The Fall of Atatürk

THE Islamic call to prayer has been recited at the Hagia Sophia for the first time since the early 1930s. It was broadcast on all of Turkey’s major news channels. President Erdogan has already enacted the court-approved transformation of the historical seat of the Byzantine Patriarchate into a mosque by decree. In Greece, Culture Minister Lina Mendoni has declared the move “an open provocation to the civilized world.” Alas, not since the last days of Byzantium has the West had less authority to insist on respect for historical monuments.

This entry was posted in History, International, War and peace. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to The Fall of Atatürk

  1. Delta

    The barbarians are triumphant and within our gates as well.

  2. David Brewer

    This has been coming for quite a while. I was at the Hagia Sophia in 2006 and it was already being neglected. There were stray cats roaming around and nothing had been restored for years. Erdogan, or one of his minions, had already been occupying the mayor’s office since 1994. Of course the building was already disfigured by being turned into a mosque in the 15th century – new bits at funny angles pointing to Mecca etc. If no respect is shown to churches in Islamic-majority countries, why should Mosques be allowed elsewhere?

  3. Iampeter

    You should be celebrating the Turks moving towards a more religious and traditionalist lifestyle, along with becoming more nationalistic.
    A proper conservative society after all.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    Could you imagine the howling if the Al Aqsa mosque was turned into a church?
    Yet there’ll be crickets from the Left and the MSM about Hagia Sophia.
    On the other hand Erdogan has handed an excuse for the Israelis.
    As in: ‘if you guys can do it, we can do it too’.

  5. Knuckle Dragger

    ‘not since the last days of Byzantium has the West had less authority to insist on respect for historical monuments.’

    Right there.

  6. Let’s make a deal.

    What can Greece give Turkey in exchange for the Haiga Sophia.

  7. Clam Chowdah

    The great mosque at Mecca would make an awesome Basilica.

  8. Chris M

    The great mosque at Mecca would make an awesome Basilica.

    Ugh. And the silver vag…?

  9. mh

    Protesters in Baltimore threw the Christopher Columbus statue in the harbour.

    Nancy Pelosi’s response? “People will do what they do”.

  10. Eyrie

    “The great mosque at Mecca would make an awesome Basilica.”

    It would make a far more awesome green glass lined crater.

  11. Roger

    You should be celebrating the Turks moving towards a more religious and traditionalist lifestyle, along with becoming more nationalistic.
    A proper conservative society after all.

    Not all religions, traditions or nationalities are equal, you nincompoop.

  12. Snoopy

    It must be time to rebuild the Second Temple.

  13. Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer

    Muslims slowly yet steadily increasing their control over society everywhere. Watch out who you elect for your local Councils.

  14. Lee

    You should be celebrating the Turks moving towards a more religious and traditionalist lifestyle …

    You might be; I never will in a million years.

  15. As I am from that (now) shit-hole, I have a special inevitable sadness about this.
    Of my 2 sons, one is especially woke. Both visited Turkey a couple of times and kept telling me how great it was there. I’ve never bothered going back since coming here in 1969 as a 10 yr old.
    I told the woke son the Hagia Sophia would be made into a mosque because that’s what Mueslies do EVERY SINGLE TIME and that’s what they’ve done since they’ve infested this planet.
    Needles to say my son thinks I’m a bigoted, xenophobic Slamaphobe. LOLzzzzzz
    I should give him a call but I won’t. Can’t crush my own son.

    If it goes to Friday indoctrinations, it isn’t your friend and never will be.

  16. Iampeter

    Not all religions, traditions or nationalities are equal, you nincompoop.

    All irrational ideas, like religion, are the same and result in the same outcomes.
    But that has nothing to do with whether all “traditions” are the same or not, which is different again as to whether all “nationalities” are the same or not.

    You might be; I never will in a million years.

    I don’t support conservatism, which is why it makes sense for me to oppose Turkey’s descent into a conservative society.
    It’s the opposition of conservatives which makes no sense, obviously.
    This shouldn’t need clarification.

  17. Old Lefty

    Meanwhile the woke left in what’s left of the West wants to confiscate Cordoba cathedral and hand it back as a mosque (consistency is a virtue for small minds, do I hear you say?), And leave Notre Dame to rot.

  18. Makka

    If it goes to Friday indoctrinations, it isn’t your friend and never will be.

    Excellent summation Baa Humbug.

  19. dover_beach

    We need a Reconquista of Byzantium. This should begin with Constantinople.

