tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7979030910168203539..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Repent of your religious beliefs, or you are going straight to......the kid's tableVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17541799091061265772014-10-08T20:15:38.337-07:002014-10-08T20:15:38.337-07:00What I implied, I-S, is that Stenger has a motivat...What I implied, I-S, is that Stenger has a motivation for using force to suppress religious belief. Christianity doesn't teach that violence should be used to suppress opposing beliefs, but it is quite true that people who think that there is a great deal of stake in maintaining a particular religion have a motive for using force if the opportunity presents itself. <br /><br />Christianity also, it seems to me provides the basis for arguments against using force on its behalf. <br /><br />Of course, I can't be sure what people would do in a situation that they do not in fact find themselves in. Stenger seems to think unbelief is winning, so violence won't be necessary, as it was not necessary in the European countries that serve as his example. But I hear from people like him a kind of urgency about winning people for unbelief that goes like this: <br /><br />"We are on the cusp of history. We can either abandon faith and embrace science, or we can hold on to faith and retreat to a new dark age. Everything depends on which way we turn at this critical time in history. That is why we have to work hard to achieve the end of faith, so the new Golden Age can be inaugurated, as opposed to a retreat into the benighted past."<br /><br />When someone acts like this, I have to wonder what they would NOT do to make sure we turn the right way, if they were given the opportunity. On what basis would they refuse to use whatever power they had at their disposal to make sure we abandon faith. It seems to me that such people have the motive in spades. What would happen if they had the means and opportunity, to become the atheist equivalents of Grand Inquisitors? The fact that they don't advocate the use of force is not very comforting, since they don't have the means to use force if they wanted to. The fact that some of them already advocate treating those they disagree with in ways that remind me a lot of the schoolyard bullies I dealt with in grade school is even less reassuring. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76854092552904663402014-10-06T12:41:29.943-07:002014-10-06T12:41:29.943-07:00Im-thickheaded,
If it's an honest post, I'...Im-thickheaded,<br /><br />If it's an honest post, I'll read it objectively and respond in kind.<br /><br />And by the way, why <i>should</i> I "give it a rest"? You made a slanderous accusation without foundation, and we're all supposed to just sit around nodding our heads? If you've got real evidence, then show it!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62310799507652094632014-10-06T12:10:36.909-07:002014-10-06T12:10:36.909-07:00Since Bob refuses to give it a rest, I will make a...Since Bob refuses to give it a rest, I will make a series of posts on my blog on biblical alterations. Watch for it. However, if you are a good Catholic who places <a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2014/07/mcgrew-and-boghossian-debate-on-faith.html" rel="nofollow">faith above evidence and reason</a>, don't expect any of this to shatter your belief.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9624118734343758352014-10-05T16:39:27.072-07:002014-10-05T16:39:27.072-07:00People! Before you dismiss Ilion's latest comm...People! Before you dismiss Ilion's latest comment as something of no importance, think again. Ilion (rightfully) equates im-gullible's slander against the Early Church with a lie about what he terms the "One True Bureaucracy" (a.k.a., the Catholic Church). In other words, Ilion acknowledges that the Early Church is <i>synonymous</i> with Catholicism.<br /><br />Thank you, Ilion, for that valuable clarification. See? We <b>do</b> agree on some things!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2674671174636276922014-10-05T16:31:32.249-07:002014-10-05T16:31:32.249-07:00At least we agree that it was a lie.At least we agree that it was a lie.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27460131163362165592014-10-05T10:44:14.725-07:002014-10-05T10:44:14.725-07:00Of course, it's *also* a crying shame that B.P...Of course, it's *also* a crying shame that B.Prokop won't tell us <i>why</i> I-pretend's lie about The One True Bureaucracy was so egregious.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37527691667207018342014-10-05T06:17:28.892-07:002014-10-05T06:17:28.892-07:00"It's a shame that you won't honestly..."<i>It's a shame that you won't honestly discuss</i>"<br /><br />No, it's a shame that <b>you</b> still will not "honestly" either cough up the evidence for your accusation that the Early Church somehow modified scripture to conform with doctrine, or retract the accusation.<br /><br />We're still waiting. C'mon, you made the statement, and you apparently believe it. So it ought to be easy. All you have to do is <br /><br />a) Identify the portion of scripture that has been modified to comply with Church dogma (chapter and verse, please).<br /><br />b) Give us the "before" version, so we can confirm that it has actually been modified.<br /><br />c) Explain what dogma is being complied with by said modification.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50769010297347344222014-10-04T17:27:58.330-07:002014-10-04T17:27:58.330-07:00You clearly implied that Stenger would advocate th...You clearly implied that Stenger would advocate the use of force if given the opportunity, and that's exactly the way your followers understood it. I quoted you and your followers accurately. It's a shame that you won't honestly discuss what Stenger was saying.