SUBSCRIBE to the magazine posters!! tightarses!!

[accelafine]

the nazi stuff.

Could you be specific about which Nazi policies you are referring to? The Arab world was very pally with the Nazis.

[attofishpi]

Here's Chapter 1, Ch 2 and Ch 3 of my magnum opus masterwork on the foundations of morality leading to the thrilling conclusion (somewhere around Ch 11) that promises for once and for all to settle matters between some form of moral quasi-realism, or perhaps hermeneutic moral fictionalism, or who knows, perhaps we will end up with some brand new theory?

Well then, I must ask for an accord.

I've read through your 1,2,3 and have some opinions that you may or may not accept as part of the ""great work" - whether you feel what I have to say is of worth is moot.

Point being, that I will attempt my best effort to address the discussion of your "magnum opus" although one feels there is a tongue in someone's cheek, nonetheless the topic is worthy of discussion and deep contemplation.

The accord I require agreement of, is that once I have materialised my argument for God's existence, that we are indeed within a pantheistic reality, evidence presented, that you also read it and address it without bias and provide your conclusion.

THUS -- do we have an accord?

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's Chapter 1, Ch 2 and Ch 3 of my magnum opus masterwork on the foundations of morality leading to the thrilling conclusion (somewhere around Ch 11) that promises for once and for all to settle matters between some form of moral quasi-realism, or perhaps hermeneutic moral fictionalism, or who knows, perhaps we will end up with some brand new theory?

Well then, I must ask for an accord.

I've read through your 1,2,3 and have some opinions that you may or may not accept as part of the ""great work" - whether you feel what I have to say is of worth is moot.

Point being, that I will attempt my best effort to address the discussion of your "magnum opus" although one feels there is a tongue in someone's cheek, nonetheless the topic is worthy of discussion and deep contemplation.

The accord I require agreement of, is that once I have materialised my argument for God's existence, that we are indeed within a pantheistic reality, evidence presented, that you also read it and address it without bias and provide your conclusion.

THUS -- do we have an accord?

Sure

[FlashDangerpants]

and someone I'd like to delve the depths worthy of fathoming out.

The problem here is that the same cannot be said for you. But perhaps I am wrong, maybe I have overlooked your capabilities... So ok, let's see what you can do...

Here's Chapter 1, Ch 2 and Ch 3 of my magnum opus masterwork on the foundations of morality leading to the thrilling conclusion (somewhere around Ch 11) that promises for once and for all to settle matters between some form of moral quasi-realism, or perhaps hermeneutic moral fictionalism, or who knows, perhaps we will end up with some brand new theory?

I ask this of you, do you have any interesting thoughts to offer? Counterarguments are cool, suggestions for where to go with Ch4 are good also. Your own Ch 1 as you begin to flesh out some magnum dong of your own would be even better. Sensible requests for an explanation of some point that was glossed over are excellent. What would be absolutely worthless garbage would be your usual drunken spiel about atheists, that would be boring and make you look stupid again.

I would like to remind you that I highlighted your inability to avoid ranting about atheists as a particular probem there. Now you thinkin some other thread I am going to bother with shit like this...

“Philosophy” started to lose its wheels upon the road way back when so many ‘deep’ thinkers started to listen to atheist philosophers and close their minds entirely to anything of theism. (not wise at all)

This is you failing in the most predicatable way. Now technically I went into that discussion with prejudice, because I had pre-judged which of your dispositional problems would invalidate the excercise. But I was right. That's an example of how prejudice is usual in human reasoning as a useful, albeit suspect, shortcut.

[attofishpi]

and someone I'd like to delve the depths worthy of fathoming out.

The problem here is that the same cannot be said for you. But perhaps I am wrong, maybe I have overlooked your capabilities... So ok, let's see what you can do...

Here's Chapter 1, Ch 2 and Ch 3 of my magnum opus masterwork on the foundations of morality leading to the thrilling conclusion (somewhere around Ch 11) that promises for once and for all to settle matters between some form of moral quasi-realism, or perhaps hermeneutic moral fictionalism, or who knows, perhaps we will end up with some brand new theory?

I ask this of you, do you have any interesting thoughts to offer? Counterarguments are cool, suggestions for where to go with Ch4 are good also. Your own Ch 1 as you begin to flesh out some magnum dong of your own would be even better. Sensible requests for an explanation of some point that was glossed over are excellent. What would be absolutely worthless garbage would be your usual drunken spiel about atheists, that would be boring and make you look stupid again.

I would like to remind you that I highlighted your inability to avoid ranting about atheists as a particular probem there. Now you thinkin some other thread I am going to bother with shit like this...

“Philosophy” started to lose its wheels upon the road way back when so many ‘deep’ thinkers started to listen to atheist philosophers and close their minds entirely to anything of theism. (not wise at all)

This is you failing in the most predicatable way. Now technically I went into that discussion with prejudice, because I had pre-judged which of your dispositional problems would invalidate the excercise. But I was right. That's an example of how prejudice is usual in human reasoning as a useful, albeit suspect, shortcut.

Why are you getting your knickers in a twist? I thought I had your back where I state that RELIGION and its influence within a society can taint any reasonable assessment of what is accepted as ethical:-->

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Matters of opinion are based upon reasoning and consideration of what is deemed ethical is part of that reasoning. Not all societies are basing their reasoning without bias, religious or other influence can affect their ability to reasonably assess what is ethical within their society.