  20. Lee

    Where is El Cid when you need him?

  21. Colonel Bunty Golightly

    Just what the world needs – another venue for terrorists to gather and plot!

  22. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Story goes that, when Ataturk was President of Turkey, a deputation of Mooslim clerics waited on him, to demand that all Turkish women be compelled to wear the veil.

    Ataturk replied that Turkish women were free to dress as they pleased, but the only women compelled to wear the veil, would be those registered with the police as prostitutes.

    That was the last word, on the matter.

  23. notafan

    Hagia Sophia is the finger point answer to any demands for churches in the West.

    A reconquista.

    Preceded by mass free will conversion of Muslims to Christianity.

    Should I live so long.

  24. Roger

    It’s the opposition of conservatives which makes no sense, obviously.

    I explained why conservatives might not warm to this development.

    Don’t be obtuse…if you can help it, that is.

  25. Iampeter

    I explained why conservatives might not warm to this development.

    You didn’t do anything resembling such a thing as I pointed out in my response #3509814
    So, you’re the one being obtuse and dishonest too.

    We need a Reconquista of Byzantium. This should begin with Constantinople.

    Replacing their religious conservatism with…what?

  26. thefrollickingmole

    We need a Reconquista of Byzantium. This should begin with Constantinople.

    Replacing their religious conservatism with…what?

    Well, oh bear of little brain, according to you they are all the same, so you shoulld see no problem with switching over to the Aztec sun god cult as all “are the same and result in the same outcomes.”.

    Its not even trolling at the moment, it barely rises to the status of Kobolding its so weak and feeble.

  27. Clam Chowdah:

    The great mosque at Mecca would make an awesome Basilica.

    It would certainly be improved by turning it into The Matildas home ground.

  28. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iamashiteater, once again revealing his mental deficiency when faced with any concept other than his own beloved cartoon like binary dogmatic absolutist generalities.

    Iamashiteater said You should be celebrating the Turks moving towards a more religious and traditionalist lifestyle, along with becoming more nationalistic.
    A proper conservative society after all.

    Roger replied
    Not all religions, traditions or nationalities are equal, you nincompoop.
    Iamashiteater responded All irrational ideas, like religion, are the same and result in the same outcomes.
    But that has nothing to do with whether all “traditions” are the same or not, which is different again as to whether all “nationalities” are the same or not.

    Poor old brain damaged mentally defective logic fail, trying to refute Roger by arguing that one of the very things he referred to and which Roger replied about “has nothing to do with” his assertions about the other two very things he referred to and which Roger replied about – so what? Roger never said that each of the three things had anything to do with each other. It was Iamashiteater who raised all three in the same comment. All Roger said (correctly) was that not every item in any of the three categories was equal to all other items in that category.
    What an epic logic fail by the mentally defective fool Iamashiteater.

    Incidentally Iamashiteater, what grounds do you have for classifying “religion” as “irrational ideas”? No doubt some religious ideas, like some ideas in any other area of thought, are irrational, but if you’re suggesting that “religion” as an unqualified descriptor is “irrational” you must presumably have some “rational” basis for saying so – i.e. demonstrable factual grounds to which you then apply valid logic to prove in a logically definitive way that your assertion is correct.

  29. Pingback: The Friday hawt chicks & links – The tribal edition. – Adam Piggott

  30. Iampeter

    Well, oh bear of little brain, according to you they are all the same, so you shoulld see no problem with switching over to the Aztec sun god cult as all “are the same and result in the same outcomes.”.

    I just actually have alternative ideas to religious conservatism and other leftism.
    Things like rights-protecting government, capitalism and so on.
    You know, the stuff that should be pretty basic on what’s meant to be a right wing blog.

    Its not even trolling at the moment, it barely rises to the status of Kobolding its so weak and feeble.

    Pointing out that you fools don’t even have novice-level knowledge of the subjects you’re pretending to discuss is not any kind of trolling.

  31. Clam Chowdah

    But religion is irrational. Why are people even disputing this?

  32. Tim Neilson

    But religion is irrational. Why are people even disputing this?

    Care to elaborate?

    Why are religious beliefs tarred with the brush of “irrationality” compared with e.g. dogmatic atheism?
    Suppose someone is convinced, on the basis of evidence, that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are true? If you’re going to say that consequent Christian beliefs are “irrational” you’d have to explain, by reference to demonstrable facts and consequent valid logic why such a belief wasn’t tenable.

