tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post343786366358248795..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Attention Gnus (you too Loftus): The appeal to ridicule is a fallacyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71311269004227229572012-08-17T20:12:30.755-07:002012-08-17T20:12:30.755-07:00CONT
"What I got from this was that you seem ...CONT<br /><i>"What I got from this was that you seem to believe that:<br />1. A moral value which is universally taught in all/most religions or cultures is actually true.<br />2. The collection of such universally taught, true moral values are part of “classical humanism”<br />To defeat proposition 1), I simply offered the counterexample that moral values such as “Patriarchy is to be upheld and promoted” and “Slavery is permissible in some circumstances” are more or less taught in all religions and cultures, but you would obviously not accept them as true."</i><br /><br />I don't think you are even aware of the subtle sleight of hand contained in this statement. The misconstrual would be missed by the majority of readers. Whether it is deliberately obfuscatory or ignorantly inadvertent is unclear. But misconstrual, nonetheless. No one, least of all me, said those elements that are 'universally taught' are synonymous with 'classical universal humanism'. Whatever is universally taught, or as you phrase it, "are more or less taught in all religions and cultures, ..." has nothing to do with eliciting the universal humanist ideals from the garble of religion. What is universally taught under the rubric of religion is an indiscriminate mish-mash of folk-tales, stories, truths, superstition, magic, new and old-age mysticism, mythicism, humanist ideals, faery tales, ghost stories, zombies rising out of their graves, yadda, yadda. And yes, your Proposition 1 was defeated, by an own goal no less, because it was not a proposition I advocated.<br /><br /><i>"So you’re mad because after two thousand years, people are still debating these issues? "</i><br /><br />No, for jesus h christ's sake, no. Not mad. Just gobsmacked by your responses. And finally, you say. <i>"How about you accept, and TOLERATE the fact that some people obviously have different belief systems which compel them to accept the possibility that such issues are worthy of discussion?"</i> I do accept the fact that people can live their lived on the deluded premise of superstition. Wikkens and Satanists do too. And I am happy for them. In the matter of 'TOLERATE', do you mean that in the sense of how christians reciprocally tolerate atheists, or do you mean that atheists are in a minority and should shut up about superstitious supernaturalism? It is unlear. I add this survey for discussion on tolerance:<br /><br />http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist5.htm<br /><br />http://www.christiantoday.com/article/study.reveals.christians.strong.distrust.towards.atheists/28981.htm<br /><br />The balance of your final paragraph seems OK to me.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84493202631260648942012-08-17T20:09:32.605-07:002012-08-17T20:09:32.605-07:00Ahh! I love that word 'scientism', the rel...Ahh! I love that word 'scientism', the religious charge when bible crazies deem themselves and their superstitious belief system to be under existential threat. Methodological naturalism is now 'scientism' according the PPM.<br /><br /> <i>"Even if you disregard the supernatural bits, the Gospels are still historical documents."</i><br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more. They are historical, not for their content but for the fact someone [we don't know who to this day and there is plenty of speculation] wrote them. But so is the Iliad and the Antiquity of the Jews, but we don't live our lives by them. They are a recording of how people thought and lived millennia ago. No one lives by these historical accounts. The Egyptian 'Book of the Dead' is equally filled with material from which the gospels and the bible borrowed. We don't live by that historical account either. It is utterly perverse that there still are people, in this 21st Century, that want humankind to be corralled into 1stC thinking. When one looks at competing religious perspectives, it is utterly perverse that people should lead their lives by a book written some 1400 years ago in Mecca or Medina or wherever it was written. The question one must ask oneself is, why are there people so afraid of the unknown of the future that they are willing to forgo any attainment and accomplishment of growth and development at both a deep personal and societal level, clinging to the umbilical cord grafted to 100 CE. A gestational period of 2,000 years is simply too ludicrous for words. This is stuff ripe for ridicule by any measure. It is its own perpetual ridicule machine. I simply help by pointing it out.<br /><br /><i>"No, I believe I can defend its rationality in a debate. However, I pick my battles wisely. ..."</i><br /><br />You can't and you haven't. Indeed you have assiduously avoided in defending the significant representations that uniquely characterize the christian mythos, to name a few, Like walking through walls? Walking on water? 