tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6618210214226201507..comments2024-03-28T11:25:20.916-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Utilitarianism and racial justiceVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger165125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-168100570530392792014-02-22T05:44:14.507-07:002014-02-22T05:44:14.507-07:00"Really? That's all it took[?]"
Naw..."<i>Really? That's all it took[?]</i>"<br /><br />Naw, I just did it for the Greater Good. It was the <i>utilitarian</i> thing to do.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16302016930161917642014-02-22T01:49:34.384-07:002014-02-22T01:49:34.384-07:00"Now don't make me have to recant my prev..."<i>Now don't make me have to recant my previous comment! </i>"<br /><br />Really? That's all it took -- me explaining that, and <i>how</i>, you are wrong about me?<br /><br />Well, I, for one, thank you for sharing this important knowledge about your psyche with us all.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74801643163458247122014-02-21T20:20:02.406-07:002014-02-21T20:20:02.406-07:00Interesting Paps you citing a supporter of Ayn Ran...Interesting Paps you citing a supporter of Ayn Rand?<br /><br />Well that is a small improvement over the other shit you cut and paste. Objectivists are broadly Aristotelian thought their Nietzschean existentialist views undercut it considering existentialism as a philosophy rejects rationalism. <br /><br />Still Ayn Rand and Objectivism? I guess that new Right Wing Prime Minister of Australia is rubbing off on you?<br /><br />Fascinating! Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15934516840052564152014-02-21T19:21:23.159-07:002014-02-21T19:21:23.159-07:00planks,
"ALL logic and reason is based on un...planks,<br /><br />"ALL logic and reason is based on unproven/unprovable assumptions, axioms, postulates, definitions, whatever you wish to call them. So is mathematics."<br /><br />Right you are. The question here is whether those assumptions are grounded in reality. An axiom is generally regarded as being self-evident. That's not the case with Thomistic assumptions. They may seem that way to a theist, but if you don't start from a theistic position, they are simply baseless.<br /><br />As an example, the teleological argument assumes a purposeful design, and concludes that the designer is God. Of course the conclusion is logical. How could you conclude anything else, when the existence of the designer is built into the assumption? But if the world hasn't been designed, if things are the way they are for no particular purpose, what becomes of the argument? im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65978977228784727262014-02-21T16:39:37.810-07:002014-02-21T16:39:37.810-07:00Plank says: "I challenge you to find even on...Plank says: <i>"I challenge you to find even one instance of St. Thomas departing from strict logic. You won't, because he never does. You may disagree with his conclusions - that's fine - but what you cannot say is that he arrived at them by violating logic."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp" rel="nofollow">This is perhaps the most powerful and formidable treatise</a> yet on why the wholly misplaced reliance on Aquinas when taken out of its 13thC context and the misconstrued christian rendition of Aristotelian philosophy in order to prop up the christian mythos. In part it reads:<br /><br /><i>"Theology is the purest expression of rationalism in the sense of proceeding by logical deduction from premises ungrounded in observable fact—deduction without reference to reality. The so-called “thinking” involved here is purely formal, observationally baseless, devoid of facts, cut off from reality. Thomas Aquinas, for example, was history’s foremost expert regarding the field of “angelology.” No one could match his “knowledge” of angels, and he devoted far more of his massive Summa Theologica to them than to physics.<br />Here is the tragedy of theology in its distilled essence: The employment of high-powered human intellect, of genius, of profoundly rigorous logical deduction—studying nothing. In the Middle Ages, the great minds capable of transforming the world did not study the world; and so, for most of a millennium, as human beings screamed in agony—decaying from starvation, eaten by leprosy and plague, dying in droves in their twenties—the men of the mind, who could have provided their earthly salvation, abandoned them for otherworldly fantasies."