    Or, maybe, you’re just alluding to the idea that any view of reality contains aspects of the non-rational since any view of reality has to start with presumptions that are accepted rather than being proved from logical inference from pre-existing presumptions (which would have to be proved… etc., etc., …)?

  33. Tim Neilson

    Tedious.

    English translation: Unanswerable.

  34. Clam Chowdah

    Tedious because it’s always the same bullshit. Endless tarbaby arguments at high school level.

    On the basis of the observable universe it’s unlikely there is a god, at least as subjectively imagined aby thousands of religions. I can’t prove there isn’t a god, but you certainly can’t prove there is a god. As Christopher Hitchens said, “what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”

    Having said that I’m not opposed to certain forms of religion that help people to structure their lives and behave civilly. It’s ironic that an irrational belief can help some people to behave more rationally. But there it is. Good night.

  35. dover_beach

    As Christopher Hitchens said, “what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

    This true, thankfully, classical theists across the ages have asserted magnificent arguments for the existence of God. Therefore, what has been asserted by means of argument cannot be dismissed without argument. Good evening.

  36. Clam Chowdah

    “You have no proof. Next.”

    Like that?

  37. dover_beach

    I can think of five very good proofs. To say that these five proofs aren’t satisfactory would require an argument and therefore cannot be dismissed without an argument. It’s clear that what Hitchens sought in that locution was a blanket ‘get out of thinking card’ when it came to arguments for the existence of God.

    You admit above that you can’t prove there is no God. Apply that same locution, I can simply dismiss your claim, “On the basis of the observable universe it’s unlikely there is a god”, without argument. Consequently, the locution is a truism when applied to mere assertions, but plainly idiotic when applied to assertions that are the conclusions of an argument.

  38. Tim Neilson

    Clam Chowdah
    #3510337, posted on July 11, 2020 at 10:12 pm

    Poor old Clam Chowdah, another non-thinker.
    I said Suppose someone is convinced, on the basis of evidence, that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are true? If you’re going to say that consequent Christian beliefs are “irrational” you’d have to explain, by reference to demonstrable facts and consequent valid logic why such a belief wasn’t tenable.

    No answer at all, except an unsubstantiated assertion that the universe somehow makes it “unlikely” that there is a god – zero actual factual or logical support for the assertion that religion is “irrational”.

  39. Ubique

    How many churches in London are now mosques?

  40. Clam Chowdah

    No answer at all, except an unsubstantiated assertion that the universe somehow makes it “unlikely” that there is a god – zero actual factual or logical support for the assertion that religion is “irrational”.

    Observable reality. Is there some other standard you’re operating on?

  41. Iampeter

    I can’t prove there isn’t a god, but you certainly can’t prove there is a god.

    God, like all supernatural nonsense, is disproved by the fact that the idea violates the law of identity.
    But more importantly, you don’t need to disprove a god since there is no reason to suggest the existence of one in the first place. It’s an arbitrary assertion and so can just be dismissed out of hand.
    The same thing you would do if someone made inarticulate noises at you and asked you to disprove them.

    So it’s even more basic than high school level. Disproving religion is infant level.

  42. Iampeter

    Why are religious beliefs tarred with the brush of “irrationality” compared with e.g. dogmatic atheism?

    They’re not. Atheists can also be irrational.

    Suppose someone is convinced, on the basis of evidence, that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are true?

    If religion could be proved then it wouldn’t be religion.

    If you’re going to say that consequent Christian beliefs are “irrational” you’d have to explain, by reference to demonstrable facts and consequent valid logic why such a belief wasn’t tenable.

    Yea but theists keep ignoring the explanations, as you will do here too.

    On the basis of the observable universe it’s unlikely there is a god”, without argument.

    No, you can’t. The observable universe proves the law of identity which disproves the supernatural, like the existence of a god. All of this is established before any arguments can be made, therefore disproving religion doesn’t require arguments, just the acceptance of the basic facts of reality. These are called “axioms” in philosophy.
    But this misses the bigger point that religious assertions are arbitrary, so there’s nothing to even disprove anyway.

  43. dover_beach

    Observable reality.

    ‘Observable reality’ doesn’t prima facie admit any such thing.

    The observable universe proves the law of identity which disproves the supernatural, like the existence of a god. All of this is established before any arguments can be made, therefore disproving religion doesn’t require arguments,

    LOL. Imagine presenting an ‘argument’ and then saying that all of this is established before any argument is made, and then arguing that this ‘disproves’ religion without argument?!?! Oh Aristotle would laugh heartily.

