The Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 10:17 pm
A) By what are you "confined"? Who has "subjected" you to anything. You're here of your own free will, and can leave anytime, or speak to other people if you wish. Nobody's constraining you one bit.

I'm always amused when people say somebody's "forcing" something on them whenever they are merely politely disagreed with. It makes me feel they're much too timid and fragile for social life, let alone for philosophy.

Goodness! They might melt in the first hard rain!

B) Yes, I remember. "The rest is commentary" doesn't say anything. But maybe you can fill out that "commentary."

A --- Maybe your life experience not mine? I was just using proselytizing as a EXAMPLE of what you might see "as for my good" that I would not. But yes, as a child my early school years were before no longer subjected to daily readings from the Christian Bible, reciting a fundamental Christian prayer, etc. I'm sure you consider that was for my own good, what you would for yourself....but REALLY? Were you a NON-CHRISTIAN child would yu not fnd that hateful?

B) The entire Torah. Were you not paying attention to Hillel's answer? You Christians are good at that, stripping a line out of its full context.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 3:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 10:17 pm
A) By what are you "confined"? Who has "subjected" you to anything. You're here of your own free will, and can leave anytime, or speak to other people if you wish. Nobody's constraining you one bit.

I'm always amused when people say somebody's "forcing" something on them whenever they are merely politely disagreed with. It makes me feel they're much too timid and fragile for social life, let alone for philosophy.

Goodness! They might melt in the first hard rain!

B) Yes, I remember. "The rest is commentary" doesn't say anything. But maybe you can fill out that "commentary."

A --- Maybe your life experience not mine?

No, that's very clearly exactly how it is, on this site. You can't be forced, compelled or made to do anything by email. Trust me. You're free from being "confined." You can go anywhere you want, say anything you want, and I can't do anything to stop you -- not that I would.

So the allegation of "constraint" is just risible. My answer would be: you're on a philosophy site. If you're not brave enough to face a contrary opinion without feeling abused, you're in the wrong darn place.

...as a child my early school years were before no longer subjected to daily readings from the Christian Bible, reciting a fundamental Christian prayer, etc.

I wasn't there, in your "early years." I'm just discussing calmly with you, right now, on a philosophy site.

B) The entire Torah. Were you not paying attention to Hillel's answer?

I'm paying attention. Hillel doesn't tell us what the content of the "commentary" is, except (he says) it adds up to a kind of "do no harm."

Except, if you know Torah, it doesn't. Torah contains many, many positive obligations among the 613 rabbis ascribe to it...charity to the poor, generous treatment of foreigners, obligations to family and tribe, keeping Shabbat, making atonement, keeping pure and kosher...and on, and on, and on. To say that these all amount to no more than commentary on "don't hurt anybody" is simply absurd, and utterly implausible, based on the text of Torah itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 3:21 pm.

Hillel doesn't tell us what the content of the "commentary" is, except (he says) it adds up to a kind of "do no harm."

Except, if you know Torah, it doesn't. Torah contains many, many positive obligations among the 613 rabbis ascribe to it...charity to the poor, generous treatment of foreigners, obligations to family and tribe, keeping Shabbat, making atonement, keeping pure and kosher...and on, and on, and on. To say that these all amount to no more than commentary on "don't hurt anybody" is simply absurd, and utterly implausible, based on the text of Torah itself.

NO! ----- Hillel is saying BEFORE studying the commentary, "do no harm" is the starting point. Not the ending point.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 5:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 3:21 pm.

Hillel doesn't tell us what the content of the "commentary" is, except (he says) it adds up to a kind of "do no harm."

Except, if you know Torah, it doesn't. Torah contains many, many positive obligations among the 613 rabbis ascribe to it...charity to the poor, generous treatment of foreigners, obligations to family and tribe, keeping Shabbat, making atonement, keeping pure and kosher...and on, and on, and on. To say that these all amount to no more than commentary on "don't hurt anybody" is simply absurd, and utterly implausible, based on the text of Torah itself.

