tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3438992474209948579..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Amalekites, Mr. Spock, and the lesser of two evilsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger193125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63272617556568704522011-10-26T14:26:17.321-07:002011-10-26T14:26:17.321-07:00I too tire of arguing metaphysical worldviews--for...I too tire of arguing metaphysical worldviews--for awhile anyway. Fact is that none of us can prove our worldviews beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why I consider myself an agnostic first, and a deist second.<br /><br />LaterWalterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10192881448584249642011-10-26T13:40:40.668-07:002011-10-26T13:40:40.668-07:00@Walter
>We can also talk about all the reasons...@Walter<br />>We can also talk about all the reasons why I think Catholicism is a false religion.<br /><br />I can only hope when the time comes you will bring something to the table more challenging then Chick Comics or Stark.<br /><br />Still informing you as to how the "Deistic" God of Aristotle differs radically, philosophically and conceptionally from what post-enlightenment mechnistic philosophy calls more properly Deism would be helpful.<br /><br />But for now I am too tired.<br /><br />But as a preliminary if you are interested see INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION by Brian Davies. Specifically the chapter titled "Concepts of God". <br /><br />Cheers.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27784390952336708102011-10-26T13:13:41.543-07:002011-10-26T13:13:41.543-07:00Sure Ben.
We can also talk about all the reasons ...Sure Ben.<br /><br />We can also talk about all the reasons why I think Catholicism is a false religion.<br /><br />Sounds like fun!Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61172516640596441212011-10-26T12:14:01.543-07:002011-10-26T12:14:01.543-07:00>The god of classical theism seems quite consis...>The god of classical theism seems quite consistent with the morally neutral, non-interventionist, indifferent god of deism,<br /><br />Why the above is mostly incorrect but kinda comes close should be a future topic of discussion between us.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67019213860238375072011-10-25T20:42:42.589-07:002011-10-25T20:42:42.589-07:00@Walter
Anyway for the record I thought you put u...@Walter<br /><br />Anyway for the record I thought you put up a heroic argument.<br /><br />That you are intrigued by Davies means my work here is done.<br /><br />I hope to read that book by Starks. <br /><br />HUMAN FACES OF GOD.<br /><br />Even Herbert McCabe, Brian Davies' mentor and teacher was a Catholic Christian Socialist who believed that we could have women "Priests" and that Artificial Birth control was Ok(those last two being ABSOLUTE NO NO's, So many levels of wrongness).<br /><br />But his natural theology, his Thomistic insights, his philosophy of religion, views of God, and views on God and Evil are freakin awesome! They manage to be Radical and New as well as traditonal and ancient at the same time. <br /><br />Just because he has some mistakes doesn't mean he has nothing to teach me. Same with Starks.<br /><br />McCabe's book GOD AND EVIL is a must read.<br /><br />Davies new book AQUINAS ON GOD & EVIL will be coming soon to my house.<br /><br />Cheers.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75488981217413072992011-10-25T20:39:20.438-07:002011-10-25T20:39:20.438-07:00How can you agree with the 'greater point'...<i>How can you agree with the 'greater point' when you seem not to understand it?</i><br /><br />What am I not understanding? I just pointed out that these atheists in question don't even adhere to this "morality". Killing infants is wrong? Tell Singer. Tell Dawkins.<br /><br /><i>it’s about making his pseudo-version of Christianity non-falsifiable</i><br /><br />I don't think that's right. That's like saying the whole "God is outside of space and time" is 'meant to make God unfalsifiable' rather than central to both the classical theism and theistic personalist conceptions of God. "If your God doesn't have a body and isn't located on some planet, you're cheating!"Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50239347020529946012011-10-25T20:35:39.120-07:002011-10-25T20:35:39.120-07:00So, Son-of-, you're functionally illiterate in...So, Son-of-, you're functionally illiterate in both directions?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64146872687228525372011-10-25T20:30:57.525-07:002011-10-25T20:30:57.525-07:00@IIion