  44. Iampeter

    ‘Observable reality’ doesn’t prima facie admit any such thing.

    That’s exactly what it does.
    If you’re arguing for something in reality then it’s not religion, but if you’re arguing for something outside of reality then it isn’t real.

    Imagine presenting an ‘argument’ and then saying that all of this is established before any argument is made, and then arguing that this ‘disproves’ religion without argument?!?! Oh Aristotle would laugh heartily.

    But I’m not making an argument. I’m explaining that religion is disproved before any arguments about anything can be made. It is not an arguable proposition but a basic thinking exercise, dismissing the unintelligible.
    But more importantly, I’m saying that there’s no reason to make religious assertions in the first place, so there’s nothing to disprove anyway.

  45. dover_beach

    That’s exactly what it does.
    If you’re arguing for something in reality then it’s not religion, but if you’re arguing for something outside of reality then it isn’t real

    What is being considered: is God real? I argue: God is real for X and Y reasons. IamMengele responds: X and Y are false because God is not real. Classic question- begging by IamMengele.

    But I’m not making an argument. I’m explaining that religion is disproved before any arguments about anything can be made. It is not an arguable proposition but a basic thinking exercise,

    Yes, yes, we can all see you’ve renamed argument as a ‘basic thinking exercise’.

    BTW, I’ve looked at the Randian ‘law of identity’ objection and it’s terrible and easily disarmed. Claim re infinity is otiose, classical theists claim timelessness, not infinity, of God; timelessness and infinity are radically different. Re omnipotence, this does not mean God can do ‘anything’ but rather that He can do everything that is in accord with his nature. Round squares no; the universe, yes.

  46. Iampeter

    Round squares no; the universe, yes.

    If you’ve understood why there’s no such thing as a “round square” then you’ve also understood why there’s no such thing as God.

  47. dover_beach

    If you’ve understood why there’s no such thing as a “round square” then you’ve also understood why there’s no such thing as God.

    No, you are assuming that the Randian ‘law of identity’ objection is correct. It isn’t; see above. Randians need to hit the books. They are responding to arguments classical theists have never made.

  48. JC

    Plodes

    There is a God. You’re our God of all knowledge and light.

  49. Tim Neilson

    The observable universe proves the law of identity which disproves the supernatural, like the existence of a god.

    Poor old wrongologist.

    The “law of identity” does not disprove the supernatural. There’s nothing the slightest bit illogical about a supernatural phenomenon having an identity just the same way as a natural phenomenon.

    But more importantly, you don’t need to disprove a god since there is no reason to suggest the existence of one in the first place.

    Poor old wrongologist. This is a classic example of the way “Objectivists” fool themselves with their own jargon. The question whether something exists or doesn’t exist is a factual matter (albeit one which may not be capable of proof either way), not a question of what may be functionally required for some purpose (i.e. a “reason” to enquire whether it exists or not). Iamashiteater’s argument is in fact ostrich’s head in the sand stuff.

    It’s an arbitrary assertion and so can just be dismissed out of hand.

    Poor old wrongologist. No it isn’t. You may not like the historical evidence as recorded in the Bible, and you’re at liberty to critique it, but it’s not “arbitrary” at all to form the view that it’s plausible.

    If religion could be proved then it wouldn’t be religion.

    Poor old wrongologist. No-one ever said that the Gospels could be “proved”, indeed such a claim would be contrary to Christian doctrine. All that I said was that it is possible to find the Gospels and other Christian evidence convincing. “Believing” and “knowing” are different.

    The poor old wrongologist can’t distinguish between Christians saying (as we do) that Christianity can’t be disproved, and his own misconception that we’re claiming to be able to prove it to be true.

    These are called “axioms” in philosophy.

    Poor old wrongologist. Asserting that the law of identity disproves the supernatural is just a logical error, not an “axiom”. The law of identity is, properly, an “axiom” for any conventional system of reasoning, but a presumption against the existence of the supernatural clearly isn’t – see e.g. the scientific method, to which the law of identity applies but which doesn’t require any opinion whatsoever about the supernatural for any of its applications.

    But this misses the bigger point that religious assertions are arbitrary, so there’s nothing to even disprove anyway.

    Poor old wrongologist. As noted above Christian beliefs aren’t arbitrary – but even if they were, “arbitrary” and “false” are not synonyms.

