VA Conflate TR with PR??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Okay then you really have no idea that any system other than Kant's can exist. That suggests to me an IQ of about 80-90.

Obviously I am aware there could >1000 philosophical views on a certain issue other than that of Kant's.
But are they credible and objective?
What is your credible and objective system that can counter Kant's?
If you are so confident your should do it in thread for easy reference.

After telling him about an arguably better alternative system for years, he can't remember a single word. What is this?

It is in your dreams you have a better alternative system.
Where are you arguments and references??
As suggested, you should open a new thread to present your case to avoid the confusions and having to dig into dumpsters of nonsense in most threads.

[Iwannaplato]

So, the question is, why have we all spent years arguing with such a deceitful and incorrigible person when, long ago, we all learned (through intense frustration and aggravation) that it's a painful exercise in utter futility?

Yes, an important question to mull and one I have mulled over. I think there a number of reasons and some are not good ones. There's a kind of 'really, deep down, we are all alike,' mythology involved that I find even after so many years of living, I haven't managed to fully stop believing in. IOW, 'no, come on, this time, he has to at least admit this not really that consequential thing he did or didn't do'....and he does not.

But more recently I disengaged with him much more. I think he finally, as did also Iambiguous, wean me of this to a significant degree. I do respond to both, but I have no expectation of them admitting things. I find it interesting to find the contradictions, point out where they are, yes, using strawmen - and VA does this regularly - and so on. It's not a discussion, it's like playing chess with a computer, now pretty much literally, since VA depends nearly entirely on AIs now. So, the focus is on finding and quickly what he's done and hopefully doing this well. I have zero expectation of him admitting anything ever. So, the frustration is nearly non-existent.

It is stunning what one can deny online. Stunning. In person it would not go so well for deniers. Their confusion, realization of mistakes and need to plan out a response would be visible.

Is it because it's hard to resist confronting the sheer hutzpah of an obvious victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect whose manic obsession with an 18th century philosopher has impelled him to create 128 threads (out of a possible 150) on just the first three pages of just this one subforum alone?

Kant acts a buffer. He presents his ideas via Kant. So, what happens, we have to go through his misinterpretations of Kant before we can even start on his arguments. He's all about shifting onus, global evaluations and avoiding responding to particular points. And he really doesn't know basic things about how to have a conversation and how to critically react to a text or person. He lacks fundamental skills. But since he has some catastrophic fear that admitting anything means he is wrong about his positions, etc., he defends every error and misinterpretation as if his life depended on it.

His loss.

[Atla]

Arguing with VA, as in an actual debate? I don't think anyone does that anymore. I debated him in 2019 or so, clearly 'won' after a few comments, and everything since then has just been the aftermath.

Since then I just experiment on him for fun, I think it's an amusing challenge to try to make the single most dense person in the universe realize his mistakes. It's mainly for entertainment, and we also learn a little about psychology (VA's psychology), and a little about Kant (thank you AIs). I used to think that Kant was overrated and uninteresting but more or less correct, but now I realize that he's even worse than that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Arguing with VA, as in an actual debate? I don't think anyone does that anymore. I debated him in 2019 or so, clearly 'won' after a few comments, and everything since then has just been the aftermath.

Since then I just experiment on him for fun, I think it's an amusing challenge to try to make the single most dense person in the universe realize his mistakes. It's mainly for entertainment, and we also learn a little about psychology (VA's psychology), and a little about Kant (thank you AIs). I used to think that Kant was overrated and uninteresting but more or less correct, but now I realize that he's even worse than that.

Around 2018 or so would be when I first told him he would never improve unless he learned how to construct a proper argument where the premises relate correctly to the conclusion. He never did, so he never did. In the years since, occasionally my quest to find a way to explain something to him has resulted in a rethink of my own position, albeit a slight one.

His real problem with Kant is that he doesn't understand any of those works in the way that the author did, as a series of arguments. He knows some conclusions and some terminology that was used to get to them, but not the arguments, so he doesn't get why Kant said this or that, nor does he understand any weaknesses in Kant. Nor could he, because he doesn't get how argument works in philosophy and he will never even try to fix that deficit. So he's left just picking sides in some of the actual debates about how to interpret the K man, but he has nothing to actually make sense of it with.

[Atla]

Arguing with VA, as in an actual debate? I don't think anyone does that anymore. I debated him in 2019 or so, clearly 'won' after a few comments, and everything since then has just been the aftermath.

