Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Huh? You're the poster child for no one full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

It would be wiser and more appropriate to present proper arguments since this is a philosophical forum.

[Reflex]

Huh? You're the poster child for no one full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

It would be wiser and more appropriate to present proper arguments since this is a philosophical forum.

More precisely, it’s a philosophy of religion forum. And since the central themes and concepts involved in some religious traditions would say Lucy, in the movie Lucy, is right, your arguments are as sound and fury signifying nothing. You just have to learn to accept that they might possess a deeper understanding of reality than you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Huh? You're the poster child for no one full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

It would be wiser and more appropriate to present proper arguments since this is a philosophical forum.

More precisely, it’s a philosophy of religion forum. And since the central themes and concepts involved in some religious traditions would say Lucy, in the movie Lucy, is right, your arguments are as sound and fury signifying nothing. You just have to learn to accept that they might possess a deeper understanding of reality than you.

Note the critical term is 'philosophy' not 'religion.'

I am willing to accept any reality if I can be convinced objectively and philosophically.
Just show me the arguments supported by sound philosophical justifications.

[Dontaskme]

Huh? You're the poster child for no one full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

It would be wiser and more appropriate to present proper arguments since this is a philosophical forum.

There is no philosopher, except in this conception, a fictional character, a concept, remember?

You're arguing with phantoms, namely, yourselfs.

.

Seeking truth - truth seeking philosphers, when presented with what they are looking for, then refuse to accept it, or to look at it when it's presented, hmm, same old story over and over again, the never ending story continues.

So what do you want to know, hmm, where shall I begin?

.

[Reflex]

It would be wiser and more appropriate to present proper arguments since this is a philosophical forum.

More precisely, it’s a philosophy of religion forum. And since the central themes and concepts involved in some religious traditions would say Lucy, in the movie Lucy, is right, your arguments are as sound and fury signifying nothing. You just have to learn to accept that they might possess a deeper understanding of reality than you.

Note the critical term is 'philosophy' not 'religion.'

I am willing to accept any reality if I can be convinced objectively and philosophically.
Just show me the arguments supported by sound philosophical justifications.

There you go again. Reducing everything to ideas builds a wall between an illusory self and reality.

I accept the fact that someone living comfortably in an illusion has neither reason nor desire to escape.

One more thing. Since when is philosophy only about objectively verifiable reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Huh? You're the poster child for no one full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

It would be wiser and more appropriate to present proper arguments since this is a philosophical forum.

There is no philosopher, except in this conception, a fictional character, a concept, remember?

You're arguing with phantoms, namely, yourselfs.

Seeking truth - truth seeking philosophers, when presented with what they are looking for, then refuse to accept it, or to look at it when it's presented, hmm, same old story over and over again, the never ending story continues.

So what do you want to know, hmm, where shall I begin?

You seem to be conflating relevant perspectives.

But the point is whatever works within this philosophical forum is philosophical arguments to be presented for discussion, acceptance or rejection.
Since you are in this philosophical forum why are you rejecting the need to present proper sound arguments?

[Veritas Aequitas]

More precisely, it’s a philosophy of religion forum. And since the central themes and concepts involved in some religious traditions would say Lucy, in the movie Lucy, is right, your arguments are as sound and fury signifying nothing. You just have to learn to accept that they might possess a deeper understanding of reality than you.

Note the critical term is 'philosophy' not 'religion.'

I am willing to accept any reality if I can be convinced objectively and philosophically.
Just show me the arguments supported by sound philosophical justifications.

There you go again. Reducing everything to ideas builds a wall between an illusory self and reality.

I accept the fact that someone living comfortably in an illusion has neither reason nor desire to escape.

One more thing. Since when is philosophy only about objectively verifiable reality?

Note "and" above

I stated somewhere what is crucial is,
objectively verifiable reality top up with philosophical critical thinking.

This is why we need to reinforce scientific knowledge with Philosophy of Science and Philosophy-proper [which will include among others, Morality and Ethics]

[Reflex]

Note the critical term is 'philosophy' not 'religion.'

I am willing to accept any reality if I can be convinced objectively and philosophically.
Just show me the arguments supported by sound philosophical justifications.

There you go again. Reducing everything to ideas builds a wall between an illusory self and reality.

I accept the fact that someone living comfortably in an illusion has neither reason nor desire to escape.

One more thing. Since when is philosophy only about objectively verifiable reality?

Note "and" above

I stated somewhere what is crucial is,
objectively verifiable reality top up with philosophical critical thinking.

This is why we need to reinforce scientific knowledge with Philosophy of Science and Philosophy-proper [which will include among others, Morality and Ethics]

What's crucial is access to awareness without the intervention of ideas.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note "and" above

I stated somewhere what is crucial is,
objectively verifiable reality top up with philosophical critical thinking.

This is why we need to reinforce scientific knowledge with Philosophy of Science and Philosophy-proper [which will include among others, Morality and Ethics]

What's crucial is access to awareness without the intervention of ideas.

But the above need further qualifications.
Note those mental cases within DSM-V could experience the above sort of ' pure awareness' and some will/[had] create[d] havoc and terrible evils.

Thus we need to reinforce that sort of pure awareness with scientific knowledge with Philosophy of Science and Philosophy-proper backed by strong critical thinking [reasoning].

The critical point is one must be able to use reason up to its highest potential but at the same time 'kill' reason after use. Note the Buddha's simile of 'getting rid of the boat after reaching shore'.