Victor's Lame Excuse
It is amusing to see that the cult of Victor continues to behave the same way they always have, even in the absence of the "gnus" that he was so certain were the source of the problem. How can this be? Well, obviously it's our fault.
Look, it was like pulling teeth to get me to do the banning I did. But the problem is that the kind of atheism that theists on this site were most likely to deal with once I posted something was the hard-core New Atheist variety. The best atheist responses to most issues come from what I would call the sensible atheist viewpoint, and Jeff Lowder is perhaps one of the best exemplars of that viewpoint. Theists on this site get so used to responding to gnus that they are more likely to respond to non-gnus in the same way as they do with gnus, and I really think some of the theists here would behave better if they weren't so used to responding to gnus.Here's some news for you, Victor. The best theist responses don't come from you or any of your cultists, either. If all I wanted was to hear the best philosophical positions, I wouldn't have gone to Dangerous Idea in the first place. There are other sources of information of that sort available to me. But I've been learning other things from my time there, too. And I must say, it's been an interesting journey.
Did you honestly think your cultists would change their stripes simply because we're not there any longer? Just get rid of the devils in your midst, and the jerks will no longer have the excuse "the devil made me do it"? A jerk is what it is. We didn't make them who they are. And we certainly aren't responsible for their behavior. Not before we arrived, not while we were there, and not after we've gone.
Did you honestly think your cultists would change their stripes simply because we're not there any longer?
ReplyDeleteNo, but the conversations will become - and already are - much more fruitful without you. The whole "no need for an echo chamber" thing applies more to you!
Go back and read the thread. Sounds exactly like it did before my departure. Same jerks, different targets for their vitriol.
DeleteQuit acting all butthurt and move one, dude. You acted like an ass over at Dr Reppert's blog, and you yourself banned. Yeah, Vic should probably ban some theists there too, but he isn't going to, probably because they don't have this weird, pathological obsession with commenting at DI like you and Papalinton do. Honestly, quit being a weird atheist stalker and grow up.
ReplyDeleteListen, kid. Once you get past puberty, we might have some basis to discuss things in a civil manner. You call me a stalker? I think you fit the bill better than I do. Listen to yourself. For my part, I've said again and again that I'm willing to discuss things with people who want to discuss things. What's your excuse?
Delete"Once you get past puberty, we might have some basis to discuss things in a civil manner." ... 1. I'm 30, going to be 31. We don't actually know your age, or who you are, (probably because you are a coward who refuses to take responsibility for what he says, and probably because you've lied about your age and occuptation and don't want anyone to find out), but you act like you are either still in college or you just graduated. That chip on your shoulder gives you away. 2. You don't know enough to discuss anything civilly. Every time someone points out your lack of knowledge or experience, you get all butthurt and pouty.
Delete"You call me a stalker?" ... Yes. I'm not the one who told everyone he was leaving, only to start a blog which was devoted to all the things Dr Reppert posts. I'm also not the one who started obsessively commenting at DI again after I started a blog devoted to responding to everything Vic writes. I'm also not the one who, after he got banned from Dr Reppert's site, continues to blog about what's going on at DI. Can I make your obsession any more plain to you?
"I think you fit the bill better than I do." ... See above.\
"For my part, I've said again and again that I'm willing to discuss things with people who want to discuss things." ... Here's the thing: you don't actually want to discuss anything. That's why people over at DI (me included) got frustrated with you. If you wanted to discuss anything, you would have done accretive things like, e.g., read and digested Mind and World by John McDowell, or Wittegenstein's Philosophical Investigation like you said you were going to do a few years ago. But no, instead you preferred to argue like an ignorant little brat.
"What's your excuse?" ... I don't have one. I actually discuss things with others, even with you.
By the way, this is the thread in which you started commenting at DI again, in response to the discussion we had on your blog. I'm still waiting for you to explain how exactly I moved the goalposts.
ReplyDeleteDan,
DeleteWe used to talk, and then one day, I said something that pushed your button, and you've been hostile ever since. If you would like to return to having rational discussions, I would welcome that. I believe that I can learn some things from you, and I believe that if you were willing to listen, you might even learn something from me.
I have no desire to be hostile - not with you, and not with the people at DI either. I'm not the one who initiated all this. You weren't around when I started commenting there, so maybe you don't know how things developed. All I ever wanted to do was discuss and learn.
If you would like to continue the discussion from where it left off, I invite you to return to that thread. (I see that you posted something there and then deleted it.) I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
Skep,
DeleteThanks for the olive branch. It's big of you to offer one considering that I've been a jerk. I'll make sure to keep any future comments here civil and respectful. Hold me to that if I step out of line.
Cheers.
DAN GILSON -> EXCELLENT REBUTTALS
ReplyDeleteAnd that's the funny thing about these self-titled, self-exactly "freethinkers" or whatever the they want to come off as this month.
Here's the thing: you don't actually want to discuss anything. That's why people over at DI (me included) got frustrated with you.
Exactly. This "I'm skeptical" person is like every other dishonest atheist I ever met. They sit there are put up a pretense towards rational discussion - with special emphasis on pseudo-humility such as 'I'd gladly change my position if there were evidence' - only to balk, dodge, and accuse when said evidence is presented.
I am SO happy and SO UPROARIOUS with laughter that Vic finally did this!
IM-NOT-SKEPTICAL:
Go back and read the thread.
"The" thread? It's a blog, lamey. There are multiple threads. I can see that along with critical thinking, English is not a strong point either.
Same jerks, different targets for their vitriol.