5 fishes and loaves feed 5,000 with some left over? Like manna falling from the sky to feed 600,000 plus over forty years? A talking burning bush? Shriveling a fig tree because he was pissed? Virgin parturition? Floating off up into the blue beyond? Evil spirits hightailing down to the sea to drown themselves [as if] in the form of pigs, the 3-in-1 personality complex more commonly understood today as Dissociative identity disorder (DID), or multiple personality disorder, Yadda-Yadda.<br />And your reason for not doing so? They are irrelevant. And yet this OP is about the supposed 'appeal to ridicule' being a fallacy. How is it fallacious to ridicule that which in their very essence are ridiculous? Clearly you have a view about Ganesha the Elephant god, and Muhammad riding off to heaven on a winged horse. Why are these any less credible than the 3-in-1? Why accord any special pleading to the 3-in-1 imagery, a creedal construct manufactured by committee in 325CE. You know that. I know that. And we both know that this stuff was not made in heaven. So why the pretense?<br /><br />CONTPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32756143671841631692012-08-17T04:16:39.984-07:002012-08-17T04:16:39.984-07:00No. They weren't classical humanist ideals. Pa...<b>No. They weren't classical humanist ideals. Patriarchy and enslaving people were a function and a product of the prescribed religious worldviews that underpinned those societies.</b><br /><br />The problem with your statement, Paps, is not that it’s a bad reply – but it’s inconsistent with what you said earlier. I quote you once again:<br /><br /><i>The progress of humanity will become unhindered when reasonable people of reasonable intellect and reasonable courage are able to discern <b>all that which is universally acknowledged, </b> do not murder, look after your family, be kind to your neighbours and treat them as you would yourself, don't lie, etc etc, and separate all those classically humanist ideals from the superstitious malarkey and supernatural bunkum.</i><br /><br />What I got from this was that you seem to believe that:<br /><br />1. A moral value which is universally taught in all/most religions or cultures is actually true.<br /><br />2. The collection of such universally taught, true moral values are part of “classical humanism”<br /><br />To defeat proposition 1), I simply offered the counterexample that moral values such as “Patriarchy is to be upheld and promoted” and “Slavery is permissible in some circumstances” are more or less taught in all religions and cultures, but you would obviously not accept them as true. Hence 1) is wrong. Now as for 2), I don’t really have anything to say about that, unless you will actually attempt to explain how “classical humanism” can provide a viable moral framework.<br /><br /><b>However, the stupidity is not in the mis-construction of the sentence, rather it is the attitude of failed recognition that even in the 21st century, two thousand years after the myth first begun to be fabricated [a process itself that spanned four centuries in the making], sycophants remain no closer to resolving any of these glaringly unfounded, unproven, unjustified, unreliable, unverifiable and specious issues.</b><br /><br />So you’re mad because after two thousand years, people are still debating these issues? That sounds immature, Paps. How about you accept, and TOLERATE the fact that some people obviously have different belief systems which compel them to accept the possibility that such issues are worthy of discussion? There are a bunch of atheists and agnostics, Paps, who don’t think that the Gospel is “obviously fabricated” to the point that it is not a worthwhile issue of discussion. Even if you disregard the supernatural bits, the Gospels are still historical documents. They were written in the 1st century, and have historical value, for example if one wants to trace the origins of Christianity, even if one doesn’t believe that Jesus was anything more than an ordinary man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38450842232396922872012-08-17T04:15:50.232-07:002012-08-17T04:15:50.232-07:00I have recounted on a number of occasions on this ...<b>I have recounted on a number of occasions on this site that methodological naturalism is the closest that best describes the reality of existence. It is my reality system…Atheism is simply a position on the continuum, a point at which the psychotypal proclivity for imagined live entities is both irrelevant and unnecessary. </b><br /><br />That’s good enough, Paps. You, an atheist, have admitted that you have a belief system (i.e. “methodological naturalism”). That is all what I originally wanted to argue for anyway. From my very first reply to you I have affirmed that atheism simpliciter, just like theism simpliciter, cannot comprise of an entire worldview by itself. However, what you have described (I think more accurately termed “scientism” combined with “secular humanism”, as methodological naturalism is just that – a method, a tool, not a statement about metaphysics, and one which I subscribe to myself) is indeed a worldview or belief system. I think most atheists have belief systems, just like you have shown here, and these must be defended as well, as things such as scientism are far from being self-evident. I am not interested in seeing you defend it now, though.