How many people have you de-converted?

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

How many people have you de-converted

Poll ended at Oct 29, 2010 9:41 pm

Zero
33
72%
One to Three
11
24%
Four to Six
1
2%
Seven to Nine
1
2%
Ten or more
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 46

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#141  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 03, 2018 4:56 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
That isn't a point, it's a declaration. And one completely without any evidence, I might add.


:scratch: I'm thinking that's the whole point of going about reasoning metaphysiclly, you don't need any evidence. And it seems the less evidence you rely on, the better and more ideal your reasoning is.

I was referring to evidence of acumen, not metaphysics. But if you're saying that metaphysics is indistinguishable from creative writing, I won't work too hard to dissuade you.


The difference is that people engaged in creative writing usually know they are making shit up while those engaged in metaphysics often believe they have found a truth of which they are devoid of all doubt - and they think everyone else should be too. And good luck getting them to explain coherently what justifies this doubtlessness.

I don't know if that goes for every proponent of metaphysics, though it obviously applies to jamest's. The problem I see is that if you want to use metaphysics to say something about the physical world, you have to at least have a grasp of what we know about the physical world. Jamest has made plain his ignorance of this more times than I could count, in fact that ignorance is usually the basis of his metaphysical BM's.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14223
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#142  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 5:08 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

:scratch: I'm thinking that's the whole point of going about reasoning metaphysiclly, you don't need any evidence. And it seems the less evidence you rely on, the better and more ideal your reasoning is.

I was referring to evidence of acumen, not metaphysics. But if you're saying that metaphysics is indistinguishable from creative writing, I won't work too hard to dissuade you.


The difference is that people engaged in creative writing usually know they are making shit up while those engaged in metaphysics often believe they have found a truth of which they are devoid of all doubt - and they think everyone else should be too. And good luck getting them to explain coherently what justifies this doubtlessness.

I don't know if that goes for every proponent of metaphysics, though it obviously applies to jamest's. The problem I see is that if you want to use metaphysics to say something about the physical world, you have to at least have a grasp of what we know about the physical world. Jamest has made plain his ignorance of this more times than I could count, in fact that ignorance is usually the basis of his metaphysical BM's.


Do you have an example where someone uses metaphysics as a sensible mode of explaination for anything close to what Jamest wants to use if for?

The examples I know of are seriously flawed and the people pushing them refuse to acknowledg the flaws. They often misinterpret the known physics on the subject, even when a known expert in the field is telling them they are misunderstanding the physics! But maybe I've missed some good use of metaphysics.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#143  Postby The_Metatron » Mar 03, 2018 5:18 pm

Bury one of your own kids some time. That is an activity that will show you in certain terms your god doesn’t exist, or simply doesn’t give a fuck about you.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20928
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#144  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 03, 2018 5:18 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
I was referring to evidence of acumen, not metaphysics. But if you're saying that metaphysics is indistinguishable from creative writing, I won't work too hard to dissuade you.


The difference is that people engaged in creative writing usually know they are making shit up while those engaged in metaphysics often believe they have found a truth of which they are devoid of all doubt - and they think everyone else should be too. And good luck getting them to explain coherently what justifies this doubtlessness.

I don't know if that goes for every proponent of metaphysics, though it obviously applies to jamest's. The problem I see is that if you want to use metaphysics to say something about the physical world, you have to at least have a grasp of what we know about the physical world. Jamest has made plain his ignorance of this more times than I could count, in fact that ignorance is usually the basis of his metaphysical BM's.


Do you have an example where someone uses metaphysics as a sensible mode of explaination for anything close to what Jamest wants to use if for?

The examples I know of are seriously flawed and the people pushing them refuse to acknowledg the flaws. They often misinterpret the known physics on the subject, even when a known expert in the field is telling them they are misunderstanding the physics! But maybe I've missed some good use of metaphysics.

I don't really run in the metaphysics crowd, so no, I don't have an example. I don't think you could make jamest's specific argument without misunderstanding the physics. Whether that applies to all other metaphysical arguments, I can't say.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14223
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#145  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 03, 2018 5:52 pm

jamest wrote:since any fucking half-wit making half a fucking effort can KNOW that scientific evidence does not support atheism, as its data is not metaphysical.


