tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post3491671213446881115..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Crowd-Sourcing Vacuity: (non) Ten (non) Commandments for the (non) 21st CenturyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90025190240004785502016-04-19T03:16:56.597-07:002016-04-19T03:16:56.597-07:00Thanks, Jonathan, for pointing that out. Also the...Thanks, Jonathan, for pointing that out. Also the new spelling of the word "pwned," perhaps intended as a hybrid of "owned" and "pounded." Brilliance such as I expect from DC visitors.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-52311325019850301102016-04-19T00:36:03.543-07:002016-04-19T00:36:03.543-07:00Nah, you pretty much got pwned by Patrick.Nah, you pretty much got pwned by Patrick.Jonathan P. Figdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14006773516863818518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45862232972558168252015-07-28T20:42:54.275-07:002015-07-28T20:42:54.275-07:00In retrospect, while my criticism was not unjust, ...In retrospect, while my criticism was not unjust, I should have been more patient here with Patrick, I think. Perhaps he did not fully recognize the implications of his perhaps casual accusation. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-12182812687796482262014-12-23T13:44:39.141-08:002014-12-23T13:44:39.141-08:00Does anyone here besides Patrick not understand th...Does anyone here besides Patrick not understand the implications of his own first post in this forum? David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-30030734699495536252014-12-23T13:26:53.511-08:002014-12-23T13:26:53.511-08:00When did I accuse you of lying?When did I accuse you of lying?Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-90078056729486003062014-12-23T09:17:55.228-08:002014-12-23T09:17:55.228-08:00Typical DC fan. He implicitly accuses me of lying...Typical DC fan. He implicitly accuses me of lying and psychological disorder, gets his facts wrong, and then throws a temper-tantrum when I accuse him, not of being stupid or dishonest, but merely of an act of stupidity. And then refuses to apologize, instead tries to up the ante. <br /><br />OK, let's up it. What happened in this thread, is what almost always happens when an honest non-atheist posts on DC. Address the issue itself on DC, and instead of getting answered on substance, a swarm of atheists insult and lie about the poster. When he (I seldom see women poster there) answers fire with fire, or even fire with a few sparks, he becomes the villain. <br /><br />Since you insist on behaving in an obnoxious manner, without apology or self-awareness, you are no longer welcome on this thread. I would prefer to have a few guests who behave like adults, than many who act like spoiled brats, refuse even the clearest correction, and ruin any hope of intelligent conversation about the issues. <br /><br />If you post on other threads, do your best to address the issues, next time. DC or (still worse) Pharyngula behavior is not welcome on this site. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-45821695237990849272014-12-23T09:02:27.111-08:002014-12-23T09:02:27.111-08:00Rather than displaying "a more courteous and ...Rather than displaying "a more courteous and serious tone" you hurl insult after insult at atheists here on your blog as well as on Loftus's blog, which are the only 2 blogs I see you on, so it is funny you ask something of me that you refuse to show yourself to those who merely disagree with you. On your blog you can say whatever you want of course but I find it hypocritical that you demand other show deference and respect when you consistently refuse to show it to others on other blogs. All I said in my comment was that I was wondering something. I never showed disrespect or insult to you. Your behavior is exactly what I expect from many, but not all, Christians.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-717623092798557922014-12-23T08:43:50.136-08:002014-12-23T08:43:50.136-08:00Patrick: You accused me of "feeling the need&...Patrick: You accused me of "feeling the need" to post the wrong list. Implicit is the claim that (a) I was deliberately lying, and (b) there is something psychologically wrong with me. <br /><br />Even though the true explanation is in black and white above. <br /><br />And then when I slap you down for the, yes, stupidity of your comment (but without disparaging your intelligence per se, still less your honesty), you have the gaul to whine about my "insulting and demeaning" you. <br /><br />The hypocrisy (and, yes, stupidity) reeks. <br /><br />You owe readers here (and of course me) an apology, and then a more courteous and serious tone. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-33849851673352524482014-12-23T08:26:10.776-08:002014-12-23T08:26:10.776-08:00Wow! It's as almost if Jesus himself had said...Wow! It's as almost if Jesus himself had said it. The more Christians are insulting and demeaning the more it confirms the falsity of the religion. Please keep up the good work. You are an excellent example of the problems with Christianity and Christians.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-88184438991796454272014-12-23T08:17:24.817-08:002014-12-23T08:17:24.817-08:00Patrick: Why do you say such a stupid thing? Read...Patrick: Why do you say such a stupid thing? Read the thread, and figure it out. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-88018000957527962102014-12-23T08:06:23.872-08:002014-12-23T08:06:23.872-08:00I'm just wondering why David felt the need to ...I'm just wondering why David felt the need to put up a false list of those ten commandments instead of the actual ones as pointed out by the Arizona Atheist.