Philosophy Now Forum

Just a reminder for those who wish to switch the discussion here from Christianity as a historical phenomenon to Christianity as the One True Path to immortality and salvation, there are four factors that are of particular interest to me:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God. Now, Immanuel Can has provided us with his own proof. Those videos above and his insistence that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven because it does in fact say so in the Christian Bible.


2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian path? And here, a reminder of just how many additional Gods, spiritual paths, religious faiths and One True Paths that there are around the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions


3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths. After all, there were countless human communities that existed before Christ and the God of Abraham were even around. And to this day there are God knows how many men and women and children who will go to the grave with no knowledge [or very little knowledge] of the Christian God. Not to mention all of the millions upon millions of children who will be born and raised in communities where, beyond their control, they are indoctrinated to believe in entirely different Gods and faiths. Or in the existence of No Gods at all.


4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God. This part:

"an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages"

Any Christians here willing to take the thread here?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:33 pmIt's clear you wish to misrepresent, to exaggerate, to distort, and to posture toward the alleged moral high ground.

None of that is true, but right now all I wish is to establish whether you are the Immanuel Can who responded to this:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:41 amThe outlets that use 'legacy media' in this way are your Pravda news.

with this:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:02 pmYes, they are.

You know it is you, and you know if you admit it you will have to admit that you misread it. Once you admit that, you will have to admit that all your accusations against me are false. It's checkmate in three moves. Well done for spotting it, but knocking over your king still means you lose.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:48 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:35 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:56 pm

Ah, so, then, God must also have everything to do with the spreading of bad intentions, immorality, cancer, and psychopathy, since they, too, are encompassed by panentheism. In other words, God has everything to do with everything outside of the British system too. Thus, there is nothing especially divine in the British system.

Apart from the great souls that operate through it.

Britain (spurring freedom of democracy)
...|...
formed
...|...
Canada---USA---New Zealand---Australia..etc.
...|...
India---Hong Kong---Singapore...etc.
...|...USA-->Japan/Philipinnes


My question of you remains: Right now, is the world a safer place to raise a family away from tyranny because of Britain?

All you need to do is answer the question Harry:- Yes or No

The answer is: no, of course not, precisely because of your helpful textual diagram. All of those countries were invaded, if not by Britain, then by other European nations, on the basis of imperialism and colonisalism. Rather than "spurring" democracy, invasion is undemocratic, and, yes, tyrannical. The indigenous peoples of this world are in far more danger than they would have been without European invasion/colonisation/imperialism.

I'm not sure why this is so (superficially) contested. Again: surely, you're having a laugh.

If you think having a larf at lefty ideals..I suppose yes...you people are ridiculous to the point of being humourous.

So let's suggest Britain didn't spread its democratic system to the far flung corners of the world...WHAT would have happened?

NO:- Australia, NZ, Canada, USA, Britain..etc......Europe and Britain would be under Nazi control...how far do you want to wind the clock back until you are satisfied that there are safe democratic nations? (or just aborigines of lands smoking peace pipes and singing songs)

OR:- lets say the countries that Britain settled remained with their aborigine inhabitants IN the present time - where do you want to live Harry with the rise again of autocratic nations?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:59 pm If you think having a larf at lefty idealism...I suppose yes...you people are ridiculous to the point of being humourous.

Ah, nice, from the start I've been othered. I am apparently a contemptible "lefty idealist".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:59 pm So let's suggest Britain didn't spread its democratic system to the far flung corners of the world...WHAT would have happened?

A whole heap of sustainable, holistic, and wise civilisations would NOT have been brought under genocidal pressure.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:59 pm lets say the countries that Britain settled remained with their aborigine inhabitants IN the present time - where do you want to live Harry with the rise again of autocratic nations?

I'd prefer to live in a free nation.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:07 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:59 pm If you think having a larf at lefty idealism...I suppose yes...you people are ridiculous to the point of being humourous.

Ah, nice, from the start I've been othered. I am apparently a contemptible "lefty idealist".

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:59 pm So let's suggest Britain didn't spread its democratic system to the far flung corners of the world...WHAT would have happened?

A whole heap of sustainable, holistic, and wise civilisations would NOT have been brought under genocidal pressure.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:59 pm lets say the countries that Britain settled remained with their aborigine inhabitants IN the present time - where do you want to live Harry with the rise again of autocratic nations?

I'd prefer to live in a free nation.

Mate. If Australia is not up to your standards then find a country that is.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:16 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:06 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:45 pm ….

You win. Way too much emotionalism. And extremely bad-faith paraphrasing coupled with insults.