Well science doesn't support your fatuous caricature of atheism. which consists of asserting that atheism erects contrary assertions to supernaturalism, a favourite misrepresentation thereof trotted out by every supernaturalist fuckwit who thinks apologetics is something other than made up shit. Whereas, of course, what atheism consists of in reality, at least when pursued rigorously, is a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions.

Indeed, with respect to the general postulate "a god type entity of some sort exists", I'm one of many here who regard that assertion as possessing the status "truth value unknown", as is the case with every untested assertion. However, the fun part is, we don't even need to resort to science, to dismiss assertions that fatuous mythological entities exist, all we need in order to dismiss those assertions, is to demonstrate that said entities contain, as part of their construction within those mythologies, numerous contradictions and absurdities. It's Game Over from that point on.

However, what science hhas achieved on a grand scale, is to render asserted fantastic entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, with respect to vast classes of observational entities and phenomena. Until data arrives telling us that a fantastic entity is actually necessary for a specific observation, which thus far has conspicuously failed to put in an appearance, then we can safely continue to regard fantastic entities as superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, and dismiss them on that basis.

Oh, and it's no use appealing to hard problems that haven't yet acquired a robust, consilient solution, as a sort of "get out of jail free" card in this vein, because the track record thus far has been dismal for supernaturalist assertions, contrasting starkly with the enormous success of science. Indeed, scientists have alighted upon vast classes of entities and phenomena, that supernaturalist pedlars of rectally extracted assertions were incapable of even fantasising about, let alone placing within precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge. The authors of bad Middle Eastern mythologies did not even know of the existence of the American continental land masses, an embarrassing epistemological deficit that makes present-day religious adherence in the USA all the more fatuous and banal.

The major value of those mythologies, from my standpoint at least, consists of their being a source of positively Pythonesque comedy of the absurd, and if you want a truly hilarious example, pick up a copy of the New International Version of the Bible, turn to Leviticus Chapter 13, and start reading what's written there out loud, ideally in a voice mimicking John Cleese or Michael Palin's performances in The Life of Brian. I once had a group of people come close to needing hernia surgery, after they laughed so hard when I did this. Sadly, the original King James version is just bizarre to the point of clinical insanity, and lacks the same humour content of the more recent translation, but it's still a textbook example of gibberish that has been flushed down the toilet by modern knowledge. If the piss-stained idiots who wrote this tripe had been shown rifampicin and dapsone, they'd probably have had the doctors in question stoned to death for witchcraft.

But we are, after all, talking about people who were apparently incapable of counting correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses (and don't even try bringing the crap apologetics on this matter from idiot creationists here, because I've destroyed that shite repeatedly).

Oh, by the way, I'd like to see an example of "metaphysical data", only every time I deal with people pontificating about metaphysics, data is the last thing they present.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22042
Age: 58
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#146  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 6:12 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

The difference is that people engaged in creative writing usually know they are making shit up while those engaged in metaphysics often believe they have found a truth of which they are devoid of all doubt - and they think everyone else should be too. And good luck getting them to explain coherently what justifies this doubtlessness.

I don't know if that goes for every proponent of metaphysics, though it obviously applies to jamest's. The problem I see is that if you want to use metaphysics to say something about the physical world, you have to at least have a grasp of what we know about the physical world. Jamest has made plain his ignorance of this more times than I could count, in fact that ignorance is usually the basis of his metaphysical BM's.


Do you have an example where someone uses metaphysics as a sensible mode of explaination for anything close to what Jamest wants to use if for?

The examples I know of are seriously flawed and the people pushing them refuse to acknowledg the flaws. They often misinterpret the known physics on the subject, even when a known expert in the field is telling them they are misunderstanding the physics! But maybe I've missed some good use of metaphysics.

I don't really run in the metaphysics crowd, so no, I don't have an example. I don't think you could make jamest's specific argument without misunderstanding the physics. Whether that applies to all other metaphysical arguments, I can't say.


Well about about this guys metaphysical argument about motion?

I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#147  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 03, 2018 6:30 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
I don't know if that goes for every proponent of metaphysics, though it obviously applies to jamest's. The problem I see is that if you want to use metaphysics to say something about the physical world, you have to at least have a grasp of what we know about the physical world. Jamest has made plain his ignorance of this more times than I could count, in fact that ignorance is usually the basis of his metaphysical BM's.


