tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2648293231034318300..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: What the courtier really saidVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35990392530524432072015-11-17T06:27:03.236-07:002015-11-17T06:27:03.236-07:00grodrigues: "Since you *demonstrably* do not ...grodrigues: "Since you *demonstrably* do not have the foggiest idea of what Aquinas is getting at, your complaint reduces to that it was written 1000 years ago. And the point of inserting that irrelevant tidbit is precisely "dishing old texts" "just because they are old"."<br /><br />Since you demonstrably do not have the foggiest idea of what the Emperor's tailors were striving to adorn, your complaint reduces to that the silkens had acquired a certain musty moldiness. And the point of inserting that irrelevant tidbit that the Emperor must be feeling chilled is precisely "dishing nakedness" just because there are no adornments under which it can reside. <br /><br />Just when I thought the courtliness couldn't get any higher. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59926296403775487412015-11-17T06:08:38.302-07:002015-11-17T06:08:38.302-07:00"This is typical of Gnus; have no qualms dish..."<i>This is typical of Gnus; have no qualms dishing it out, but when hit back, start whining like a mama's boy.</i>"<br /><br />I'm thinking that even a mama's boy has more manly self-respect.IlĂonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8023956603156412142015-11-17T03:45:43.006-07:002015-11-17T03:45:43.006-07:00@Hugo Pelland:
"Ok, if you weren't reply...@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br />"Ok, if you weren't replying to my orignal sentence, then your comment on Aquinas' Summa is irrelevant in the context."<br /><br />What is relevant to my answer is what my answer was trying to, well, answer, not what, in a pathetic attempt to save face, you imagine it is relevant.<br /><br />"I was not dishing old texts in general just because they are old."<br /><br />That was exactly what you did. What you said was and I quote: "A book written almost 1,000 years ago will explain to me how the universe was created via supernatural means? Again, are you crazy and proud of it, or are you just pulling my leg?" Since you *demonstrably* do not have the foggiest idea of what Aquinas is getting at, your complaint reduces to that it was written 1000 years ago. And the point of inserting that irrelevant tidbit is precisely "dishing old texts" "just because they are old".<br /><br />"No need to question my ability to read; such pointless childish personal attack..."<br /><br />But demonstrably you cannot read. About the personal attacks, the immediate cause of my answer was the quoted portion, which contains an impingment on B. Prokop's intellectual seriousness ("Again, are you crazy and proud of it, or are you just pulling my leg?") so you can take your complaints elsewhere, to someone that actually cares. This is typical of Gnus; have no qualms dishing it out, but when hit back, start whining like a mama's boy.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63738802606325739012015-11-16T19:35:28.664-07:002015-11-16T19:35:28.664-07:00Ok, if you weren't replying to my orignal sent...Ok, if you weren't replying to my orignal sentence, then your comment on Aquinas' Summa is irrelevant in the context. I was not dishing old texts in general just because they are old. No need to question my ability to read; such pointless childish personal attack...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71181106854862036232015-11-16T19:14:53.979-07:002015-11-16T19:14:53.979-07:00@Hugo Pelland:
"Well, you did much better on...@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br />"Well, you did much better on the other thread on "A summary of James Ross's Immaterial Aspects of Thought", so you should stick to that instead of spouting more non-sense that does nothing to answer the original sentence"<br /><br />But I did not address your original sentence, did I? What I addressed and responded was what I quoted. It can hardly be faulted of being "nonsense" for not responding a question, when it was not written in response to said question. Do you even bother to read? Can you even read? Are you a badly programmed MGonz clone?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51539528132727763382015-11-16T18:39:04.760-07:002015-11-16T18:39:04.760-07:00Well, you did much better on the other thread on &...Well, you did much better on the other thread on "A summary of James Ross's Immaterial Aspects of Thought", so you should stick to that instead of spouting more non-sense that does nothing to answer the original sentence: "...your god is non-material and created everything, out of nothing, without explaining how that could possibly work..." and which Aquinas did not explain as you said. So fine, thanks for confirming. And yes, I know it's not even 800, I was rounding up on purpose, AFTER looking up the exact date. Pardon my sloppy estimate... as if it made a difference.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12465071148079342802015-11-16T18:30:26.207-07:002015-11-16T18:30:26.207-07:00"Courtier much?"
