Comments for Dante's Inferno http://facilis.wordpress.com Just another WordPress.com weblog Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:06:50 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on About by facilis http://facilis.wordpress.com/about/#comment-61 facilis Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:06:50 +0000 #comment-61 Well I'm sorry John. You seem rather bitter. I'll add a link to debunking crap Well I’m sorry John. You seem rather bitter. I’ll add a link to debunking crap

]]> Comment on About by John W. Loftus http://facilis.wordpress.com/about/#comment-59 John W. Loftus Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:23:10 +0000 #comment-59 Why don't you link to Debunking Crap which reveals the real you? And why don't you link to Debunking Christianity? Hypocrite. Hypocrites are not welcome on my Blog. I was asked to link to a place where there was an actual debate. Holding gerrymanders what I say otherwise. Quotations can slander if you gerrymander. Why don’t you link to Debunking Crap which reveals the real you? And why don’t you link to Debunking Christianity? Hypocrite. Hypocrites are not welcome on my Blog. I was asked to link to a place where there was an actual debate. Holding gerrymanders what I say otherwise.

Quotations can slander if you gerrymander.

]]> Comment on Response to Jack (part 2) by More Dialogue with Dan from Dante’s Inferno - Homologous Legs http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/response-to-jack-part-2/#comment-57 More Dialogue with Dan from Dante’s Inferno - Homologous Legs Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:41:43 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/response-to-jack-part-2/#comment-57 [...] after much thinking/real life work, presumably, has returned fire, addressing all of my main points in some description. What else can I do besides respond [...] [...] after much thinking/real life work, presumably, has returned fire, addressing all of my main points in some description. What else can I do besides respond [...]

]]> Comment on Dialogue with Naontiotami by Response to Jack (part 2) « Dante’s Inferno http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/dialogue-with-naontiotami/#comment-55 Response to Jack (part 2) « Dante’s Inferno Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:07:35 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/dialogue-with-naontiotami/#comment-55 [...] on theistic arguments here. I wrote a piece in response at Dante’s Inferno, which you can find here. I offered a critique of his worldview and 5 theistic arguments and layed out my premises. I will [...] [...] on theistic arguments here. I wrote a piece in response at Dante’s Inferno, which you can find here. I offered a critique of his worldview and 5 theistic arguments and layed out my premises. I will [...]

]]> Comment on Dialogue with Naontiotami by MikeTheInfidel http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/dialogue-with-naontiotami/#comment-51 MikeTheInfidel Fri, 22 May 2009 12:11:07 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/dialogue-with-naontiotami/#comment-51 Oh, something I forgot to mention before. Even if I grant the design and prime mover arguments in their entirety, all this gives us is a deity that existed at that point. Is there an argument for the continued existence of this being? Oh, something I forgot to mention before.

Even if I grant the design and prime mover arguments in their entirety, all this gives us is a deity that existed at that point. Is there an argument for the continued existence of this being?

]]> Comment on Naturalism and free will by facilis http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/naturalism-and-free-will/#comment-49 facilis Tue, 19 May 2009 23:56:47 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/naturalism-and-free-will/#comment-49 Thanks for commenting Tom. I will be sure to examine that stuff on your site soon. However at first glance your arguments seem unconvincing. A famous naturalist named Richard Dawkins compared attributing blame and moral responsibility to a fully determined agent to a Monty Python sketch where Basil Fawlty beats a car for being a faulty machine. He concludes , "But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?" While I disagree with Dawkins as to the truth of naturalism but it seems that he has a point. Thanks for commenting Tom. I will be sure to examine that stuff on your site soon.
However at first glance your arguments seem unconvincing. A famous naturalist named Richard Dawkins compared attributing blame and moral responsibility to a fully determined agent to a Monty Python sketch where Basil Fawlty beats a car for being a faulty machine.
He concludes ,
“But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?”
While I disagree with Dawkins as to the truth of naturalism but it seems that he has a point.

]]> Comment on Naturalism and free will by Tom Clark http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/naturalism-and-free-will/#comment-48 Tom Clark Tue, 19 May 2009 23:02:16 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/naturalism-and-free-will/#comment-48 Nice clip, raises tough but answerable questions. A few quick notes: That our behavior isn't an exception to physical laws doesn't mean we cease to be effective agents or unique individuals. We have as at least as much causal power as the factors that determine us. We can and must be held responsible even if we're fully determined, since that's a main way we learn to act morally. We don't need the special dignity of being causally exempt from natural cause and effect. And he's right: randomness adds nothing to our freedom or responsibility. Overall, not having contra-causal free will isn't a problem for us or our values, but it usually takes some time to see this. The Center for Naturalism has explored this question in depth. best, Tom Clark Center for Naturalism www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm Nice clip, raises tough but answerable questions. A few quick notes:

That our behavior isn’t an exception to physical laws doesn’t mean we cease to be effective agents or unique individuals. We have as at least as much causal power as the factors that determine us. We can and must be held responsible even if we’re fully determined, since that’s a main way we learn to act morally. We don’t need the special dignity of being causally exempt from natural cause and effect. And he’s right: randomness adds nothing to our freedom or responsibility. Overall, not having contra-causal free will isn’t a problem for us or our values, but it usually takes some time to see this. The Center for Naturalism has explored this question in depth.

best,

Tom Clark
Center for Naturalism
http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

]]> Comment on The counter-challenge by monado http://facilis.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/the-counter-challenge/#comment-47 monado Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:14:03 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/?p=26#comment-47 Why don't you use this same logic to prove that fairies are real, that Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox were a historical figures, that the Egyptian gods were real? Why uncritically swallow the "Bible is true" and not "the Upanishads are true"? Why not trust Honest John the car dealer? Simple: those are available to analysis by the logical part of your mind, but the Bible is deeply embedded in childhood prejudices and is as hard to ditch as racism or childhoood phobias. "I just believe in one fewer god than you do." Why don’t you use this same logic to prove that fairies are real, that Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox were a historical figures, that the Egyptian gods were real? Why uncritically swallow the “Bible is true” and not “the Upanishads are true”? Why not trust Honest John the car dealer? Simple: those are available to analysis by the logical part of your mind, but the Bible is deeply embedded in childhood prejudices and is as hard to ditch as racism or childhoood phobias.

“I just believe in one fewer god than you do.”

]]> Comment on The Resurrection of Jesus by Michael http://facilis.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/7/#comment-45 Michael Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:16:06 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/?p=7#comment-45 It's not your Jesus that most of us have a problem with. It's his douche-bag followers that twist his words to suit their own selfish desires to manipulate and control people. It’s not your Jesus that most of us have a problem with. It’s his douche-bag followers that twist his words to suit their own selfish desires to manipulate and control people.

]]> Comment on The counter-challenge by Judas http://facilis.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/the-counter-challenge/#comment-44 Judas Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:35:41 +0000 http://facilis.wordpress.com/?p=26#comment-44 Holy shit! you mean the tomb was EMPTY?! This changes everything! This is so much more plausible than say, oh any other fictional story like the Quran or whatever else. Holy shit! you mean the tomb was EMPTY?! This changes everything! This is so much more plausible than say, oh any other fictional story like the Quran or whatever else.

]]>