What’s Wrong with the World

I especially amdire the shot at Pasadena City College. That was a classy move. "Proudfootz" might also consider slowing down the timer on his slide show.

What does the actor Chris Eigeman have to do with Dr. Feser anyway?

Hillarious, I expect that Proudfotz took has taken a course in philosophy in which the first class was "how to commit a logical fallacy when you can't refute your opponent"

Its about time a christianist website actually faced up to some criticisms!

-ed feser is not grate (neither is william lane craig)

I'll Martin seriously when he learns how to spell great properly, and as for his accusation that WWWTW is a fundementalist website,...... I'll let the viewers decide.

PS William Lane Craig is one of the best apologists for the Christian faith living in the world today. Is Martin the same Martin from Quebec who posted on Dr Craig's Q&A section a few months ago?

You mean this was intended as real criticism? I thought it was all tongue in cheek humor!! C'mon, I mean, who knows St. Thomas's comment about his works being as straw without knowing the context? I was laughing throughout as at a fun parody.

Hold on there, Steve. Obviously this is not directed at me, but at someone named "Edward Feezer." (My name is pronounced "Fay-zer.") After all, I defend individual rights and modern science in my book -- a central theme of TLS being, of course, that neither can be made sense of apart from a classical, and especially Aristotelian, metaphysical framework -- while this Feezer guy (whoever he is) rejects them. I say nothing at all against capitalism, democracy, or religious toleration while this Feezer guy apparently attacks them bitterly. Feezer teaches at "Pasadena Community College," while I teach at Pasadena City College. Feezer compares Luther and Calvin to Hitler and Stalin, while I never do any such thing. My book is not a defense of Catholicism specifically, while Feezer's is. Feezer never addresses any of the standard criticisms of the traditional theistic arguments, while I do so at great length. Etc.

"Proudfootz" is obviously a fair-minded and careful reader of other people's work, so surely we should afford him the same courtesy, right? I mean, if this really were directed at me, "Proudfootz" would be making a complete horse's ass of himself. And that can't be right...

By the way, who wants to bet that Brian Liar links to this schmuck's video as a useful "summary" of TLS for his readers? C'mon, any takers?

Here's Proudfootz making similar comments on Chris Hallquist's blog about two weeks ago. (It's funny -- as I listened to the video, without knowing who produced it, I thought, "Man, that sounds like that 'Proudfootz' guy": I mean, how many people could be out there saying the same ridiculous things? Wait a minute...). After I read his responses to my question, I determined that he wasn't worth further discussion. After all, Ed writes much more clearly than I do, so if Proudfootz so obviously (and embarrassingly) misunderstood him, what the heck are the chances he'll understand me?

I sort of want to read Professor Feezer's book too, actually; it sounds like a blast.

Apologies for the sideline, but I _heartily resent_ the fact that this Proudfootz guy is apparently taking his name from the Proudfoot family of hobbits in LOTR.

Thanks Eric, I thought some of that sounded familiar!

BTW, I started to write a reply once to Hallquist's lame "critique" and after about 30 minutes was so bored out of my skull that I couldn't continue. Like Proudfootz, the guy would distort everything I said three ways from Sunday, and it felt like I was just explaining stuff that was already in the book. And there are only so many hours in the day, so...

Lydia, I'm with you. What right has this guy to ripping off the greatest Catholic fiction writer of the 20th century to smear a Catholic philosopher writing stuff that Tolkien would be perfectly comfortable with? Let him take something else - maybe from Wagner's operas. After all, we all know that Wagner's music is actually better than it sounds. ;-)

Guys this was made by Steve Burton a brilliant parody of the mindlessness of what passes for atheism these days.

Jack in all truth I am a great admirer of Prof. WLC , it is the rational defence of Christianity from intellectual leaders like him and Prof. Feser that have helped me in my decision to train for the priesthood.

It is only fitting that I give back every molecule to the great King who gave me my life to begin with.