And right on cue, the ..."Courtier much?"<br /><br />And right on cue, the troll grunted.<br /><br />@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br />"Yep, same feeling towards you from my side here... except that I am actually TALKING about stuff, while you are just throwing short useless blurb to show your support to "everyone", which are of course really just the people who agree with you... "<br /><br />Oh yes, your actually TALKING about stuff consisted in hurling such brilliant gems of thought as "A book written almost 1,000 years ago will explain to me how the universe was created via supernatural means? Again, are you crazy and proud of it, or are you just pulling my leg?'", a demonstration of chronological snobbery, of elementary mathematical inability as the Summa is not even 800 years old and is certainly far more relevant than your opinions, that while not even 800 hours old, are as stale as a dead rat, and a complete inability to grasp what Aquinas is doing (hint: no, he is not trying to explain "how the universe was created via supernatural means"). The brilliance of it is blindingly dazzling. Actually TALKING about stuff...grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5676653016452202572015-11-16T16:57:52.128-07:002015-11-16T16:57:52.128-07:00grodrigues said...
" It is these type of comm...grodrigues said...<br />"<i> It is these type of comments that demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that you haven't got the faintest clue of what you are talking about.</i>"<br />Yep, same feeling towards you from my side here... except that I am actually TALKING about stuff, while you are just throwing short useless blurb to show your support to "everyone", which are of course really just the people who agree with you... In this specific case, you were replying to a question as to HOW the universe came to be the way it is, something that nobody knows, absolute no one, yet Bob says that this old book explains it... ridiculous comment on your part.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4371716110412193792015-11-16T10:36:42.053-07:002015-11-16T10:36:42.053-07:00grodrigues: "How cute. A troll that thinks he...grodrigues: "How cute. A troll that thinks he has a clue. Grunt a little more, please, if only to amuse me."<br /><br />Courtier much?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80230140995418957922015-11-16T10:01:10.128-07:002015-11-16T10:01:10.128-07:00@Carl Metzger:
"It is these type of comments...@Carl Metzger:<br /><br />"It is these type of comments that demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the emperor's clothes are indeed embroidered with the finest silks and tassels."<br /><br />How cute. A troll that thinks he has a clue. Grunt a little more, please, if only to amuse me.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-857998376335595772015-11-16T07:21:42.987-07:002015-11-16T07:21:42.987-07:00grodrigues: "It is these type of comments tha...grodrigues: "It is these type of comments that demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that you haven't got the faintest clue of what you are talking about."<br /><br />It is these type of comments that demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that the emperor's clothes are indeed embroidered with the finest silks and tassels.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32463775663743943582015-11-16T03:48:44.900-07:002015-11-16T03:48:44.900-07:00@Hugo Pelland:
'"St. Thomas Aquinas did ...@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br />'"St. Thomas Aquinas did that for me. No need to reinvent the wheel. Read The Summa."<br /><br />A book written almost 1,000 years ago will explain to me how the universe was created via supernatural means? Again, are you crazy and proud of it, or are you just pulling my leg?'<br /><br />It is these type of comments that demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that you haven't got the faintest clue of what you are talking about.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76884600494251986782015-11-14T15:39:04.573-07:002015-11-14T15:39:04.573-07:00"So in some ways, it's almost refreshing...."So in some ways, it's almost refreshing. Horrifying, and refreshing all at once. :)"<br /><br />Agreed!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68344880899697002882015-11-14T14:50:23.090-07:002015-11-14T14:50:23.090-07:00@Hugo, normally I like to carefully draw out what ...@Hugo, normally I like to carefully draw out what theists tell me in order to make very clear to readers the contradictions, special pleading, inconsistency, etc. in those theists' beliefs. <br /><br />With Bob, I find that I seldom need to point out or draw attention to those things, as his comments usually make the same point I would, without much need for explication or exposition on my part. So in some ways, it's almost refreshing. Horrifying, and refreshing all at once. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68098188817918374472015-11-14T14:43:41.318-07:002015-11-14T14:43:41.318-07:00I appreciate your candor; at least you're cons...I appreciate your candor; at least you're consistent.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91550107614662545042015-11-14T13:26:18.448-07:002015-11-14T13:26:18.448-07:00Hugo,