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6158636183058820762014-10-02T09:30:06.354-07:002014-10-02T09:30:06.354-07:00On I'm-skeptical, I hope somebody noticed that...On I'm-skeptical, I hope somebody noticed that I never said that Stenger advocated the use of force, or Stalinism. What I said was that he has the same motives for supporting religious suppression that a Christian might have for suppressing atheism or anything else they might oppose. One actually has to be in a position of power for this to be a temptation. <br /><br />You need something more than religion to have a basis for violence. You have to conclude that the end justifies the means. And there are religious arguments against this sort of use of force. What I asked was on what basis would he turn down an opportunity to use force. I think the answer is that he thinks that secularism will prevail without forcing the issue. But, he thinks it could be too late, so this may not be clear. <br /><br />And when you hear "There religious people are refusing to reason, so something has to be done about them." what would that something have to be? Social stigmatization, perhaps, but that to me is a kind of bullying. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43742828218529302912014-09-17T05:02:55.286-07:002014-09-17T05:02:55.286-07:00"I think it best to let Ilion write what he t..."<i>I think it best to let Ilion write what he thinks</i>"<br /><br />Hah! As if anyone could stop him!<br /><br />As for my mannerly criticism of his occasional opining, remember that Ilion's the guy who cheerfully calls me "bloody-minded leftist" and "apologist for mass murderers" at the drop of a hat. I think he can take whatever I say about him.<br /><br />"As ye judge, so shall ye be judged."B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70862374667997225512014-09-16T22:37:52.053-07:002014-09-16T22:37:52.053-07:00“Addition” “edition”…and all the other typos. Geez...“Addition” “edition”…and all the other typos. Geez o man, maybe I should stick to talking to people instead of typing.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222419875209542723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77471966965321441382014-09-16T22:12:15.302-07:002014-09-16T22:12:15.302-07:00Bob,
I think it best to let Ilion write what he t...Bob,<br /><br />I think it best to let Ilion write what he thinks on the three topics you mentioned. Let him write his thoughts and let us give consideration. He's a smart guy and I don't think your summary does justice to his thinking.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222419875209542723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19611806086682715582014-09-16T20:35:30.501-07:002014-09-16T20:35:30.501-07:00You are correct, Dave, in thinking that I have Goo...You are correct, Dave, in thinking that I have Good Thoughts about much of what Ilion has to say most of the time. He does, however, have a few blind spots:<br /><br />1. Catholicism. He has a tragically skewed perception of the Church, probably attributable to some biased and largely untruthful information he soaked up in his presumably Protestant upbringing.<br /><br />2. Politics. He is a fanatic ideologue when it come to his view that government is always and everywhere an evil, and that anyone who disagrees with him is "bloody minded".<br /><br />3. Women. Ilion is an unapologetic advocate of male supremacy and domination.<br /><br />On all three of these subjects, Ilion cannot seem to bring himself to write objectively. But on most other matters, he is remarkably insightful, and I appreciate his commentary.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87087338640200868292014-09-16T19:31:48.422-07:002014-09-16T19:31:48.422-07:00Ilion,
Thanks for the forthright response. My lif...Ilion,<br /><br />Thanks for the forthright response. My life, and certainly my business would be easier if people would say what is on their mind. Although, I’ll admit to appreciate some of the pleasantries and manners of social interaction which make dealing with people daily a bit more tolerable.<br /><br />It was a good exercise for me to pull my dictionary from the shelf to look up the contested word. Most words I use I have not actually looked up in the dictionary and are probably defined in my mind by some sort of osmosis. Currently, when I run across a word I don’t know, I usually google it for a definition.<br /> <br />You are right, my dictionary is newer than your 1964 (or earlier) addition. Mine is COPYRIGHT 2002 BY MERRIAM WEBSTER, INCORPORATED. I know I had an earlier addition when I was in college, but I don’t know what happened to it. My dictionary is also honkin’ big: 9 ½” x 13” and 3 ¾” thick (because of the nature of my business I always carry a tape measure in my pocket) and 2662 pages of small print (not counting the brief biography of Mr. Webster on the unnumbered final page). <br />Small print is hard for me to read at my age, but on page 471: con-cil-ia-to-ry…adj: tending to conciliate...<br />Not much help<br /><br />Con-cil-iate…to gain (as goodwill or favor) by pleasing acts<br /><br />The definition is clear. The application is more subjective. I don’t know the full history or your dispute with Bob, but my own subjective application of the word brings to mind Bob recommending you (as I remember) to your intellectual opponents as having ideas worth consideration, praising your thoughts on the faith, asking about things you have proposed to write. I interpreted this as trying to gain goodwill.