Haha, what a fool. Despite the fact that he obviously has not read the book, the images themselves show how little this 'Proudfootz' guy actually knows about western civilization. Anyone who shows Blake paintings when talking about Roman Catholic traditions, or the Malleus Maleficarum when discussing the 13th century, has no idea what they are talking about.

Oops

I didn't think to follow the video to its source. I was wrong this is fair dinkum.

I have learned a valuable lesson, there are loads of infernal idiots who will unwittingly do the work of the Kingdom for you - find them, utilise them its heavenly delegation.

Sorry Maritn please accept my apologies, its great that you're training for the priesthood as we can always use more priests in the Church.

I watched the video before clicking below the fold and really thought Steve Burton had done this as a parody, including the mispronunciation of Ed's name.

Zippy, that's what I thought. There are so many things out of whack in this that it is mind-boggling that someone could have made that many errors unintentionally.

I love how he says that there are solid "refutations" somewhere out there (a picture of the Google homepage appears while he says it) and that allows him to call Feser's arguments "tired." I am sick of men who try to sound intelligent but are completely ignorant of even basic philosophy. After about half of the video, I realized that some people are just too stupid and stubborn to make even an attempt to understand opposing views. This guy is so blinded by ideology, how else could you explain Ann Coulter's name being brought up in a book about philosophy and theology?

Also, what is with his voice? He sounds like he is trying to convey some sort of high-mindedness and intellectual tone. Its funny, though, because while he;s doing that voice he is saying some very dumb things.

Every honest atheist should be ashamed of this vacuous commentary of Feser's book. I have to agree with Feser's recent post: Give me that old time atheism. Philosophy has sunk very far indeed.

And its Proudfeet!

You are arguing with children Dr. Feser. Their response doesn't even approach rationality.

Unfortunately the poor guy has a girly voice, too. Yeah, I know that's unfair, maybe even childish, but it's true.

Ed - heh!

Whoever "Proudfootz" thinks he is addressing, one can't help but admire his sheer industriousness! Producing a video like that is no small task.

He falls down when it comes to to the script, of course - but what would-be video artist cares about the script, these days?

Anyway, I'm now working my way through the last chapter of TLS. Along the way, I've found much to praise, but also two or three big things to quibble about.

For example, the terribly harsh things you have to say about...ummm...drinking to excess...

At some point, we'll have to have all this out...

Oh, and Nick Milne is spot on:

"I sort of want to read Professor Feezer's book too, actually; it sounds like a blast."

That gave me my big laugh for the day.

Nick and Steve can likely get an autographed copy by Feezer himself if they'd venture a trip over to Pasedena Community College and ask for one.

Nick and Steve can likely get an autographed copy by Feezer himself if they'd venture a trip over to Pasedena Community College and ask for one.

PCC was my alma mater, in fact. All the most fatuous and self-deceiving theists are on staff there, from John Pokinghorn to Alvin Plantagenet, and it was very difficult sometimes to be an enlightened freethinker within those walls. The worst of them by far was Richard Winburns, an insufferable sort of man who would always go on and on about his "Proof From Because I Said So" and the celebrated "What Did I Just Say Corollary".

Anyway, Feezer or no Feezer it would take a lot to get me to go back there. I'll admit that I had grudgingly considered pursuing a second degree there (the place is certainly economical), but after I stumbled across William Plain Crag tying an agnostic to the railway tracks I knew it was time to move on.

I am terribly sorry for mispronouncing Mr Feser's name.

And I'll certainly take the criticism about 'ripping off Tolkien' to heart - once I see some resentment evinced for Tolkien's ripping off earlier cultures for his writings (or Aquinas's ripping off Aristotle for that matter).

The Malleus Maleficarum (though published well after Aquinas) does seem to represent some of the 'wisdom' of the Medieval Church. Rather reminiscent of the extermination of heretics - of which Aquinas heartily approved. When contemplating a wholesale rejection of Enlightenment values it serves as a potent reminder of what went on before the advent of religious toleration and all that bother.