</i><br /><br />The point is not about departing from logic but rather the veridical status of the initial premise. The deeper the investigation into Thomist philosophy and its antecedent christian theological base, the weakness in the arguments simply unravel before us. Despite the sterling efforts of the Starks, Fesers and Plantingas, most sections of the community at all levels are now rightly questioning christianity's fundamentals and finding them unhelpful, questionable and highly problematic as an explanatory framework going forward. <br /><br />And that is to be expected as society becomes more educated, knowledgeable and experienced in skeptical inquiry and critical thinking. And that's a good thing. <br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70677464530729612732014-02-21T15:53:25.413-07:002014-02-21T15:53:25.413-07:00>What is taught in scripture cannot be assumed ...>What is taught in scripture cannot be assumed to be true. What is not taught in scripture cannot be assumed to be false. <br /><br />Who gives a rat's behind wither or not Scripture is true or not?<br /><br />Practically speaking if I am going to critique a Shia Muslim's understanding of the Koran(a book I don't believe in) I will be frakked if I talk to him like he is a freaking Sunni or Wahhabi Muslim.<br /><br />They interpret the Koran differently.<br /><br />I am not going to waste time smacking a Platonic Atheist and Property dualist upside the head with anti-materialism and materialist monist polemics. <br /><br />Geez why is this bit of common sense hard for you people?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36423392327482865162014-02-21T15:42:25.436-07:002014-02-21T15:42:25.436-07:00Ben,
No prob, bro. I know a lot less than I give ...Ben,<br /><br />No prob, bro. I know a lot <i>less</i> than I give myself credit for.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49082399913291284312014-02-21T15:40:46.139-07:002014-02-21T15:40:46.139-07:00I apologize PL.
You know more then I gave your cr...I apologize PL.<br /><br />You know more then I gave your credit so I want to acknowledge that here.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5493592266439724902014-02-21T15:38:32.322-07:002014-02-21T15:38:32.322-07:00>Of course, when Ben writes "your" wh...>Of course, when Ben writes "your" when he means "you're", he kind of destroys the point he was trying to make.<br /><br />For years I absolutely own the brute fact that more often then not my grammar and spelllling suck.<br /><br />I don't pretend otherwise.<br /><br />A fundamentalist or a Gnu is a person who spells a word wrong and instead of owning up to it claims the dictionary is mistaken. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91360820374082088142014-02-21T15:36:11.861-07:002014-02-21T15:36:11.861-07:00"assumptions that constitute the premises of ..."<i>assumptions that constitute the premises of his arguments</i>"<br /><br />im-skeptical, <b>ALL</b> logic and reason is based on unproven/unprovable assumptions, axioms, postulates, definitions, whatever you wish to call them. So is mathematics. I remember quite well in my high school geometry class being told that the definitions and axioms we had to memorize were not provable, but without them, we could not get anywhere. So just calling an assumption "invalid" (a statement which is itself an unprovable assumption) is not a refutation of any logical argument made upon that assumption. Just read up on how various non-Euclidean geometries were arrived at - they just changed the going-in assumptions.<br /><br />"<i>are not based on any kind of evidence</i>"<br /><br />Nor do they need to be, in order to be logically consistent. You are quite confused about your terms. I am aware that you wrote you did not wish to get into "<i>quibbling about the meaning of the terms I used</i>", but gosh-darn it, man, if you're going to criticize somebody's <i>logic</i>, then you absolutely <b>must</b> get your terms straight.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41904901625507191472014-02-21T15:28:26.978-07:002014-02-21T15:28:26.978-07:00>one definition of fundamentalist: strict adher...>one definition of fundamentalist: strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles<br /><br />Which in effect condemns all people of conviction everywhere in all things.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33028297131059503892014-02-21T15:26:11.631-07:002014-02-21T15:26:11.631-07:00PL
Look at Skept's response to you.
