tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4175537034738643527..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Mark Linville on an atheist retort to religious morality Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19656845873057805132017-11-26T21:20:32.515-07:002017-11-26T21:20:32.515-07:00There is always one.
Before Stardusty Pysche we ...There is always one. <br /><br />Before Stardusty Pysche we had Papalinton. <br /><br />Before Papalinton, we had. Oh I forget his name, but his website had all the hallmark stylings of the crazy people, html 2.0.Jake Elwood XVIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12881450685583835591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60998191861044595702017-11-26T17:32:09.909-07:002017-11-26T17:32:09.909-07:00Dusty has upped his dose of crazy pills, I see.Dusty has upped his dose of crazy pills, I see.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37145717896065835872017-11-26T06:04:38.298-07:002017-11-26T06:04:38.298-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75217128138193407472017-11-26T05:59:31.890-07:002017-11-26T05:59:31.890-07:00I think he;s been watching young Sheldon too muchI think he;s been watching young Sheldon too muchJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44701879709064921192017-11-25T13:51:02.257-07:002017-11-25T13:51:02.257-07:00grodrigues said...
"I completely dismant...grodrigues said...<br /><br /> "I completely dismantled the First Way and the Second Way after I told Feser that a man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation."<br /><br />" Has Stardusty ever sought medical help?" <br />--Have you ever made an extended, on-topic post of rational argumentation? If so, I have not noticed it, could you send me a link to the post where you went point by point and refuted my arguments on the merits?<br /><br />No? Didn't think so.<br /><br />Here, I will give you a shot at it though, I mean, since you are such a great mathematician and mathematical physicist I am sure that debunking my arguments on the merits will be very easy for you.<br />Here is the intro<br />http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7970#p7970<br /><br />Here is one<br />http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7971#p7971<br /><br />Here is another<br />http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=7972#p7972<br /><br /><br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90313919055185253352017-11-25T13:40:29.558-07:002017-11-25T13:40:29.558-07:00"I completely dismantled the First Way and th..."I completely dismantled the First Way and the Second Way after I told Feser that a man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation."<br /><br />Has Stardusty ever sought medical help? I hear the new generation of antipsychotics like Risperdal and Clozaril are being put to good use for symptomatic treatment of delusional disorders with less side-effects than the typical, conventional antipsychotics.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9985582845491557662017-11-25T12:46:42.306-07:002017-11-25T12:46:42.306-07:00@Hugo,
As you can tell, he doesn't get what p...@Hugo,<br /><br /><i>As you can tell, he doesn't get what people are talking about and frankly doesn't care. People finally give up discussing things with him because of this and he considers that a victory. So logic and dialectic are not on the table with this one.</i><br /><br />And right on cue he provides a perfect example. <br /><br />But it's even better. After you point out to him that name-calling and insults are irrational in a dialectic discussion, he complains that you, pointing that fact out, are insulting him and then for good measure he calls you another name.<br /><br />Can't make this stuff up.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18041024147638219362017-11-25T12:12:59.291-07:002017-11-25T12:12:59.291-07:00Hugo Pelland said..
November 25, 2017 11:23 AM...Hugo Pelland said..<br /> November 25, 2017 11:23 AM.<br /><br /> ***** The end... maybe? For me it is...*****<br />--Sure, when you can't justify the assertion of objective morality on atheism just start complaining about perceived insults and then make up some fantasy conversation and you are done.<br /><br />Are you sure you are not a theist? I mean, why not call me a troll too, just for good measure?StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35374300679469125512017-11-25T11:40:03.593-07:002017-11-25T11:40:03.593-07:00Fair enough @bmillerFair enough @bmillerWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49430206681671520592017-11-25T11:34:50.359-07:002017-11-25T11:34:50.359-07:00@Hugo,
However, you should re-read your last post...@Hugo,<br /><br /><b>However, you should re-read your last post. Are you suggesting to try to engage or ignore? You iterally said both! LoL</b><br /><br />Well, what I meant was that I choose to engage him on that thread, but I wouldn't advise others to do so.<br /><br />As you can tell, he doesn't get what people are talking about and frankly doesn't care. People finally give up discussing things with him because of this and he considers that a victory. So logic and dialectic are not on the table with this one.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65105755905350653842017-11-25T11:23:53.394-07:002017-11-25T11:23:53.394-07:00***** Stardusty is ill, a short story *****
