tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post116429446666477655..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: "Do unto others..."Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-31173954924223781842006-11-27T19:27:00.000-05:002006-11-27T19:27:00.000-05:00Paul,
Your latest post aimed at Dawson is nothing...Paul,<br /><br />Your latest post aimed at Dawson is nothing new in terms of "tactics," as it is the same way you always write: full of insults, etc. which you have proudly trumpeted as a legitimate tactic among your christian internet friends numerous times in the past. <br /><br />I would even dare to bet that you have used these "tactics" since before you even met Dawson.<br /><br />Youre just extra pissy at the moment cause he is better at writing and arguing than you are. And when one reads his works, perjorative or not, they come off well mannered and gentlemanly. <br /><br />Yet when one reads your works, they come off as if you are frothing at the mouth. I verified this on accident when I sent a Christian friend/coworker links to both your and Dawsons works. The first thing he asked me why that Dawson guy reads so calmly and matter of fact, yet that Paul guy reads like he is really pissed off! <br /><br />Im hoping to turn him into an agnostic soon, and I think you are helping my cause with him, Paul. ;)Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90906145697280252722006-11-24T08:57:00.000-05:002006-11-24T08:57:00.000-05:00Paul wrote: “Dawson, if you don't like the way I w...Paul wrote: “Dawson, if you don't like the way I write to you, then stop doing it to others. I "Bethrickized" my post. I learned these tactics from you. If you have a problem with my posts, you have a problem with your own. If you don't like my ‘reasoning’ by which I showed you believe in Momma Nature, then you can tell why we don't like your ‘reasoning’ by which you conclude that we believe in invisible magic beings.”<br /><br />What made you think that I “have a problem with [your] posts”? And when you say that you “learned these tactics from [me],” which “tactics” specifically do you mean? In my blog, I simply pointed out how you feel the need to rely on name-calling (I listed several examples from your post, e.g., “monkey,” “bafoon,” “baboon,” “hack,” etc.). It is utterly dishonest for you to suggest that you picked up this habit from me, for I do not resort to these “tactics.” Indeed, below you quote the source that actually models this kind of behavior, and it's your own bible. Meanwhile, you make a big deal about the expression “invisible magic being” supposedly being “pejorative,” and yet look at how you saturate your posts with pejoratives of your own, which take the form of personal insults. You simply don’t like being called on it, that’s why you lash out at others and try to blame them for your own choices and actions. It has nothing to do with your “reasoning,” because reason is the one thing that is absent from your posts. In my message, I nowhere protested against your use of the expression “Momma Nature”; you use this expression simply because you’re trying to one-up me on my use of “invisible magic being,” for which you’ve offered no sustainable criticism. It's just more juvenile tit-for-tat, which is all you have at your disposal. Regardless, I see no reason not to go on using "invisible magic being" to refer to the Christian or any other god. I have no problem with it. But if you do, well, that’s your problem, Paul, not mine.<br /><br />Paul wrote: “If you are bothered by my saying that you "think monkey's thoughts after them," then maybe you now feel how we do when we see you try to apply the "thinking God's thoughts after Him" insults to us.”<br /><br />Paul, nothing you say “bothers” me because I really don’t take anything you say personally, even though it’s clear you mean it personally. You are a specimen under my microscope, nothing more. Your problems are primarily with yourself; they spill over into and affect your interpersonal relationships, but this is not my problem. <br /><br />Also, the idea of thinking someone else’s thoughts after him, whether that someone else is either real or imagined, comes from your worldview, not mine. I think my own thoughts, something you can no longer do since you surrendered your mind to Christianity and joined a flock of sheep. <br /><br />Paul wrote: “So, Bethrick, I copy you. I play up or down to the level of competition. You want to get in the mud, fine by me. We can get dirty.”<br /><br />No, you don’t copy me. You don’t come close. You don’t even try to, despite your attempt to excuse your behavior here. This is just what I predicted in my post: you would have no problem excusing your behavior. In fact, you show that you’re not even willing to own your own behavior by trying to put the blame on me. You are like an adult who has refused to grow up and become a man.<br /><br />Paul: “Now, what you could do is drop the sophistic rehetoric, address the meat of my post, and then we'll just see how ‘rigerous’ and ‘rational’ your mind and worldview really are.”<br /><br />Paul, if you read my post, you would have noticed that I mentioned that I took many notes while reviewing your post, and that I plan to post more in response in the coming weeks. Specifically, I wrote: <br /><br /><b>I have made many notes in response to what Paul has stated, and some of them I will be posting on my blog over the next few weeks, as time allows.