<br /><br /><b> But what is the point of perversely hanging onto christian mythicism if it cannot be used as a basis for argument? Your attempt to sequester it [to protect it from scrutiny] from the argument about 'atheism', the very reason about which the claim to an 'appeal to ridicule is fallacy' of this OP is fundamentally focused, is unconvincing. To argue otherwise, that christian theism is irrelevant to the discussion is duplicitous and insincere.</b><br />No, I believe I can defend its rationality in a debate. However, I pick my battles wisely. I am not concerned with defending an entire belief system, which can comprise of tens of propositions with chains of reasoning, each of which is far from self-evident, many of which are controversial. I am quite aware of which bits of the Christian worldview can be directly presented with justification in a debate with a non-Christian, and which bits can only be justified as the logical outcome from the prior acceptance of several of the aforementioned assumptions.<br /><br /><b>In matters of syllogism as a basis of logic, the welter of counter syllogisms I provided clearly dispenses any support you may have imagined from the exercise. A syllogism does not a proof make. It must be supported with, you know, evidence.</b><br /><br />Indeed, a syllogism does not a proof make. If you’ve actually bothered to follow the debate, Paps, this has been my <b>running assumption</b> all along. I condensed your argument into a syllogism, and I contested one of its premises. I call upon you to defend that said premise. The stack of unrelated counter syllogisms you offered are unfortunately completely irrelevant, and the time you spent typing (or copy-pasting) them wasted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17431344682632322792012-08-16T20:06:44.990-07:002012-08-16T20:06:44.990-07:00B. Prokop,
"Sorry, Skeptical, but that was n...B. Prokop,<br /><br />"Sorry, Skeptical, but that was neither ridicule nor poisoning the well"<br /><br />I understand that these things are very much subject to interpretation. The way I saw it, you are telling people that they will not be able to have a reasonable dialog with him, thereby influencing their opinion before any discussion begins. I see that as a case of poisoning-the-well.<br /><br />My point in making that post was not to pick on anyone in particular, but to point out that we often criticize others for the very things we are guilty of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87692995410902217542012-08-16T18:58:43.811-07:002012-08-16T18:58:43.811-07:00CONT
You Say, "LOL, Paps, the Jesus Seminar i...CONT<br />You Say, <i>"LOL, Paps, the Jesus Seminar isn't "apologetical literature" - in fact it's the opposite. And this is just so stupid that I don't need to show it."</i><br /><br />You got me there. I was not clear enough in the way I structured my sentences. They are indeed two different sources of the current state of religious discourse. And I did not make that clear. However, the stupidity is not in the mis-construction of the sentence, rather it is the attitude of failed recognition that even in the 21st century, two thousand years after the myth first begun to be fabricated [a process itself that spanned four centuries in the making], sycophants remain no closer to resolving any of these glaringly unfounded, unproven, unjustified, unreliable, unverifiable and specious issues. I simply cannot be any clearer on this matter.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25605741175227821942012-08-16T18:58:16.499-07:002012-08-16T18:58:16.499-07:00"Now, unlike you, the stuff which I actually ...<i>"Now, unlike you, the stuff which I actually try to defend (e.g. that atheists have belief systems) seems to have a very strong basis in reality, ..."</i><br /><br />But you haven't. You say so. You claim so. You think so. You opine so. You imagine so. You wish so. But you haven't substantiated so. If one were to be labelled, something bible crazies have a pathological propensity to do, I have recounted on a number of occasions on this site that methodological naturalism is the closest that best describes the reality of existence. It is my reality system. It easily and seamlessly accommodates not only understanding and appreciation of the cultural and social drivers of religious superstition, it equally embraces the exponential capacity of scientific methodology, the greatest of investigatory tools known to humankind with unparalleled explanatory power. As a comparator in explanatory power, christian theism is but a perpetual intellectual toddler. Atheism is simply a position on the continuum, a point at which the psychotypal proclivity for imagined live entities is both irrelevant and unnecessary. <br /><br />I happen to agree with you, PPM, all those elements that so characterise the christian mythos are indeed irrelevant. But what is the point of perversely hanging onto christian mythicism if it cannot be used as a basis for argument? Your attempt to sequester it [to protect it from scrutiny] from the argument about 'atheism', the very reason about which the claim to an 'appeal to ridicule is fallacy' of this OP is fundamentally focused, is unconvincing. To argue otherwise, that christian theism is irrelevant to the discussion is duplicitous and insincere.