I would have worded it a bit differently, b...Hugo,<br /><br />I would have worded it a bit differently, but yeah... that's about right.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24528243296059455812015-11-14T12:22:06.584-07:002015-11-14T12:22:06.584-07:00Yep, you're doing that right because it's ...Yep, you're doing that right because it's one of the most basic self-defense mechanisms that religions evolved over time. If people agree with you, clearly you are on the right track; but if people think you are wrong, you are on the right track too! Must be Satan who sent Cal to tempt you, so you are perfectly right to be a bigot who denies others' humanity since their lives are worthless without a god. But God is love, right? So he must have a plan for these evil people should they choose the right God in the end; as long as it's Bob's God.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72489297556831526702015-11-14T11:44:56.367-07:002015-11-14T11:44:56.367-07:00"Blessed are you when men revile you and pers..."Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad ... for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you."<br /><br />So I will thank you for your comments against me. I must be doing <i>something</i> right.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69178858067867381692015-11-14T11:32:22.347-07:002015-11-14T11:32:22.347-07:00Prokop: "Dehumanizing? Yes, atheism is extrem...Prokop: "Dehumanizing? Yes, atheism is extremely, indeed maximally, dehumanizing."<br /><br />No. Atheism is extremely de-godifying. Once we look at our lives without an imagined god, we can focus on finding our own meaning in relation to everything around us. With or without a god we all enjoy that same opportunity. <br /><br />Prokop: "But that's not my fault. It is inherent to atheism."<br /><br />No it's not inherent to atheism. I do believe that the view you hold is inherent to you, but that's about all I can concede on that one. <br /><br />Prokop: "What I wrote is a straightforward taking the implications of atheism to their logical conclusions."<br /><br />Meaning has nothing whatsoever to do with a god existing or not existing. As I showed earlier though, logic and reason are clearly not your strong suits. <br /><br />Prokop: "How are my opinions "bigoted"?"<br /><br />You deny the enjoyment of human attributes to those who don't share your views. See the definition of bigotry.<br /><br />You are, by standard definition, a bigot. Just as you are, by definition (and as demonstrated here upthread), a fallacious thinker. Please note that these are not my opinions, this is not something that can be disputed by reasonable people who share a common understanding of definitions, etc. And these are things that you appear to choose to be. Because of your apparent need for religion. <br /><br />Last thing -- please note that I am not blaming your religion, here. I am blaming you. You are a fellow human, and you are responsible for your choices. I don't blame the bible, or a non-existent god, for those characteristics you reveal about yourself. But I do shine a light on them, because I resent the way you use religion to disguise or justify what is pretty shoddy behavior.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46818991501240252752015-11-14T09:40:55.788-07:002015-11-14T09:40:55.788-07:00"I think that you are deeply, deeply afraid o..."<i>I think that you are deeply, deeply afraid of having led an irrelevant life</i>"<br /><br />That comment just shows how dangerous (and ludicrous) internet psychoanalysis can be. I can assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. Ask Victor, who's known me well for more than 40 years.<br /><br />"<i>and [afraid] of death</i>"<br /><br />Again, I am serenely ready for it. I expect it to be (relatively) soon.<br /><br />"<i>misrepresentations about what atheism means</i>"<br /><br />What I wrote is a straightforward taking the implications of atheism to their logical conclusions. Every time I hear or read a professed atheist attempt to deny any of its particulars, they either<br /><br />a) abandon all pretense of believing in objective truth, and say that things are "meaningful for them" and leave it at that, or<br /><br />b) do what you just did and not even respond, trying to turn the tables and make it all about me. How are my opinions "bigoted"? You haven't refuted them, so there's no grounds to label them as such. You're offended? Well, suffice it to say that some people are offended by the truth. <br /><br />Dehumanizing? Yes, atheism is extremely, indeed maximally, dehumanizing. But that's not <i>my</i> fault. It is inherent to atheism. All you are doing is shooting the messenger.