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780532750727491262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-31241430909961682632014-12-22T23:43:52.064-08:002014-12-22T23:43:52.064-08:00We bet our lives on human testimony ALL the time -...We bet our lives on human testimony ALL the time -- like every day in traffic. "Is there a car coming?" "No, you can go now." We also bet our lives on our own senses even more often. ("Hmmn, is there a car coming?" [Glance.] "Nope.") Neither is the "scientific method," falsifying (3). David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-69707788587391462192014-12-22T11:11:39.967-08:002014-12-22T11:11:39.967-08:00"For instance, the proposition 'I was in ..."For instance, the proposition 'I was in Sichuan Province in October,' which is about the natural world, cannot be verified scientifically, but can be verified historically." <br /><br />Are there differences in how we view things that are verified historically vs those "verified" by science? I put verified in quotes because I think that is not a good word for how science works. Hypotheses can be corroborated...enhanced with evidence/data, but even the most well established theory is not verified...as in proven.<br /><br />How would you go about verifying to me that you were in Sichuan Province in October? Photos? Testimony? Official documents? Do any of those do more than make it more likely to me that you were there then? I have no reason to doubt you were there then, it's pretty unremarkable. But I'd not "bet my life" on it like I do with, say, gravity, the laws of momentum, the need of humans to take in sustenance to survive, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-60810736176936927832014-12-19T16:53:36.766-08:002014-12-19T16:53:36.766-08:00First off, "recognise" needs no "[s...First off, "recognise" needs no "[sic]" after it, AR At, it's an alternate spelling (used primarily by Britain).<br /><br />The revised list is also rather contradictory. For example, #9 negates all the rest. If there's no right way to live, then who says I have to be open minded?<br /><br />You, AR At, have violated your own rules! You don't have the desire to point out the supposed wrong things in the OP, but you're in violation of several of your own commandments by even saying that. You're saying there's a right way to live and that David is living wrong and writing things that are wrong, clear violation of #9. Also, *if* there is something wrong you have a responsibility to leave the world a better place, which apparently you don't care to do, in violation of #10. You're also in violation of rules 8 and 7 as you're not being very considerate. Two different ways, you're withholding information, assuming you actually have truth to share, and you're not treating him the way he'd like to be treated (presumably). That is, most people want to know the truth if it can be known, and you claim to know David is wrong but are unwilling (rather I assume unable) to share it. I'm assuming you used the scientific method to come to the conclusion that you're unwilling to share ... otherwise it's invalid, according to rule #3. Also, I can't say you've violated rule #1, but have you ever explored any of the evidence relating to the supposed truth you have? The fact that you found the actual list put out by this group of people who claim to believe in nothing is appreciated, but your inconsistency and the inconsistency of the list itself makes this entire endeavor meaningless.Samuel Ronickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-77206120938237299262014-12-19T12:48:36.601-08:002014-12-19T12:48:36.601-08:00hey AA,
thanks for the correction -- but now half(...hey AA,<br />thanks for the correction -- but now half(!) out of the ten commandments are, well, not commandments at all. They are truth claims. True: #8 has a moral implication. But seriously: even 60% is a bare pass on form (before even considering content) :-/Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16197663817396506388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-67285386769344968052014-12-19T12:44:34.923-08:002014-12-19T12:44:34.923-08:00OK, thanks, that sounds a little more coherent. I...OK, thanks, that sounds a little more coherent. I copied it from John Loftus' web site, then checked the original website, without noticing the discrepancy. <br /><br />However, corrected numbers (3) and (9) are also not "commandments," or even "suggestions," really. Three is vague and / or untrue. <br /><br />Defined in the normal way, the "scientific method" is clearly not the most reliable way to find out about most aspects of the natural world. For instance, the proposition "I was in Sichuan Province in October," which is about the natural world, cannot be verified scientifically, but can be verified historically. But it is also not a moral proposition. <br /><br />Who knows what the new number nine means? Is it plainly false ("the only way to live is by keeping your heart beating!"), tautologically true ("we live in different houses, marry different people, eat at different restaurants, work at different jobs") or something vague and highly debatable in between ("one man's torture is another man's enhanced interrogation?") <br /><br />So the two "new" items just add to the impression of vague and timid mush which I describe above. Which is not always a terrible thing, so long as one doesn't presume to brag about it. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40915380462299244372014-12-19T12:12:54.983-08:002014-12-19T12:12:54.983-08:00Hi David,
I'd like to point out to you that t...Hi David,<br /><br />I'd like to point out to you that the following is the actual list of the secular ten commandments. I'm not sure if your browser displayed the page wrong or what, but the be open minded commandment was not repeated three times. And you failed to include a number of others. There are no repeats. Might want to fix that.<br /><br />1. Be open minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.<br />2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.<br />3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.<br />4. Every person has the right to control over their body.<br />5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.<br />6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognise [<i>sic</i>] that you must take responsibility for them.<br />7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.<br />8. We have the responsibility to consider others including future generations<br />9. There is no one right way to live.<br />10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.<br /><br />I'll leave the rest of your post alone since I don't have the desire to point out (again) where you've gone wrong.Arizona Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17377658912951142427noreply@blogger.com