<br /><br />In matters of syllogism as a basis of logic, the welter of counter syllogisms I provided clearly dispenses any support you may have imagined from the exercise. A syllogism does not a proof make. It must be supported with, you know, evidence.<br /><br />You say, <i>"WOW Paps! How INSPIRING! Patriarchy and enslaving people has more or less been universal across cultures, too - how about that as one of those "classical humanist ideals"?"</i><br /><br />No. They weren't classical humanist ideals. Patriarchy and enslaving people were a function and a product of the prescribed religious worldviews that underpinned those societies. And as we have witnessed, they have changed over time. No longer is religion powerful enough to mandate slavery and patriarchy. No longer is religion powerful enough to mandate against homosexuality, women's personal health issues such as contraception etc. One must not misconstrue or conflate those universal humanist ideals with what happens to be the convention or 'traditional wisdom' on the day. One example of the many long standing religious-based mandates that is currently in vogue, is the disgraceful barrier to the ordination of women in the catholic church. It is not a universal humanist ideal. It is a piss-ant convention of a male-only club mentality that will over time crumble to the humanist universal ideal that all, both women and men, are recognised and acknowledged equally. So, go back over those few that I alluded to and see if you can make sense of the difference.<br /><br />CONT<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64006442772307548772012-08-16T18:34:49.430-07:002012-08-16T18:34:49.430-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2209920509389415232012-08-16T06:02:33.017-07:002012-08-16T06:02:33.017-07:00"reasoning with Papalinton is like trying to ...<i>"reasoning with Papalinton is like trying to nail jello to the wall"</i><br /><br />Sorry, Skeptical, but that was neither ridicule nor poisoning the well.<br /><br />Firstly, the metaphor of nailing jello to a wall is a rather accurate description of what an actual "dialog" with Papalinton is like. (I put dialog in quote marks, because truth to tell, he doesn't ever really engage in such. If he did, he might now and then actually respond to what others say, rather than forever going off on wild non sequiturs, while utterly ignoring (Sometimes I think without even reading) other peoples' points.<br /><br />Secondly, it is in no way Poisoning the Well. A better characterization of the phrase would be one's reaction to taking a sip from an already poisoned well, and grimacing from the foul taste.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37573007575269156642012-08-15T22:08:46.116-07:002012-08-15T22:08:46.116-07:00I know exactly what it means. What do you think i...I know exactly what it means. What do you think it means?<br /><br />By the way, here's another one:<br /><br /> "And I wouldn't believe anything reported by Drudge either"<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21550318016441005422012-08-15T22:00:13.327-07:002012-08-15T22:00:13.327-07:00im-skeptical,
In all of those cases, the ridicule...im-skeptical,<br /><br />In all of those cases, the ridicule is directed at people who themselves love to deploy ridicule, on a regular basis. That was rather the point.<br /><br />As for the "well-poisoning", you should really read up on what that actually is. Hit the wikipedia for a primer.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24927916543285770042012-08-15T21:49:38.843-07:002012-08-15T21:49:38.843-07:00Reading through this page, I see a few examples of...Reading through this page, I see a few examples of ridicule:<br /><br /> "Attention Gnus"<br /> "I think your description of how and why atheists think the way they do is way too generous"<br /> "They're parrots"<br /> "Johnny says the use of the term "delusional" is not meant to denigrate"<br /> "the rest of us are content to forget about you"<br /> "Oh dear!. Still smarting over the manner you were comprehensively rolled in that discussion"<br /> "I thought Loftus was "totally over" fighting Christianity"<br /> "No wonder public education everywhere is so screwed up"<br /><br />And some cases of poisoning the well, also:<br /><br /> "reasoning with Papalinton is like trying to nail jello to the wall"<br /> "Hes not a good guy by any standard"<br /> "don't attempt to engage him in dialog"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90666257901598262462012-08-15T21:47:35.371-07:002012-08-15T21:47:35.371-07:00im-skeptical,
