Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote: Please refrain from using vulgar British terms:
Word Origin & History
bollocks
"testicles," 1744, see bollix. In British slang, as an ejaculation meaning "nonsense," recorded from 1919.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Never Mind the Bollocks.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Good will, or ethics, outside the dictates of God, are conditional or situational, only God can hand down absolute statements.

Kant would disagree with that.

No he would not.
God plays very little part in what Kant says. But what he does say is that human have a conditional and subjective understanding of reality.

Sorry, I probably created a misunderstanding with my response. Yes, Kantian ethics does not rely on God as the universal and absolute moral authority. Moral authority in Kantian ethics comes from practical human reasoning.

Yes what i ment is that in terms of kant.he is inside belief in god he reasons in side his belief for the cause and furtherance of the belief.so he is a friend of god for doing that job.

Selfish nature in terms evolution is unconsiouse to its self but with man that isnt so.selfish nature hates consciousness in man.a selfish person hates there own conscience or they are a phycophath.so what is inside unselfish belief is a friend of unselfish consciousness which is god.jesus teaching is about unselfishness.

jackles wrote:Selfish nature in terms evolution is unconsiouse to its self but with man that isnt so.selfish nature hates consciousness in man.a selfish person hates there own conscience or they are a phycophath.so what is inside unselfish belief is a friend of unselfish consciousness which is god.jesus teaching is about unselfishness.

Why not try a some punctuation.

This is just gibberish.

What it means ethics is god in man.so ethics will not act against ethics .so by saying there is no god that in its self is unethical.what then remains in ethics without out god is psuedo ethics with no root.

jackles wrote:What it means ethics is god in man.so ethics will not act against ethics .so by saying there is no god that in its self is unethical.what then remains in ethics without out god is psuedo ethics with no root.

Bollocks! You are claiming that all of mankind that does not follow theism is unethical. Were all those before theism was thought-up unethical?

I think Ayn Rand had the right of this, the root of Ethics is reasoning and rational Man. No 'God' needed.

Arising_uk wrote: Bollocks! You are claiming that all of mankind that does not follow theism is unethical. Were all those before theism was thought-up unethical?

Do you have evidence that man existed before Theism? Or is it just something you would like to believe because it fits your world view.

Arising_uk wrote:

jackles wrote:What it means ethics is god in man.so ethics will not act against ethics .so by saying there is no god that in its self is unethical.what then remains in ethics without out god is psuedo ethics with no root.

Bollocks! You are claiming that all of mankind that does not follow theism is unethical. Were all those before theism was thought-up unethical?

I think Ayn Rand had the right of this, the root of Ethics is reasoning and rational Man. No 'God' needed.

Man with ethics is man with god.ethics = good good = god.therefor god =ethics.god is universal ethics.

jackles wrote:...
Man with ethics is man with god.ethics = good good = god.therefor god =ethics.god is universal ethics.

What's this 'god' you talk about?

Event + observer with ethics =god

jackles wrote:Event + observer with ethics =god

So you're saying I'm 'God'?

If you take ethics to be your identity then yes.