NO! ----- Hillel is saying BEFORE studying the commentary, "do no harm" is the starting point. Not the ending point.

"Commentary" is essentially like "footnotes." The major thing has been said, and the rest is just how you work it out, allegedly.

Except, in this case, it's not at all true. Shabbat is not how you work out not hurting your neighbour, nor is Yom Kippur, nor is charity to the poor, nor is kashrut...in fact, almost everything in Torah is well beyond the "do no harm" kind of injunction, and requires much, much more than it.

What we discover from Torah is not "commentary" but "contradiction" to the idea that "do no harm" is fundamentally moral. It's not. It's actually amoral, because it requires nothing positive at all of the adherent.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 6:22 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:06 am
It doesn't "bother me" at all. In fact, I'm totally unsurprised by the impulse, because it's so common.

That doesn't make it right, of course...but it's certainly common.

What makes you suppose anybody's wealth must be spread to some level that pleases you?

Am I wrong to think that Musk is taking more than his fair share of profit from his companies?

What do you care? What's what Musk have got to do with you? If he owned the moon, what's that to you?

If Musk owned the Earth (were given a deed of sole ownership to the Earth), would you be OK with that? Yes, or no?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 7:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 6:22 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:11 am

Am I wrong to think that Musk is taking more than his fair share of profit from his companies?

What do you care? What's what Musk have got to do with you? If he owned the moon, what's that to you?

If Musk owned the Earth (were given a deed of ownership to the Earth), would you be OK with that? Yes, or no?

Fortunately, there is no person who owns the earth, or ever could. However, there is a God to whom the whole earth is accountable. And for what we are, we answer to Him.

But again, on what basis do you, as a secular person, have justification to complain about it, either way? You have no grounds for morality; so whatever he does, it cannot possibly be immoral for you. Thus, you aren't on any moral grounds yourself, are you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 7:17 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 7:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 6:22 pm
What do you care? What's what Musk have got to do with you? If he owned the moon, what's that to you?

If Musk owned the Earth (were given a deed of ownership to the Earth), would you be OK with that? Yes, or no?

Fortunately, there is no person who owns the earth, or ever could. However, there is a God to whom the whole earth is accountable. And for what we are, we answer to Him.

But again, on what basis do you, as a secular person, have justification to complain about it, either way? You have no grounds for morality; so whatever he does, it cannot possibly be immoral for you. Thus, you aren't on any moral grounds yourself, are you?

If you say so, it must be so. You're God, IC. Everything you say is true.

"If you say so, it must be so. You're God, IC."

The strangeness of discourse with Christian philosophers. It's supposed to be an unspoken agreement that he can't PROVE prove god exists but that he will proceed to order all other philosophical theories, assertions, preferences, under the heading of Christian theology nonetheless... meaning his philosophy of life will be in correspondence with something he doesn't know to be true. This is doable, but it's rather awkward. Each time you find yourself in a situation where you'd think agreement would be easy and obvious (evolution, for example), the christianity forces him to reject it... even in the face of the same logical scrutiny he would conveniently apply elsewhere against his opposition's arguments. For instance, you have a guy who might reject global warming because of lack of evidence, but he's got no problem believing in resurrections and virgin births.

It's almost as if any philosophical talk with a Christian is tongue-in-cheek. The christianity pervades every aspect of his empirical and scientific capacity for inference, and it can not be shaken off for a second. Aks him something about politics or economy, and he'll provide necessary scripture to support his orientations if pressed.

This is why i back out of coffee talk with IC. Either we've already had the argument before, and we're doing reruns or some position of his reduces to christianity, and i am allergic to christianity. I need antichristamines, not antihistamines.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 10:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 7:17 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 7:15 pm

If Musk owned the Earth (were given a deed of ownership to the Earth), would you be OK with that? Yes, or no?

Fortunately, there is no person who owns the earth, or ever could. However, there is a God to whom the whole earth is accountable. And for what we are, we answer to Him.