And I wouldn't believe anything...im-skeptical,<br /><br /><i>And I wouldn't believe anything reported by Drudge either, because it's mostly lies and distortions, even though he might occasionally say something that isn't a lie.</i><br /><br />Are you aware that 99% of what Drudge puts up is just links to other sites, typically to respectable news sources? I just said this. If you don't believe me, actually go to his site. Look at the headlines. Find how many are just links to other sites.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40475429736106247862012-08-15T21:15:53.884-07:002012-08-15T21:15:53.884-07:00Crude, physphilmusic
Fair enough. But I still wo...Crude, physphilmusic<br /><br />Fair enough. But I still wouldn't trust things I find on a site like that ... alongside the photos of ghosts, etc. And I wouldn't believe anything reported by Drudge either, because it's mostly lies and distortions, even though he might occasionally say something that isn't a lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63365430780322366632012-08-15T17:57:16.912-07:002012-08-15T17:57:16.912-07:00Hey Crude, that part about Papalinton being cluele...Hey Crude, that part about Papalinton being clueless has been pretty clear for a long time. The problem is that there are thousands of people out there (those who follow Loftus, Myers, etc.). I was just looking to see how far such a person could be engaged, because you have to eventually. So far my experiment seems to have disappointing results. It seems that people of average intelligence are simply incapable of true rational exchange. I'll probably abandon it in a while. But thanks for the heads-up anyway :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38255122748435453552012-08-15T17:13:43.530-07:002012-08-15T17:13:43.530-07:00physphilmusic,
Hey man. I'm not sure if you&#...physphilmusic,<br /><br />Hey man. I'm not sure if you're new around here, but a quick heads up. Linton's kind of famously clueless. The man looks up to John freaking Loftus of all people. At this point most of us blow him off entirely, because really, he's extremely dumb. I mean we're talking about a guy who routinely doesn't understand the very links he himself cites in 'defense' of his positions and so on. He's an ex-teacher who tries really, really hard to sound intelligent, and fails miserably.<br /><br />You can spend time on him if you like, but really, most of us consider him a kind of unintentional joke and don't bother. Just trying to save you some time, if you weren't aware of just what you're dealing with. (Really, it should be clear to you by now, however.)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76102195186187482322012-08-15T16:42:15.630-07:002012-08-15T16:42:15.630-07:00This is the actual journal paper.<a href="http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2011/papers/0782/paper0782.pdf" rel="nofollow">This is the actual journal paper.</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28385370523698337212012-08-15T16:31:48.511-07:002012-08-15T16:31:48.511-07:00There is substance? Like walking through walls? Wa...<b>There is substance? Like walking through walls? Walking on water? 5 fishes and loaves feed 5,000 with some left over? Like manna falling from the sky to feed 600,000 plus over forty years? A talking burning bush? Shriveling a fig tree because he was pissed? Virgin parturition? Floating off up into the blue beyond? Yadda-Yadda.<br /><br />There is basis? A world view predicated on a superstitious mythos? Hardly a basis in reality?</b><br /><br />These are all IRRELEVANT, Papalinton, because I have never tried to attempt defending Christian theism itself with you. I have never attempted to defend Christian miracles also - why? Because it wasn't part of the topic. Now, unlike you, the stuff which I actually try to defend (e.g. that atheists have belief systems) seems to have a very strong basis in reality, because you keep running away from answering it. You're like the guy who proclaims how he can beat everyone up but never actually dares to fight. You're a despicable loser and coward, Papalinton. And not because your arguments are bad. I would respect an astrologist more if he were to at least try to engage in argument.<br /><br /><b> The purveyors in superstitious supernaturalism on this site have generally not sought to engage in discussion. Rather, they have howled, striving to bludgeon with dulled theology, edgeless apologetics, and folk philosophy. </b><br /><br />Papalinton, if for you "discussion" means people submitting to you and proclaiming that you're right, yep, you aren't gonna get that anywhere. How can you accuse me of engaging in folk philosophy? I've actually argued in syllogisms. I've assisted you in making your thoughts more coherent. LOL.<br /><br /><b>The progress of humanity will become unhindered when reasonable people of reasonable intellect and reasonable courage are able to discern all that which is universally acknowledged, do not murder, look after your family, be kind to your neighbours and treat them as you would yourself, don't lie, etc etc, and separate all those classically humanist ideals from the superstitious malarkey and supernatural bunkum. </b><br /><br />WOW Paps! How INSPIRING! Patriarchy and enslaving people has more or less been universal across cultures, too - how about that as one of those "classical humanist ideals"?