  50. Iampeter

    No, you are assuming that the Randian ‘law of identity’ objection is correct. It isn’t; see above.

    Well, as explained, that’s not the Randian objection.

    They are responding to arguments classical theists have never made.

    I don’t think you understand theist arguments.
    If you don’t think a circle can be a square then you don’t believe in god either.

    The “law of identity” does not disprove the supernatural.

    Uh-huh.
    Please just go back to the kids table.

  51. Tim Neilson

    If you don’t think a circle can be a square then you don’t believe in god either.

    Poor old wrongologist. “Circle” and “square” are concepts that have meaning only in the context of a physical universe of the type which we actually live in. The statement that a square can’t be round is meaningful only in that context and tells us nothing about anything except that facet of this particular mode of existence – i.e. nothing about what God might be or do.

    The “law of identity” does not disprove the supernatural.

    Uh-huh.
    Please just go back to the kids table.

    Fact-free and logic free as usual. Come on Iamashiteater, tell us why the law of identity disproves the supernatural.
    Saying that the law of identity is an “axiom” and then saying that axiom “disproves” the supernatural is implying that there’s some facet of the law of identity which is inherently logically inconsistent with the existence of the supernatural.
    So why not just articulate that?
    Or is this aspect of your bullshit just a jargon-laden way of trying to resurrect your risible “existence exists” falsehood?
    If so, you’re an absolute masochist for humiliating dialectical bottom spankings.

  52. dover_beach

    Well, as explained, that’s not the Randian objection.

    I don’t think you understand theist arguments.

    LOL.

  53. Iampeter

    LOL.

    LOL, what?
    I do love when we get to that stage of a discussion where things have been so thoroughly explained to you that you have no more room left for evasion, so you start switching to vagueness, as if you’re just too smart for this conversation.
    Come on. You were doing so well. Have some self respect.
    Don’t be sad and pathetic (and likely on the spectrum) like Tim or JC.

  54. Iampeter

    OK then.
    Since you’re not going to clarify what you’re trying to say, as is the case in every thread where you realize your talking-point-level knowledge doesn’t cut it, I’m just going to have to assume that your final word is actually that theists were never arguing that god was supernatural. I.e. you seem to seriously be suggesting that god has a nature in post #3510674, thus disproving god and religion without realizing what you’re saying.

    Congrats, dover. You’re an atheist. A very irrational and unintelligent one, but baby steps, I guess.

  55. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3511453, posted on July 13, 2020 at 8:45 am

    Another classic example of how “Objectivists” fool themselves with their own jargon.

    Note the utter confusion Iamashiteater mires himself in by using the wrong meaning of the word “nature” as a contrast to “supernatural”.

  56. dover_beach

    OK then.
    Since you’re not going to clarify what you’re trying to say,

    What have I said that is opaque? It is perfectly clear to anyone reading it.

    I.e. you seem to seriously be suggesting that god has a nature

    Dear oh dear. Are you really arguing that because I’ve said God has a nature (or essence), that is a set of attributes, features,or qualities, (precisely the sense that Rand also use when taking about the nature of a thing) that it must have if it is to be the thing it is, something that all classical theists have argued from Plato, through Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Avicenna, Averroes, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke to Feser, that this implies God is natural as opposed to supernatural? Wow.

  57. Iampeter

    Are you really arguing that because I’ve said God has a nature (or essence), that is a set of attributes, features,or qualities, (precisely the sense that Rand also use when taking about the nature of a thing) that it must have if it is to be the thing it is

    I’m not arguing anything. Nothing we’re talking about meets the level of complexity that requires argumentation.

    At this point I’m just repeating myself: “If you don’t think a circle can be a square then you don’t believe in god either.”
    I.e. if you think God has a nature then whatever you’re describing is not supernatural and therefore not God.

    You’re just an atheist looking for an authoritarian to command you how to live.

  58. dover_beach

    I’m not arguing anything.

    At last, some honesty.

    At this point I’m just repeating myself

    Indeed. You’re just repeating your mistake by ignoring it even though it was just pointed out to you.

  59. Iampeter

    Then we’re back to my post #3511453 since you’re not saying anything clearly again.
    The fact that the post elicited further responses from you today demonstrates how right on the money it is.

    all classical theists have argued from Plato, through Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Avicenna, Averroes, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke to Feser, that this implies God is natural as opposed to supernatural?

    Also, if you’re going to try and appeal to authority as your next logical fallacy, you should at least know what you’re talking about on even some level and no include atheists like Aristotle, on your list of “classical theists.”
    SMH.

