at that."<br /><br />Most of the time I find myself pretty bored just a few sentence into your comments. It's like reading the long-winded preambles that were customary in political speech in the mid 1800's. When is this guy going to make a point?<br /><br />Here's what is actually clear from your writing; you've affected the style of a kind of intellectual fop, because, I suppose, it helps many apologists pretend that their beliefs deserve some kind sort of privilege or respectability. I suppose it fools those who can be fooled into thinking that long-winded, rambling, and affected language are a sign of deep intellectual study. As if. <br /><br />Pretend pretend pretend.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13506980028976432402016-09-09T13:28:08.957-07:002016-09-09T13:28:08.957-07:00@jdhuey:
"Atheists can not prove (in the sen...@jdhuey:<br /><br />"Atheists can not prove (in the sense of a philosophical proof) that any one particular diety doesn't exist, God being one of those dieties; and, by the same token you folks can not prove that a charming but shy invisible pink unicorn isn't standing by your left elbow. Whimsical, yes, but also valid."<br /><br />There is no argument for the existence of the IPU, none whatsoever, much less a sound one. I should add that it follows from what you said earlier, that it is "illogic" to "demand" such a proof. At which point, the only reasonable question is what exactly are *your* reasons for believing the IPU does not exist? Apparently none, so you condemn yourself as an irrational man -- but here I may be getting ahead of myself, maybe you are agnostic on the issue. Or you just a lack the belief that the IPU exists? Grin. Which would not be surprising given that you are logically committed to believe that the case for atheism is no better than the non-existent case for the non-existence of the IPU.<br /><br />But point of fact is that there can be no such argument, because although it is beyond your skills, it is actually pretty easy to prove the IPU does not exist -- Ílion did it. And there being none or many arguments for the IPU on the table tells us nothing about God; for it to tell us anything about God you would have to show that the IPU is similar in the relevant ways to God, which is patently false. For one, the fact that conceivably there could be an existential claim that could always be defended against by ad hoc adding more hypothesis ad infinitum, tells us nothing about God or any other existential claims, or even that the claim could not in fact be refuted (as it can be in the IPU case), but only about your miserable philosophical poverty. For another, because God -- although what I am about to say will not be agreed upon by all theists, it is firmly within the classical tradition from Plato and Aristotle to Aquinas and, to an extent, Leibniz -- is not in the genus "deities", that the methods of proof applicable in principle to the likes of Odin or Thor, apply to Him.<br /><br />Nor, come to think of it, have you actually addressed any point that was made but simply repeated yourself as if nothing was said.<br /><br />"Is it that you take so much umbrage that your chosen deity is being treated with less than total respect that you can't follow the logic of the example?"<br /><br />That cannot be quite it, because the "logic of the example" is non-existent. But aside from this, it could be that I am indeed taking umbrage at that. Or it could be that I am taking umbrage at the antics of a pair of clueless idiots. You choose the one you are most comfortable with as I couldn't care less.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24887268381969175922016-09-09T10:36:37.362-07:002016-09-09T10:36:37.362-07:00An interesting perspective, one that warrants thin...An interesting perspective, one that warrants thinking about before commenting.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17975519083346369822016-09-08T18:40:34.572-07:002016-09-08T18:40:34.572-07:00"So, [you're] saying it is possible to di..."<i>So, [you're] saying it is possible to disprove the existence of a goddess but not possible to disprove the existence of a God?</i>"<br /><br />Not at all, not at all. Interesting that you should ask that, as much of the discussions here on DI have recently revolved about so-called "religious experiences". I personally have had only two that might qualify as such in my entire 65 years so far. The first, I've described at some length over on my own blog, <a href="http://celestialpilgrimage.blogspot.com/2016/05/revelation.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The other occurred in 2002 while visiting the British Museum in London. I was standing in front of a statue of the goddess Aphrodite, and it suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks that I was looking at not just an image of a beautiful woman, but one of <i><b>God</b></i>. I got so dizzy I had to sit down. I've never afterwards understood the atheist trope about believing in "one less God than you". Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Odin, Ganesha... I basically believe in them all. There is but one God, but human beings have perceived Him differently throughout the millennia - sometimes more clearly, sometimes less.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68351761007828266132016-09-08T18:23:42.730-07:002016-09-08T18:23:42.730-07:00jdhuey: "Is it that you take so much umbrage ...jdhuey: "Is it that you take so much umbrage that your chosen deity is being treated with less than total respect that you can't follow the logic of the example?"<br /><br />No, that couldn't be it. Impossible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30455503043372789662016-09-08T18:17:32.052-07:002016-09-08T18:17:32.052-07:00So, your saying it is possible to disprove the exi...So, your saying it is possible to disprove the existence of a goddess but not possible to disprove the existence of a God? jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6939077739809987232016-09-08T16:44:30.954-07:002016-09-08T16:44:30.954-07:00"that you can't follow the logic of the e..."