I'll accept the win, but it's a hollow victory. I was hoping to inspire you to say something concrete and meaningful. If mine is a revisionist history of South Africa, then what, in your view, is the unrevised history?

It's all too cheap and easy to cry "You're too emotional. Stop insulting me!" It's a lot more demanding to actually answer that serious question.

If you remain unable to explain what was wrong with my affirmation that South Africa was an exploitative colonial project, then you ought to walk back your rejection of that affirmation, and to apologise for the false imputation you've laid upon me with respect to it.

I said “You win” with a frustrated irony. And I will mention again that you moved, by your own choice, to open insults. I suggest that you avoid doing that. I generally overlook insults on a forum like this but it is harder when you know someone and a basic respect had been, or should have been established.

The reason you feel you can insult freely and without consequence is an area, but not the sole area, that interests me. So now we will have to linger, and this is by your indirect choice, over this odd issue: the Left and the Progressives often feel that they have a moral high ground from which they judge others who have different or opposing ideas. What, I ask, gives them the right to condemn others? My opinion is that they actually see themselves as morally superior. Here, their self-belief and self-understanding seems ‘metaphysical’: so married to their self-image that they actually see themselves as holding ‘the light’ and the rod of righteousness. And when they feel it proper that rod is used to bash the heads of those who have different ideas, different perspectives.

It is in this sense that their imperatives seem extensions of religiously defined and established imperatives. An important point.

I mention this because it is a key component in the realm of *civil discourse* and, though it is often flawed, this forum is a place where that discourse is carried on (bickeringly as I often say). Time and again, and without deviation or fail, when I mention ideas or perspectives that you do not like you, to use a colloquial expression, flip out. Why is this?

You had no intention that I can see to *inspire* me and I call you out on a lie. Are you aware that this is not truthful? Why is it, then, that the perspectives I brought out even if alluded to as you say are off-limits for you? That is the question in my view. In any case it is the question that interests me most.

It is also ‘cheap and easy’ to imply that your opponent’s arguments are (as you have essentially said) in bad-faith. Gaslighting, Two-bit hustling. That sort of thing. What gives you this right? Can you explain this to me? And what if I repaid you in kind? What would happen in this conversation? What possible use would this serve?

I wrote a *serious post* and traced out, in general, some ideas. You say *this is all in bad-faith*. That is your claim but is it true? It is not true. What seems more likely to me is that you refuse to even allow the development of a position that requires calmness and tact to bring it out. What you proceeded to do is act to shut it down, not to open it up. That is my general critique of Left-Progressives. And excuse the generality. They are very good at shutting down any conversation that they do not like or that seems to them immoral. And their violence in pursuing their agenda is marked.

I did not say that SA could not be seen as colonial, I meant to say that it cannot be seen exclusively through that lens. SA was founded by Europeans in accord with an existing, and extremely different, organizing system. What I implied, but yes did not flesh out, is that the talk about SA in fair terms requires a more nuanced exposition, as a starting point, than what is possible with the extremely reduced and binary ‘colonialism’ term. So to describe a world that has been substantially created by colonial projects requires not a brute judgmentalism — so predictable, so reductive, so typical of the Left-Progressive perspectives and hurling of moral blame — but a different and a fuller perspective. Frankly, for as long as you and I have been talking, you have no other perspective but that. Fine. That is your choice. But I do not think that you can insist that I not think and talk about *what perspectives inform you and why*.

I walk back nothing at all Harry. You have a choice before you and that is to try to understand what I am talking about, and why, or not. I cannot force you to engage according to what I think are proper rules of engagement. But I can talk about what those are and what positive function they serve.

You have acted in a way that has blocked any conversation from developing and proceeding. I still say: go back to the original post and examine it from a better-faith perspective. And ask genuine questions if there is something you don’t grasp. I recommend, but do not insist on, taking a far calmer tack and definitely avoiding insults. But again how you choose to conduct yourself is not my affair nor my (ultimate) concern.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:10 pm Mate. If Australia is not up to your standards then find a country that is.

Ooookay. Now I see your true colours.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:33 pmIt's clear you wish to misrepresent, to exaggerate, to distort, and to posture toward the alleged moral high ground.

None of that is true...

Well, that's my conclusion from the evidence I see.

Meanwhile, this is an elective medium. When one senses one is in a conversation that's going nowhere and merely circling a drain, one is always free to move on. I sense that here. You will repeatedly allege that which is not true, hoping to get a reaction; and I will not concede it to you. There, we're at an impasse.

There's really no more to be said. Carry on as you see fit, I guess.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:18 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:10 pm Mate. If Australia is not up to your standards then find a country that is.