He doesn...PL<br /><br />Look at Skept's response to you.<br /><br />He doesn't know how to answer your question he is phoning it in taking advantage of gaps in your knowledge of Thomism trying to fool you.<br /><br />Heck he thinks Aristotle's motus is synonymous with Newton's momentum.<br /><br />He couldn't even tell I was making fun of the YEC.<br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84132861899798999792014-02-21T15:19:22.778-07:002014-02-21T15:19:22.778-07:00>I will agree that Ben is overly-dogmatic about...>I will agree that Ben is overly-dogmatic about Thomism.<br /><br />Slander and from a brother in Christ how disappointing.<br /><br />FYI I absolutely believe Molinists, Augustinians and the followers of Dun Scotus have an equal claim on Catholic orthodoxy as any Thomist or Banezien.<br /><br />A fundametalist is primarily anti-rational and dogmatic.<br /><br />A fundamentalist is someone who holds to their irrational arguments at all cost even at the expense of their rational truth.<br /><br />For the sake of argument let us say no concept of divinity is in fact true(i.e. there is no god(s)).<br /><br />Neither Skept nor Francis have given any intelligent criticisms of the Classic proposition that they believe contradicts reality.<br /><br />All their "arguments" are at best non-starters at worst argumentative fallacies.<br /><br />They seem to think like your average Gnu that mere denial of God suddenly conveys instantaneous rationality and skill in critical thinking.<br /><br />Well it doesn't & I don't tier of pointing out that fact. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8434509492791821072014-02-21T15:06:15.285-07:002014-02-21T15:06:15.285-07:00"I challenge you to find even one instance of..."I challenge you to find even one instance of St. Thomas departing from strict logic. You won't, because he never does. You may disagree with his conclusions - that's fine - but what you cannot say is that he arrived at them by violating logic."<br /><br />He arrived at his absurd conclusions by making invalid assumptions that constitute the premises of his arguments. The foundations upon which Thomistic logic rest are not based on any kind of evidence. They either assume a God and the properties of that God, or they define the parameters of the argument in such a way that they could only lead to the necessary existence of a God. Then those assumptions are used as a basis to "prove" this God's existence.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20521410352641334362014-02-21T14:57:55.376-07:002014-02-21T14:57:55.376-07:00That we don't know what Jesus said is not my a...That we don't know what Jesus said is not my argument. It was just a clarification of my position.<br /><br /><i>The idea scripture is plain is not taught in Scripture and contradicts many Scriptures. It was made up by a German Catholic Priest named Luther.</i><br /><br />What is taught in scripture cannot be assumed to be true. What is not taught in scripture cannot be assumed to be false. <br /><br /><i>Stop arguing like a Catholic</i><br /><br />In order to argue like a Catholic, you must first argue. Argue like a Catholic, argue like a Mormon, argue like a Jew, but argue! All you are doing is trotting out a bunch of averments, unsupported by anything except appeals to authority, which...<br /><br /><i> Wait a minute! Of course! You ARE arguing like a Catholic! That's exactly what you're doing! It's all clear now! OK Ben, you have your little self-supporting rants, away in Catholicland. I'll just leave you get to on with it.</i> franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1055069084911366662014-02-21T14:52:44.198-07:002014-02-21T14:52:44.198-07:00Before we get into quibbling about the meaning of ...Before we get into quibbling about the meaning of the terms I used ...<br /><br />one definition of fundamentalist: strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles<br /><br />one defintion of positivist: the state or quality of being positive; definiteness; assurance<br /><br />(both from dictionary.com)<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2721422313198689312014-02-21T14:49:49.656-07:002014-02-21T14:49:49.656-07:00im-skeptical,
I will agree that Ben is overly-dog...im-skeptical,<br /><br />I will agree that Ben is overly-dogmatic about Thomism. Where I don't agree is that there are any logical absurdities in Thomism to be blind about. And you should realize that too. There are certainly things one can disagree with Thomas about (as I do), but one of them is not the logic he employs. That's pretty much bulletproof.<br /><br />I challenge you to find even one instance of St. Thomas departing from strict logic. You won't, because he never does. You may disagree with his conclusions - that's fine - but what you cannot say is that he arrived at them by violating logic.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12031741366127895072014-02-21T14:45:00.623-07:002014-02-21T14:45:00.623-07:00A fundamentalist is not a dogmatist. The latter is...A fundamentalist is not a dogmatist. The latter is to truth as poverty is to Christianity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36524759244245991902014-02-21T14:38:56.010-07:002014-02-21T14:38:56.010-07:00planks,
You are correct. But you must understand...planks,<br /><br />You are correct. But you must understand that Ben is no less a fundamentalist than the people he rails against. In fact I would venture to say he is the biggest fundie/positivist here. His brand of fundamentalism is called Thomism. His field of view is so narrow that he can see nothing else, and he is absolutely blind to its logical absurdities.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52007105881041856802014-02-21T14:18:04.353-07:002014-02-21T14:18:04.353-07:00im-skeptical,
Loathe as I am to step into the mid...im-skeptical,<br /><br />Loathe as I am to step into the middle of this spit fight, I have to point out that Ben was trying to show how stupid YEC proponents could sound. Those lines were not meant to be taken seriously. Right before the part you quoted, he wrote this: "<i>Your</i> (sic) <i>like the YEC who says dumb shit like this</i>"<br /><br />Of course, when Ben writes "your" when he means "you're", he kind of destroys the point he was trying to make.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40334751723840696562014-02-21T13:54:32.357-07:002014-02-21T13:54:32.357-07:00"Oh Evolution!
