Friday, June 24, 2016

It's Papal Praise Friday!

When the Pope does good things, I give credit where it's due.

First up is his statement that Brexit is the will of the people, generally encouraging them to continue to get along with their European neighbors. Are UKers Europeans anymore? I suppose not. I'll have to call them something else. Suggestions? 'Ex-overlords'? 'New Revolutionaries'? We shall see.

On the flipside, the Pope also clearly and prominently condemned euthanasia, though I don't think he quite zeroed in on the problem. It isn't just a way to deal with the sick, it's a way people are increasingly dealing with their problems. Mark my words, in 100 years, there won't be many 'secular' people anymore, and those who exist will consider secularism to be a kind of mental disease which one must struggle mightily against, lest it threaten the existence of the world once more.

13 comments:

JBsptfn said...

No more secular people in 100 years? Interesting.

BTW, remember Skeppy (username Im Skeptical or IMS for short)? He has been on the CADRE forums all the time lately, spouting off his materialistic BS (check any of the blog entries since like March):

Christian CADRE Blog

Crude said...

No more secular people in 100 years? Interesting.

I don't think secular people are going to disappear. But I think 'secularism' is going to have a negative connotation the way 'religion' has now, for many people, and it's going to openly be regarded as actually a bit creepy to invest oneself in. People tend not to learn lessons, but I think there will be a partial awareness that this 'secularism' and 'secular values' thing had hallmarks that were actually kind of rotten. To the point where the word has to be abandoned and another concept needs to succeed and replace it.

And yeah, I actually don't follow Skep at all. I had my fill of him at DI, and his exorcism from there made the place much better - even his frantic, angry replacement Cal is a cut above him. He's like a John Loftus with a lower IQ, and that's saying something since I think Loftus is just entirely average and mediocre with talent and ability.

The funniest part of modern New Atheism - not at all exploited by people - is that they're not just degraded, but they've been wrapped up in a full blown schism. I'm pretty sure Skep there is on Team SJW, so if you want to screw with him, ask him for his opinions about feminism and Gamergate. If there's any other atheists on that blog there's a good chance a shitfit will break out once you press those buttons.

JBsptfn said...

I think that Skep is the only atheist on the CADRE right now, although there is a Christian (Weekend Fisher) pushing the idea of rational thought coming from natural brain processes.

As for that Cal, he has a lower IQ than Loftus? Wow. I feel bad for him. Although, if he is better than IMS, then that may make Skep Dan Barker, am I right?

Crude said...

I think that Skep is the only atheist on the CADRE right now, although there is a Christian (Weekend Fisher) pushing the idea of rational thought coming from natural brain processes.

I think Feser sufficiently gutted that possibility for me. Usually the hope is couched in something like 'Well, we know the brain is involved in thought in some intimate way. Maybe rational thoughts come from brain processes in a way we just don't understand yet!' To which my reply is, 'Sure, so long as brain processes are something utterly unlike what we currently regard matter as, anything is possible. Because materialism and naturalism are gone.' That 'natural' thing is always full of shit.

As for that Cal, he has a lower IQ than Loftus? Wow.

I meant that Skep is lower. Skep really strikes me as someone who is literally learning impaired, but who tries to make up for his lack of comprehension and skill with sheer volume. Hence his now looking absolutely anywhere for attention.

Heuristics said...

>"Are UKers Europeans anymore? I suppose not."

Europe is something else then the EU though. Norway and Swizerland are both European but have very little to do with the EU. Not wanting the kebab flood has no real baring on ones European identity.

JBsptfn said...

I meant that Skep is lower. Skep really strikes me as someone who is literally learning impaired, but who tries to make up for his lack of comprehension and skill with sheer volume. Hence his now looking absolutely anywhere for attention.

OK. I get you. It just looked like you were talking about Cal.

I think Feser sufficiently gutted that possibility for me. Usually the hope is couched in something like 'Well, we know the brain is involved in thought in some intimate way. Maybe rational thoughts come from brain processes in a way we just don't understand yet!' To which my reply is, 'Sure, so long as brain processes are something utterly unlike what we currently regard matter as, anything is possible. Because materialism and naturalism are gone.' That 'natural' thing is always full of shit.

WF did two articles about that. Here is her first one:

Weekend Fisher: Why I'd like my Christian Friends to Consider that Rational Thought is a Natural Phenomenon

In the comments, someone did send her Feser's articles about that.

As for her motivation, she said that she doesn't want Christians to be picked off by Atheist snipers for defending immaterial consciousness. In the comments, she said something about how the people defending an immaterial mind today are like Young Earthers 10 years before Darwin's Origin of Species came out.

Crude said...

WF did two articles about that. Here is her first one:

It's not persuasive, and the fact that digestion is her go-to - and she doesn't really seem to foresee any problems with that - unfortunately says a lot. Most of the rest is extremely vague on reasoning altogether. Way too much 'This is natural, everyone agrees it's natural' and 'I'm a programmer and let me assure you you can code everything a mind does is natural and can be programmed.'

Her reactions to the Feser links aren't encouraging, since it seems like she didn't really understand them at all and brushed them off as having nothing to do with her claims.

As for her motivation, she said that she doesn't want Christians to be picked off by Atheist snipers for defending immaterial consciousness.

In one way, I can sympathize with that. In another way, I think it's a bad motivation. Partly that's because she uses YECs as the example (These poor people find out that they were taught bad science and they deconvert!), but I've long had a serious problem with Christians attacking YEC on those grounds. I think the problem there has a lot more to do with bullying and shaming, with Christian encouragement. For every Christian in the US who's a YEC, there's a Christian who finds YECs embarrassing and attacks them mercilessly, partly because that's one way they can redeem themselves in the eyes of their trendy secularist friends.

Besides, nowadays simulation theory is acceptable. And if you believe it's acceptable to think our universe is simulated, then believing our universe is way, way younger than it appears to be is as reasonable as anything can be.

JBsptfn said...

I just went on WF's site, and on that link above (or her two subsequent links), she still never addressed Feser's material. Also, on her most recent blog entry, Stan from Atheism-Analyzed and a poster named Phoenix showed her the flaws in her thinking.

It was cool, though, I don't really have any problems with her. She isn't a jacka** like someone else we know. IMS can be a pain. He acts like he knows what he's talking about, but eventually, his inner troll comes to the surface.

He said something a week or so ago on the CADRE about how God demands his "freely given" love upon the threat of eternal punishment. I said that his comment was out of the fundy atheist playbook. Then, two other people voiced their opinions.

In Don McIntosh's reply, he said "Why should I think that your unbelief is all about science and rationality rather than bias and emotion". Then, a poster named BK had a fairly long post criticizing Skeppy's garbage.

I don't mean to go on and on about him, because you are very familiar with his crap, but he has been a pest on several blogs the last few months. Stan had some arguments with him, and so did Joe Hinman (Metacrock) on his blogs. On one of them, Skeppy posted a link to a CSICOP article, and me and Joe tried to point out that it is a propagandist organization (he didn't want to hear it).

Also, ever hear of Papalinton? He seems to be an idiot that's always posting on IMS's blog. IMS seems to attack Reppert a fair amount lately, and Papalinton posted this thing from Patheos about the dying and rising savior gods at this link:



I told Papalinton that a commenter took the author to task, and he posted some weird response about the commenter being doozy for religious woozy or something. What a moron.



Crude said...

Also, ever hear of Papalinton?

Whenever Linton talks, bring this up: He is an admitted plagiarist, who absolutely fakes knowledge of things he knows nothing about.

That's really all you need to say to him.

They were both banned from Reppert's blog.

I don't mean to go on and on about him, because you are very familiar with his crap,

He's trying to get attention and grist for his blog, I believe.

Mr. Green said...

Calling Loftus "mediocre" sounds generous to me. I think the order is more or less: Linton < Inskeptical < Loftus ≤ Cal < sack of tribbles. (Not sure about Cal — he explicitly admitted that he's more interested in mocking those with whom he disagrees than in reasoning with them, so he may just be trolling.)

The funniest part of modern New Atheism - not at all exploited by people - is that they're not just degraded, but they've been wrapped up in a full blown schism.

As I always like to say, you can't be consistent if you're wrong. When your starting point is irrational, schism is inevitable.

Crude said...

Calling Loftus "mediocre" sounds generous to me.

He's a failure in many ways, but he's actually written books. Most Atheist bloggers can't even swing that. He's tenacious, but his tenacity is matched with utterly average thinking and writing skills - by internet standards. Tenacity can't shape that into success.

Mr. Green said...

Crude: He's tenacious, but his tenacity is matched with utterly average thinking and writing skills - by internet standards.

OK, by Internet standards, yeah. And agreed about his tenacity, it's just a pity he couldn't apply it more constructively.


JBsptfn: IMS can be a pain. He acts like he knows what he's talking about, but eventually, his inner troll comes to the surface. He said something a week or so ago on the CADRE

Hm, was that, "This isn't about science. It's just a question of what makes sense."
Hey, science always made sense to me. But then, my science has a coherent theistic foundation….

Mr. Green said...

The principle Weekend Fisher is working from is fine: it's just St. Augustine's complaint about ill-informed Christians giving a bad impression. Except that Augustine knew the secular subjects he was talking about. As pointed out in the comments, the age of the earth is really a geological issue (it's the geology that gave biologists time to mutate, not the other way around); and also in the comments are some links to Feser that she really needs to read. I think she's actually confusing two different issues: the immateriality of the soul, and the intentionality of the mind (which actually is like digestion, insofar as even the merely material teleology in either one is sufficient for Fifth-Way arguments). Selling out to the materialist route on this isn't giving in to science; it's giving in to ignorance of philosophy. In fact, it's standard materialist PR: "we succeeded in some fundamentally different task, so just assume that we'll solve this too, at some unspecified time that we will all agree to call 'really soon now'."

Oh, and believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old is a perfectly rational position. I'm not saying the support for such a view is strong, because it isn't; but the position against it isn't strong either. Why should a literal fundamentalist view of science trump a literal fundamentalist view of Scripture? God can create His universe any way He jolly well pleases. That's one of the perks of being the Almighty — old, young, old universe that looks young, young universe that looks old... it's not as though it's any extra effort on His part.

And that's before we get to simulation-theory (ah, the gift that keeps on giving!): thanks to simulations, all those same possibilities are now live options even in a materialist world. Anyway, it's good to take Augustine's advice; it's just that the people playing Augustine sometimes don't know what they're talking about any more than their opponents (or maybe even less than).