Ooookay. Now I see your true colours.

Harry me ol' Aussie mate!

So what country is this "free nation" that you would prefer to live in?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:18 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:10 pm Mate. If Australia is not up to your standards then find a country that is.

Ooookay. Now I see your true colours.

It is true that you *see his colors* but it is possible that you do not see and understand enough the nature of the conflict that is developing when one narrative-set is being opposed by another narrative-set, or when both are fighting each other in a battle that may not end amicably. In which amicability is simply not possible.

So I will assert that the division between your (Harry’s) perspective and in this case Atto’s perspective mirrors larger cultural social disagreements. And that the same thing is occurring in the US and as well in many other places. Europe in general.

The recent reference was SA where the liberal project prevailed … and the state heads toward collapse and disfunction. It is an issue that can be examined.

Agreements are breaking down. People spin off into their atomized positions from which they only seem to be able to bark & spit.

In the larger context Liberalism is disintegrating. That is, Liberalism like a giant umbrella under which people of different perspetives and outlooks are separated by liberalism’s established parameters. The liberal state then is a sort of arbiter of those conflicts. But the conflicts have grown too extreme. And indeed ‘the liberal project’, as it is handled by Left-Progressivism which generally speaking controls the State and major institutions, shows another and an intolerant face. The reasons why the liberal order is breaking apart can be examined and I think calmly and fairly.

So my suggestion is that this be seen and talked about.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:44 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:39 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:36 pm
Shall I rest my case as to how daft U are? (and without wit)

I'll bet you don't have an ironic bone in your body!

If you get my drift.

Since your drift is like a soggy foggy wind from a fart of an old man...then alas, no.

Note to others:

Sure, if you wish to engage in further exchanges with attofishpi here, by all means, continue to do so. I'm the first to admit that my reaction to him/her is predicated entirely on my own subjective "rooted in dasein" frame of mind.

I just feel that Philosophy Now can and should sustain exchanges that are considerably more sophisticated and thought provoking than many that I have encountered here.

After all, look at what happened over at ILP!

Well, unless of course I'm wrong. Though God help the Philosophy Now forum if I'm not.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:44 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:39 pm

I'll bet you don't have an ironic bone in your body!

If you get my drift.

Since your drift is like a soggy foggy wind from a fart of an old man...then alas, no.

Note to others:

Sure, if you wish to engage in further exchanges with attofishpi here, by all means, continue to do so. I'm the first to admit that my reaction to him/her is predicated entirely on my own subjective "rooted in dasein" frame of mind.

I just feel that Philosophy Now can and should sustain exchanges that are considerably more sophisticated and thought provoking than many that I have encountered here.

After all, look at what happened over at ILP!

Well, unless of course I'm wrong. Though God help the Philosophy Now forum if I'm not.

What happened at ILP? Were you so BORING there also that everyone told you to fuck off?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:55 pm 3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths.

The rest of it is rather unclear.

- Some folks use the teachings of Christianity as the qualitative measure of anything.
- Some folks use the teachings of another religion as the qualitative measure of anything.
- Some folks use Life as the qualitative measure of anything.
- Some use jargon, acronyms, slogans, bumper stickers, memes. We call these folks … Jargonols, to shorten the concept of their existence into a single word, as they do when taking measure.
- If it's not yet in the dictionary, pen a note to Merriam, or Webster, or their agents.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:29 pm What happened at ILP? Were you so BORING there also that everyone told you to fuck off?

There you go again, turning that critical energy outward, not inward. Just sayin', but don't really care to debate the merits of the sayin'.

That's cool to do if you're an official authority, such as an elevator inspector's license holder.

Note to self: I must get these edits in order before folks start walking over my Shining Wisdom, and then post.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:29 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 4:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 3:44 pm

Since your drift is like a soggy foggy wind from a fart of an old man...then alas, no.

Note to others:

Sure, if you wish to engage in further exchanges with attofishpi here, by all means, continue to do so. I'm the first to admit that my reaction to him/her is predicated entirely on my own subjective "rooted in dasein" frame of mind.

I just feel that Philosophy Now can and should sustain exchanges that are considerably more sophisticated and thought provoking than many that I have encountered here.

After all, look at what happened over at ILP!

Well, unless of course I'm wrong. Though God help the Philosophy Now forum if I'm not.

What happened at ILP? Were you so BORING there also that everyone told you to fuck off?

Alas, PN has probably already reached the tipping point. That point where the gap between what we read in the magazine and the level of discourse that some bring to the forum is now so vast as to be irreparable.

It will take a miracle now.