An ex-secular theist explains how you've been lied to.
Do they go on "doubt walks"?
... though, it would probably be "distrust walks".
This seems an appropriate thread in which to paste this link. You know, with debunk beds and distrust walks, and all.This link is to an attempted refutation of my "you are the proof that God is" argument -- I haven't yet read the attempted refutation (I'm presently reading the comments) ... but, my oh my! just the first half dozen that I've read are mind-boggling! And you just know they'd be whinning like little sissies were I to start ripping into their (ahem!) arguments.
I had a quick look. He screws up fundamentally as near as I can tell, and quickly at that - treating robotic machinations as 'having content', or thinking that purely physical motions count as 'asking questions of itself' and so on. And he thinks you're just going to grant this for him, when as near as I can tell this not only is a point of dispute in your argument, but involves a commitment of materialism itself. (I think Feser would say, if such and such arrangment of matter 'really meant' X or Y, then whatever you are anymore, a materialist ain't it.)Though of course, he just eliminated all reductios by suggesting that a reductio is just an argument from incredulity too.
It's a she."Though of course, he just eliminated all reductios by suggesting that a reductio is just an argument from incredulity too."That part of it did happen to enter my field of vision; and I expect I'll be merciless on the very point you raise.
Oh wait a second! Hahaha, it's freaking Liddle. Good luck arguing with the grand duchess of contentless exposition.
On the upside, Rickert's throwing them an immediate curveball by saying yes, your criticism of materialism fails. But he happens to think ID fails too, and doesn't draw any theistic conclusion from the failure.But his merely piping up with 'yeah, Ilion's right about that' is going to cause some interesting hell.
"Good luck arguing with the grand duchess of contentless exposition."Sure. But then again, I'm not at all "nice" -- I have no problem with directly/explicitly calling her on it ... nor with mocking foolishness as such (as, for instance, that "argument from incredulity" dig).
Let me know how it goes down.Speaking of 'nice', I notice UD gave you the boot (regrettably so, said the booter.) As I've said before, I question the execution, but I have to admit that you had a stunning point about the 'inclusive language'. I like Torley at times, but I think he's way too forgiving, and does the 'polite when he shouldn't be' thing.
I wasn't given the boot because I objected to and criticized Mr Torley's "gender inclusive language", but rather because I sharply criticized "the booter's" fake-apology to Mrs Liddle as a fake-apology (see here and further in the Torley thread).
"As I've said before, I question the execution, but I have to admit that you had a stunning point about the 'inclusive language'."One can state the unwelcome, but necessary, truth. One can "trim one's sails". One cannot do both simultaneously on the same matter. Perhaps others know the trick, but I do not know how to state the unwelcome truth while tickling the ears and stroking the ego of the one who need to hear it.I *know* that I piss people off. Since I don't know how not to, I've decided to use that as a test of others' characters -- if they can admit the truth of the criticism, even though they did not welcome it, my opinion of them goes way up; if they react as Mr Arrington has, then I lose all possible respect for them.
"... I have to admit that you had a stunning point about the 'inclusive language'."Perhaps you could write a post expanding upon and adding you own (developing) insights to the idea?
Ah, I missed that. I may do a post about the language bit sometime, sure. I think John C Wright did a good write-up of the obnoxiousness of constantly amending language so as not to offend this or that group (AD to CE, his to his or hers, and so on.) Mostly it's a game I'm not willing to play, and a lot of it seems to have less to do with actual people even 'feeling disenfranchised' as opposed to a bunch of academics deciding who should or should not feel 'disenfranchised', why they should or should not, and then implementing whatever they can in this vein.
Post a Comment