  60. Rex Anger

    @Dover_beach-

    This tennis match is awesome. You have the points, and I am deliberately not calling the faults or outs, ‘cos I really, really want to see what happens next.

    If you can return IamSoCleverIMakeSillyClaimsinMyRhetoric’s next serve such that it just skims the net and collects him in the knackers, I’m calling the game in your favour on the spot.

  61. dover_beach

    Then we’re back to my post #3511453 since you’re not saying anything clearly again.

    I’ve been crystal clear.

    Also, if you’re going to try and appeal to authority as your next logical fallacy, you should at least know what you’re talking about on even some level and no include atheists like Aristotle, on your list of “classical theists.”

    Aristotle was not an atheist, IamMengele. The classical formulation of the cosmological argument is given by Aristotle. BTW, those names are not provided as ‘authorities’, but as examples of classical theists that have written on God’s nature contra your idiotic claim that is tin-eared as to the sense in which words are used in argument. As Tim and I picked up immediately, that was a catastrophic failure on your part.

  62. Rex Anger

    Game, Set, Match to Mr. Dover_beach!

  63. Tim Neilson

    I.e. if you think God has a nature then whatever you’re describing is not supernatural and therefore not God.

    Poor old intellectual failure. No matter how often his category error is pointed out to him he still can’t get it.

  64. Iampeter

    I’ve been crystal clear.

    About what? What are you even trying to argue at this point? That you can have the supernatural without violating the law of identity?

    Aristotle was not an atheist, IamMengele…

    Wow. Yea, totally. He was just some dude with a beard and wore robes, that people can name drop to pretend they know what they’re talking about. Totally. Bong hit. Yea brah..philosophers like philosophisies and stuff, brah. Artistotle and Plato, brah! Bong hit. You’re so deep, brah!

    BTW, those names are not provided as ‘authorities’, but as examples of classical theists that have written on God’s nature contra

    Listing a bunch of people, whose beliefs you clearly and laughably don’t even remotely understand, to use in place of having a position that stands on it’s own merit, that you can’t even clearly state, is text-book appeal to authority. Obviously.

  65. Tim Neilson

    Listing a bunch of people, whose beliefs you clearly and laughably don’t even remotely understand,

    Maybe you could give us a series of comments, backed up with citations from their works, of what each of Plato, through Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Avicenna, Averroes, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke to Feser did believe.
    Surely that’s the least you can do to persuade us of the validity of your [self-stated non-]argument?

  66. JC

    Plodes

    For a mental asylum inmate, who endlessly claims he’s anti-christian, all you do is talk about it, you moron. If you’re an atheist as you claim, it means you don’t believe in any religion. Then why talk about it all the time? STFU and go take your meds.

  67. dover_beach

    It’s all hand-waving now by IamMengele. Earlier he was telling us that he wasn’t presenting an argument but ‘basic thought exercises’, now he is telling us that simply referring to examples of authors that have talked about A or B is an ‘appeal to authority’. That is his strategy, such as it is. Once he loses heart arguing X, he argues Y until his position there is unrecoverable (this involved his twerking re nature), and then he moves on to Z until that too becomes unrecoverable (this involved his usually ham-fisted foray into logical fallacies), and then he returns to X or Y as the case may be. It is always and everywhere a litany of failures for IamMengele.

  68. The classical formulation of the cosmological argument is given by Aristotle. BTW, those names are not provided as ‘authorities’, but as examples of classical theists that have written on God’s nature…

    The gods’

  69. Rex Anger

    It’s all hand-waving now by IamMengele.

    Given the silence, I thought nut-clutching might be involved, too…

  70. Iampeter

    Maybe you could give us a series of comments, backed up with citations from their works, of what each of Plato, through Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Avicenna, Averroes, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke to Feser did believe.

    Ah, yes. The tried and true admission that you don’t know anything and that somehow that makes me wrong “argument.” Classic Cat.

    Then why talk about it all the time? STFU and go take your meds.

    No one’s forcing you to take part in the discussion if you don’t want to. This thread is now really bringing out the triggered nutjobs that need to derail.

    Earlier he was telling us that he wasn’t presenting an argument but ‘basic thought exercises’,

    Yes, this was thoroughly explained and you don’t understand it. Your are utterly out of your depth in this discussion but with no self awareness and an echo chamber of raving loons giving you bad feedback.

    now he is telling us that simply referring to examples of authors that have talked about A or B is an ‘appeal to authority’.