Do you have an example where someone uses metaphysics as a sensible mode of explaination for anything close to what Jamest wants to use if for?

The examples I know of are seriously flawed and the people pushing them refuse to acknowledg the flaws. They often misinterpret the known physics on the subject, even when a known expert in the field is telling them they are misunderstanding the physics! But maybe I've missed some good use of metaphysics.

I don't really run in the metaphysics crowd, so no, I don't have an example. I don't think you could make jamest's specific argument without misunderstanding the physics. Whether that applies to all other metaphysical arguments, I can't say.


Well about about this guys metaphysical argument about motion?


It's certainly a nonsensical argument. You can't use the premise that all effects have a cause to claim that there is an effect without a cause.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14223
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#148  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 8:51 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

Do you have an example where someone uses metaphysics as a sensible mode of explaination for anything close to what Jamest wants to use if for?

The examples I know of are seriously flawed and the people pushing them refuse to acknowledg the flaws. They often misinterpret the known physics on the subject, even when a known expert in the field is telling them they are misunderstanding the physics! But maybe I've missed some good use of metaphysics.

I don't really run in the metaphysics crowd, so no, I don't have an example. I don't think you could make jamest's specific argument without misunderstanding the physics. Whether that applies to all other metaphysical arguments, I can't say.


Well about about this guys metaphysical argument about motion?


It's certainly a nonsensical argument. You can't use the premise that all effects have a cause to claim that there is an effect without a cause.


And yet people have been eating it up it various forms for over 2000 years. In that form for abou 800 years.

To them it makes sense. :dunno: why. Maybe Jamest will explain it to us. Videos like that got that priest promoted to Bishop. :nod:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#149  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 03, 2018 9:29 pm

John Platko wrote:To them it makes sense.


So they say, anyway. Does that help me out in any way? You and they all rely on many of them saying it makes sense to them. Do you understand why lots of people saying it makes sense to them doesn't sway anyone who's not swayed by an appeal to popularity? That is done like this:

John Platko wrote:And yet people have been eating it up it various forms for over 2000 years. In that form for abou 800 years.


This doesn't refute anyone's contention that the argument does not make sense to them. Is that also just an anecdote? Isn't that why these 'arguments' never get anywhere? At any rate, this is jamest's chief problem with the membership, here, who respond to him by saying his story makes no sense. I call it a story because I won't call it an argument.

You also seem to like the appeal to authority; you use that one a lot, too. Why make the appeal to popularity this time round? Are there no experts who are not self-proclaimed experts saying that god makes sense to them? Remember what I said about the difference between scholars and experts in the other thread. You apparently contend that Bishop Barron is some kind of authority, but you and we both know better. He has no expertise.

As far as the topic of this thread, this forum has many members who claim to have de-converted. So they say, anyway. Do we see a pattern forming? Does this not present a fundamental problem with anecdotes which speaks directly to your remark that "it makes sense to them". You don't know that it does, although you might be happy to say it makes sense to you.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Mar 03, 2018 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#150  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 03, 2018 9:42 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, with respect to the general postulate "a god type entity of some sort exists", I'm one of many here who regard that assertion as possessing the status "truth value unknown", as is the case with every untested assertion.


What's more important, Cali? The fact that many here regard an untested assertion as having "truth value unknown", or that the assertion has not been tested? Does a lack of testing mean any particular assertion is subject to testing? No, it doesn't. But you know the provenance of the 'god-type entity', don't you? Do you say you don't? We know it does because we have some very old documents that refer to a 'god-type entity'. The entity, then, arrives from deep in our past, courtesy of ignorant goat roasters and the propensity for succeeding ground apes to revert to "monkey see, monkey do". We are not yet examining the 'god-type entity' with fresh eyes, are we? Perhaps that is why many here simply react when some people, known colloquially as 'experts', know how to test some assertions. Does this mean all assertions are subject to testing? I remind you that it does not.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#151  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 03, 2018 9:52 pm

John Platko wrote:Videos like that got that priest promoted to Bishop.


