tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5659799769651012438..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Exchange with David BrightlyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger287125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36497551051495600642017-02-02T04:01:21.477-07:002017-02-02T04:01:21.477-07:00Well spotted! No, it's a serious suggestion p...Well spotted! No, it's a serious suggestion put forward for rational evaluation by anyone interested in the AFR. Basically, that our minds reason correctly when our brains contain the right clockwork. Another day, perhaps, not halfway down the second page of comments!David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70612574074634191792017-01-24T18:01:41.622-07:002017-01-24T18:01:41.622-07:00Me: "bmiller reminded Psychotic Dust of a nec...<b>Me:</b> "<i>bmiller reminded Psychotic Dust of a necessary entailment of materialism (**), to wit: that all things -- including his and everyone else's actions and thoughts -- are mechanistically caused by prior physical states.</i>"<br /><br /><b>David Brightly:</b> "<i>And a jolly good thing that would be too. For if not we might well be in danger of thinking and doing all manner of nonsense.</i>"<br /><br />Mr Brightly's assertion is, of course, the polar opposite of the truth. And he knows it is false.<br /><br />'Atheists' -- every last one of them -- will *always* retreat into irrationality, and indeed, as here, into outright anti-rationality, so as to protect their God-denial from rational evaluation/criticism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77854534977902483072017-01-24T07:55:43.001-07:002017-01-24T07:55:43.001-07:00Cal: "Yup. Good to know that a dishonest att...Cal: "Yup. Good to know that a dishonest attempt at what -- smearing? -- is applauded by two other apologists, who no doubt pack themselves on their backs over the high ground afforded from their "belief system."<br /><br />Making up conversations and putting words in the apologists' mouths that they don't believe and would not ever say is one of your most common tactics. Is that tactic only acceptable against theists?<br /><br />From his writing style, I do think that SD has some good horsepower in his noggin. When you can drop the snark and gratuitous insults, I'd say the same for you. I'd be curious to see you guys in other topics, but I don't think religion is currently either of your areas to shine. The sheer number of incorrect notions proves that. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24319441576472107232017-01-23T08:37:02.170-07:002017-01-23T08:37:02.170-07:00Who's on first?Who's on first?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53345435807549761262017-01-23T06:58:04.591-07:002017-01-23T06:58:04.591-07:00SteveK: "Show me"
Show you what?SteveK: "Show me"<br /><br />Show you what? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32500548900828769382017-01-22T20:55:22.141-07:002017-01-22T20:55:22.141-07:00Because you made the claim. Show me. Because you made the claim. Show me. SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74800420447727272712017-01-22T20:26:26.392-07:002017-01-22T20:26:26.392-07:00stevek: "Explain it for me, Cal"
Why?stevek: "Explain it for me, Cal"<br /><br />Why? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9044252047559208702017-01-22T20:05:21.761-07:002017-01-22T20:05:21.761-07:00".. Your statement is like saying an automobi..."<i>.. Your statement is like saying an automobile runs in spite of the gasoline in its tank.</i>"<br /><br />More like, "Overall crime is down, <i>in spite of</i> all the criminals in jail or in prison."Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59692222240431017362017-01-22T19:41:53.761-07:002017-01-22T19:41:53.761-07:00Explain it for me, CalExplain it for me, CalSteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5531924437807709582017-01-22T19:27:32.312-07:002017-01-22T19:27:32.312-07:00SteveK: "Reads the same to me. Dusty just add...SteveK: "Reads the same to me. Dusty just added one more example he thought was the same. Not my words, his"<br /><br />Then you need to learn to read so as to understand what you read. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70700865486777270102017-01-22T16:29:49.162-07:002017-01-22T16:29:49.162-07:00Me: Your belief is irrational
Dusty: So is my lov...Me: Your belief is irrational <br />Dusty: So is my love of my wife and children. I'm OK with that. <br /><br />Reads the same to me. Dusty just added one more example he thought was the same. Not my words, hisSteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13050621059767569402017-01-22T14:08:22.884-07:002017-01-22T14:08:22.884-07:00Prokop: "The first Gospel to be written was M...Prokop: "The first Gospel to be written was Matthew."<br />Me, quoting Prokop: "The first Gospel to be written was Matthew."<br />Prokop: "'The first Gospel to be written was Matthew.' Those aren't my words. I was citing St. Jerome, as my posting makes abundantly clear."<br /><br />???????????????<br /><br />First off, ''The first Gospel to be written was Matthew" are your words. As in, you wrote them. If you want to say that someone else wrote them, or that perhaps St. Jerome logged onto your account and wrote them for you, then, well, that won't surprise me at this point. <br /><br />Prokop: "'So how is that me saying The Bible is what I say?"<br /><br />Because you've been telling us that the bible represents a pinnacle of literature (not one in 10 million can competently read it!) , how it is to be interpreted (not literally, except where you deem it to be literal), how its parts are to be related to one another (Matthew is the first Gospel, a silly assertion that is falsified by the most basic exegesis), etc. That's what it means to assert that your interpretation of what the bible represents, what it contains, which parts are true , etc., is what you say it is. Unless you want to tell us you are really kidding, and you don't know what the bible says. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15324349427840171142017-01-22T11:15:50.705-07:002017-01-22T11:15:50.705-07:00"The first Gospel to be written was Matthew.&...<i>"The first Gospel to be written was Matthew."</i><br /><br />Those aren't my words. I was citing St. Jerome, as my posting makes abundantly clear. So how is that me saying The Bible is what <i><b>I</b></i> say?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44796149210893736472017-01-22T09:32:47.149-07:002017-01-22T09:32:47.149-07:00Prokop: "The first Gospel to be written was M...Prokop: "The first Gospel to be written was Matthew."<br /><br />Prokop: "I never said The Bible is what I say it is. I never even thought such a thing."<br /><br />Not just a scold, but a self-delusional one at that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81685700358382202422017-01-22T07:52:09.771-07:002017-01-22T07:52:09.771-07:00"I never said The Bible is what I say it is. ...<i>"I never said The Bible is what I say it is. I never even thought such a thing."</i><br /><br />100 percent true - every word of it. <br /><br />Now I have no intention of continuing a battle over this foolishness. If you wish to believe a falsehood, then that's on your head. If you wish to purposefully misinterpret others' words, then be my guest. I've made myself clear, and there's no need to repeat myself endlessly for the benefit of those who willfully do not comprehend. Not gonna play that game; the floor is yours - have at it.<br /><br />And now.. I'm off to <a href="http://www.holyrosarypl.org/pl/" rel="nofollow">Sunday Mass</a>.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63747507368951074922017-01-22T07:42:11.775-07:002017-01-22T07:42:11.775-07:00The Original:
Stardusty: "Another approach is...The Original:<br />Stardusty: "Another approach is to form some fundamental postulates of morality from our innate social sensibilities and reason our way through the ramifications."<br />stevek: " This doesn't produce an obligation applicable to any human life."<br />Stardusty: That's correct. It produces a moral opinion of what I and others ought to do."<br />stevek: " What you're suggesting here is one of many, many different ways to live. Your belief is irrational."<br />Stardusty: "So is my love of my wife and children. I'm OK with that. "<br /><br />The stevek version, fobbed off as... what? <br />SteveK: "This doesn't produce an obligation applicable to any human life.<br />Dusty: That's correct.<br />SteveK: Your belief is irrational.<br />Dusty: I'm OK with that."<br />Stevke: I think my work is done here. Take note everyone."<br /><br />In response to the above ridiculous hack, fobbed off as a others also show their merit. <br /><br />Prokop: "Noted. Well done, "Boston Strong" (one of my favorite cities)."<br />bmiller: "Thanks. Good to know the self-identified belief system of whom you are engaging."<br /><br />Yup. Good to know that a dishonest attempt at what -- smearing? -- is applauded by two other apologists, who no doubt pack themselves on their backs over the high ground afforded from their "belief system."<br /><br />As much as I enjoy reaching his comments, I will now make the case that Stardusty may be wasting his teaching talents on the likes of this trio. The man has talent, and talent should be used where it can do more good. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23249951383713697952017-01-22T07:26:35.080-07:002017-01-22T07:26:35.080-07:00Prokop, saying that he knows how to correctly read...Prokop, saying that he knows how to correctly read the bible: "I see Stardusty is back on his fundamentalist bandwagon. As I said, for his way of reading the Scriptures to be the "correct" one, we'd all have to start looking for lions with some awfully peculiar dentures (Psalm 57:4). Or maybe we'd like to book a table at Chez Wisdom (Proverbs, Chapter 9)? I hear the bread and wine served there have earned the "Best of ..." award. / Give it up, Stardusty. No one takes your penchant for wooden literalism seriously."<br /><br />Prokop, not realizing he doesn't even think what he just said above: "I never said The Bible is what I say it is. I never even thought such a thing. ”Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11812978988289056952017-01-22T07:22:13.564-07:002017-01-22T07:22:13.564-07:00Prokop: “Cal, why are you forever putting words in...Prokop: “Cal, why are you forever putting words into other people's mouths? Especially since you always get them wrong! never said The Bible is what I say it is. I never even thought such a thing!”<br /><br />What? How can citing other people’s words be ‘putting words into other people's mouths?’ Oh, that’s right, in Prokop Bizzaro Land. <br /><br />Stardusty: “The Gospels are "childish" and only believable to the "credulous”.”<br />Prokop: “Answer: Not worthy of the dignity of a response.”<br />Prokop (further explicating what the bible is): “At such an age, barely hitting puberty and having none of the experiences of coming of age and adulthood, not one person in 10 million have what it takes to competently read any piece of literature as rich and complex as The Bible.<br /><br />Disputing that the gospels are childish and only believable to the credulous is saying that bible is what you say it is.<br /><br />Saying that the bible is so rich and complex that not one person in 10 million has what it takes to competently read it is saying what the bible is. <br /><br />Unless you think you’re not competent to state what the bible is. In which case you should correct your earlier statements. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88845931934842454212017-01-21T22:53:37.754-07:002017-01-21T22:53:37.754-07:00Blogger SteveK said...
" Me: This doesn&#...<br />Blogger SteveK said...<br /><br />" Me: This doesn't produce an obligation applicable to any human life.<br /> Dusty: That's correct.<br /><br /> Me: Your belief is irrational.<br /> Dusty: I'm OK with that.<br /><br /><br /> I think my work is done here. Take note everyone."<br /><br />Preposterous hack noted<br /><br />You are indeed done<br /><br /><br /> January 21, 2017 8:10 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91101934056619975522017-01-21T22:09:15.880-07:002017-01-21T22:09:15.880-07:00@SteveK,
Thanks. Good to know the self-identifie...@SteveK,<br /><br />Thanks. Good to know the self-identified belief system of whom you are engaging.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71336942403705367352017-01-21T20:33:19.823-07:002017-01-21T20:33:19.823-07:00Noted. Well done, "Boston Strong" (one ...Noted. Well done, "Boston Strong" (one of my favorite cities).B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91268628501936224152017-01-21T20:10:00.252-07:002017-01-21T20:10:00.252-07:00Me: This doesn't produce an obligation applica...Me: This doesn't produce an obligation applicable to any human life.<br />Dusty: That's correct.<br /><br />Me: Your belief is irrational.<br />Dusty: I'm OK with that.<br /><br /><br />I think my work is done here. Take note everyone.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65220203418630586632017-01-21T18:05:48.154-07:002017-01-21T18:05:48.154-07:00I see Stardusty is back on his fundamentalist band...I see Stardusty is back on his fundamentalist bandwagon. As I said, for his way of reading the Scriptures to be the "correct" one, we'd all have to start looking for lions with some awfully peculiar dentures (Psalm 57:4). Or maybe we'd like to book a table at Chez Wisdom (Proverbs, Chapter 9)? I hear the bread and wine served there have earned the "Best of ..." award.<br /><br />Give it up, Stardusty. No one takes your penchant for wooden literalism seriously.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32124464584877408472017-01-21T17:47:50.966-07:002017-01-21T17:47:50.966-07:00teveK said...
"Another approach is to fo...teveK said...<br /><br /> "Another approach is to form some fundamental postulates of morality from our innate social sensibilities and reason our way through the ramifications."<br /><br />" This doesn't produce an obligation applicable to any human life."<br />That's correct. It produces a moral opinion of what I and others ought to do.<br /><br />" What you're suggesting here is one of many, many different ways to live. Your belief is irrational."<br />So is my love of my wife and children. I'm OK with that. <br /><br /><br /> January 21, 2017 5:04 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27244045143510891822017-01-21T17:44:34.877-07:002017-01-21T17:44:34.877-07:00B. Prokop said...
" OK, so you assert (wi... B. Prokop said...<br /><br />" OK, so you assert (without evidence or argument) that the idea of original sin being empirically verifiable is "preposterous".<br /><br /> Why? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can you defend it, or do we just have your say-so?"<br />I admit I am somewhat flabbergasted by the question. I mean, you cannot be serious, can you be? Ok, here is one version of this doctrine, feel free to provide a better one.<br /><br />***Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.***<br /><br />So, by all means, please do provide the empirical verification for Adam and Eve, that garden of Eden, and how this fable is somehow a historical fact.<br /><br />Really? Adam and Eve, the garden, the tree of knowledge, the talking snake...empirically verifiable???<br /><br /><br /> January 21, 2017 4:04 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com