Stard...***** Stardusty is ill, a short story *****<br /><br />Stardusty: It's clear that A, B, C are false <br /><br />Person 1: I agree<br /><br />Person 2: I disagree, A and B are true<br /><br />Stardusty: Person 2, you are wrong because of A', B'. And you're an X, a Y and a Z<br /><br />Person 2: No, because of A", B"<br /><br />Stardusty: Already told you A and B are false, such a typical X, Y, Z<br /><br />Person 1: Can you drop calling them X, Y, Z?<br /><br />Stardusty: Ah you also cannot think straight regarding A, B and C<br /><br />Person 1: No, already told you I agree with you about A, B and C<br /><br />Stardusty: Haha you cannot take it either, such an X,Y,Z, my wisdom offends you<br /><br />Person 1: No, it's the use of X, Y, Z that I find useless, as we're discussing A, B and C<br /><br />Stardusty: What are you talking about? You cannot accept the truth about A, B, C! <br /><br />Person 3: By the way, he's been banned for repeated use of X, Y, Z....<br /><br />Stardusty: Ya! Men of strong character engage with those who disagree on A, B, C. Petulant twerps delete rational counter arguments, they're such X, Y, Z<br /><br />Person 1: That's crazy, we keep telling you that it's the use of Xs, Ys and Zs that is counterproductive when discussing As, Bs and Cs<br /><br />Stardusty: Consider yourself lucky to have encounter someone like me<br /><br />***** The end... maybe? For me it is...*****World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11574952472030675012017-11-25T09:36:13.868-07:002017-11-25T09:36:13.868-07:00grodrigues said.. November 25, 2017 5:34 AM.
...grodrigues said.. November 25, 2017 5:34 AM.<br /><br /> *Feser isn't like that. Feser throws little public hissy fits like a petulant child, and when a man continues to challenge him he just deletes the comments without ever engaging on the merits.*<br />... "kooky drivel relentlessly deleted, it is already noticeable a marked increase in average sanity and intellectual quality. "<br />--Hilarious.<br />Now you little sycophants can go back to your little circle jerk. I guess that makes you feel good. Feser clearly enjoys being stroked off by your ilk.<br /><br />Men of strong character engage with those who disagree. Petulant twerps delete rational counter arguments.<br /><br />Feser is completely incapable of engaging me on the merits, as are you, and every A-T Feser fanboy on his site.<br /><br />I completely dismantled the First Way and the Second Way after I told Feser that a man of strong character welcomes strong rational argumentation. He has never provided any rational counter arguments in any of his posts, and neither have you.<br /><br />That's because he has none, nor do you.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46464047623568321162017-11-25T09:25:49.929-07:002017-11-25T09:25:49.929-07:00Blogger Joe Hinman said.. November 25, 2017 3:3...<br />Blogger Joe Hinman said.. November 25, 2017 3:36 AM.<br /><br />" (1) RE is good for yiou"<br />--A comforting falsehood is not a truth<br /><br />" (2) RE is universal to all cultures and faiths"<br />--But not all individuals.<br /><br />" (3) coreligionist culturally bound and should not be universal yet it is,that's a good reason to think there is an external reality being experienced."<br />--Human fantasy is the much simpler explanation. Everybody has dreams, sometimes they seem very real, but they are just our imaginations.<br /><br />" (4)RE fits the criteria we use to make make epistemic judgement, "<br />--Only if you have a very low bar, accepting fantasy as reality.<br /><br />"thus can and should be trusted as a valid indication of reality"<br />--People who think their dreams are experiences of real outside entities have a mental pathology.<br /><br />" those bits of evidence certainly warrant belief,any rational thinking person would have to accept that warrant is evidence,"<br />--Dreams are a warrant to believe in a brain that processes distorted images internally.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69836359590576312132017-11-25T09:16:39.660-07:002017-11-25T09:16:39.660-07:00Legion of Logic said.. November 25, 2017 2:41 A...Legion of Logic said.. November 25, 2017 2:41 AM.<br /><br /> Stardusty: "The greatest thing in existence is invisible and scientifically undetectable?"<br /><br />" There's not a single reason to believe that he should be detectable by science. "<br />--God is said to strongly interact with the observable universe, so your statement is false. One can speculate a deistic god, or even and active god that uses its infinite powers to remain hidden, but that is not the bible god.<br /><br />The bible god does things like talk to people, cause floods, cause pestilence, and work miracles of various sorts. That makes the bible god scientifically detectable, at least whenever it decides to come out of hiding.