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32263637561058636302015-11-14T09:29:18.575-07:002015-11-14T09:29:18.575-07:00Reppert: "Before Big Bang theory developed, t...Reppert: "Before Big Bang theory developed, the only people who would have agreed with that statement were theists. Now, atheists have adjusted their position to accept this, much the way, we are told, Christians have "adjusted" to accept evolutionary biology."<br /><br />Except that big bang theory doesn't posit that the universe came from nothing, only that the universe as we know it came into existence at a specific time. So, strike one on your understanding of modern cosmology.<br /><br />And that theists like the Hindus, Buddhists, and even the ancient Greeks seem to have guessed better at what modern cosmology looks like today. So, strike two against your understanding of any privileged position for your version of creationism.<br /><br />Also, what with a creator god existing outside the universe, any claim to existence having come into being with the creation of the universe runs into a problem of WTF are you even talking about.<br /><br />Also, atheists don't have an entailed belief regarding existence. Atheists have a position on gods (that the existence of gods is incompatible with everything that's revealed about reality). <br /><br />And lastly, you still haven't answered the question that you asked Hugo Pelland. You asked, "So, why do matter and energy exist?"<br /><br />Hugo responded, "I don't know, do you."<br /><br />Are you ever going to get around to answering that question? <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41648490209970220522015-11-14T09:07:55.497-07:002015-11-14T09:07:55.497-07:00Prokop: "Eye of the beholder, Cal, eye of the...Prokop: "Eye of the beholder, Cal, eye of the beholder."<br /><br />No. A fallacy is a fallacy -- there's really nothing subjective about it. That you would retreat further into calling logic a matter of subjective interpretation just reveals how afraid you truly are of questioning your beliefs. You are who you reveal yourself to be. <br /><br />Prokop: "So what is your response to the following? (re-posted and corrected) / The only way a person can be an atheist and retain the least shred of intellectual integrity is by denying there is any meaning or purpose to life, by declaring that love, beauty, honor, and truth itself are all illusions, that he himself does not really exist as a identifiable entity, that there is no objective morality and therefore no one has any call to criticize anyone else no matter what that person does, and that nothing matters in the long run anyway, because one microsecond after a person's death, everything - himself, whatever he ever thought, felt, or did, the universe itself - might as well never have existed. You cannot be a logically consistent atheist without embracing all of the above."<br /><br />My response is that you reveal a fairly monstrous set of misrepresentations about what atheism means. I think that you are deeply, deeply afraid of having led an irrelevant life, and of death, and that these fears drive you away from a reasonable understanding of your fellow human beings. <br /><br />Your bigoted opinions offend me. No one needs to believe in a god to find your opinions offensive, and I suppose that only belief in a god could make your dehumanizing characterizations seem acceptable. <br /><br />And that's why religious belief like yours can be pernicious; it offers people like you an imagined respectability for dehumanizing others, because, god! So, you should realize this -- every time you talk more about what your god means to you, you really just reveal more about yourself. And as we see above, that's not always very pretty.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29004747096338633532015-11-14T00:14:43.686-07:002015-11-14T00:14:43.686-07:00I can imagine discovering that mind does exist and...I can imagine discovering that mind does exist and matter does not really exist. But if I decide that matter exists but that it never gave rise to mind, then it I couldn't say that without implying that I have the very mental states whose existence I was denying. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43666291140391698562015-11-14T00:02:49.710-07:002015-11-14T00:02:49.710-07:00I know that's what you think; that's the P...I know that's what you think; that's the Primacy of Consciousness. The only thing you can fathom when it comes to existence.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22494890387801249482015-11-13T23:53:43.548-07:002015-11-13T23:53:43.548-07:00But I haven't conceded that science can't ...But I haven't conceded that science can't talk about these things. All I require is that science doesn't make sense except in a universe in which mentalistic explanations are basic. Otherwise you have a "material" world that underdetermines anyone's mental states. But if our mental states are indeterminate, then rational inference is impossible.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.com