</b><br /><br />As for “the meat of [your] post,” why don’t you take this opportunity to specify what exactly you consider that to be. <br /><br />In the meantime, why don’t you address one of the points I raised in my present post, namely: <b>what is your position on the use of pejoratives?</b> Is it right to do this, or is it wrong to do this? Do you not have a moral position on this? Or is this something you allow others to decide for you? The question was an opportunity for the world to see how consistent your choices and actions are with the positions you affirm. As I pointed out, you have made a great big deal about “invisible magic being” supposedly being pejorative. But then look at your own writing, and tell me you do not “pepper” it with pejoratives of your own. Why do you avoid answering this question in your comments? Instead of answers, you only come through with attitude. Why? Is that what Christianity teaches to you?<br /><br />Paul wrote: “p.s. Riddle me this: When Jesus called people vipers, whitewashed tombs, fools, dogs, etc., do you think he was or wasn't ‘doing unto others as one would have someone do to one's self’?"<br /><br />Since I think the gospels are storybooks written by people who probably never knew the Jesus they wrote about in the first place, I think these passages are a reflection on their authors more than anything else. They had their own “reasons” for inserting the name-calling into their Jesus’ mouth. It would have been more instructive if they had chosen instead to put logical arguments into Jesus’ mouth instead of painting him as a name-caller, just like you. See, Paul, above you suggested that you picked up the name-calling habit from me. Now you point out exactly where you got it! Paul, I am not your “savior.” You didn’t learn these tactics from me. Get your facts right.<br /><br />Paul wrote: “oh, btw, are you ever going to get around to answering James' criticisms? Or, is picking on his question more important that debating your view of universals?”<br /><br />If you recall, Paul, James insisted that I assumed the Conceptualist view of universals. When I corrected him on this, explaining that I assume the Objectivist theory of concepts, he wouldn’t listen and again insisted that I assumed the Conceptualist view of universals. I suspect he’s too unfamiliar with Objectivism to understand the differences. But I do have a lot of notes on this as well, so if time allows in the future, I do intend to post plenty more material on this and related matters. In the meantime, I suggest you check yourself when you want to draw the hasty conclusion that, if I do not post a response immediately, then I don’t have a response at all. That’s simply not true, and to attempt to draw such conclusions (indeed, from silence) reflects your reliance on wishful thinking, something your religion encourages.<br /><br />Regards, <br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-72206048784890912752006-11-24T01:55:00.000-05:002006-11-24T01:55:00.000-05:00Welcome back. I hope you enjoyed your trip - and-...Welcome back. I hope you enjoyed your trip - and- gimmie a turkey leg. <br /><br />:)<br /><br />Happy thanksgiving from australia.beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20614147033823658272006-11-23T23:02:00.000-05:002006-11-23T23:02:00.000-05:00oh, btw, are you ever going to get around to answe...oh, btw, are you ever going to get around to answering James' criticisms? Or, is picking on his question more important that debating your view of universals?<br /><br />No, not "more important," more "safe."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-53626235394424789762006-11-23T23:00:00.000-05:002006-11-23T23:00:00.000-05:00Dawson, if you don't like the way I write to you, ...Dawson, if you don't like the way I write to you, then stop doing it to others. I "Bethrickized" my post. I learned these tactics from you. If you have a problem with my posts, you have a problem with your own. If you don't like my "reasoning" by which I showed you believe in Momma Nature, then you can tell why we don't like your "reasoning" by which you conclude that we believe in invisible magic beings.<br /><br />If you are bothered by my saying that you "think monkey's thoughts after them," then maybe you now feel how we do when we see you try to apply the "thinking God's thoughts after Him" insults to us.<br /><br />So, Bethrick, I copy you. I play up or down to the level of competition. You want to get in the mud, fine by me. We can get dirty.<br /><br />Now, what you could do is drop the sophistic rehetoric, address the meat of my post, and then we'll just see how "rigerous" and "rational" your mind and worldview really are.<br /><br />No, I think you won't do that. I think you like to play it safe. Better get into a spat with pejoratives than actually debate the philosophical issues.<br /><br />Hey, I understand, I'd do the same if I had your worldview.<br /><br /><br />~PM<br /><br />p.s. Riddle me this: When Jesus called people vipers, whitewashed tombs, fools, dogs, etc., do you think he was or wasn't "doing unto others as one would have someone do to one's self?"<br /><br />If yes: Then you can't say *I* wasn't.<br /><br />If no: Then I was acting "Christian" and so how is it a critique to point out that I acted like Jesus?<br /><br />Either way you lose.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.com