<br /><br /><br /> Stardusty: "If god exists then god is natural and material"<br /><br />" I assume nature is used synonymously with the universe, so God is not part of that by definition."<br />--False, by definition the universe is all that exists. If god exists then god is part of the universe and is natural. Therefore the great existential riddle is not solved by the speculation of god, only pushed back a step.<br /><br /><br /> Stardusty: "Few can handle the truth."<br /><br />" All assume themselves the bearers of the truth. Few can demonstrate it."<br />--Then consider yourself lucky to have encountered one of the few in I :-)<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51865147125054750562017-11-25T05:34:05.237-07:002017-11-25T05:34:05.237-07:00"Feser isn't like that. Feser throws litt..."Feser isn't like that. Feser throws little public hissy fits like a petulant child, and when a man continues to challenge him he just deletes the comments without ever engaging on the merits."<br /><br />Now that Stardusty has been banned from Prof. Feser's blog and his inane, kooky drivel relentlessly deleted, it is already noticeable a marked increase in average sanity and intellectual quality. The air just smells better, the world is a little less ugly.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3459248616422470732017-11-25T03:36:29.009-07:002017-11-25T03:36:29.009-07:00Stardusty: "There is no evidence for god, onl...Stardusty: "There is no evidence for god, only idle speculation based on ignorance."<br /><br /><b>ps 14:1<br /><br />200 studies in peer reviewed journals by social scientists aree taht:<br /><br />(1) RE is good for yiou<br /><br />(2) RE is universal to all cultures and faiths<br /><br />(3) coreligionist culturally bound and should not be universal yet it is,that's a good reason to think there is an external reality being experienced.<br /><br />(4)RE fits the criteria we use to make make epistemic judgement, thus can and should be trusted as a valid indication of reality<br /><br />those bits of evidence certainly warrant belief,any rational thinking person would have to accept that warrant is evidence,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5083241820777166352017-11-25T02:43:23.778-07:002017-11-25T02:43:23.778-07:00Stardusty: "There is no evidence for god, on...Stardusty: "There is no evidence for god, only idle speculation based on ignorance."<br /><br />Name what we don't know that would change things if we knew it.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24265661997403248682017-11-25T02:41:31.184-07:002017-11-25T02:41:31.184-07:00Stardusty: "The greatest thing in existence ...Stardusty: "The greatest thing in existence is invisible and scientifically undetectable?"<br /><br />There's not a single reason to believe that he should be detectable by science. There's a true statement for you to ponder.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "Right, science is limited in application to reality."<br /><br />Close. Science is limited to one aspect of reality, that which is detectable by current scientific methods. God, for those who think for themselves, would not be one of those things unless he chose to be.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "If god exists then god is natural and material"<br /><br />I assume nature is used synonymously with the universe, so God is not part of that by definition.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "Few can handle the truth."<br /><br />All assume themselves the bearers of the truth. Few can demonstrate it.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37363525524389875382017-11-25T01:04:17.249-07:002017-11-25T01:04:17.249-07:00Blogger Hugo Pelland said...
" You're...<br />Blogger Hugo Pelland said...<br /><br />" You're sick, delusional; seriously, get counselling"<br />--Hilarious.<br />Do they like you over at freethoughtblogs?<br /><br />On atheism there is no sound basis for objective morality. Deal with it, it's not difficult.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78002381828472224632017-11-25T00:36:42.114-07:002017-11-25T00:36:42.114-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
--Indeed, I get banned al...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />--Indeed, I get banned almost everyplace I go. Few can handle the truth. <br /><br />You're sick, delusional; seriously, get counselling or find a different hobby. It has nothing to do with what's true. Both people who agree and disagree with you say the same about YOU, the person behind that nickname you're using. You have something like a narcissistic personality disorder, or at least that's what you show online, behind your anonymity...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79864765032577454382017-11-25T00:20:39.268-07:002017-11-25T00:20:39.268-07:00Blogger bmiller said...
" whether theist or ...<br />Blogger bmiller said...<br /><br />" whether theist or atheist. He's been banned on both."<br />--Indeed, I get banned almost everyplace I go. Few can handle the truth.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7458003534896377362017-11-25T00:18:19.830-07:002017-11-25T00:18:19.830-07:00Zgob ermn said...
" 1. Stop making dogma...Zgob ermn said...<br /><br /><br />" 1. Stop making dogmatic statements like the ff.-- “Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream”"<br />--Why would I stop making true statements such as that? Where is this god of yours? The greatest thing in existence is invisible and scientifically undetectable? You live in your dreamworld, literally.<br /><br />"<br />2. Recognize that proper scientific method is limited in its range of application"<br />--Right, science is limited in application to reality. If you want to explore fantasy religion is one way to do so, science is not.<br /><br />"The monotheism of Judeo-Christianity speaks of a God that is ontologically utterly outside of (transcendent) nature,"<br />--Garbled nonsense.<br />If god exists then god is natural and material and does nothing to solve the great existential riddle.<br /><br />" theism, pantheism, panpsychism, vitalism or what have you. These explanations"<br />--Those are idle speculations of fantasy that explain nothing.<br /><br />" cold-case detective J Warner Wallace did this in his God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe"<br />--Cold case detectives use evidence. There is no evidence for god, only idle speculation based on ignorance.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51937095203283858132017-11-24T22:31:30.727-07:002017-11-24T22:31:30.727-07:00Hi bmiller,
Thanks for your comment. My intention...Hi bmiller,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. My intention was not to label you as worse than SP in general; I was referring to just that 1 comment that you happen to have written. So it's good to hear that you were merely replying to him the way he replies to you, as it indicates that you generally don't endorse his approach, regardless of whether you agree or not.<br /><br />However, you should re-read your last post. Are you suggesting to try to engage or ignore? You iterally said both! LoL<br /><br />But in any case, I totally get the last sentence: please don't mistake a rhetorical discussion for a dialectic discussion.<br />That's always good to keep in mind.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29956025603024851262017-11-24T20:19:54.227-07:002017-11-24T20:19:54.227-07:00@Hugo Pelland:
SP,
"WTF are you even talking...@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br /><b>SP,<br />"WTF are you even talking about?"<br />You. Just you. </b><br /><br />Hey. I get it that you think my responses to Strawdusty on that thread were over the top, but I invite you to keep trying to maintain a dialog with him and see where it leads you. How many times have you already had to repeat yourself?<br /><br />I can tell you that no matter how many times you try to explain a concept, he will not understand it while maintaining that he does. My advice to you is to just cease to engage with him. That is why most of people who host blog sites have chosen to do, whether theist or atheist. He's been banned on both.<br /><br />I still respond to him on that old thread in the same manner he responds to me. I'd rather keep the conversation confined to the dialectic rather than the rhetoric but that is not his preference. So I can either cease to interact with him or engage him on his own terms.<br /><br />So please don't mistake a rhetorical discussion for a dialectic discussion.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89740560653228653572017-11-24T19:35:41.264-07:002017-11-24T19:35:41.264-07:00Stardusty – “You are obviously unfamiliar with how...Stardusty – “You are obviously unfamiliar with how scientifically minded people think. Science is provisional.” There, there, Stardusty. It’s time to take your own medicine. <br /><br />1. Stop making dogmatic statements like the ff.-- “Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream”<br /><br /><br />2. Recognize that proper scientific method is limited in its range of application (as descriptive, dealing with natural phenomena), and not this be-all-end-all of knowledge (but if you’ve swallowed Rosenberg’s full-throated, full throttle scientism, then you’re a hopeless case).<br /><br />More sane science would be on the side of Medawar, “The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things – questions such as “How did everything begin?” “What are we all here for?” “What is the point of living?” (Sir Peter Medawar) <br /><br />The monotheism of Judeo-Christianity speaks of a God that is ontologically utterly outside of (transcendent) nature, though also intimately near (immanent) it as a spiritual presence. Thus, God is not a proper scientific hypothesis. The best that science can do is look at nature, follow the evidence as far as it can go. But when science reaches its proper limits, other cognitive tools must then be utilized to properly assess potential competing hypotheses for their explanatory power vis a vis nature. What is the best explanation? That explanation (outside of, but logically consistent with the scientific evidence) then is analyzed in the light of competing metaphysical worldviews eg., naturalism/reductive materialism, theism, pantheism, panpsychism, vitalism or what have you. These explanations then can become valid premises that can form as basis for a philosophical argument, say, for God’s existence. <br /><br />Among other good works, veteran cold-case detective J Warner Wallace did this in his God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (for a comprehensive summary, here http://www.apologetics315.com/2015/10/book-review-gods-crime-scene-by-j.html).<br /><br />Thus, science qua science can neither “prove” nor “disprove” God’s existence. To attempt to do so is sorely naïve, unsophisticated, and unnuanced. However, science can be utilized as one among the various cognitive tools available to gather evidence to form premises that either strengthen the case (a philosophical, metaphysical case) for God’s existence or nonexistence. <br /><br />There, there, Stardusty, take your medicine and start being “scientifically minded” and stop that bad habit of making such dogmatic statements about God’s nonexistence, e.g., “Your god is like all the other gods that were ever imagined, hiding, nowhere to be found but in a dream.”<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00689293754496932002noreply@blogger.com