tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8447031902976815659..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Not Believing in God(s) Is Terrible and Utterly TragicLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger137125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43686540716621466722013-03-14T23:44:29.653-04:002013-03-14T23:44:29.653-04:00Yet you were able to find the will to misrepresent...Yet you were able to find the will to misrepresent my position twice for rhetorical effect... what a waste!Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90100524468124074842013-03-14T16:10:33.668-04:002013-03-14T16:10:33.668-04:00@Kel
You didn't make any about anything I'...@Kel<br />You didn't make any about anything I've said. If you do, let me know, and then I'll see if I can be bothered responding.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90033008397329800312013-03-14T15:49:52.381-04:002013-03-14T15:49:52.381-04:00"Well you talk of value not existing if human..."Well you talk of value not existing if humans didn't as if that's some interesting distinction that somehow renders them different from real stuff."<br />Stop digging yourself a hole - none of that was even implied in what I said. It would be like saying that somehow life is not real because if you wiped life out it wouldn't exist anymore. Does it follow that life is somehow different from real stuff? Of course not! That something exists in the mind (which is a real phenomenon) means that it's reality exists while there's a mind to give it a reality. It ceases to exist when there isn't. <br /><br />"BTW, do you know what the word "here" means?"<br />Do you know what the word "condescension" means? <br /><br />Now, I'll ask again. Are you actually interested in addressing the points I made?Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8904454441024454192013-03-14T06:30:04.545-04:002013-03-14T06:30:04.545-04:00@kel
Well you talk of value not existing if humans...@kel<br />Well you talk of value not existing if humans didn't as if that's some interesting distinction that somehow renders them different from real stuff. BTW, do you know what the word "here" means? I do, and it's kinda important for what I said above.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3351097087650707602013-03-14T06:22:35.619-04:002013-03-14T06:22:35.619-04:00"You seem to imagine our minds aren't eve..."You seem to imagine our minds aren't every bit as much a part of the universe as anything else."<br />I don't know where you got that from what I said (and I certainly don't hold to that proposition; it's pretty evident that mind <i>is</i> brain activity), but it's nice to see that you can run with an assumption...<br /><br />"And nice to see it so openly endorsed by those who also proclaim a central part of their lives consists in not believing it."<br />Are you actually interested in discussing the meaningful part of what I was addressing, or are you just interested in publicly attacking crudely-shaped mounds of straw?Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31146476912261121682013-03-14T06:09:42.958-04:002013-03-14T06:09:42.958-04:00twt, I'm gonna challenge you on this. Please c...twt, I'm gonna challenge you on this. Please cite a single instance of me 'nitpicking' against the scientific method or the ToE.<br /><br /><br />Go ahead. <br /><br />I 'nitpick' in terms of pointing out Larry's many errors, because he loves to point out the errors of others and accords to himself the prideful authority to proclaim who is and who isn't capable of critical thinking. And because he, by his own admission, want to 'change society' and it is clear to me that he would like to do that by ridiculing religious people, and by using science to disprove the existence of god(s), a role which it is so poorly suited for that only ideologues would seek to use it as such.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25910316413479768942013-03-14T05:40:16.444-04:002013-03-14T05:40:16.444-04:00@Kel
You seem to imagine our minds aren't ever...@Kel<br />You seem to imagine our minds aren't every bit as much a part of the universe as anything else. Nice to see dualism so alive and so well in the early 21st century. And nice to see it so openly endorsed by those who also proclaim a central part of their lives consists in not believing it.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41022190647505434592013-03-14T05:33:42.741-04:002013-03-14T05:33:42.741-04:00Well, you've got me there, old man! Drat!Well, you've got me there, old man! Drat! andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82928526891986334932013-03-14T05:31:52.945-04:002013-03-14T05:31:52.945-04:00@TWT
I said I dreamed, and thus implied I was asle...@TWT<br />I said I dreamed, and thus implied I was asleep. That's normally good enough evidence. If you don't like it, so what? The issue here is not whether you believe I dreamed. What you believe is of no consequence. If you don't believe it but till want to join the discussion in a relevant manner then just take the last time you dreamed and use that as the exaample of the fact. And if you don't believe you've ever dreamed just use the example of someone else who you believe has. And if you don't believe anyone/thing has ever dreamed then go see a doctor about your psychosis.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12222315455023390832013-03-14T05:22:46.466-04:002013-03-14T05:22:46.466-04:00I'm glad you brought up those links, andy. Now...I'm glad you brought up those links, andy. Now, maybe you can show me where luther said, or presented evidence, that he was 'asleep' on the night in question when he claimed "I had a dream last night - fact." Being the nitpicker of details that you are, I'm surprised that you didn't notice or bring up those missing details. Oh wait, you only nitpick details (missing or otherwise) when you think that it will suit your religiously biased arguments against scientific methods and the ToE. <br /><br />You do know, don't you, that not everyone sleeps at night? <br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5255763589524883192013-03-14T04:45:25.670-04:002013-03-14T04:45:25.670-04:00"How many of the atheists here do you suppose..."How many of the atheists here do you suppose think that there really are values?"<br />Do you mean intrinsic values that would exist if humans didn't? Don't know. Probably quite a lot, there are atheists who believe in ghosts and UFOs and Government Conspiracies after all. But what would be tragic about there not being any value that we don't give it? Why does it need to be transcendental in order for it to be meaningful? Love, after all, is a psychological state - yet it's one of the most powerful motivators of our species. Love has no value which doesn't exist in our minds, yet that doesn't in any way make it tragic. Or at least I don't think it's tragic - maybe it is tragic and I'm being dishonest...Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46000374937920119882013-03-14T04:06:07.270-04:002013-03-14T04:06:07.270-04:00luther, you said: "I had a dream last night -...luther, you said: "I had a dream last night - fact." You did not say "... as an example of a human, had had a dream,..." <br /><br />You're the one perpetrating "the usual uninformed scatter-gun attempt to sidetrack an argument into irrelevancies" and you've got no room to denigrate others about "zero critical thinking skills and zero ability to engage an actual argument". Thinking of you as "an example of a human" is depressing. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38057278006738527662013-03-14T00:03:11.748-04:002013-03-14T00:03:11.748-04:00Luther dreamed last night, and the night before, a...Luther dreamed last night, and the night before, and the night before that. So did I, phhht, Diogenes, twt, etc. etc. So do a lot of mammals, I think. We don't remember every dream we have, or even most of them. Science has known this for a long time. Time to move on, people.<br /><br />http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_health_features_details.asp?health_feature_id=363&article_id=1141&channel_id=135&relation_id=2334<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamandyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29304373197726875702013-03-13T22:50:58.062-04:002013-03-13T22:50:58.062-04:00Diogenes writes,
"This was Rapey's first ...Diogenes writes,<br />"This was Rapey's first point, and everything he has written since then has been to buttress his assumption that "experiences" tell us something about the properties of things outside our mind."<br /><br />That's simply untrue. It IS true that Luther's first point was to use his analogy to dreaming to buttress his remarks, but that was unfortunately and uproariously sidetracked by phhht choosing to make an issue of whether or not Luther can establish as a 'fact' that he dreamed last night - or now several nights ago. If phhht was intending to argue Luther's larger point, and was using the dream example purely figuratively, he did a very poor job of that. I assume he is being literal. And in so far as he IS, your points are all based on inferences and unnecessary tangents. YOU can have that argument with Luther, but that is NOT the argument that phhht was having with him.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26488104574901558522013-03-13T22:37:28.452-04:002013-03-13T22:37:28.452-04:00@TWT
But the responses I've had are completely...@TWT<br />But the responses I've had are completely irrelevant to the point I was making which was not that I personally had a dream that night, but that I, as an example of a human, had had a dream, and this was a fact consisting solely of something that happened inside someone's head. Not only that, the responses were hilariously wrong. Just the usual uninformed scatter-gun attempt to sidetrack an argument into irrelevancies by people with zero critical thinking skills and zero ability to engage an actual argument. People like you.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39061228604852414372013-03-13T22:26:34.165-04:002013-03-13T22:26:34.165-04:00luther said:
"...but I could easily have giv...luther said:<br /><br />"...but I could easily have given the example, "people dream - fact""<br /><br />Yeah, but you didn't. The responses you've gotten are pertinent to what you said, not what you could have said.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44276721342354015862013-03-13T11:43:14.013-04:002013-03-13T11:43:14.013-04:00@Paedo
So humans only discovered the objective fac...@Paedo<br />So humans only discovered the objective fact that we dream in the 20th century. Who made the earth-shattering discovery that, after years of wondering if such a thing could possibly be true, we really do dream. <br /><br />Re your last point - the argument might be something like this: dreams tell us that consciousness is doing stuff when we sleep (it's not just switched off); and NDE's tentatively suggest that consciousness continues after death (it doesn't just stop). As for the content, well, that's what we actually experience after death it seems, and there's no prima facie reason to think there's a further reality of which our NDE experiences are merely grossly misleading perceptions. <br /><br />You seem to imagine that an afterlife must exist external to our minds/souls rather than simply being the mind/soul returning to the whole (universal mind) of which it was always part. That would be my guess.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14481400429709651732013-03-13T11:33:27.447-04:002013-03-13T11:33:27.447-04:00@Diogenes
On the contrary - I've just finished...@Diogenes<br />On the contrary - I've just finished designing some rather attractive artwork for a new hot dog stall. Later on today I shall be submitting it to the printers. All the data points suggest the banners will look fantastic and the hot dogs will be delicious (cider onions don't you know).Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43576532574689420862013-03-13T11:14:40.350-04:002013-03-13T11:14:40.350-04:00AB,
Show, Diogenes, where Luther is making any cla...AB,<br /><i>Show, Diogenes, where Luther is making any claim that the contents of his dreams bear on reality. You can't</i><br /><br />As you know perfectly well, Rapey's first point in this thread was that NDE's prove that spooks exist because NDE's are "experiences", and "experiences" tell us something about the properties of things outside our mind.<br /><br />This was Rapey's first point, and everything he has written since then has been to buttress his assumption that "experiences" tell us something about the properties of things outside our mind.<br /><br />If you, AB, concede that dreams IN FACT tell us nothing about the properties of things outside our mind, then <b>why are you not arguing with Rapey who says NDE's prove spooks are real and you can talk with them</b> (and yet, strangely, no one having an NDE has any interest in asking them the cure for cancer)?<br /><br />AB: If NDE's tell us about the "real world", as Rapey says, why don't dreams?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7911571825848834592013-03-13T11:10:13.231-04:002013-03-13T11:10:13.231-04:00Rapey: the idea that my having a dream is subject...Rapey: <i> the idea that <b>my having a dream is subjective fact</b> is pure nonsense.</i><br /><br />Again, Rapey's reading comprehension is not merely zero, it is in the negative numbers.<br /><br />Here is what I wrote:<br /><br />Me: <i> Luther's bare statement "I had a dream" can be an objective fact if his brain has electrodes on it when he dreams. <b>It may be category 2, objective fact.</b></i><br /><br />Now let us compare what I said to what Rapey said I said:<br /><br />Rapey: <i> the idea that <b>my having a dream is subjective fact</b> is pure nonsense.</i><br /><br />Rapey's inability to comprehend ANY English sentence requires us to write the same things over, and over, and over...<br /><br />Seriously, I know immigrants who learned English at 30 with better reading comprehension than Rapey.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28135299788638024322013-03-13T11:03:44.973-04:002013-03-13T11:03:44.973-04:00it is only religion that gives meaning to the live...<i>it is only religion that gives meaning to the lives of fanatical atheists like you. </i><br /><br />The pompous asshole Luther Flint has NO life except to sit at the computer all day, every day, waiting at pro-science blogs that deal with topics enormously too technical for his anti-science brain to comprehend, so that he can ignore the science totally, and twist them around into something anti-atheist.<br /><br />Without anti-atheism and anti-science, or with it, his pathetic life has no meaning. <br /><br />Pompous asshole Luther Flint has never once, at this pro-science blog, never once made a single valid, or even interesting, scientific point or correctly cited any scientific datum.<br /><br />Pompous asshole Luther Flint has never even once cited a single paper from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, which would at least be interesting.<br /><br />Pompous asshole Luther Flint has admitted he doesn't care about science anyway.<br /><br />Indeed, his entire life consists of nothing but waiting around all day, every day, for a comment-- any comment-- to be posted at pro-science blogs, so he can ignorantly twist it around into an attack on atheists.<br /><br />On the bright side, there's always his spirited defense of rapists.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59835776061346793112013-03-13T02:37:22.672-04:002013-03-13T02:37:22.672-04:00Diogenes, are YOU willing to admit that it is only...Diogenes, are YOU willing to admit that it is only through 'subjective experience' that you have come to your decision to reject out of hand all personal accounts of god(s)? That if pressed to explain your views, you would need to use terminology such as, "I just feel that it's stupid to accept any account other than what can be demonstrated through repeatable experiment" or<br />'I fear that if I were admit some degree of open mindedness about others' accounts into my worldview I might head down a slippery slope whereby I can no longer trust my own reasoning ability', and so forth.<br />No, something more objective. A clear, testable, fact-based reply such that 'the properties of something outside of your own mind' are clearly on display, please. Show how the principles you use, and the evidence you will accept, in order to decide what is and isn't evidence for god(s) were arrived at objectively, and are by objective standards superior.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54701289077355324402013-03-12T21:38:22.261-04:002013-03-12T21:38:22.261-04:00The first sentence in this guy's review of Gra...The first sentence in this guy's review of Grayling's book tells me how much of an idiot the guy is:<br /><br /><i>That godlessness might be both true and terrible is something that the new atheists refuse to entertain</i><br /><br />I don't see why. Growing up as a Christian, I am relieved to have discovered that not everything I do is sinful. That I can accept what I am and work on that, rather than blindly accept some plainly stupid tabus handed down to me by tribes that did not know any better. That I will not burn in some hell for silly details like thinking that the guy who wrote that critique is an imbecile. Also, the laws that this god was supposed to hold his preferred tribes to were quite unsavoury. Thus, that there's no gods means that a lot of horrific gods believed to exist don't. There's so many terrifying gods (I would think that the great majority) that I see no reason why their absence could be "terrible."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16605392923238765942013-03-12T18:05:06.544-04:002013-03-12T18:05:06.544-04:00@Paedo
How many of the atheists here do you suppos...@Paedo<br />How many of the atheists here do you suppose think that there really are values? And on a different point, it is only religion that gives meaning to the lives of fanatical atheists like you. That is, take away religion and your whole being would cease to exist because everything you are is measured against religion. Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27417602114694003082013-03-12T17:49:10.502-04:002013-03-12T17:49:10.502-04:00Rapey: Did you not read the article - nor even the...Rapey: <i>Did you not read the article - nor even the quotations above. Some atheists are mentioned there.</i><br /><br />Doesn't matter because they misrepresented the atheists quoted. They certainly misrepresented Nietzsche, portraying him as saying that nihilism is a consequence of atheism. Nietzsche actually said that atheist nihilists have been successfully brainwashed by religious believers into thinking that if there's no God, then there's no meaning and value. So atheist nihilists have more in common with religious believers than they have with Nietzsche. <br /><br />The honest atheist does not buy into the religious brainwashing that if there are no Gods, then there are no values, so says Nietzsche. <br /><br />This is not what Damon Linker wrote, so I don't trust his factual assertions.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.com