I certainly have read Mr Fayzer's book - how else could I find out about the 700-year 'secularist conspiracy' to 'rig the game' against Thomism? It's certainly not featured on the blurbs.

As for my voice - they say Abraham Lincoln had a rather high-pitched voice. I guess that makes him a girly-man too.

"I certainly have read Mr Fayzer's book"

I think the other commenters were trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. By assuming that you hadn't actually read the book, they were probably hoping to avoid the otherwise necessary conclusion that you are too dense to understand plain English.

Ok this joke has gone to far, lets be nice and charitable to prodfotz as he is obviously outnumbered here by us self-deluding thiests, I'm afraid i've got to go as my local Church is organizing the annual burning of the village athiest :)

I don't consider the common idiotic jibe that someone 'hasn't read the book' as being any kind of 'benefit' at all. It is merely the mark of one who hasn't any argument to offer at all.

It is in no sense a 'necessary conclusion' that I am too dense to understand plain English. The fact that I am a native speaker is a rather obvious refutation of that sort of ad hominem attack.

Thus you fail twice is one post to make any valid point.

I was dense enough to read the thing all the way through - that's how come I was able to take note of Fayzer's 'secular conspiracy' theory. Most reviewers ignored it. Don't the folks at The New Criterion et al understand plain English? Or perhaps I should give them the 'benefit of the doubt' and assume they didn't read the book before writing their glowing reviews?

But that wouldn't be a mere misunderstanding - that would be fraud.

Honest Abe,

Thanks for proving my point, in spades. I knew you wouldn't let me down!

"The Malleus Maleficarum (though published well after Aquinas) does seem to represent some of the 'wisdom' of the Medieval Church. Rather reminiscent of the extermination of heretics - of which Aquinas heartily approved. When contemplating a wholesale rejection of Enlightenment values it serves as a potent reminder of what went on before the advent of religious toleration and all that bother."

Proudfootz, if you really believe this, go posthaste to Amazon.com and procure a copy of 'Atheist Delusions' by David Bentley Hart; further, go ahead and read it -- you'll be promptly disavowed of such common, but knuckle-headed, opinions.

"When contemplating a wholesale rejection of Enlightenment values it serves as a potent reminder of what went on before the advent of religious toleration and all that bother."

Ah yes, the Enlightenment. I think I read about it while visiting that gulag in Tiannamen Square. :-)

Proudfootz: "I don't consider the common idiotic jibe that someone 'hasn't read the book' as being any kind of 'benefit' at all. It is merely the mark of one who hasn't any argument to offer at all."

First, let's look at a little something you said at the end of your video about the positive reviews 'The Last Superstition' has received:

Proudfootz: "One wonders whether they have read the whole book and not just the title."

Consistency, thy name is not 'Proudfootz.'

But let's look at the notion that it's merely an 'idiotic jibe' to question whether someone has in fact read a book he's criticizing. This doesn't seem to me to be the case at all if the context warrants the charge.

Think about it: If I told you that I had read Dawkins's 'The God Delusion,' and that Dawkins had concluded that religion is great and that god probably exists, you'd justifiably question whether I'd actually read the book (or understood the language!). Now, when you say that Professor Feser considers "everything since" Aquinas to be "nothing more than an increasingly evil and insane descent from the tranquil and rational paradise on earth that was Medieval Europe"; or "among his parade of horrors resulting from the abandonment of Aquinas Feser lists religious toleration, government by consent, and individual rights -- pretty much everything Western civilization is thought to stand for"; or "he [Feser] wants to turn the clock back all the way to the thirteenth century. How much simpler -- no more worrying about those pesky individual rights, democracy...science...religious toleration"; then what you've done isn't much different from what I illustrated in my Dawkins example, though it is admittedly less dramatic.