<br /><br /><b>And the reason this nonsense has plagued humankind for millennia [any cursory reading of contemporary Apologetical literature will bear this out. Just look at the Jesus Seminar still trying to work out what jesus did or did not say some 2000 years after the purported event]? Because believers have no tools of scrutiny, or critical examination for distinguishing fact from fantasy.</b><br /><br />LOL, Paps, the Jesus Seminar isn't "apologetical literature" - in fact it's the opposite. And this is just so stupid that I don't need to show it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79767250245540716662012-08-15T16:25:49.516-07:002012-08-15T16:25:49.516-07:00I looked at your link to the autism article. It is...<i>I looked at your link to the autism article. It is in a site called Mail Online, which appears to peddle tabloid trash-news/gossip in the style of National Inquirer. I hope you don't believe what you read there.</i><br /><br />You know, I see this kind of thing go on over and over. Like, if you give a link that you got off the Drudge Report, people will say "oh god that's Drudge he's not a real journalist so that link can't be trusted and..." The fact that the link goes to, say, cnn.com and is just relinked at Drudge is hard to sink in.<br /><br />In this case, phys's study - if you google for autism atheism link, you get the Daily Mail first.<br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/09/atheism-as-mental-deviance/" rel="nofollow">The study is legit.</a> The fact that the Daily Mail was commenting on the study doesn't undo that - they comment on everything.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26919934095504733732012-08-15T13:58:40.224-07:002012-08-15T13:58:40.224-07:00physphilmusic,
Eventually you're going to rea...physphilmusic,<br /><br />Eventually you're going to realize that attempting to dupe people through superstition and magic is really a no-gain game. The progress of humanity will become unhindered when reasonable people of reasonable intellect and reasonable courage are able to discern all that which is universally acknowledged, do not murder, look after your family, be kind to your neighbours and treat them as you would yourself, don't lie, etc etc, and separate all those classically humanist ideals from the superstitious malarkey and supernatural bunkum. There are many didactic fables, legends and stories known to us that have told what is right and good. And we have been able to understand and appreciate the moral lesson they are telling us without having to swallow the story as fact or truth. <br /><br />This is the conundrum that circumscribes christian theism. Believers are incapable of distinguishing the grain from the chaff. Some say Adam and Eve were 'real' people, many don't. Some say the resurrection is allegory for triumph over adversity, many don't. Many say jesus actually walked on water, many don't. And the reason this nonsense has plagued humankind for millennia [any cursory reading of contemporary Apologetical literature will bear this out. Just look at the Jesus Seminar still trying to work out what jesus did or did not say some 2000 years after the purported event]? Because believers have no tools of scrutiny, or critical examination for distinguishing fact from fantasy.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39702718169959764602012-08-15T13:03:50.549-07:002012-08-15T13:03:50.549-07:00physphilmusic,
I looked at your link to the autis...physphilmusic,<br /><br />I looked at your link to the autism article. It is in a site called Mail Online, which appears to peddle tabloid trash-news/gossip in the style of National Inquirer. I hope you don't believe what you read there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2563405981950986142012-08-15T09:16:31.857-07:002012-08-15T09:16:31.857-07:00physphilmusic,
Eventually you're going to rea...physphilmusic,<br /><br />Eventually you're going to realize that reasoning with Papalinton is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Just a few days ago, I did something I've never done before - I checked out his "commentary" on other websites. Was that ever eye-opening! Here on <i>Dangerous Idea</i> he's merely incoherent and a big fan of the non sequitur. Over on the debunking site, he's batshit crazy.<br /><br />My advice to you: set him straight once (if you really feel the need to), but don't attempt to engage him in dialog. There's no "there" there. B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90065478496829481312012-08-15T03:19:22.736-07:002012-08-15T03:19:22.736-07:00PL: "This recent little episode of yours on ...PL: <b>"This recent little episode of yours on this thread simply underscores the abject paucity of any substantive basis for your overall argument. Sorry, physphilmusic, someone who guides their life on a myth forfeits what semblance of credibility may be gleaned from experience. Especially if that experience if founded on magic and superstition."</b><br /><br />PPM: <b>"There is substance. There is basis. There is a defense. It's all there like writing on the wall, which you refuse to turn your head to acknowledge. I'm just exposing them so that you'll be reminded of your outstanding intellectual debts. A shining example of your hypocrisy and cowardice. You can't pretend that people have never tried to engage you. It's you have refused to answer their arguments. Everybody can see that the emperor has no clothes."</b><br /><br />PL: There is substance? Like walking through walls? Walking on water? 5 fishes and loaves feed 5,000 with some left over? Like manna falling from the sky to feed 600,000 plus over forty years? A talking burning bush? Shriveling a fig tree because he was pissed? Virgin parturition? Floating off up into the blue beyond? Yadda-Yadda.<br /><br />There is basis? A world view predicated on a superstitious mythos? Hardly a basis in reality?<br /><br />There is a defense? But which one? Judaism? Christian Mythicism? Islamic Sharia? Hindu Polytheism? Baha'i Universalism? It is not a case of not turning my head, it is a case for where it ought to turn? The one thing you are exposing, PPM, is the abject paucity of any substantive basis for your overall argument. And you are correct, I "can't pretend that people have never tried to engage you. " I don't pretend. The purveyors in superstitious supernaturalism on this site have generally not sought to engage in discussion. Rather, they have howled, striving to bludgeon with dulled theology, edgeless apologetics, and folk philosophy. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59242253464380077962012-08-15T01:05:43.829-07:002012-08-15T01:05:43.829-07:00From your claim then, the 97% of the scientists of...<b>From your claim then, the 97% of the scientists of the Academy of Science are autistic. And obviously you have the proof to back that up. And for the balance of the science community, </b><br /><br />Now, Paps, there's no need to drastically simplify my claims to pure crudeness just so that your little mind isn't overwhelmed with subtlety. What I was saying was simply: since atheists have often depicted religious belief as a kind of virus, mental illness, or psychological defect, I'm simply giving you an interesting link which has some evidence (not "proof" my dear, we don't use that word much in science and research) that the opposite end of the spectrum (atheism) is similarly linked to a mental handicap, i.e. autism/Asperger's. In other words, it is now also possible to take a potshot at atheists by saying that their inability to perceive God is perhaps because of a mental defect, not some form of enlightened intellectual superiority.<br /><br />If you could control your mind from immediately jumping to black-and-white conclusions, autism is a spectrum. Yes, it is entirely possible that many of the world's greatest scientists have a touch of Asperger's in them - have you ever seen Sheldon Cooper? If you've actually met some, a disproportionate number of scientists are socially more inept and reclusive. <br /><br /><b>Methinks you latched on to the first thing that could be easily misconstrued in defense of the indefensible nature of the christian mythos. Not surprising, because that is the core of apologetics; a belief in search of evidence.</b><br /><br />Nah, Papalinton, that was meant to just be a sideshow. It has little bearing on the truth or falsity of theism. And even if it did, it would hardly be the "first thing". As you can see from my interactions with you, I am not a newbie in the study of these issues, though I am also far from being an expert. <br /><br /><b>This recent little episode of yours on this thread simply underscores the abject paucity of any substantive basis for your overall argument. Sorry, physphilmusic, someone who guides their life on a myth forfeits what semblance of credibility may be gleaned from experience. Especially if that experience if founded on magic and superstition.</b><br /><br /><b><i>There is substance. There is basis. There is a defense. It's all there like writing on the wall, which you refuse to turn your head to acknowledge. I'm just exposing them so that you'll be reminded of your outstanding intellectual debts. A shining example of your hypocrisy and cowardice. You can't pretend that people have never tried to engage you. It's you have refused to answer their arguments. Everybody can see that the emperor has no clothes.</i></b><br /><br />And look at this! You've even managed to focus on my little comment about atheism and mental illness, completely refusing to acknowledge clear evidence of the destruction of your credibility. I've dealt stinging wounds to your arms and legs, Papalinton, and yet you just cover them up with clothing and try to keep on fighting with your nose as if nothing has happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60931182239885680802012-08-14T19:11:20.819-07:002012-08-14T19:11:20.819-07:00"atheist scientists"...sounds like an ap..."atheist scientists"...sounds like an appeal to authority to me.<br /><br />More logical fallacies from PapaL.<br /><br />Seriously, though, I really believe he doesnt' see it. What's Loftus call that? Oh yeah, "delusional".Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137890891223067672noreply@blogger.com