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222419875209542723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86445240059351271342014-09-16T10:00:22.594-07:002014-09-16T10:00:22.594-07:00Oh, this is rich! Ilion is the gift that keeps on ...Oh, this is rich! Ilion is the gift that keeps on giving. Out of one side of his mouth, he claims to be for "maximizing individual liberty" whilst with the other side (of apparently one and the same orifice) he accuses anyone who does not share his fanaticism about politics as having "no moral center".<br /><br />No, Ilion, I unabashedly change my politics more often than I do my underwear (and for much the same reasons), because <i>by its very nature</i> politics is temporal, a characteristic of this transient world. In many, many cases, what is necessary one year is precisely what ought to be avoided in the next. (The famous lines in Ecclesiastes about there being "a time for war and a time for peace" etc. come to mind here.<br /><br />Nothing bugs me more than when the charge of "flip flopping" is brought against this or that politician, whether it be John Kerry or Mitt Romney. Heck, the ability to change one's mind and to adapt to changing circumstances ought to be regarded as a positive. Instead, we so often stupidly demand from our public figures that they never contradict themselves, even over a period of decades. What insanity!<br /><br />In contrast, Ilion proudly clings to the same position year after year, caring not one whit whether it actually reflects objective reality. I.e., sometimes government action is a great force for Good, and at others for Evil. You have to decide which it is on a case by case basis, and not by means of some hidebound, inflexible ideology. Politics is <b>not</b> the art of what's <i>right</i>, but of what <i>works</i>.<br /><br />Also, Ilion cannot stand that I quite correctly accused him (I still do) of subscribing to <b>Hell's Own Governing Constitution</b>. Ilion basically believes in Ayn Randianism without the atheism. He really needs to take a good look at his fellow travelers and decide whether he wants to be associated with people who proclaim the "virtue of selfishness" as the Highest Good.<br /><br />Yet despite all this, Ilion remains my brother in the Faith. I emphatically reject the confining strictures of "Christianity and...". You can be a Christian and a Republican, Democrat, monarchist, fascist, anarchist, feudalist, heck, even a communist... as long as you put Christianity first and not dependent on what temporal political views you or someone else might hold.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89635878635797671942014-09-16T09:07:12.489-07:002014-09-16T09:07:12.489-07:00Dave Duffy: "Bob seems to be conciliatory ......<b>Dave Duffy:</b> "<i>Bob seems to be conciliatory ...</i>"<br /><br />Perhaps we're connected to different internets? Or maybe you're using a newer Webster's than I am (*).<br /><br /><b>Dave Duffy:</b> "<i> ... and admits his own honest inconsistency on politics.</i>"<br /><br />He claims (as of this week) to "change his politics like he changes his clothes" -- <i>which claim is, of itself, indicative of someone without a moral center</i>, for politics is inseperable from morality: politics *just is* the art of collectively imposing our moral understanding(s) upon one another. This is true not only in a constitutional republic, but in all other forms of government and mis-government.<br /><br />Yet, for all his supposed indecisiveness about (and indifference to) politics, he consistently comes down in support of leftism. For all his supposed indecisiveness about (and indifference to) politics, he has no hesitancy about calling me demonic because I oppose all the tentacles of leftism; he has no difficulty in -- in the grand tradition of leftism of ascribing leftist faults to anti-leftists, and then condemning the anti-leftists for the faults that are not even theirs -- of accusing *me* of advocating Something Else and then falsely calling it Christianity.<br /><br /><br /><b>Dave Duffy:</b> "<i>He is also our brother and a defender of our faith.</i>"<br /><br />It is logically impossible that he is my brother in Christ (**) or a defender of <i>my</i> faith. <i>My</i> faith does not allow me to temporize on abortion, nor to support any politician or party which either supports abortion or temporizes on it ... NOR to pretend Christian fellowship with anyone who supports abortion either directly or indirectly (for instance, by supporting the leftist party).<br /><br />*He* claims that my understanding of the intersection of Christianity and politics in a constitutional republic -- maximize individual liberty; minimize governmental intereference in the lives of its citizens so that the state (***) cannot even think about attempting to usurp God's throne -- is anti-Christian.<br /><br />*I* claim that his (purported) understanding of the intersection of Christianity and politics in a constitutional republic -- minimize individual liberty; maximize governmental intereference in the lives of its subjects to the point that The State (***) naturally, by the very nature of government, attempts to usurp God's throne -- is anti-Christian.<br /><br />Both those claims cannot be correct. But, as chance would have it, I happen to be correct, and he happens to be incorrect.<br /><br />Let him repent of his leftism, and then, <i>only then</i>, can we consider that he may be my brother and a defender of my faith.<br /><br /><br />(*) Mine was a gift in 1964 or so ... and let me tell you how excited I was as a pre-teen to receive a honkin' big dictionary as a birthday gift!<br /><br />(**) I could wish it otherwise, but truth is truth.<br /><br />(***) which, of course, means those few individuals who control the stateIlíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24908732498058892662014-09-15T04:25:18.834-07:002014-09-15T04:25:18.834-07:00"So what gives?"