    You didn’t provide any examples, you just said “theists say.” You appealed to authority.

    Once he loses heart arguing X, he argues Y until his position there is unrecoverable (this involved his twerking re nature), and then he moves on to Z until that too becomes unrecoverable (this involved his usually ham-fisted foray into logical fallacies), and then he returns to X or Y as the case may be.

    What position of mine is unrecoverable? This ought to be a good response from someone who can’t make a single point without contradicting themselves and doesn’t think Aristotle was an atheist.
    Speaking of which, you seriously said that Aristotle wasn’t an atheist. LOL. How do you plan to recover from that?
    I’m sure you’re response won’t be another hand-wave accusing me of hand-waving.

  71. Rex Anger

    IamMoreBamboozledThanAPunchdrunkPanda uses REEEEEEEEE!

    It’s not very effective…

  72. dover_beach

    You didn’t provide any examples, you just said “theists say.” You appealed to authority.

    The theists were the examples you dunderhead. You really are breathtakingly stupid.

    doesn’t think Aristotle was an atheist.
    Speaking of which, you seriously said that Aristotle wasn’t an atheist. LOL. How do you plan to recover from that?

    This is nothing to recover from. I have my foot on your neck. As I said above, Aristotle presented the cosmological argument for the existence of God in its classic form, which makes him a classical theist. Just saying, “No, he wasn’t, so there”, is plainly ineffectual but par for the course with you.

  73. Lee

    IamMoreBamboozledThanAPunchdrunkPanda uses REEEEEEEEE!

    You have to give him credit, even though he goes down for the count every time, he keeps coming back for more!

  74. Tim Neilson

    Ah, yes. The tried and true admission that you don’t know anything and that somehow that makes me wrong “argument.” Classic Cat.

    I didn’t make any such admission, because I didn’t make any assertion about my level of knowledge of the great theologians. I don’t need to for the purposes of what I’m saying, which is calling you out as a conceited stupid ignorant liar whose statement about dover was utterly baseless.

    You accused dover of referring to a list of people whose beliefs you clearly and laughably don’t even remotely understand.
    That statement is utterly dishonest unless you yourself understand their beliefs, because if you don’t understand their beliefs you have made a statement which you have no grounds for believing to be true.

    Your gutless evasion – an implicit admission that you’re totally ignorant of what you were bloviating about – is yet another in the endless series of proofs of your conceit, stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty.

    But those qualities are all you’ve got, since clearly you’re mentally incapable of understanding the howling category error on which your comments are based.

  75. Rex Anger

    @ Lee-

    You have to give him credit, even though he goes down for the count every time, he keeps coming back for more!

    You remind me of.something Bruce of Newcastle posted on the OT a few weeks back about Rainbow Lorikeets. He joked that he reckoned they were made.out of collapsed tungsten or something like that. Completely indestructible and would fight anything.

    Given the amount of noise he reliably makes, I think we Cats have found ourselves a Lorikeet that can type…

  76. dover_beach

    The gods’

    Dot, no. Aristotle is a monotheist in virtue of being a classical theist, as are the others listed. As I’ve said elsewhere, the arguments they made undermine polytheism, pantheism, and deism.

  77. Iampeter

    IamMoreBamboozledThanAPunchdrunkPanda uses REEEEEEEEE!

    It’s not very effective…

    Endless projection is not very effective. But that’s all you have when you have no business here in the first place.

    The theists were the examples you dunderhead. You really are breathtakingly stupid.

    What does listing people, some of whom you hilariously mislabeled as theists, provide an example of?
    What are you even still arguing about?

    This is nothing to recover from. I have my foot on your neck.

    Bahahaha!
    You don’t even know what you’re still arguing about and haven’t been able to make that clear in half a dozen posts. You’ve also put things in writing – like not knowing what Aristotle is about, when there was no reason to bring him up in the first place – that there is no recovering from.
    Clearly a winning position, as always!

    You have to give him credit, even though he goes down for the count every time, he keeps coming back for more!

    The fact that you unprecedent imbeciles think I’m the one going down for any count is what makes the Cat a must read every day. Total stupidity plus, total lack of self-awareness like this doesn’t exist anywhere else on the internet. Oh, plus the projection, often accusing me of doing the very things you yourselves are doing, even the exact some posts. LOL!
    The Onion couldn’t pay writers to come up with what you spergs put out for free.