Here are a few quotes from 'The Last Superstition' that decisively prove you wrong:

On rights (page 209 - 210): "You will not find the notion [of natural rights] in Aristotle or Aquinas, certainly not explicitly. But later Scholastic thinkers did develop the idea that human beings have certain rights by nature and not just by legal convention, and as indicated in chapter four, this does seem to follow from any natural law theory based on Aristotelian formal and final causes...Now, what becomes of natural rights if there are no formal or final causes, and thus no universal human nature nor any natural ends or purposes by reference to which rights get their point? Hobbes is the most clear-sighted about this..."

Now, if you know anything about Hobbes, I don't have to go on and sum up the argument. Does that sound like someone who would place 'individual rights' in a 'parade of horrors'?

I don't have time to write out any more quotations, but similar sections could be easily quoted refuting your claims about Professor Feser's position on science, religious toleration, etc.

To put it simply, you've obviously confused Professor Feser's argument that individual rights, religious toleration, etc. cannot be *justified* on post-Cartesian grounds for an argument *against* individual rights, religious toleration, etc., and have somehow -- though I simply cannot see how -- completely missed the fact that he argues *for* a return to a broadly Aristotelico-Thomistic metaphysics in part *because* of the fact that this is the only way to make sense of individual rights, religious toleration, etc.

Now go and actually read -- or reread -- the book!

Rob - Do you mean that the Church had nothing to do with the Malleus Maleficarum? Maybe some 'secularist conspirators' actually wrote it? Or that there was no extermination of heretics? Or did Aquinas denounce such brutality? I'm not sure which opinions you are trying to convince me are 'knuckle-headed.'

Eric - I suppose it is entirely possible that Mr Feser prefers Scholastic arguments for 'natural rights' than post-Thomist ones.

"...this is only the beginning of Locke's many sins against philosophy. And yet he is one of the most important figures in the early modern anti-Aristotelian revolution - and arguably the *quintessential* modern philosopher, insofar as now prevailing Western attitudes about scientific rationality, religious toleration, government by consent, and individual rights owe more to Locke than to any other thinker. As has been noted, the generally acknowledged feebleness of his arguments has not led many to want to reconsider his conclusions, precisely because those conclusions have become so deeply embedded in the Western liberal consciousness that it is simply taken for granted that they *must* be defensible somehow, whether or not Locke himself was able to pull it off." p 183

Somehow Feser makes it sound as if we should 'reconsider' all these conclusions - ideas which are core Western values: rights, democracy, toleration. Things noticeably absent from the Medieval world guided by Scholastic philosophy.

And note that it is the *conclusions* and not merely the *justifications* which Feser takes issue with. Thus there seems to be evidence of a certain hostility to Western values in preference to Medieval ones.

"And note that it is the *conclusions* and not merely the *justifications* which Feser takes issue with."

You have it exactly backwards. Please show me *exactly* where Feser takes issue with individual rights as such, religious toleration as such or science as such. The quote you provided does no such thing; in fact, it buttresses my point, since Feser speaks specifically about "the feebleness of [Locke's] arguments," while saying *nothing whatsoever* that evinces a hostility to individual rights, religious toleration or science.

You seem to be trying too hard to read between the lines, but, as the saying goes, you have to learn to read the lines themselves first. So, if you can provide a specific quote from TLS where Professor Feser attacks individual rights, religious toleration or science, then we can begin to speak reasonably. Until then...

For my part I have been speaking reasonably.

We simply disagree about whether Feser finds "prevailing Western attitudes about scientific rationality, religious toleration, government by consent, and individual rights" defensible or whether these *conclusions* should instead be 'reconsidered.' Feser's words are plain enough English for me.

Proudfootz,

Feser is taking issue with a certain conception of individual rights, religious toleration, and science, and not with those things as such. You aren't going to get the supposed condemnation of those issues (taken, again, as such--which is the very sense you need for your complaints to stick) out of the quoted passage. Moreover, in the broader context of the book, it's clear that he's not against those things, as such.