Since then I just experiment on him for fun, I think it's an amusing challenge to try to make the single most dense person in the universe realize his mistakes. It's mainly for entertainment, and we also learn a little about psychology (VA's psychology), and a little about Kant (thank you AIs). I used to think that Kant was overrated and uninteresting but more or less correct, but now I realize that he's even worse than that.

Around 2018 or so would be when I first told him he would never improve unless he learned how to construct a proper argument where the premises relate correctly to the conclusion. He never did, so he never did. In the years since, occasionally my quest to find a way to explain something to him has resulted in a rethink of my own position, albeit a slight one.

His real problem with Kant is that he doesn't understand any of those works in the way that the author did, as a series of arguments. He knows some conclusions and some terminology that was used to get to them, but not the arguments, so he doesn't get why Kant said this or that, nor does he understand any weaknesses in Kant. Nor could he, because he doesn't get how argument works in philosophy and he will never even try to fix that deficit. So he's left just picking sides in some of the actual debates about how to interpret the K man, but he has nothing to actually make sense of it with.

I recently came to the disturbing conclusion that his brain doesn't process logic at all. I've never known someone like that. He can't learn how to construct a proper argument, because in his logic-less world, arguments don't even exist. He has no idea what we actually mean by an argument.

[FlashDangerpants]

I recently came to the disturbing conclusion that his brain doesn't process logic at all. I've never known someone like that. He can't learn how to construct a proper argument, because in his logic-less world, arguments don't even exist. He has no idea what we actually mean by an argument.

You make a fair point. His idea of a syllogism is three sentences written near to each other. If I wrote this reply in column form this would be a syllogism to him.

P1. You raise a fair point.
P2. His idea of a syllogism is three sentences written near to each other.
C. If I wrote this reply in column form this would be a syllogism to him.

[seeds]

Is it because it's hard to resist confronting the sheer hutzpah of an obvious victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect whose manic obsession with an 18th century philosopher has impelled him to create 128 threads (out of a possible 150) on just the first three pages of just this one subforum alone?

Kant acts a buffer. He presents his ideas via Kant.

What, exactly, are his ideas?

From your long-term experiences conversing with him, what do you. Atla, and Flash each interpret VA's core beliefs to actually be?

The only thing I can come up with is that he (justifiably) hates any religion (especially Islam) where the prevailing Deity commands violence and death for non-believers.

And therefore, he believes that if he can somehow prove to the whole world (via Kantian philosophy) that God is an "illusion" ("an impossibility to be real") by equating the concept of God with his misunderstanding of Kant's noumenon,...

...then - presto-chango - humanity (based solely on VA's interpretation of the CPR) can eventually (within a century or two?) wean itself off of violence-inducing (God-centered) religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and thus be open to adopting a more neutral and peaceful belief system such as, say, Buddhism, for example.

And even that comes with the addendum that even Buddhism can eventually be discarded once everyone truly realizes (as VA has realized) the deep and wonderful truth that not only is life utterly meaningless with no ultimate purpose for us as individuals,...

...but also, that the unfathomable order of the universe is simply a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

I can already imagine the warm and beautiful future of our funeral system where someone reads from the CPR (make that VA's interpretation of the CPR) to comfort the family and friends of the deceased by assuring them that (other than their material body) there was never anything actually "real" about the person they loved.

Indeed, the mourners will be tenderly reminded that they must never entertain any hope of ever experiencing their loved-one's presence again in the form of such nonsense as that of a "soul," for example.

And that's because, just like God, the soul,...

(according to VA's expert interpretation of the Kant's [PBUH] CPR, which must be accepted and believed in with the same conviction as Muslim's accept and believe in the Koran)

...is nothing more than an illusion.

But since he has some catastrophic fear that admitting anything means he is wrong about his positions, etc., he defends every error and misinterpretation as if his life depended on it.

I think you pretty much nailed it right there.

It is a personal fear that he projects onto the rest of us by constantly accusing us of experiencing a...

"...cognitive dissonance from being caught in the throes of an existential crisis due to a fear of death..."

Or now my personal favorite...

"...I don't foresee you will be able to give up your crutch else all your bones will break into pieces when you fall..."

...

In other words, he must have, as you suggested, a "catastrophic fear" that if he admits to being wrong about anything whatsoever (no matter how trivial), he will lose his sense of infallibility, and his bones will spontaneously break into pieces.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

The only thing I can come up with is that he (justifiably) hates any religion (especially Islam) where the prevailing Deity commands violence and death for non-believers.

And therefore, he believes that if he can somehow prove to the whole world (via Kantian philosophy) that God is an "illusion" ("an impossibility to be real") by equating the concept of God with his misunderstanding of Kant's noumenon,...

...then - presto-chango - humanity (based solely on VA's interpretation of the CPR) can eventually (within a century or two?) wean itself off of violence-inducing (God-centered) religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and thus be open to adopting a more neutral and peaceful belief system such as, say, Buddhism, for example.

And even that comes with the addendum that even Buddhism can eventually be discarded once everyone truly realizes (as VA has realized) the deep and wonderful truth that not only is life utterly meaningless with no ultimate purpose for us as individuals,...

...but also, that the unfathomable order of the universe is simply a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

I can already imagine the warm and beautiful future of our funeral system where someone reads from the CPR (make that VA's interpretation of the CPR) to comfort the family and friends of the deceased by assuring them that (other than their material body) there was never anything actually "real" about the person they loved.

Indeed, the mourners will be tenderly reminded that they must never entertain any hope of ever experiencing their loved-one's presence again in the form of such nonsense as that of a "soul," for example.

And that's because, just like God, the soul,...

(according to VA's expert interpretation of the Kant's [PBUH] CPR, which must be accepted and believed in with the same conviction as Muslim's accept and believe in the Koran)

...is nothing more than an illusion.

But since he has some catastrophic fear that admitting anything means he is wrong about his positions, etc., he defends every error and misinterpretation as if his life depended on it.

I think you pretty much nailed it right there.

It is a personal fear that he projects onto the rest of us by constantly accusing us of experiencing a...

"...cognitive dissonance from being caught in the throes of an existential crisis due to a fear of death..."

Or now my personal favorite...

"...I don't foresee you will be able to give up your crutch else all your bones will break into pieces when you fall..."

...

In other words, he must have, as you suggested, a "catastrophic fear" that if he admits to being wrong about anything whatsoever (no matter how trivial), he will lose his sense of infallibility, and his bones will spontaneously break into pieces.
_______

Wow! Thanks, you have understood my position VERY WELL which are driven to strive for the following Vision and Mission [Kantian] for Humanity, i.e.

1. Who Am I
2. What can we Know - epistemology
3. What can we do [act] - morality
4. What can we hope for - perpetual peace

What is there to complain about on the above which is covered by Kant's completeness and systematicity.
All of whatever I discussed here [philosophy] and as you have summarized above are aligned with the above.

In a forum, the first task is to ensure one's view is rationally and defend it until it is 'proven' to be irrational. What wrong with that? I have made it a point to do that. I had given up many of my previous views [which I defended dogmatically] when it is proven to be irrational, e.g. theism.

ALL humans are 'programmed' with the terrors, pains and fears of the existential crisis,
viewtopic.php?t=41714
so I am no exception.
But I am striving to modulate terrors, pains and fears for equanimity, not like you and the rest who are so driven by these terrors, pains and fears subliminally that you act with intellectual terror and evils [complain, complain and complain, petty, attacks, mock, insults, etc.] in the ways you do here.
Your continuance with such intellectual terror and evil is only your lost.

[Atla]

I recently came to the disturbing conclusion that his brain doesn't process logic at all. I've never known someone like that. He can't learn how to construct a proper argument, because in his logic-less world, arguments don't even exist. He has no idea what we actually mean by an argument.

You make a fair point. His idea of a syllogism is three sentences written near to each other. If I wrote this reply in column form this would be a syllogism to him.

P1. You raise a fair point.
P2. His idea of a syllogism is three sentences written near to each other.
C. If I wrote this reply in column form this would be a syllogism to him.

Exactly. And the C sentence has an if..then logical structure in it, and he can't process that, can't see that.

[If] I wrote this reply in column form [then] this would be a syllogism to him.

What he sees:

I wrote this reply in column form it is a syllogism to him.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is it because it's hard to resist confronting the sheer hutzpah of an obvious victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect whose manic obsession with an 18th century philosopher has impelled him to create 128 threads (out of a possible 150) on just the first three pages of just this one subforum alone?

Kant acts a buffer. He presents his ideas via Kant.

What, exactly, are his ideas?

From your long-term experiences conversing with him, what do you. Atla, and Flash each interpret VA's core beliefs to actually be?

Scratch the surface of whichever of his ideas he is waffling about at the moment, and you will find a list that is probably meaningless and impossible to usefully compile ( a list of all the morally good and bad things there might be, a list of all the ideas people might have, all the FSK things that might be compiled etc...)

Look beneath the lists, there's another list, this time a list of lists (all the FSK things, sorted by "credibility" out of 100 with science being the Gold Standard, and so on)

Go further down, more lists, for criteria for the lists on the next level up...

He hasn't got any other actual ideas. He recommends making a list for everything, and then scoring the things on the list, and then sorting the list by score... Anything else he ever says reduces eventually to one of these lists.

That's why he sorts his philosophy downloads into 8 thousand folders: so he can make a list of the folders, and that's how he fools himself he has understood all the papers he downloaded but will never read.

The lists replace all other forms of evaluation, and that is the complete philosophy of VA.

[Atla]

Is it because it's hard to resist confronting the sheer hutzpah of an obvious victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect whose manic obsession with an 18th century philosopher has impelled him to create 128 threads (out of a possible 150) on just the first three pages of just this one subforum alone?

Kant acts a buffer. He presents his ideas via Kant.

What, exactly, are his ideas?

From your long-term experiences conversing with him, what do you. Atla, and Flash each interpret VA's core beliefs to actually be?

The only thing I can come up with is that he (justifiably) hates any religion (especially Islam) where the prevailing Deity commands violence and death for non-believers.

And therefore, he believes that if he can somehow prove to the whole world (via Kantian philosophy) that God is an "illusion" ("an impossibility to be real") by equating the concept of God with his misunderstanding of Kant's noumenon,...

...then - presto-chango - humanity (based solely on VA's interpretation of the CPR) can eventually (within a century or two?) wean itself off of violence-inducing (God-centered) religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and thus be open to adopting a more neutral and peaceful belief system such as, say, Buddhism, for example.

And even that comes with the addendum that even Buddhism can eventually be discarded once everyone truly realizes (as VA has realized) the deep and wonderful truth that not only is life utterly meaningless with no ultimate purpose for us as individuals,...

...but also, that the unfathomable order of the universe is simply a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

I can already imagine the warm and beautiful future of our funeral system where someone reads from the CPR (make that VA's interpretation of the CPR) to comfort the family and friends of the deceased by assuring them that (other than their material body) there was never anything actually "real" about the person they loved.

Indeed, the mourners will be tenderly reminded that they must never entertain any hope of ever experiencing their loved-one's presence again in the form of such nonsense as that of a "soul," for example.

And that's because, just like God, the soul,...

(according to VA's expert interpretation of the Kant's [PBUH] CPR, which must be accepted and believed in with the same conviction as Muslim's accept and believe in the Koran)

...is nothing more than an illusion.

But since he has some catastrophic fear that admitting anything means he is wrong about his positions, etc., he defends every error and misinterpretation as if his life depended on it.

I think you pretty much nailed it right there.

It is a personal fear that he projects onto the rest of us by constantly accusing us of experiencing a...

"...cognitive dissonance from being caught in the throes of an existential crisis due to a fear of death..."

Or now my personal favorite...

"...I don't foresee you will be able to give up your crutch else all your bones will break into pieces when you fall..."

...

In other words, he must have, as you suggested, a "catastrophic fear" that if he admits to being wrong about anything whatsoever (no matter how trivial), he will lose his sense of infallibility, and his bones will spontaneously break into pieces.
_______

Pretty spot on. VA also forgets that Kant brought God back as a necessary regulative idea or something, which is exactly what the Islamists would do with Allah and his commandments.

LOL!

[Iwannaplato]

What, exactly, are his ideas?

He started with his criticism of Islam and wants to promote his kind of moral realism. He encountered online resistance from moral antirealists, like Peter Holmes, for example. PH took a realist position and something akin to the Hume is ought distinction. Regardless of PHs approach, VA met resistence that could be seen as a realist (perhaps physicalist) denial of the existence of objective morals. So, he turned to antirealisms of various kinds, since this could undermine realism, the is ought distinction and allow him to say that morals are as objective as other facts about the nature of things. Kant can be useful here also. So, he became an ontological antirealist and then later a very Kantian version of this. He may have loved Kant before this, but his first forays into ontological antirealism were not as centered on Kant as they are now.

He wants to introduce a kind of virtue ethics based on neuroscience, for example. He does not accept that his approach is virtue ethics, but given that he is not about creating the objectively correct moral rules, but influencing the attitudes of people so that they tend to do good and avoid the bad/evil, it is very much kin to that. So, note: I am not saying he is a virtue ethicist and he will say things that are very deontological, but in practice he doesn't want to set up top down deontological controls in society but rather develop people's characters so that they tend not to....have abotions, for example.

I think his core is aligned with1) attacking Islam and other systems of belief he considers pernicious. So, there is an anti-certain-systems set of beliefs.
And his heart lies with 2) promoting a kind of moral realism and his particular values as objective, considering he can demonstrate their objectivity via science and what he calls the moral FSERC.

From your long-term experiences conversing with him, what do you. Atla, and Flash each interpret VA's core beliefs to actually be?

The only thing I can come up with is that he (justifiably) hates any religion (especially Islam) where the prevailing Deity commands violence and death for non-believers.

And therefore, he believes that if he can somehow prove to the whole world (via Kantian philosophy) that God is an "illusion" ("an impossibility to be real") by equating the concept of God with his misunderstanding of Kant's noumenon,...

I think he misunderstands Kant also. I do think he loves Kant and admires him. But I also think he is extremely intrumentalist: he takes on beliefs that counter the resistance he meets.

...then - presto-chango - humanity (based solely on VA's interpretation of the CPR) can eventually (within a century or two?) wean itself off of violence-inducing (God-centered) religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and thus be open to adopting a more neutral and peaceful belief system such as, say, Buddhism, for example.

Buddhism does have its own history of violence, but yes, I think this is part of his utopian vision.

And even that comes with the addendum that even Buddhism can eventually be discarded once everyone truly realizes (as VA has realized) the deep and wonderful truth that not only is life utterly meaningless with no ultimate purpose for us as individuals,...

...but also, that the unfathomable order of the universe is simply a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

I haven't seen this part of his beliefs. It doesn't quite fit with what I've seen either.

I can already imagine the warm and beautiful future of our funeral system where someone reads from the CPR (make that VA's interpretation of the CPR) to comfort the family and friends of the deceased by assuring them that (other than their material body) there was never anything actually "real" about the person they loved.

Same as above, but I could easily have missed this.

Indeed, the mourners will be tenderly reminded that they must never entertain any hope of ever experiencing their loved-one's presence again in the form of such nonsense as that of a "soul," for example.

And that's because, just like God, the soul,...

Even though Kant considered the noumenon of the immortal soul necessary for humans to be moral agents. He interprets this as meaning they need to think they have one not that Kant thought such a thing was possible. Even if this is true then he is going against Kant by saying all noumena are not real and do not exist.

In other words, he must have, as you suggested, a "catastrophic fear" that if he admits to being wrong about anything whatsoever (no matter how trivial), he will lose his sense of infallibility, and his bones will spontaneously break into pieces.

Or he gets off on denying things. Since he is a sloppy thinker, I've had that interpretation that he can't bear admitting he made anything more than a slight misstep. But perhaps he gets off on never admitting he is wrong. Who knows?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pretty spot on. VA also forgets that Kant brought God back as a necessary regulative idea or something, which is exactly what the Islamists would do with Allah and his commandments.
LOL!

Wrong again.

Kant refers to 'God' as a useful illusion and as a regulative idea for his moral project.
I don't agree with the term 'God' [illusion] but I could accept Kant's alternative Ens Realissimum

On the other hand, Islam claim God exists constitutively [substantially real] i.e. God exists as a real entity who sent his messages/commands to a prophet; all believers must accept this God is constitutively real, i.e. most real enough to promise a real eternal life in a real paradise with 72 real virgins. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What, exactly, are his ideas?

He started with his criticism of Islam and wants to promote his kind of moral realism. He encountered online resistance from moral antirealists, like Peter Holmes, for example. PH took a realist position and something akin to the Hume is ought distinction. Regardless of PHs approach, VA met resistence that could be seen as a realist (perhaps physicalist) denial of the existence of objective morals. So, he turned to antirealisms of various kinds, since this could undermine realism, the is ought distinction and allow him to say that morals are as objective as other facts about the nature of things. Kant can be useful here also. So, he became an ontological antirealist and then later a very Kantian version of this. He may have loved Kant before this, but his first forays into ontological antirealism were not as centered on Kant as they are now.