>that Jesus isn't the nice little gi...@IIion<br />>that Jesus isn't the nice little girl the Victorians made him out to be.<br /><br />Make up your mind IIion, Either I am too fierce or I am too timid.<br /><br />You are just well....out there.<br /><br />Like dwarf planet Pluto or Eris.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15266287666122279402011-10-25T20:30:08.908-07:002011-10-25T20:30:08.908-07:00VR: "Of course, people like Dawkins help them...<b>VR:</b> "<i>Of course, people like Dawkins help themselves to these moral ideas as if they were somehow obvious, when in fact they were pretty much unheard of before Christians came on the scene.</i>" <br /><br /><b>Crude:</b> "<i>Help themselves to it? I'm not so sure. ... I agree with your greater point, of course. Just being a nitpicker.</i>"<br /><br />How can you agree with the 'greater point' when you seem not to understand it?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25693723183849297972011-10-25T20:20:45.552-07:002011-10-25T20:20:45.552-07:00Ilion,
Your ridiculous posts are about as interes...Ilion,<br /><br />Your ridiculous posts are about as interesting to me as a Jack Chict tract. I won't be responding to anymore of your narcissistic trolling.Walternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20111301034241618722011-10-25T20:16:11.875-07:002011-10-25T20:16:11.875-07:00"It's like he thinks I'm a Chaos Magi..."<i>It's like he thinks I'm a Chaos Magic User from AD&D Level 10 a Son-of-Confusion!</i>"<br /><br />It seems to me that had you actually, you know, *read* the Bible, you'd get the point. You know, much like had UnkleE actually read the Bible he'd know that Jesus isn't the nice little girl the Victorians made him out to be.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83378278739434426362011-10-25T19:56:59.275-07:002011-10-25T19:56:59.275-07:00... it's all very 'post-modern', isn&#...... it's all very 'post-modern', isn't it?<br /><br />And Walter -- a cross between BenYachov and Papalinton. Walter has no more interest in <i>arguing</i>, nor in understanding the actual Christianity he rejects, than either of those two do.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48301568835819050162011-10-25T19:52:17.322-07:002011-10-25T19:52:17.322-07:00Good night, Crude! Pay attention to the sorts of ...Good night, Crude! Pay attention to the sorts of things, in context, that Son-of-Confusion asserts. Just two examples:<br /><br />"<i>You haven't convinced me He is one so your arguments falls flat. ...</i>"<br /><br />"<i>Not at all but I read Randel, Stark and Morrision you have not read Davies so your claim is bogus. ...</i>"<br /><br /><br />As I have said before, his "classical theism" – and the concomitant constant (and generally pointless) attacking of “theistic-personalists” – is all about shielding his “theism” from rational/critical evaluation; it’s about making his pseudo-version of Christianity non-falsifiable; he could just as easily be a Darwinist, or the typical internet ‘atheist’, for he “reasons” in the same manner and to the same end – to deny-by-waving-away what he does not wish to believe, which trying to leave not even a footprint by which what he does wish to believe may be scrutinized.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59343156658944759372011-10-25T19:33:35.248-07:002011-10-25T19:33:35.248-07:00"... He just hates shysters."
Dewd! He..."<i>... He just hates shysters.</i>"<br /><br />Dewd! He *is* a shyster.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16396580245484977542011-10-25T19:31:07.643-07:002011-10-25T19:31:07.643-07:00... no wonder you're as confused as your fathe...... no wonder you're as confused as your father.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44791741501753626772011-10-25T19:30:16.647-07:002011-10-25T19:30:16.647-07:00Foolish, foolish child -- what you detest isn'...Foolish, foolish child -- what you detest isn't an anthropomorphic view of God, but the theomorphic view of man.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3161878412751014932011-10-25T19:27:54.070-07:002011-10-25T19:27:54.070-07:00I think the arguments for theism and Christianity ...<i><br />I think the arguments for theism and Christianity are powerful. I have sympathy - expressly stated - for theists of different views than mine. Admittedly, I find atheism to be the least tenable option by far. But this is one case where the 'everyone' doesn't apply to me</i><br /><br />Excellent!<br /><br />And yes I was waxing hyperbolic.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11333781096500730992011-10-25T19:27:35.113-07:002011-10-25T19:27:35.113-07:00As i said before, tiresome rah-rah Catholicism (*)...As i said before, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/10/amalekites-mr-spock-and-lesser-of-two.html#c7901626396203215966" rel="nofollow">tiresome rah-rah Catholicism</a> (*) -- this strange and silly person actually believes that he gets special Genuflection Points (<i>Now redeemable at a Limbo or Hell near you!</i>) from the non-personal, non-agentish, non-knowing, non-loving and non-hating, non-living entity (**) that he insists upon calling ‘God’, simply for being “in communion” with the Chief Overseer of the Chief Bureaucrats of the One True Bureaucracy.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/10/amalekites-mr-spock-and-lesser-of-two.html#c256592260990022665" rel="nofollow">his reasoning is generally no more cogent</a> than his grammar.