To wit:
On science: as a way of knowing the world, i is clearly not problematic for Feser; science as the only or even the best way of knowing the world, as has become the reigning view in the modern Western university, is a big problem.

Perhaps this will finally put an end to this nonsense. Probably not, but here goes.

Nowhere in TLS do I reject "scientific rationality, religious toleration, government by consent, and individual rights." Quite the opposite. I explicitly defend individual rights (e.g. in the passage Eric cited above). That the findings of modern science need to be understood (and thus defended) in terms of an Aristotelian metaphysics and philosophy of nature is one of the main themes of the book. I cite Vatican II (which, as a Catholic, I accept) as supporting religious toleration and democracy at p. 18 of TLS. As others have pointed out, much of my published work has been rather full-throated in defending individual rights and capitalism, and while I no longer take the radically libertarian position I used to take on these issues, I have never rejected individual rights or capitalism as such.

The point of the passage about Locke that Proudfootz quotes is merely to call attention to why Locke has been influential despite the badness of his arguments. When I criticize his conclusions, and not just his arguments, I mean in part (as others have noted) the specific spin he puts on individual rights, government by consent, etc. -- not the ideas themselves, just the Lockean take on them -- and also in part other Lockean conclusions that many contemporary philosophers find congenial (e.g. his general approach to the problem of personal identity). That I defend individual rights etc. elsewhere in the book should make it obvious that that is all I meant, at least to an honest and fair-minded reader.

Finally, re: this "conspiracy theory" nonsense, nowhere in the book do I ever posit a "conspiracy" in the sense Proudfootz apparently has in mind -- people in the smoke-filled back room of a Masonic lodge somewhere passing out talking points to Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, et al. (Again, as anyone who knows my work is aware, I have in several places very vehemently criticized conspiracy theories of this sort.) What I do say is that the early modern writers shared a common animus against the Scholastics and against Aristotelianism and that they had political as well as philosophical motives for wanting to undermine them. Far from positing a secret "conspiracy," all I am doing here is calling attention to what is already well-known -- and, indeed, obvious, since these people were quite open about their hostility. I also cite several prominent authors having no Aristotelian or Scholastic ax to grind in illustration of this non-controversial claim -- Burtt, Lilla, Manent, etc., and I could have cited many more. Maybe Proudfootz thinks they are all "conspiracy theorists" too.

I think you should just admit, Proudfootz, what is blindingly obvious already: that what you are interested in is trying to come up with nasty accusations to fling at me in the hopes of discrediting the book -- and you have, I see, been spreading them in various comboxes around the blogosphere -- and not interested at all in trying to understand what the book actually says. If you are a decent person you will at last acknowledge that the accusations you have been making are false, and will now do what you can to correct them in the various places you have been making them.

I won't hold my breath.

I was hoping Proudfootz would have been able to better support his claims.
I'm not saying that atheists can't argue these points. But I'll admit that proudfootz seems more like an interested layman who doesn't have that solid of an understanding of the topic.

I'm just a lurker for the most part, but please don't think that proudfootz represents the majority of us. I guess I'm jumping ship with his point of view. I thought the youtube video was better at first. But I'll retract that position. PF was taken to task and lost.
But hey, we still have Dennett beating Alister McGrath in a debate :D

One more thing: When Aquinas said that all he wrote was "as straw," what he meant was that his work -- and anything else anyone could possibly say about God in this life -- was as straw compared to what he had seen in the famous mystical vision he had not long before his death. He was not saying that it was worthless in any absolute sense, just that no words, not even the most philosophically sophisticated words, could measure up to the actual experience of God. It's a little like telling your wife that words cannot adequately convey what you feel about her -- it doesn't mean that words have no value, or that you shouldn't do the best you can with them.

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Aquinas knows that that is what he meant. It is an extremely well-known fact.

So, Proudfootz, please stop parading this quote around as if doing so proved anything except your own breathtaking ignorance and dishonesty, which you've already established thoroughly. As Youtuber notes, you're just embarrassing other, more decent and well-informed, atheists.