Is that a fact? In the country of the bland, the one odd man is king.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#152  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 03, 2018 9:58 pm

John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
I don't really run in the metaphysics crowd, so no, I don't have an example. I don't think you could make jamest's specific argument without misunderstanding the physics. Whether that applies to all other metaphysical arguments, I can't say.


Well about about this guys metaphysical argument about motion?


It's certainly a nonsensical argument. You can't use the premise that all effects have a cause to claim that there is an effect without a cause.


And yet people have been eating it up it various forms for over 2000 years. In that form for abou 800 years.

To them it makes sense. :dunno: why.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. But is this really an example of the best metaphysics has to offer?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14223
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#153  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 03, 2018 10:00 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:But is this really an example of the best metaphysics has to offer?


You'll have to ask an expert in metaphysics. Good luck finding one of those. Because of time's arrow, Immanuel Kant does not address Bishop Barron directly, and your next recourse is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Pud-Pulling.

Aquinas did not produce a new god-type entity fully-formed. In a very monkey-see, monkey-do mode, he took the old goat-roasters' god-type entity and tried to prove that it must exist. Did Aquinas write anything that indicated he was not a product of his upbringing as far as theism is concerned? Aquinas had no knowledge of the CMB.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Mar 03, 2018 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#154  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 10:33 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:To them it makes sense.


So they say, anyway. Does that help me out in any way? You and they all rely many of them saying it makes sense to them. Do you understand why lots of people saying it makes sense to them doesn't sway anyone who's not swayed by an appeal to popularity? That is done like this:


I get that. It probably wouldn't be the first time lots of people were wrong.



John Platko wrote:And yet people have been eating it up it various forms for over 2000 years. In that form for abou 800 years.


This doesn't refute anyone's contention that the argument does not make sense to them. Is that also just an anecdote? Isn't that why these 'arguments' never get anywhere? At any rate, this is jamest's chief problem with the membership, here, who respond to him by saying his story makes no sense. I call it a story because I won't call it an argument.

You also seem to like the appeal to authority; you use that one a lot, too.


:nono: Don't confuse appeal to authority with deferring to an authority on the issue.

from
Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities.



Why make the appeal to popularity this time round?


It was more an expression of my frustration than any appeal to popularity, Cito.


Are there no experts who are not self-proclaimed experts saying that god makes sense to them?


Sure, plenty of non self=proclaimed experts. The Bishop in the video isn't a self- proclaimed expert. He's a grade A
certified expert. And you know St. Thomas Aquinas isn't a self-proclaimed expert by the St. in front of his name.
It doesn't get much more non self-proclaimed expert than that.


Remember what I said about the difference between scholars and experts in the other thread. You apparently contend that Bishop Barron is some kind of authority, but you and we both know better. He has no expertise.


What you and I think of the man has no bearing on his actual credentials - which are impressive.


As far as the topic of this thread, this forum has many members who claim to have de-converted. So they say, anyway. Do we see a pattern forming? Does this not present a fundamental problem with anecdotes which speaks directly to your remark that "it makes sense to them". You don't know that it does, although you might be happy to say it makes sense to you.


Seems like a silly quibble. Of course he could always be faking it, we can't put ourselves inside Barron's brain, but he gives every indication that he believes what he's saying is perfectly logical. The thing about this sort of dellusion is that it seems to be one that step by step reasoning should cut through - but it doesn't.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#155  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 10:36 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:Videos like that got that priest promoted to Bishop.


Is that a fact?


Well that and his ability to pass on such brilliance to the next generation of priests by running a seminary.


In the country of the bland, the one odd man is king.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#156  Postby Keep It Real » Mar 03, 2018 10:38 pm

RE the poll in the OP; I am finding it very difficult to make an accurate estimation due to the fact those I've given "both 4.28 billion year old hydrothermal vent abiogenesis barrels" to I haven't seen again...
You're only conscious when you're thinking about consciousness.
User avatar
Keep It Real
Suspended User
 
Posts: 9171
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#157  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 03, 2018 10:42 pm

John Platko wrote:Don't confuse appeal to authority with deferring to an authority on the issue.


Fair enough. I didn't get the impression you were deferring to authority, because you didn't say so. Of what interest to anyone here is the fact that you might care to defer to authority on any particular matter? In some cases, this is a requirement of adherence to religious doctrine. As long as you make it explicit that you are not advising anyone else to defer to any authority to whom you defer prompted by religious doctrine, since you have no remit to do so, I will still say: Fair enough.