What gives, is that by..."<i>So what gives?</i>"<br /><br />What gives, is that by all appearances, Ilion believes in what C.S. Lewis termed "Christianity and..." Lewis explained in his book <i>The Screwtape Letters</i> that whenever a person believes in Christianity and Something Else, such as socialism, or pacifism, or vegetarianism, or (in Ilion's case) some sort of <i>uber</i>-libertarian hatred of all government, then the "and" will inevitably become the most important thing to that person, with Christianity just along for the ride.<br /><br />So to Ilion I have committed the supreme sin of not sharing his absolute detestation of government. In his eyes, being a "brother and a defender of our faith" is of infinitely less importance.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7693053504564192212014-09-14T18:47:11.639-07:002014-09-14T18:47:11.639-07:00Ilion,
I admire your desire for intellectual inte...Ilion,<br /><br />I admire your desire for intellectual integrity and your forceful defense of the faith. I don’t understand your condemnation of B. Prokop. Bob seems to be conciliatory and admits his own honest inconsistency on politics. So what gives? He is also our brother and a defender of our faith. <br />David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222419875209542723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28623893533879736562014-09-14T18:45:56.641-07:002014-09-14T18:45:56.641-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Duffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222419875209542723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14850236440308566012014-09-13T11:25:59.810-07:002014-09-13T11:25:59.810-07:00"it's not about Jonah. As I've alread..."<i>it's not about Jonah. As I've already said, it's about you</i>"<br /><br />It's about<i><b>me</b></i>??? Well then, forget it! Anything about <i>me</i> is gonna be a real snooze-fest.<br /><br />Jonah, however, is interesting.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48372640987022356832014-09-13T10:15:54.842-07:002014-09-13T10:15:54.842-07:00Ilion,
I'm not attempting to discredit anythi...Ilion,<br /><br />I'm not attempting to discredit anything. I'm merely pointing out that an important part of your argument actually isn't valid. Your argument discredits itself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59074096093044906202014-09-13T09:01:10.782-07:002014-09-13T09:01:10.782-07:00"Also, I still haven't begun a post meant..."<i>Also, I still haven't begun a post meant as a further explanation of this comment about evolutionism</i>"<br /><br />Oh, good grief! Once again, who cares? You honestly think this is worth a nanosecond of your time? I weep for the brain activity wasted over fretting about such a non-issue. I mean, really! To quote a contemporary political figure, "At this point, what difference does it make?" Seriously, what depends on how this works out? (<i>answer: nothing</i>) What does it change? (<i>answer: once again, nothing</i>) Who is affected? (<i>third time's the charm: nobody!</i>)<br /><br />I always find myself looking around for some convenient toothpick to prop up my eyelids whenever this subject comes around. Yawn...!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58165842456653900062014-09-13T08:40:18.925-07:002014-09-13T08:40:18.925-07:00"OK, so I wrote "treatise" when I s..."<i>OK, so I wrote "treatise" when I should have written "screed". And you did say you were working on one.</i>"<br /><br />"Screed" or "treatise", it's not about Jonah. As I've already said, it's about you: it's about your hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. And, as I've also said, that sort of thing bores me ... so making myself do it is a real chore.<br /><br />"<i>Way to get our expectations up!</i>"<br /><br />I still haven't finished my analysis of Dan Gillson's feeble attempt at discrediting my "<i>*you* are the proof that God is</i>" argument. And that's more important than showing -- once again -- that you are intellectually dishonest about politics.<br /><br />Also, I still haven't begun a post meant as a further explanation of <a href="http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/07/no_virginia_science_has_not_de.html#comment-293265" rel="nofollow">this comment</a> about evolutionism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73679419539418529762014-09-13T08:17:41.395-07:002014-09-13T08:17:41.395-07:00OK, so I wrote "treatise" when I should ...OK, so I wrote "treatise" when I should have written "screed". And you did say you were working on one. Way to get our expectations up!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5293880748346296242014-09-13T08:03:32.386-07:002014-09-13T08:03:32.386-07:00So, yeah, Bob Prokop doesn't want to discuss p...So, yeah, Bob Prokop doesn't want to <i>discuss</i> politics. He never did, ever, <i>discuss</i> political matters. What he wants to do -- all he has ever done -- is to <i>assert</i> leftist talking-points, and <i>assert</i> that it is <i>immoral</i> to oppose leftist nostrums, and hen <i>assert</i> his moral superiority in refusing to examine whether his prior assertions can stand up to critical scrutiny.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com