Regarding Aquinas's alleged vision, there is no universal agreement that the man experienced any such thing.

The legend of a 'vision' functions as a fig leaf and grew up after the fact. It is not itself a fact.

Aquinas's symptoms are indicative of a stroke.

Thus, what Aquinas may have or have not meant is a matter of *interpretation* and not a fact at all.

Really, your disingenuousness in this matter is embarassing.

Your repeated and uninformed accusations against me have grown tiresome - please stop parading your smug vindictiveness as if your merest assertions magically become truths if you express them with enough vitriol.

Enjoy the Great Mother Goddess Fertility Festival!

Mr. Feser has done an excellent job of defending himself from a man with absolutely no understanding of philosophy or theology. I think, though, that he need not say anything in his defense. There is a point, as exemplified by proudfootz last nasty comment about Easter, where debate is pointless. This man has made no attempt to understand Feser's arguments in a sincere way. He is only angry, polemical, and, frankly, unimpressive.

I find it ironic that proudfootz is apparently employing an Inquisition of his own. He is personally monitoring other people's words to see if they blaspheme against the gods of democracy and individual rights. He has not presented a single argument in favor of any of his positions, he is assuming that he is correct (i.e. orthodox) and anyone who disagrees is a heretic. He has exposed Feser as a dissenter. What now, proudfootz, should he be burned at the stake? You are a waste of time.

As an honest and fair-minded reader, I can appreciate that I appartently misinterpreted the passage on John Locke. As any decent person does, I bow to the author’s explanation. Thank you for that correction and clarification. The mistake in emphasis was purely my own. In future I shall qualify my remarks accordingly.

As some here are fond of analogies, imagine that it were shown that Jesus was never crucified. Would it not follow that all the theologizing and philosophizing done based on that premise would go by the wayside? Would the many religious sects based on the Resurrection enjoy the same authority they do now? Indeed it would be a fatal blow to the whole shebang (with the caveat that religious cults mutate into new versions when their prophecies fail or their beliefs are shown to be in conflict with matters of fact).

It is a truism that one can’t both have their cake and eat it. Likewise we can’t enjoy the fruits of the Enlightenment without the tree the fruit grows on.

Of course individual rights, religious toleration, representative government as understood by America’s Founders are those of the Enlightenment. They created a self-consciously secular state based on the ‘feeble arguments’ of thinkers such as Locke et al. These things are now known as core Western Values - when people talk about how swell we are compared to the rest of the world, *this* is what they are talking about.

But, seeing the success of those values, some Johnny-come-latelies are now desirous of claiming them as their own, or that they have found ways to coax the identical values (or even improved versions of them) from a system which historically denied, opposed, and suppressed them and wantonly murdered those who espoused them.

Interestingly the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t able to discover ‘religious toleration’ until it had already become a key Western Value (because of the Enlightenment) and been a huge success on those terms for several hundred years. Better late than never, I suppose. We must be grateful that Vatican II came off, otherwise the official Catholic position would still be one of intolerance.

Had the centuries-long practice of consigning people and books to the flames continued to be a successful guarantee of ‘agreement’ among the faithful, I have my doubts the right to freedom of conscience would ever be ‘discovered’ by Scholastic methods.

Having reversed themselves on the acceptability of Western Values, let us hope they do not in future reverse themselves again if it becomes convenient to abandon them. After all, Vatican II is still controversial and is not universally accepted among self-described Catholics, and defenses of religious intolerance are still floated among the faithful.

Feser makes much of the centuries-long ‘project’ to underhandedly ‘rig the game’ and 'undermine' catholic doctrine for base motives among the secularists. Any fair-minded reader would be hard put to *avoid* using the word 'conspiracy' as a succinct description of such a thing.

Scholastics and Aristotelians shared a common animus against what are now known as core Western Values – undoubtedly they also had political and philosophical motives for wanting to suppress them. In fact they enjoyed the backing of the then virtually unlimited power of Church and State combined to enforce their animus. Is it to be wondered at that the secularists who took their lives in their hands by saying openly what they believed should have a less-than-loving attitude toward those who would happily see them exterminated and their work destroyed?

