Karma

[Sebastian Toe]

Seb's argument is based on the notion of psychological incompetence but somehow he and you fail to recognise the implications of applying that only to those with the opposing argument.

You what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

“Commonalities” is what you’d expect with stories like creation myths that have become culturally embedded,

Except there are good philosophical reasons for monotheism. I have given a reference to a lecture by Professer Feser earlier on in this thread.
Have you watched it or are you just happy to recommend the rest of us read the 'pop' scientists ?

[Nearly Sane]

You what?

Ah you need to speak fluent Vladdish here. Your  question about fallibility has been gussied up to 'psychological incompetence' and he is still taking the incorrect and dishonest position that you think you can't be wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah you need to speak fluent Vladdish here. Your  question about fallibility has been gussied up to 'psychological incompetence' and he is still taking the incorrect and dishonest position that you think you can't be wrong.

I never said he thinks he can never be wrong.
 
Re: Karma
« Reply #1064 on: Today at 04:10:14 PM »


Quote from: Sebastian Toe on Today at 03:24:31 PM
Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?

We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.
I'm afraid were rather into modern humanists view of worship against Christians experience of it territory.

My italics.

I wonder how Seb would feel if he really thought he might be wrong about God and Jesus.

[Nearly Sane]

I never said he thinks he can never be wrong.
 
Re: Karma
« Reply #1064 on: Today at 04:10:14 PM »


Quote from: Sebastian Toe on Today at 03:24:31 PM
Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?

We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.[/i]
I'm afraid were rather into modern humanists view of worship against Christians experience of it territory.

My italics.

I wonder how Seb would feel if he really thought he might be wrong about God and Jesus.

and my bold and when Seb said this wasn't true, you then went down the route that he didn't apply the argument of 'psychological incompetence' to himself. Thereby lying about his position. Just as you have done for me and wigginhall today. Please stop lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Except there are good philosophical reasons for monotheism. I have given a reference to a lecture by Professer Feser earlier on in this thread.
Have you watched it or are you just happy to recommend the rest of us read the 'pop' scientists ?

No there aren't - you've just cherry picked one philosopher you think supports you, whereas for the most part philosophy takes religious beliefs to be a relic of the pre-Enlightenment age. Feser (and WLC too) are to philosophy what Behe is to biology - outliers generally dismissed by their peers. I didn't look at the lecture (I've been away) but I have seen a video of him running a tutorial at what I assumed was a theological college and it was desperate stuff - arrogant, dismissive, full of unsupported assertions etc. If you want a poster boy for some kind of philosophical support for theism you're going to have to do a lot better than Feser.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

You what?

"Psychological incompetence" is just a bit of vladdledegook special pleading he attempts in place of an answer to the question about how anyone should verify his faith claims or distinguish them from any other faith claims. Because he has no way of doing that, he's just decided that he (and presumably those who happen to share his pick of the available faiths) are psychologically competent, and everyone else is psychologically incompetent for not getting it.

Desperate stuff I know, but that really is the top and tail of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No there aren't - you've just cherry picked one philosopher you think supports you, whereas for the most part philosophy takes religious beliefs to be a relic of the pre-Enlightenment age. Feser (and WLC too) are to philosophy what Behe is to biology - outliers generally dismissed by their peers. I didn't look at the lecture (I've been away) but I have seen a video of him running a tutorial at what I assumed was a theological college and it was desperate stuff - arrogant, dismissive, full of unsupported assertions etc. If you want a poster boy for some kind of philosophical support for theism you're going to have to do a lot better than Feser.

Predictable ad hominem. If you had watched the video you would have seen that Feser calls out Hume too.
You are free of course to reference a rebuttal of Feser so we can judge for ourselves or even make one yourself though i'm not holding my breath on that.
Oh and Feser is not doing the Kalam cosmological argument either.
We all know where Behe's errors are, they were outlined by Christians at the Dover trial. What would you say Fesers error was...apart from a fallacious argument for enlightenment philosophy being better because it's modern. Apparently Aristotle and Aquinas support Feser too.

I'm afraid the New Atheists could not best classic philosophers so rejected philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No there aren't - you've just cherry picked one philosopher you think supports you, whereas for the most part philosophy takes religious beliefs to be a relic of the pre-Enlightenment age. Feser (and WLC too) are to philosophy what Behe is to biology - outliers generally dismissed by their peers. I didn't look at the lecture (I've been away) but I have seen a video of him running a tutorial at what I assumed was a theological college and it was desperate stuff - arrogant, dismissive, full of unsupported assertions etc. If you want a poster boy for some kind of philosophical support for theism you're going to have to do a lot better than Feser.

Seb,

"Psychological incompetence" is just a bit of vladdledegook special pleading he attempts in place of an answer to the question about how anyone should verify his faith claims or distinguish from any other faith claims. Because he has no way of doing that, he's just decided that he (and presumably those who happen to share his pick of the available faiths) are psychologically competent, and everyone else is psychologically incompetent for not getting it.

Desperate stuff I know, but that really is the top and tail of it.

Vladledegook? it'll be hard to beat that but I think everyone will get 'spouting Bluehillshite'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Predictable ad hominem.

Then you don’t know what ad hominem means either.

If you had watched the video you would have seen that Feser calls out Hume too.

“Calls out Hume" eh? That’s some confidence he must have in his arguments if he tries that.

You are free of course to reference a rebuttal of Feser so we can judge for ourselves or even make one yourself though i'm not holding my breath on that.

That’s not how it works. You don’t just get to fire off links and invite people to rebut wherever they lead to. If you think Feser makes sound arguments then set them out here and I’ll consider them

Oh and Feser is not doing the Kalam cosmological argument either.

We all know where Behe's errors are, they were outlined by Christians at the Dover trial. What would you say Fesers error was...apart from a fallacious argument for enlightenment philosophy being better because it's modern. Apparently Aristotle and Aquinas support Feser too.

Remind me – were those two pre- or post Enlightenment thinkers? Oh, and you miss the point entirely about Behe, which is that mainstream contemporary philosophers treat Feser in the same way that contemporary mainstream biologists treat Behe – as an outlier with nothing to contribute to the field. 

I'm afraid the New Atheists could not best classic philosophers so rejected philosophy.

Well that’s bizarre given that atheism rests on logically sound argument. If you think it to be otherwise, then why not finally have a go at finding a flaw in the reasoning that supports it? It might give you some kind of excuse at least for never answering the question you always dodge about how your faith claims should be validated or distinguished from different faith claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Vladledegook? it'll be hard to beat that but I think everyone will get 'spouting Bluehillshite'.

Further ducking and diving noted. Why not try argument in place of your standard knee-jerk abuse?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Remind me – were those two pre- or post Enlightenment thinkers? Oh, and you miss the point entirely about Behe, which is that mainstream contemporary philosophers treat Feser in the same way that contemporary mainstream biologists treat Behe – as an outlier with nothing to contribute to the field. 

Citations?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well that’s bizarre given that atheism rests on logically sound argument.

Let's hear it then....since that is a positive assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Citations?

A please would have been nice. Anyway, turns out the most effective one is from Feser himself. He rejects "modern philosophy", preferring instead mediaeval scholasticism. He thinks that Aristotelianism is correct, and that philosophy pretty much peaked with Thomas Aquinas. Everything since has gone downhill: “Abandoning Aristotelianism, as the founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought”.

(The Last Superstition)

Let's hear it then....since that is a positive assertion.

Again? You’ve been told what they are dozens, perhaps hundreds of times but you just ignore them and keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over again. What would be the point of watching you do it again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

A please would have been nice. Anyway, turns out the most effective one is from Feser himself. He rejects "modern philosophy", preferring instead mediaeval scholasticism. He thinks that Aristotelianism is correct, and that philosophy pretty much peaked with Thomas Aquinas. Everything since has gone downhill: “Abandoning Aristotelianism, as the founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought”.

(The Last Superstition)

Again? You’ve been told what they are dozens, perhaps hundreds of times but you just ignore them and keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over again. What would be the point of watching you do it again?

How can a citation from Feser be evidence that he is not respected by his peers?
If arguments for atheism are so plentiful there should be no difficulty in providing one...
Present one now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How can a citation from Feser be evidence that he is not respected by his peers?

You banana. "His peers" are practitioners of the modern philosophy he dismisses. Interestingly, having done some research I see that he's much given to temper tantrums and to insulting his critics and then blaming them for making him do it. I'm beginning to see now why he appeals to you...

If arguments for atheism are so plentiful there should be no difficulty in providing one...

Present one now.

Oh stop it now - you've seen them dozens of times and always just ignored them. Are you seriously asking me to provide you with an opportunity to ignore them again?

Seriously?

Tell you what - if you promise after all these years finally actually to respond to an argument with a counter-argument of your own rather than rely on one of your various stock-in-trade avoidance tactics of lying, abuse, misrepresentation etc then I'll set one out for you yet again.

Deal?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You banana. "His peers" are practitioners of the modern philosophy he dismisses. Interestingly, having done some research I see that he's much given to temper tantrums and to insulting his critics and then blaming them for making him do it. I'm beginning to see now why he appeals to you...

Oh stop it now - you've seen them dozens of times and always just ignored them. Are you seriously asking me to provide you with an opportunity to ignore them again?

Seriously?

Tell you what - if you promise after all these years finally actually to respond to an argument with a counter-argument of your own rather than rely on one of your various stock-in-trade avoidance tactics of lying, abuse, misrepresentation etc then I'll set one out for you yet again.

Deal?

Looks like I'll have to wait then an argument for atheism to be made.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Looks like I'll have to wait then an argument for atheism to be made.

No it doesn't - did you miss the bit when I offered to do it provided you agreeed to make today "Vlad's first annual non-trolling day"? All you have to do is to agree not just to ignore it, lie about it, use abuse as a diversionary tactic etc and you'll have it.

Why is that a problem for you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it doesn't - did you miss the bit when I offered to do it provided you agreeed to make today "Vlad's first annual non-trolling day"? All you have to do is to agree not just to ignore it, lie about it, use abuse as a diversionary tactic etc and you'll have it.

Why is that a problem for you?

Blue.
You had your chance and muffed it. First Dawkins let me down with his disappointing Pop science book the god delusion and now you have disappointed me. Dear agony aunt why do I keep being attracted to this type?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You had your chance and muffed it. First Dawkins let me down with his disappointing Pop science book the god delusion and now you have disappointed me. Dear agony aunt why do I keep being attracted to this type?

Is your right to troll really so important to you that you can't function without it? What does it say about you do you think that you refuse to stop it even in exchange for something you've asked for?

The only person here who's "blown it" is you.

[Sebastian Toe]

I wonder how Seb would feel if he really thought he might be wrong about God and Jesus.

I really think that I might be wrong about a lot of things, that's because I freely admit that I am fallible.

Do you think that you might be wrong about God and Jesus?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

I really think that I might be wrong about a lot of things, that's because I freely admit that I am fallible.

Do you think that you might be wrong about God and Jesus?

That's what we doctors call "a question". Vlad doesn't answer questions - ever - (though he is keen on demanding answers to his questions), presumably because the trollng rule book forbids it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I really think that I might be wrong about a lot of things, that's because I freely admit that I am fallible.

Do you think that you might be wrong about God and Jesus?

Continuing my theme about being a believer and having been a non believer, certainly earlier on in my belief I had doubts but they have always found an answer or experience which comes down on the side of belief. The doubt about secular humanism has been irreversible.
Loss of faith and doubt in SH was a painful crisis and doubts as a believer have been painful although I don't seem to doubt God as being true I do sometimes doubt myself.
Until doubt is affective and an event then you are either taking your beliefs for granted or you don't care or you are still on the fence and have never experienced commitment which is a belief in itself.

So to answer your last question I'm afraid I don't think I'm wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

Continuing my theme about being a believer and having been a non believer, certainly earlier on in my belief I had doubts but they have always found an answer or experience which comes down on the side of belief. The doubt about secular humanism has been irreversible.
Loss of faith and doubt in SH was a painful crisis and doubts as a believer have been painful although I don't seem to doubt God as being true I do sometimes doubt myself.
Until doubt is affective and an event then you are either taking your beliefs for granted or you don't care or you are still on the fence and have never experienced commitment which is a belief in itself.

So to answer your last question I'm afraid I don't think I'm wrong.

That isn't the question you were asked which was 'Do you think you might be wrong?'

[Sebastian Toe]

So to answer your last question I'm afraid I don't think I'm wrong.

That's answering a different question to that which I asked.

Why are you afraid?