<br /><br /><br />(*) Also, *gasp*, he seems to be a ‘<a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/10/amalekites-mr-spock-and-lesser-of-two.html#c8043698246724164800" rel="nofollow">heretic</a>’. Though, I do have to wonder, what else is there that he “doesn’t believe personally” but over which he will nonetheless go on the attack when someone else dares to disbelieve and/or argue against? Goodness! He almost sounds like the typical Darwinist, doesn’t he?<br /><br />(**) Whether one calls this <i>thing</i> ‘Force’ or farce, does it really matter?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48427544732222484682011-10-25T19:25:29.448-07:002011-10-25T19:25:29.448-07:00Presupposing a God who is a moral agent is a start...<i>Presupposing a God who is a moral agent is a starter.</i><br /><br />Even if Stark holds to this view, it doesn't matter one bit if his arguments do not hinge upon that particular viewpoint. I might add that Stark claims that he is not an apologist--he puts forth no theodicy to get God off the hook for moral and natural evil. Stark's goal is to expose the bad arguments of those who do engage in apologetic spin-doctoring.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2156738784787249542011-10-25T19:25:07.581-07:002011-10-25T19:25:07.581-07:00I have been on numerous Christian, Jewish, Muslim ...<i>I have been on numerous Christian, Jewish, Muslim and secular blogs, and everyone is convinced that their metaphysical worldview is Absolute Truth.</i><br /><br />Everyone? What you mean everyone, Masked Man?<br /><br />I think the arguments for theism and Christianity are powerful. I have sympathy - expressly stated - for theists of different views than mine. Admittedly, I find atheism to be the least tenable option by far. But this is one case where the 'everyone' doesn't apply to me.<br /><br />Hell, it doesn't even apply to Ben. I've seen him profusely compliment multiple atheists for being reasonable and thoughtful. He just hates shysters.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65753653411414703282011-10-25T19:17:35.915-07:002011-10-25T19:17:35.915-07:00How do you know having admitted to not yet having ...<i>How do you know having admitted to not yet having read Davies?</i><br /><br />I can't know yet. I am basing it off of book reviews, but I am not holding my breath.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39662397098602099922011-10-25T19:15:21.334-07:002011-10-25T19:15:21.334-07:00I do not believe that Stark is "reflexively&q...I do not believe that Stark is "reflexively" taking the opposite view of Copan just for the sake of being polemical. He has IMO excellent scholarship backing up his arguments. <br /><br />(Walter now gets on his soapbox)<br /><br /> If there is one thing that I have learned in my years since my own deconversion from protestant fundamentalism is that we can find expert scholars throughout the spectrum from atheism to the most anti-intellectual forms of redneck fundamentalism. I have been on numerous Christian, Jewish, Muslim and secular blogs, and everyone is convinced that their metaphysical worldview is Absolute Truth. We can see that right here with the in-fighting between the different sects of Christian theists that populate this very blog.<br /><br />Frankly, it should cause a lot of us to be far more agnostic and a little less dogmatic about things that we cannot possible know with great certainty.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20413080929818007522011-10-25T19:09:25.092-07:002011-10-25T19:09:25.092-07:00>If you want to tie the Thomistic god to Yahweh...>If you want to tie the Thomistic god to Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Ghost it is going to take a lot more than Davies' philosophical treatises.<br /><br />How do you know having admitted to not yet having read Davies?<br /><br />It's up to you. Now I must surrender the computer to my wife who is tapping her feet right now.<br /><br />She is so cute & am so out of here.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40103385881802841062011-10-25T19:02:30.998-07:002011-10-25T19:02:30.998-07:00>Perhaps Ben knows of some specific arguments o...>Perhaps Ben knows of some specific arguments of Stark's that depend upon Theistic-Personalism? <br /><br />Presupposing a God who is a moral agent is a starter.<br /><br />http://philpapers.org/rec/TRAATA-2<br /><br />N. N. Trakakis (2010). Against Theodicy: A Response to Peter Forrest. <br /><br />The God of Theodicy the moral agent God by definition is anthropomorphic. <br /><br />(Trakakis is a DEFENDER of Rowe's Evidential argument for Evil and a self described tentative Theist) <br /><br />That is all we need. <br /><br />Now you show me where Stark presupposes the God of Aquinas, Augustine and Maximos the Confessor?BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40920593295019675712011-10-25T18:52:11.823-07:002011-10-25T18:52:11.823-07:00Walter: "Spare me your brand of lunacy. I don...<b>Walter:</b> "<i>Spare me your brand of lunacy. I don't believe in your Christian fairy tale.</i>"<br /><br />Imagine that! Walter is channelling that strange Mad Dingo.<br /><br />Whodda thunk?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com