Indeed if the motives of the secularists are to be an issue, then we might also consider the motives of such thinkers as Aquinas – surely no *disinterested* search for the truth is implied when the explicit aim is to ‘reconcile’ pagan philosophy to church dogma. The sword of an appeal to motives cuts both ways, no matter what this book might lead one to believe.

It is blindingly obvious that the neo-scholastics - far from merely tardily jumping onto the Western Values bandwagon - are trying to hijack the bandwagon itself. Like the Soviets of old they will be proclaiming "We inwented it first!" Suffice to say, without the Enlightenment there would be no such thing as rights, tolerance, capitalism, or democracy as we know them today.

The difference between my alleged 'inquisition' and the real historic one prosecuted by the Church is that I do not threaten, torture or murder anyone, nor do I ban or burn books. That someone should put forward such a feeble comparison says more about their inner world than any objective reality.

The charge that I have presented no arguments is merely a fantasy if the poster actually believes what they wrote, or an outright lie if they have read my posts.

Either way 'Edward' is a perfect exemplar of what is wrong with the world.

Angry, polemical, and unimpressive... thy name is 'Edward.'

Proud,
You're embarrassing yourself. For your own sake you should ease up.

But you just keep on making yourself look like an idiot.
Like with this comment:

Enjoy the Great Mother Goddess Fertility Festival!

Proud is making this comment because of a his inability to understand a quote by St. Bede.

The spring equinox was called "Eostre", independent of any pagan significance. Pagans celebrate astronomical events as holidays so they took that name for their goddess.
The Church didn't take the name from the goddess, they took it from the already ocurring natural phenomenon.
Proud is unable to understand the significance of Bede's quote so he makes yet another embarrassing mistake. Further exemplifying there's nothing behind that veneer of someone tries to sound like they have a clue.

Angry, polemical, and unimpressive... thy name is 'Edward.'

Bwahahaha!
Oh Proud, you're too cute. You're my favorite internet atheist now. Not for reasons that you intended, however. But you're going to serve as a great example. THANK YOU!!!!

You do not understand. I am neither angry nor polemical. I am making explicit what you are really doing. Feser, and the ideas he has and the thinkers he defends, deserve to be taken seriously and not merely weeded out in some inquisitorial court. This, however, is exactly what you are doing. And yes, you have NOT made one argument in favor of either Enlightenment ideas or anything else. To say otherwise is the true 'fantasy.' Finally, you are unimpressive in the sense that seriously debating these issues with you will bear no fruit because of your insincerity and nasty attitude. What is wrong with the world is men who seek only to make points without considering the opposing points of view, something your video has demonstrated clearly. Let us be honest, you will not learn anything from this, you will only seek to be heard and seen more. As you read this you will attempt to think of witty responses and insults, but, ultimately, you will not understand. Feser deserves a better brand of unbeliever, not the video equivalent of the village atheist.

Edward,

You called Proudfeetz "a man with absolutely no understanding of philosophy or theology". You can now add "or history" to that statement.

Columbo,

PF is kinda special, isn't he? It's not often you run across such a glittering jewel of perfect ignorance. It's almost awe-inspiring.

PF is kinda special, isn't he? It's not often you run across such a glittering jewel of perfect ignorance. It's almost awe-inspiring.

For me it's the headset and the manner in which he speaks. I know his name is Proudfootz, but it's funny to hear (in his tone) how proud he is of himself.
It makes him seem like serious business.
Then you hear the points he's making and you're thinking, "what's the catch?". Because now you think he's actually lampooning critics. But then it hits you that he's actually being very serious with this.
At first the reaction is frustration because your thought is something like "who would claim to know that much about a topic and launch such an odd attack against it."
Kind of like arguing about how stupid football is because you think it's senseless to hit such a small ball with a wooden stick.