<i>that you can't follow the logic of the example?</i>"<br /><br />The problem is that the "example" is not at all analogous - it has no relevance. For one to "follow the logic" there has to be logic to follow. In this case, there is none. It's like saying, "You can't prove the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because this is how traffic lights work."B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52904358840445496152016-09-08T16:25:26.447-07:002016-09-08T16:25:26.447-07:00From where does all this vitriol come from for thi...From where does all this vitriol come from for this rather straight forward argument? Atheists can not prove (in the sense of a philosophical proof) that any one particular diety doesn't exist, God being one of those dieties; and, by the same token you folks can not prove that a charming but shy invisible pink unicorn isn't standing by your left elbow. Whimsical, yes, but also valid. <br /><br />Is it that you take so much umbrage that your chosen deity is being treated with less than total respect that you can't follow the logic of the example?jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48364072876325517192016-09-08T13:55:54.584-07:002016-09-08T13:55:54.584-07:00That's an odd question, Dr Reppert. Of course ...That's an odd question, Dr Reppert. Of course they're available as there is nothing currently restraining stupidity from suffering social consequences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53291984042371103242016-09-08T12:28:02.765-07:002016-09-08T12:28:02.765-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42077803775185753532016-09-08T12:27:50.309-07:002016-09-08T12:27:50.309-07:00"Are these options applicable to people who u..."Are these options applicable to people who use the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an argument?"<br /><br />Yes sir. Over on Shadow to Light we have a colorful gent calling God "Sky Santa" and seems to actually beleven that the reasons for believing in God and the reason children some children believe in Santa are the same. That is either ignorance of the highest order, complete stupidity, reality-bending insanity, or intentional deceit.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41390033079755049932016-09-08T11:03:21.992-07:002016-09-08T11:03:21.992-07:00"It is absolutely safe to say that if you mee..."It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." - Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker)<br /><br />Are these options applicable to people who use the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an argument?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75262806394811769212016-09-08T10:55:43.621-07:002016-09-08T10:55:43.621-07:00Certainly there are some bad claims about God to w...Certainly there are some bad claims about God to which the IPU argument applies, Cal, but they certainly aren't taken seriously, especially by people around here, so trotting out your IPU argument is both a waste of your time and ours, unless of course your goal is to be taken parodically, which I can assure you, is hiw you're being taken.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21329936022178733152016-09-08T09:28:54.562-07:002016-09-08T09:28:54.562-07:00^ Yes.
To put it bluntly -- IF he *really* canno...^ Yes. <br /><br />To put it bluntly -- <i>IF</i> he *really* cannot see the obvious false equivalency he is attempting to draw between God and the IPU, or between the arguments "theists" make to support the proposition, "God is", and the anti-arguments that some 'atheists' make concerning the IPU so as to pretend that those "theists" made logically invalid arguments, THEN he is <i>stupid beyond belief</i>. <br /><br />I phrased that last that way because *no one* who reads this blog does actually believe that he is that stupid. However, if perchance I am wrong, and someone does believe that he is so stupid, then the <i>proper</i> action for that person is to totally ignore everything he posts. For, if he is that stupid, then to attempt to engage him in rational discussion <i>of things he simply *cannot* grasp</i> is to <i>cruelly torment</i> him.<br /><br />On the other hand, IF he is not so stupid that his in incapable of grasping the obvious false equivalency he is attempting to draw between, THEN there are only two other possible explanations for what he is doing:<br />1) he is (currently) ignorant of some fact, and this ignorance is preventing him seeing the obvious;<br />2) he does already grasp the error his is making ... and deliberately makes it anyway.<br /><br />Since I don't (and can't) believe that he is stupid, that possible explanation isn't available to me, though it may be available to the reader.<br /><br />Since his obvious error has been explained multiple times, that possible explanation isn't available to any of us.<br /><br />So, the *only* possible explanation available to *me* is that he's intellectually dishonest. The reader *may* have to option of avoiding that "mean" explanation if he opts for "<i>Cal Metzger is just too stupid to understand what he's doing</i>".Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-522542235364299532016-09-08T09:16:36.113-07:002016-09-08T09:16:36.113-07:00Gillson: "If you really can't spot the ob...Gillson: "If you really can't spot the obvious false equivalence you're making in comparing God and IPUs, then you indeed are beyond our help, Cal."<br /><br />If you can't see how the analogy of IPU's can be applied to claims about gods, then you are beyond my help. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84998823484789951952016-09-08T09:15:08.028-07:002016-09-08T09:15:08.028-07:00grod: "This is not an argument; a string of b...grod: "This is not an argument; a string of baseless claims with no evidence or logical progression from assumptions to conclusions does not an argument make."<br /><br />The irony here is that is what Ilion's "argument" is above. Beginning with his first, false assertion.<br /><br />If we can't agree that words mean something, then there's no point in discussing. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.com