    Aristotle is a monotheist in virtue of being a classical theist,

    HAhahahaahah!

  78. Rex Anger

    Endless projection is not very effective. But that’s all you have when you have no business here in the first place.

    The fact that you unprecedent imbeciles think I’m the one going down for any count is what makes the Cat a must read every day. Total stupidity plus, total lack of self-awareness like this doesn’t exist anywhere else on the internet. Oh, plus the projection, often accusing me of doing the very things you yourselves are doing, even the exact some posts. LOL!
    The Onion couldn’t pay writers to come up with what you spergs put out for free.

    REEEEEEEEEEEE!

  79. dover_beach

    I have reduced IamMengele to impotent rage. Unable to rebut the justification for the claim that Aristotle is a classical theist, namely, that he propounded the cosmological argument for the existence of God in its classic form, he just ignores it, and repeats ineffectually, again, “No, he isn’t”, while now stamping his feet pathetically on the ground in frustration. This scene must touch even the hardest of hearts.

  80. Rex Anger

    Game, Set, Match to Mr. Dover_beach!

    Called it in Straight Sets.

    This time again tomorrow, Old Chap? I’ve got the Gin and Tonics tab covered. And there’s a Doubles booking that Tim mentioned regarding the fundamentals of taxation and liberal philosophy coming.up on Thursday. Shall I let him know you’re able to play? [Typical Tennis Club banter and Dunlop scuffing off into the distance…]

  81. Iampeter

    I have reduced IamMengele to impotent rage.

    You’ve definitely reduced me to impotent speechlessness by demonstrating new levels stupidity, lack of self awareness and projection, even for the Cat.

    I applaud you’re achievement.

    Oh btw, when shall you be publishing your discourse on debate, like random name dropping as a form of argument and totally not a failed attempt at a logical fallacy, because you’ve made so many mental gymnastics you don’t even know what you are arguing anymore?

    Truly big brained stuff.

  82. dover_beach

    You’re only strengthening my case, IamMengele. Thank you!

  83. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iamashiteater.
    Having no qualifications, never having accomplished anything and being totally unable to hold down even the lowest level job, all he’s got to bolster his self-delusions is strutting onto this site, sneering at people, and defecating his fact-free, logic-free cartoon like dogmatic absolutist drivel. (Notice here that for all his grandstanding about Aristotle he can’t actually give a specific reference to any passage in all Aristotle’s works that’s contradictory to dover’s assertion.)
    It must be galling to him to be treated with the ridicule and contempt that he deserves.
    Luckily for his illusory self-esteem he’s too conceited stupid and ignorant to realise how calamitously he beclowns himself.

  84. dover_beach

    Luckily for his illusory self-esteem he’s too conceited stupid and ignorant to realise how calamitously he beclowns himself.

    God is indeed merciful.

  85. Iampeter

    You’re only strengthening my case, IamMengele. Thank you!

    You have no case, you can’t even explain what you’re still arguing about. That’s why you keep responding in a thread where you have already claimed victory multiple times, only to keep coming back to keep trying to win.
    It’s almost like you know full well that your intentionally vague responses, ever since you randomly name dropped people in order to appeal to authority, because you don’t even have your own definition of “theism,” means you’ve beclowned yourself in yet another thread.

  86. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iamashiteater.
    Having sucked his own dick so frenetically about Aristotle, every time he posts a comment without a specific verifiable reference to a passage in Aristotle that supports his claim, he just confirms his status as the most ridiculous contemptible risible loser and failure in the history of this or any conceivable alternative universe.

  87. Iampeter

    Having sucked his own dick so frenetically about Aristotle, every time he posts a comment without a specific verifiable reference to a passage in Aristotle that supports his claim

    Dover didn’t post anything in support of his claim that Randians don’t understand theist arguments, he just listed the names of theists and you had no problem with it. He also got the list wrong, which was pretty funny.
    But this thread is not about Aristotle and if you need his positions explained to you, then you are once again admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about and trying to use it as if it’s an argument I need to respond to.

  88. Tim Neilson

    Talk about proving my point.

  89. dover_beach

    I see IamMengele is lying again. I specifically rebutted the Randian objection re God here. I see he still can’t present any actual objection to the uncontroversial statement that Aristotle was a classical theist. He can’t because, as I mentioned earlier, Aristotle provides us with the classic formulation of the cosmological argument.

    More arm-waving from, IamMengele, imminent.

Comments are closed.