I haven't seen any evidence to back up your assertion there. As a haughty-taughty oh-so-intellectual critical-thinking atheist type, you ought to know better - sir.
If you can't see what's happening at Victor's blog, you are truly blind.
DeleteNow, let me ask you something in all seriousness. Do you have anything to say? If you do, then let's talk about it. If not, then why are you here?
Haha I guess English isn't my strong point either. Damn spellcheck! Self-styled, not self-exactly LOLOL
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt was inevitable that the DI crowd, as moths to a lightbulb, would be attracted to this site. And just as it is with moths, they will not understand why it is that this inexorable pull instantiates their involuntary and inexorable compulsion to do so. But I would welcome them, Skep. The discussion can continue here, where subscribing to wrongheaded religious supernatural superstition can be exposed for the delusion it is. I would also welcome Dr Reppert to the site where his worldview can be peeled back, layer by layer, forensically, robustly, revealing the bedrock epistemological and ontological flaws in his philosophical arguments predicated as they are on primitive religious thought.
ReplyDeleteHe knows very well that contemporary mainstream philosophy has long passed this predilection for religious-informed philosophy. He knows that despite his valiant rearguard efforts, 'metaphysical supernaturalism' [a neologism for scientifically-uninformed theism :o) ] has largely been supplanted by 'Metaphysical naturalism' [that is, scientifically-informed philosophy], consigning theo-philosophy to boutique interest status at the periphery of mainstream philosophy.
All are welcome here.
DeleteI will happily engage anybody in discussion or debate. I especially hope Victor will respond to the OP. Why does he feel that it's our fault that a bunch of jerks on his blog behave the way they do? This comes to light especially in the way they have treated JJ Lowder. He has been a friend of Victor for many years. Does Victor want to throw him under the bus to avoid any disagreement with his cultists? This is very interesting. What will he do? And how does he respond to this question?
Oh save your verbose drivel Paps... there is no inexorable pull, and I had stopped commenting almost 100% at DI for a long time just because of you two jackwagon's primarily. So I understand exactly why I came here, and I got it: a good laugh.
ReplyDeleteYou guys should have actually contributed instead of plagiarizing and other nefarious activities.
This is the clincher:
ReplyDelete"Theists on this site get so used to responding to gnus that they are more likely to respond to non-gnus in the same way as they do with gnus, and I really think some of the theists here would behave better if they weren't so used to responding to gnus."
Like Pavlov's dogs , theists on DI have been classically conditioned to respond as they do, through no fault of their own. Indeed, Dr Reppert in the greatest sign of ignorance in blaming the victim, externalizes the problem for the unconscionable behaviour of theists, "I really think some of the theists here would behave better if they weren't so used to responding to gnus"; "We were just nice little Christian boys here until the gnus came along and turned us into animals. It's all their fault". What Dr Reppert is confirming here is that his theist DI sycophants act the way they do because of gnu conditioning, and like all dogs, theists salivate when a gnu comes into the room. They are incapable of, and are excused from using, their human mind to control their behaviour.
If ever there was a greater concession exposing the utter poverty, the profound uselessness of Christianity as a guide for the moral and ethical conduct of christians, his statement could not have been better scripted.
Dr Reppert has admitted, theists only act with depraved indifference and insensibility when forced to do so by gnus. If ever there was a demonstration of the ubiquitous Christian persecution complex, this is THE gem, the memetic virus that pervades the christian mind.
Not only is the excuse lame, it exhibits a profound ignorance.
Your comments make me laugh Paps, but not in the "awestruck" way. I like some of the flowery language you use. Goeb's would be proud
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt does appear there's a problem with repeat comments. Is this a problem with my blog? At any rate, I appreciate your inputs.
DeleteIt's a surprise to me too. And I don't even suffer from Parkinson's So I can only assume there is a God after all. It is a prophecy; and that He noticed those representing HIM were right off target, in La-La land, he thought it justified to inundate your site with my comment in response to HIS ire with the superstitionists. But then again we can conjure up all kinds of nonsense under the rubric of supernaturalism.
DeleteHa! 5 more echoes in the chamber..... !
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt DI I gave as good as I ever received. I do not resile from that fact. But Victor's reasons for considering a ban are paltry and dishonest. According to Victor I overstepped.
ReplyDeleteI own my behaviour and mindful of Victor's chagrin I volitionally withdrew from commenting. I did not belligerently or truculently continue to comment there, waiting for the first step of a ban, the presumptive expunging of a comment.
Victor does not, and will not, own his own behaviour, nor do any of the theists at his site. Indeed he naively channelled the blame on Skep and I for his and for his and the others' abominable behaviour.
The cruncher came in an earlier post when Dr Reppert made the libellous remark:
"Papalinton: If you had heard that a university had order the summary execution of all religious believers, you would applaud." [April 25, 2015 12:03 AM]
To which I responded, "Why would I applaud?"
It was that moment it became clear to me Dr Reppert was not at all interested in genuine debate, looking over the silly banter from both sides. The moment was a watershed for me. Dr Reppertt had forgone any pretence of abiding by the intellectual rigour of his PhD training and had largely resorted to tabloid journalism for his opinionated pieces. He did not then nor does he now own his own behaviour. He is no different than those that he sought to excuse with his disingenuous charge that Skep and I were solely responsible for the manner in which the religiose on his site conducted themselves.
What an indecent waste of the intellectual capacity of this man. Very disappointing.
Lowder's comment was quite correct. If Victor applied his reasoning to his own cultists, he would have to ban several of them. As it is, he has shown an appalling lack of honesty. When it comes to his own cultists, nothing they say bothers him in the least. What a hypocrite.
Delete