John Platko wrote:
Well that and his ability to pass on such brilliance to the next generation of priests by running a seminary.


Look, John: Here you are really descending deeply into matters specific to one religious community. Don't be preaching, here.

John Platko wrote:The Bishop in the video isn't a self- proclaimed expert. He's a grade A
certified expert. And you know St. Thomas Aquinas isn't a self-proclaimed expert by the St. in front of his name.
It doesn't get much more non self-proclaimed expert than that.


I can grant that with the proviso that we both know you are referring to matters specific to a particular religious community, and has no general applicability. I do not purport to de-convert anyone; I'm simply saying these remarks carry no weight with me.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Mar 03, 2018 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29349
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#158  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 10:48 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
John Platko wrote:

Well about about this guys metaphysical argument about motion?


It's certainly a nonsensical argument. You can't use the premise that all effects have a cause to claim that there is an effect without a cause.


And yet people have been eating it up it various forms for over 2000 years. In that form for abou 800 years.

To them it makes sense. :dunno: why.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. But is this really an example of the best metaphysics has to offer?


:dunno: It's a well known one and it captures the flavor of what I've seen from metaphysics. As far as I can tell it's a mental hand waving trick that confuses many minds into believing they were shown an actual proof. This proof of God thing seems harmless enough but they use similar mental gymnastics in more directly harmful ways. And to them it's like they're working with math, you crunch the logic and out pops the answer you were looking for. And to make matters worse, if those answers are agreed to be correct in certain forums they become irreformable - they're right and they can never be deemed wrong.

Anybody here ever find a compelling need of metaphysics to be able to actually do something or make something?
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#159  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 10:57 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:But is this really an example of the best metaphysics has to offer?


You'll have to ask an expert in metaphysics. Good luck finding one of those. Because of time's arrow, Immanuel Kant does not address Bishop Barron directly, and your next recourse is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Pud-Pulling.

Aquinas did not produce a new god-type entity fully-formed. In a very monkey-see, monkey-do mode, he took the old goat-roasters' god-type entity and tried to prove that it must exist. Did Aquinas write anything that indicated he was not a product of his upbringing as far as theism is concerned? Aquinas had no knowledge of the CMB.


Aquinas used Aristotle's proof of the unmoved mover (See) and said the unmoved mover is Bible God. He surrounded that with Catholic speak and Bible speak and he gave new life to what the old goat roasters said, and that's just what the church needed because that old goat was getting stale but this new improved intellectual Aristotle based goat could compete with the more emperical thinking minds that were coming on the scene.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How many people have you de-converted?

#160  Postby John Platko » Mar 03, 2018 11:08 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
John Platko wrote:Don't confuse appeal to authority with deferring to an authority on the issue.


Fair enough. I didn't get the impression you were deferring to authority, because you didn't say so. Of what interest to anyone here is the fact that you might care to defer to authority on any particular matter?


I like to give people a heads up as to when I'm just making shit up and when I'm not.


In some cases, this is a requirement of adherence to religious doctrine. As long as you make it explicit that you are not advising anyone else to defer to any authority to whom you defer prompted by religious doctrine, since you have no remit to do so, I will still say: Fair enough.


I haven't found religion doctrine to be all that reliable of a source. My Catholic religion has this irreformable doctrine which means if we once said it was so strongly enough then we're never going to change our mind. That error propagation technique is incompatible with sound reasoning.



John Platko wrote:
Well that and his ability to pass on such brilliance to the next generation of priests by running a seminary.


Look, John: Here you are really descending deeply into matters specific to one religious community. Don't be preaching, here.



I'm not preaching, I'm explaining what the man did that seems to have gotten him his promotion to Bishop.



John Platko wrote:The Bishop in the video isn't a self- proclaimed expert. He's a grade A
certified expert. And you know St. Thomas Aquinas isn't a self-proclaimed expert by the St. in front of his name.
It doesn't get much more non self-proclaimed expert than that.


I can grant that with the proviso that we both know you are referring to matters specific to a particular religious community, and has no general applicability. I do not purport to de-convert anyone; I'm simply saying these remarks carry no weight with me.


What expert on God credentials would carry weight with you?
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests