God and morality

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know, IC. I see no conclusive evidence to think that Christians won't also become mentally ill

You haven't been paying attention to what I said, or to what Romans 1 says...largely because you've never bothered to read it, I would guess.

I have not made that claim. I have simply pointed out that even in the case of my friend's mother, who lived with mental illness, being a Christian turned out to be a significant source of consolation and hope.

Romans does not say Atheism is the exclusive cause of all mental illness. It says that a particular kind of moral and mental illness proceeds from the choice to reject God. It's an act of bad faith, really; because we all know He exists. And it opens a door to that particular kind of mental and moral illness, and a passage down which men proceed to various degrees...none of them good.

You need to read it. It's impossible to discuss it with you when you don't even know it.

[Gary Childress]

I don't know, IC. I see no conclusive evidence to think that Christians won't also become mentally ill

You haven't been paying attention to what I said, or to what Romans 1 says...largely because you've never bothered to read it, I would guess.

I have not made that claim. I have simply pointed out that even in the case of my friend's mother, who lived with mental illness, being a Christian turned out to be a significant source of consolation and hope.

Romans does not say Atheism is the exclusive cause of all mental illness. It says that a particular kind of moral and mental illness proceeds from the choice to reject God. It's an act of bad faith, really; because we all know He exists. And it opens a door to that particular kind of mental and moral illness, and a passage down which men proceed to various degrees...none of them good.

You need to read it. It's impossible to discuss it with you when you don't even know it.

Why do I need to read it. You cited in Romans where it said that all who reject God will become mentally ill or deranged. Shouldn't it say those who reject religion will become mentally ill or deranged. And since not all religions involve monotheism, why should it say that rejecting God in particular is the cause of mental illness and derangement?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know, IC. I see no conclusive evidence to think that Christians won't also become mentally ill

You haven't been paying attention to what I said, or to what Romans 1 says...largely because you've never bothered to read it, I would guess.

I have not made that claim. I have simply pointed out that even in the case of my friend's mother, who lived with mental illness, being a Christian turned out to be a significant source of consolation and hope.

Romans does not say Atheism is the exclusive cause of all mental illness. It says that a particular kind of moral and mental illness proceeds from the choice to reject God. It's an act of bad faith, really; because we all know He exists. And it opens a door to that particular kind of mental and moral illness, and a passage down which men proceed to various degrees...none of them good.

You need to read it. It's impossible to discuss it with you when you don't even know it.

Why do I need to read it.

To decide whether you believe it or not. It's awfully hard to make any determination about something you've never read. And you won't know if what I say about it is justified by the text or not, if you've never even seen it.

[Gary Childress]

You haven't been paying attention to what I said, or to what Romans 1 says...largely because you've never bothered to read it, I would guess.

I have not made that claim. I have simply pointed out that even in the case of my friend's mother, who lived with mental illness, being a Christian turned out to be a significant source of consolation and hope.

Romans does not say Atheism is the exclusive cause of all mental illness. It says that a particular kind of moral and mental illness proceeds from the choice to reject God. It's an act of bad faith, really; because we all know He exists. And it opens a door to that particular kind of mental and moral illness, and a passage down which men proceed to various degrees...none of them good.

You need to read it. It's impossible to discuss it with you when you don't even know it.

Why do I need to read it.

To decide whether you believe it or not. It's awfully hard to make any determination about something you've never read. And you won't know if what I say about it is justified by the text or not, if you've never even seen it.

So are you not qualified to comment on books you haven't read or haven't paid close attention to? Was your synopsis of Paul's reasons why rejecting God causes mental illness and derangement not accurate? What other statistical or empirical evidence does Paul give for the assertion that rejecting God causes mental illness or derangment? Is it not possible that Paul was a lot like you and simply accepted anecdotal evidence that he was directly aware of instead of doing a scientific study of the issue of what happens when a person rejects God?

[Fanman]

Well, that "No" is very important.

If there are no refutations, then I don't understand why so much of the discussion has focused on the philosopher rather than the philosophy. If you catch my drift.

I mean no offence, Gary, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the rest of your point. If someone believes a position is obviously mistaken, I'd expect them to explain why it's mistaken rather than explain why they don't want to explain it. (Flash ).

That's a fair point. Maybe I'm thinking too much of my arguments with IC. He insistst that the Bible is the work of God and since it's the work of God, everything in the Bible is true. Therefore, if the Bible says it, by definition, it can't be false.

Honestly, I can't tell if you are anything like IC. I wasn't paying too much attention to your posts, other than some things you insisted were true about metaphysics that I'm not sure are right or wrong. So I don't know if Flash was heated up in argument over frustration with you not admitting you're wrong, or because Flash is a bag of hot air.

The truth is that I have pointed to fairly obvious logical problems with a number of his arguments.

In this thread he had something about metaphysics not operating in a domain where we can clearly say some output is metaphysical (which is quite obviously a metaphysical claim itself). A secondary claim from that states that metaphysical claims usually collapse into something else such as "religion, spirituality, or esotericism" (really he should report to Willy B for a lecture on aeshtetics but I doubt Willy would pay him much attention tbh). And then he follows with what looks a lot like a conclusion to that syllogistic format: "Consequently, when someone claims to be a metaphysicist, from my perspective the label carries no more practical meaning than witch or wizard."

When I pointed out the logical flaws in that construct, he tried to tell me that it isn't an argument at all, just a statement of opinions. Given how prickly he has been at the suggestion that he doesn't know what metaphysicis is, I decided not to annoy him by pointing out that an argument is just an opinion with a bunch of reasons given, and that is indeed what he presented...

I raised other issues with his reasoning for other arguments he has presented. And I am not alone in that. He in every case simple refuses to believe he has been challenged on the rationale of his arguments and just takes offence at something instead. After a while, the problem seems to be him. His claim that his arguments have gone unchallenged is just a reflection of his self-pity, or whatever it is. His best arguments are tepid and easily challenged, but persuading their author to attend to the challenges isn't actually a valuable use of anybody's time because his personality will get in the way. This is why he will find fewer and fewer people to discuss his ideas with, even on this empty and decaying corpse of a forum.

One simple request: substantiate this with evidence.

Update to my post: You know what, Flash, don't bother. If things have gotten so bad for you that you have to create a version of reality that didn't occur, that's just sad. I wouldn't want it to look like I was bullying you into facing the truth or anything. So you can keep the delusion you've written; I am sure it will bring you some form of happiness.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do I need to read it.

To decide whether you believe it or not. It's awfully hard to make any determination about something you've never read. And you won't know if what I say about it is justified by the text or not, if you've never even seen it.

So are you not qualified to comment on books you haven't read or haven't paid close attention to?

Is that even a question? It shouldn't be.

[Gary Childress]

To decide whether you believe it or not. It's awfully hard to make any determination about something you've never read. And you won't know if what I say about it is justified by the text or not, if you've never even seen it.

So are you not qualified to comment on books you haven't read or haven't paid close attention to?

Is that even a question? It shouldn't be.

So you aren't qualified to comment on books you haven't read. Is that correct? You are ignorant concerning all the books you haven't read, just as I am. And we have not read all the same books, have we?

[Immanuel Can]

So are you not qualified to comment on books you haven't read or haven't paid close attention to?

Is that even a question? It shouldn't be.

So you aren't qualified to comment on books you haven't read. Is that correct? You are ignorant concerning all the books you haven't read, just as I am. And we have not read all the same books, have we?

And?

[Gary Childress]

Is that even a question? It shouldn't be.

So you aren't qualified to comment on books you haven't read. Is that correct? You are ignorant concerning all the books you haven't read, just as I am. And we have not read all the same books, have we?

And?

Are you agreeing with what I said above, then? So if you might be an expert on the Bible and religion, can you say the same thing about science, politics, and philosophy? Or is your expertise in the latter topics greater than mine?

[Immanuel Can]

So you aren't qualified to comment on books you haven't read. Is that correct? You are ignorant concerning all the books you haven't read, just as I am. And we have not read all the same books, have we?

And?

Are you agreeing with what I said above, then? So if you might be an expert on the Bible and religion, can you say the same thing about science, politics, and philosophy? Or is your expertise in the latter topics greater than mine?

I'm still waiting to see if you have a point. I don't know whether I agree with you or not, until I see what you're hoping to conclude. Finish your point, maybe.

[Gary Childress]

And?

Are you agreeing with what I said above, then? So if you might be an expert on the Bible and religion, can you say the same thing about science, politics, and philosophy? Or is your expertise in the latter topics greater than mine?

I'm still waiting to see if you have a point. I don't know whether I agree with you or not, until I see what you're hoping to conclude. Finish your point, maybe.

So if you decide that my following point isn't to your liking, are you going to then disagree with my point about not being an expert on books you haven't read?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you agreeing with what I said above, then? So if you might be an expert on the Bible and religion, can you say the same thing about science, politics, and philosophy? Or is your expertise in the latter topics greater than mine?

I'm still waiting to see if you have a point. I don't know whether I agree with you or not, until I see what you're hoping to conclude. Finish your point, maybe.

So if you decide that my following point isn't to your liking, are you going to then disagree with my point about not being an expert on books you haven't read?

I've already told you that you need to read something before you can discuss what it says. And I really can't understand how that statement could be unclear or controversial to you.

So finish your point, I guess...or don't bother making one...whatever pleases you.

[Fanman]

Also, for the record, Flash, let's also remember that, even after your history of abusive behaviour towards me, I gave you the courtesy of an actual philosophical discussion. The best you could reply with was this masterpiece of a response:

erm...

That's all you could come up with when your reasoning was put to the test.

Update to my post: And let's not forget this finely reasoned example of philosophy:

Flash stated:

This shit is too easy. You aren't sophisticated enough to challenge me and demand satisfaction. I am giving you fair and reasonable advice about how to improve, mainly because I would rather that people who are willing to spend time arguing with Immaneul Can shouldn't lose to an idiot like that. The stuff I point out above is within even his ability because it is extremely obvious.

So ideally you should become too capable to make such rookie mistakes. That can only happen after your arrogance has taken a ding and you have realised that you have much to learn. From humans. You have been using AI chatbots to tell you that you are right about stuff, and that hasn't done you any good at all.

I'm sorry if you think I should treat you as an equal, or even a threat, but it just isn't that way. It would take quite a lot of improvment on your part for any of that to be possible.

Wow, how does he do it...

[Fanman]

Well, the simple answer is, leave me alone then. By that I mean, stop giving me your opinion on me. That's not what philosophy forums are for.

Do you understand?

Can he give you his opinion that you are mistaken about something?

Not really. When you do that he asks a chatbot to tell him he's right and you're wrong, then he just tells you that the chatbot is on his side so he doesn't care what you say. Then he gets pissy if you mock him for that.

He's a bit like VA. Or the way that philosophyexplorer would have got, if he'd hung around long enough for Copilot to launch.

Also, for the record, Flash made no effort, or provided any evidence whatsoever, to support his claims here, which I reject as being untrue or because they are untrue.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's a fair point. Maybe I'm thinking too much of my arguments with IC. He insistst that the Bible is the work of God and since it's the work of God, everything in the Bible is true. Therefore, if the Bible says it, by definition, it can't be false.

Honestly, I can't tell if you are anything like IC. I wasn't paying too much attention to your posts, other than some things you insisted were true about metaphysics that I'm not sure are right or wrong. So I don't know if Flash was heated up in argument over frustration with you not admitting you're wrong, or because Flash is a bag of hot air.

The truth is that I have pointed to fairly obvious logical problems with a number of his arguments.

In this thread he had something about metaphysics not operating in a domain where we can clearly say some output is metaphysical (which is quite obviously a metaphysical claim itself). A secondary claim from that states that metaphysical claims usually collapse into something else such as "religion, spirituality, or esotericism" (really he should report to Willy B for a lecture on aeshtetics but I doubt Willy would pay him much attention tbh). And then he follows with what looks a lot like a conclusion to that syllogistic format: "Consequently, when someone claims to be a metaphysicist, from my perspective the label carries no more practical meaning than witch or wizard."

When I pointed out the logical flaws in that construct, he tried to tell me that it isn't an argument at all, just a statement of opinions. Given how prickly he has been at the suggestion that he doesn't know what metaphysicis is, I decided not to annoy him by pointing out that an argument is just an opinion with a bunch of reasons given, and that is indeed what he presented...

I raised other issues with his reasoning for other arguments he has presented. And I am not alone in that. He in every case simple refuses to believe he has been challenged on the rationale of his arguments and just takes offence at something instead. After a while, the problem seems to be him. His claim that his arguments have gone unchallenged is just a reflection of his self-pity, or whatever it is. His best arguments are tepid and easily challenged, but persuading their author to attend to the challenges isn't actually a valuable use of anybody's time because his personality will get in the way. This is why he will find fewer and fewer people to discuss his ideas with, even on this empty and decaying corpse of a forum.

One simple request: substantiate this with evidence.

Update to my post: You know what, Flash, don't bother. If things have gotten so bad for you that you have to create a version of reality that didn't occur, that's just sad. I wouldn't want it to look like I was bullying you into facing the truth or anything. So you can keep the delusion you've written; I am sure it will bring you some form of happiness.

Did you spend two hours getting obsessive about this shit?

You can just scroll back through your own posts for the evidence. In fact I see that you have from the two more posts you wrote over the next hour or two to complain about me... but those are picking out the bits of posts that you feel personally insulted by, and skipping anything that criticises your rationale. Which is eaxctly the flaw I pointed to above. Thanks for underlining my point. It's a shame you won't understand it.

Stop trying to win an argument by digging yourself furhter into the same hole. Do some self-reflection please. I am busy today and bored of this anyway.

One thing I would like to know. You obviously went and asked an AI to agree with you about your claims regarding metaphysics not being metaphysical claims themselves. That's what you do. So the fact that you aren't printing the results of that enquiry suggests to me that you can't force an AI to agree with you on this. Is that why you are suddenly so much grumpier than before?