[FlashDangerpants]

I thought I had your back where I state that RELIGION and its influence within a society can taint any reasonable assessment of what is accepted as ethical:-->

I don't need you to have my back

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Matters of opinion are based upon reasoning and consideration of what is deemed ethical is part of that reasoning. Not all societies are basing their reasoning without bias, religious or other influence can affect their ability to reasonably assess what is ethical within their society.

This is getting too boring. Matters of opinion are founded on opinions. Your opinion about what counts as good reason to support your opinion is not the same as somebody else's opinion about what counts as good reason to support their opinions. this is very basic obvious shit, I should have to spend time explaining it. I will probably just paste this text again if you refer back to this crap as there is no possible value in me writing anything new on this matter. I probably won't even fix typos when I do it.

[attofishpi]

I thought I had your back where I state that RELIGION and its influence within a society can taint any reasonable assessment of what is accepted as ethical:-->

I don't need you to have my back

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Matters of opinion are based upon reasoning and consideration of what is deemed ethical is part of that reasoning. Not all societies are basing their reasoning without bias, religious or other influence can affect their ability to reasonably assess what is ethical within their society.

This is getting too boring. Matters of opinion are founded on opinions. Your opinion about what counts as good reason to support your opinion is not the same as somebody else's opinion about what counts as good reason to support their opinions. this is very basic obvious shit, I should have to spend time explaining it. I will probably just paste this text again if you refer back to this crap as there is no possible value in me writing anything new on this matter. I probably won't even fix typos when I do it.

Oh great wise one that deals with what he thinks is "philosophy"..then please let me of no comprehension in on what is your actual point?

That all opinions are EQUALLY valid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY invalid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY pointless?

What is it?

[FlashDangerpants]

That all opinions are EQUALLY valid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY invalid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY pointless?

Distinction without difference.

[attofishpi]

That all opinions are EQUALLY valid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY invalid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY pointless?

Distinction without difference.

Based on your statements..your answer surely must be that all opinions are equally pointless.

[FlashDangerpants]

That all opinions are EQUALLY valid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY invalid: OR : That all opinions are EQUALLY pointless?

Distinction without difference.

Based on your statements..your answer surely must be that all opinions are equally pointless.

Is the concept of distinction without difference beyond your talent?

[attofishpi]

Distinction without difference.

Based on your statements..your answer surely must be that all opinions are equally pointless.

Is the concept of distinction without difference beyond your talent?

Fuck nose, how about you explain it (perhaps then you can divert from the ridiculous statements you are making)

[FlashDangerpants]

Based on your statements..your answer surely must be that all opinions are equally pointless.

Is the concept of distinction without difference beyond your talent?

Fuck nose, how about you explain it (perhaps then you can divert from the ridiculous statements you are making)

Have you been drinking today? You are starting to reek of self-pity.

Here's a wiki page for distinction without difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distincti ... difference

[attofishpi]

Is the concept of distinction without difference beyond your talent?

Fuck nose, how about you explain it (perhaps then you can divert from the ridiculous statements you are making)

Have you been drinking today? You are starting to reek of self-pity.

Here's a wiki page for distinction without difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distincti ... difference

I'm not going to read your WIKI - I'm pretty certain logically I understand what it will say - I too is getting bored.

..fact remains, that you obviously believe: that all opinions are equally pointless. (RE ethics)

[FlashDangerpants]

Fuck nose, how about you explain it (perhaps then you can divert from the ridiculous statements you are making)

Have you been drinking today? You are starting to reek of self-pity.

Here's a wiki page for distinction without difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distincti ... difference

I'm not going to read your WIKI - I'm pretty certain logically I understand what it will say - I too is getting bored.

..fact remains, that you obviously believe: that all opinions are equally pointless. (RE ethics)

I don't hold that view. If you had actually read in order to comprehend those three posts you would see that. But you read only in order to feel angry, and that's no use to me.

The truth is you are not at a level where it is worth me stooping to try and explain myself or my thinking to you. You only learned what relativism is yesterday, and the day before that you spent trying to argue with me about chip shops. You haven't the talent or the temperament to cope with real moral philosophy, and you would be bemused by the areas where I am content at present to have not made up my mind about things.

Also you are drunk.

[attofishpi]

Have you been drinking today? You are starting to reek of self-pity.

Here's a wiki page for distinction without difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distincti ... difference

I'm not going to read your WIKI - I'm pretty certain logically I understand what it will say - I too is getting bored.

..fact remains, that you obviously believe: that all opinions are equally pointless. (RE ethics)

I don't hold that view. If you had actually read in order to comprehend those three posts you would see that. But you read only in order to feel angry, and that's no use to me.

So rather than rant...what is you view about ethics?

My current opinion is that you are confused.

The truth is you are not at a level where it is worth me stooping to try and explain myself or my thinking to you. You only learned what relativism is yesterday, and the day before that you spent trying to argue with me about chip shops.

..relativism? I've seen it pop up occasionally on this forum and I didn't require much degree of thought in presuming some sense to it -- in whatever "philosophical" context. Just because I amused myself pertaining to the word, does not mean I only just learned of it.

You haven't the talent or the temperament to cope with real moral philosophy, and you would be bemused by the areas where I am content at present to have not made up my mind about things.

Lay them out. (these things that you are not content to have made your mind up about)

...actually, don't bother- since you state me as boring, I am pretty certain that what you have re above probably that you have considered for far too many years, is pointless and boring.

Talent? Temperament? -- I have been quite tempered in putting up with your labels of me (need I point them out?)