He wants to introduce a kind of virtue ethics based on neuroscience, for example. He does not accept that his approach is virtue ethics, but given that he is not about creating the objectively correct moral rules, but influencing the attitudes of people so that they tend to do good and avoid the bad/evil, it is very much kin to that. So, note: I am not saying he is a virtue ethicist and he will say things that are very deontological, but in practice he doesn't want to set up top down deontological controls in society but rather develop people's characters so that they tend not to....have abotions, for example.

I think his core is aligned with1) attacking Islam and other systems of belief he considers pernicious. So, there is an anti-certain-systems set of beliefs.
And his heart lies with 2) promoting a kind of moral realism and his particular values as objective, considering he can demonstrate their objectivity via science and what he calls the moral FSERC.

From your long-term experiences conversing with him, what do you. Atla, and Flash each interpret VA's core beliefs to actually be?

The only thing I can come up with is that he (justifiably) hates any religion (especially Islam) where the prevailing Deity commands violence and death for non-believers.

And therefore, he believes that if he can somehow prove to the whole world (via Kantian philosophy) that God is an "illusion" ("an impossibility to be real") by equating the concept of God with his misunderstanding of Kant's noumenon,...

I think he misunderstands Kant also. I do think he loves Kant and admires him. But I also think he is extremely intrumentalist: he takes on beliefs that counter the resistance he meets.

...then - presto-chango - humanity (based solely on VA's interpretation of the CPR) can eventually (within a century or two?) wean itself off of violence-inducing (God-centered) religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, and thus be open to adopting a more neutral and peaceful belief system such as, say, Buddhism, for example.

Buddhism does have its own history of violence, but yes, I think this is part of his utopian vision.

And even that comes with the addendum that even Buddhism can eventually be discarded once everyone truly realizes (as VA has realized) the deep and wonderful truth that not only is life utterly meaningless with no ultimate purpose for us as individuals,...

...but also, that the unfathomable order of the universe is simply a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance.

I haven't seen this part of his beliefs. It doesn't quite fit with what I've seen either.

I can already imagine the warm and beautiful future of our funeral system where someone reads from the CPR (make that VA's interpretation of the CPR) to comfort the family and friends of the deceased by assuring them that (other than their material body) there was never anything actually "real" about the person they loved.

Same as above, but I could easily have missed this.

Indeed, the mourners will be tenderly reminded that they must never entertain any hope of ever experiencing their loved-one's presence again in the form of such nonsense as that of a "soul," for example.

And that's because, just like God, the soul,...

Even though Kant considered the noumenon of the immortal soul necessary for humans to be moral agents. He interprets this as meaning they need to think they have one not that Kant thought such a thing was possible. Even if this is true then he is going against Kant by saying all noumena are not real and do not exist.

In other words, he must have, as you suggested, a "catastrophic fear" that if he admits to being wrong about anything whatsoever (no matter how trivial), he will lose his sense of infallibility, and his bones will spontaneously break into pieces.

Or he gets off on denying things. Since he is a sloppy thinker, I've had that interpretation that he can't bear admitting he made anything more than a slight misstep. But perhaps he gets off on never admitting he is wrong. Who knows?

You got the core of my views right but wrong at the fringes.

I am not an 'ontological' antirealist in any typical metaphysical sense. Any consideration of 'ontology = being' is in the empirical realism sense.

Sloppy thinking? you are the one who is the narrow, shallow and weak critical thinker that conclude I am a sloppy thinker.
As I had stated many times, I am not presenting a thesis in this limited forum and many a times I have to omit certain in between premises to save time.
This is why I appreciate AI which could explain the details in seconds.

Previously I was a hardcore theists and philosophical realists, conceded I was wrong based on rationality and I have evolved out of those dogmas.
Seem like you want me to admit I am wrong now and go back to my old primitive primal irrational & delusional beliefs?

[Atla]

Pretty spot on. VA also forgets that Kant brought God back as a necessary regulative idea or something, which is exactly what the Islamists would do with Allah and his commandments.
LOL!

Wrong again.

Kant refers to 'God' as a useful illusion and as a regulative idea for his moral project.
I don't agree with the term 'God' [illusion] but I could accept Kant's alternative Ens Realissimum

On the other hand, Islam claim God exists constitutively [substantially real] i.e. God exists as a real entity who sent his messages/commands to a prophet; all believers must accept this God is constitutively real, i.e. most real enough to promise a real eternal life in a real paradise with 72 real virgins. This is why this realness give believers the confidence to sacrifice their earthly life as a martyr and as permitted by God, kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.

Doesn't really matter whether it's a regulative idea or constitutively real when people act on it either way.