One need not take 'angry and polemical' as an insult - some authors seem to glory in it. The National Review noted TLS's angry tone, and he himself owns to it's being a polemic. Plenty of 'nasty attitude' to be found in those pages. So we can take it as a given that if your words are meant as criticisms of my contributions, the also criticise Feser as well. Good job! Hoist on your own petard much?

Funny that Columbo should make a big deal about celebrating the Equinox (or the Winter Solstice for that matter). You are correct that pagans made a holiday of it long before any putative messiah came along to hop on the bandwagon. It is only embarassing to christians to note how many of their traditions are actually stolen from previous cults.

Comparing what I do to the Inquisition is the heighth of absurdity. What Edward is 'really doing' is comparing a lamb to a lion. You are right in one thing, I certainly won't learn anything from someone who exhibits such an obvious lack of knowledge or perspective - other than the pointlessness of arguing with such trolls. After all, I can't spend *all* my time handing your asses back to you.

Funny that Columbo should make a big deal about celebrating the Equinox (or the Winter Solstice for that matter). You are correct that pagans made a holiday of it long before any putative messiah came along to hop on the bandwagon. It is only embarassing to christians to note how many of their traditions are actually stolen from previous cults.

You missed the point entirely.........again.
They didn't name it after the goddess as you incorrectly commented. The name is centered on the natural phenomenon. You, incorrectly, saw an etymological connection in two words as a relationship of one to the other.
Also, the truth of a matter isn't decided by "who came first". Maybe in your odd mind it is, but your odd mind has little bearing over reality... as is easily noted from the video in question.

Regarding your embarrassment comment about Christians stealing from previous cults why don't you flesh that one out for us. I can only assume it will be as pathetic as your earlier attempts to make a cogent argument. But at the very least it will serve as a sigh of relief that you are on "the other side".

Comparing what I do to the Inquisition is the heighth of absurdity.

No, your inability to understand the Inquistion is the height of absurdity. Coupled with your "proud" tone on the matter.... that's the height of hilarity.

What Edward is 'really doing' is comparing a lamb to a lion.

Or calling a spade a spade.

You are right in one thing

Then at the very least you'll concede he has you beat. Because you are right about zero things.

I certainly won't learn anything from someone who exhibits such an obvious lack of knowledge or perspective

Well this is good to hear. Because for a moment there I thought you might actually listen to the junk you say. Proved me wrong, proud. So what are you like then? A blind exhibitionist? Again, I'm just happy you're not listening to your videos and their obvious lack of knowledge and perspective.

other than the pointlessness of arguing with such trolls.

Remember that spade = spade comment?

After all, I can't spend *all* my time handing your asses back to you.

That's a relief. But do you promise to let us know when you start? The wait is starting to bore me.

Hey, thankfully you have videos though. Cowards like you don't make it very far in the real world talking the way you do. I can read you like a book. It wouldn't take much at all to have you quaking in your fishnets. You've got no spine. And that's not a guess that's a know. Lasses like you are a dime a dozen. Cowards on the street, muttering under their breath waiting to hop on line to start talking tough... hoping deep down that no one calls them out to their face. Your world's fake, proud. Take a look around, kid.
Hey, if you're ever in Milwaukee I could put you in the ring against one of my lesser boxers. Knock alittle man into you. Take out some of that coward, maybe even give you a spine.

Uhhhh,
ProudF why did you take the video down? Or make it private?
That's kind of lame.
We were going to watch it. Thanks for slinking away with it.

I seem to have touched a nerve with Columbo - poor fellow! Seems to think that administering a beating to someone would 'prove' their absurd and empty contentions are correct. This is the same kind of 'reasoning' behind the Inquisition: might makes right.

This combined with classic macho posturing and weird cross-dressing fantasies helps Columbo fit right in with the many others of this ilk I have encountered over the years. His sad insecurities make him just another angry blustering rightwing troll.

Just calling a spade a spade!