The doctrine that says things..."Oh Evolution!<br /><br />The doctrine that says things get better when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says they get worst!<br /><br />The doctrine that says Apes give birth to humans when we have never seen that happen!<br /><br />The doctrine refuted by irreducible complexity!<br /><br />The doctrine Darwin himself repudiated on his death bed when he accepted Jesus!END"<br /><br />And you call me ignorant.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35018686185776150402014-02-21T12:19:27.234-07:002014-02-21T12:19:27.234-07:00Oh, and I should have added - unless one knows New...Oh, and I should have added - unless one knows New Testament Greek (I do not) then even in the best of cases, all we as English speakers have are translations of translations. And if your translation is the Douay-Rheims, then you're dealing with a translation of a translation of a translation.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16505330889091972382014-02-21T12:14:08.843-07:002014-02-21T12:14:08.843-07:00@Skept
>The one who is simple but complex.
&g...@Skept<br /><br />>The one who is simple but complex.<br /><br />>The one who is not personal except when he is personal.<br /><br />>The one who is an agent and who knows right from wrong, but doesn't take responsibility for his actions.<br /><br />>The one who made us what we are - made us to be sinful and rebellious - and then punishes us for acting in accordance with our nature.<br /><br />No the one described by the Bible, Tradition, Augustine, Pseudo-Denys, Aquinas, Anselm, Maimonides, Davis and Feser etc.<br /><br />You know the one you refuse to learn anything about?<br /><br />Geez Skept. Your like the YEC who says dumb shit like this:<br /><br />Oh Evolution!<br /><br />The doctrine that says things get better when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says they get worst! <br /><br />The doctrine that says Apes give birth to humans when we have never seen that happen!<br /><br />The doctrine refuted by irreducible complexity!<br /><br />The doctrine Darwin himself repudiated on his death bed when he accepted Jesus!END<br /><br />You know dumb shit?<br /><br />Really Skept would your brain melt if you got out of your Positivist Fundie bubble and learned some philosophy?<br /><br />Would it?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27824430544407573252014-02-21T11:54:17.766-07:002014-02-21T11:54:17.766-07:00"Attack the God I believe in ..."
The o..."Attack the God I believe in ..."<br /><br />The one who is simple but complex.<br /><br />The one who is not personal except when he is personal.<br /><br />The one who is an agent and who knows right from wrong, but doesn't take responsibility for his actions.<br /><br />The one who made us what we are - made us to be sinful and rebellious - and then punishes us for acting in accordance with our nature.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50653438330159176912014-02-21T11:31:54.931-07:002014-02-21T11:31:54.931-07:00"I don't know what Jesus said and neither..."<i>I don't know what Jesus said and neither do you.</i>"<br /><br />Only half true. In most instances, it is probable that the original words of Christ were spoken in Aramaic, and what is recorded is a translation into Greek of what He actually said. As anyone will agree who's ever studied a foreign language, it's often impossible to reproduce the precise meaning of a word or phrase from one language to another.<br /><br />There are at least three instances where the Gospels do record the original words of Jesus (Matthew 27:46, Mark 5:41, Mark 8:34). There may be more, but these are all I can think of at the moment.<br /><br />Another real possibility (but only a possibility) is the interrogation by Pilate. It is nearly certain that Pilate knew Greek, as would any educated Roman official serving in the Eastern half of the Empire. And I've read more than one Biblical scholar assert that Jesus very likely knew Greek as well. So it's not impossible that we have the exact, original words of Christ to Pilate.<br /><br />But for everything else, all we have are translations.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.com