But again, on what basis do you, as a secular person, have justification to complain about it, either way? You have no grounds for morality; so whatever he does, it cannot possibly be immoral for you. Thus, you aren't on any moral grounds yourself, are you?

If you say so, it must be so. You're God, IC. Everything you say is true.

I don't ask you to believe that, or anything like it. I just ask you to think. If that's too much for you, well, I don't know what you're doing here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:56 am
Fortunately, there is no person who owns the earth, or ever could. However, there is a God to whom the whole earth is accountable. And for what we are, we answer to Him.

But again, on what basis do you, as a secular person, have justification to complain about it, either way?

YOU believe/have faith that there exists such a God to whom the whole Earth is accountable,

No pray tell, what EVIDENCE do you offer a secular person to convince them that this is so.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:06 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:56 am
Fortunately, there is no person who owns the earth, or ever could. However, there is a God to whom the whole earth is accountable. And for what we are, we answer to Him.

But again, on what basis do you, as a secular person, have justification to complain about it, either way?

YOU believe/have faith that there exists such a God to whom the whole Earth is accountable,

No pray tell, what EVIDENCE do you offer a secular person to convince them that this is so.

I offer the evidence of Jesus Christ. (Acts. 17:30-31) "So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.”

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 11:17 pm
This is why i back out of coffee talk with IC. Either we've already had the argument before, and we're doing reruns or some position of his reduces to christianity, and i am allergic to christianity.

That remains the most intelligent position to take regarding the IC types while admitting, I haven't always conformed.

What's left to say!

He certainly ranks as among the most brilliant of the alumni from the Dunning-Kruger college of idiots. But worse, he's also morally disgusting and reprehensible, full of hatred for anyone who doesn't conform to his bible or politics and using every dishonest means to defend it.

Of course, he would claim this as pure ad hom. Unfortunately, it's past being an insult but an actual description of what he's actually proven himself to be...a viral sub-species which lives to subordinate all what reason and logic supplies as evidence to affirm instead the "sacred truths" of worn-out and useless dogmas of belief. What doesn't conform to the bible is fake news.

Christianity is itself nothing more than a Frankensteinian purchase of parts glued together to resemble a viable creed. Upon examination of its history and profuse contradictions, the falsity of it is itself a revelation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:18 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:06 am [No pray tell, what EVIDENCE do you offer a secular person to convince them that this is so.

I offer the evidence of Jesus Christ. (Acts. 17:30-31) "So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.”

You REALLY don't get it, do you.

The problem is precisely that you believe your example to be evidence. You propose to offer THAT "evidence" to a secular person to convince them that you have "evidence"?

Is it? Is it "evidence" PRIOR TO accepting by belief and faith that "this book is divinely inspired by the Great Pink Unicorn and everything contained within expresses truths about the Great Pink Unicorn, etc. etc. "?

You are saying "this is evidence because I believe and have faith that it is evidence".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 5:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:18 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:06 am [No pray tell, what EVIDENCE do you offer a secular person to convince them that this is so.

I offer the evidence of Jesus Christ. (Acts. 17:30-31) "So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.”

You propose to offer THAT "evidence" to a secular person to convince them that you have "evidence"?

It's the evidence God Himself offers you. If one looks at Christ and remains unconvinced, then the problem...and the consequences...are with the viewer, not the evidence. Being secular is not a justification for being blind to the evidence.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:56 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 10:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 7:17 pm
Fortunately, there is no person who owns the earth, or ever could. However, there is a God to whom the whole earth is accountable. And for what we are, we answer to Him.

But again, on what basis do you, as a secular person, have justification to complain about it, either way? You have no grounds for morality; so whatever he does, it cannot possibly be immoral for you. Thus, you aren't on any moral grounds yourself, are you?

If you say so, it must be so. You're God, IC. Everything you say is true.

I don't ask you to believe that, or anything like it. I just ask you to think. If that's too much for you, well, I don't know what you're doing here.

I see. So people who don't just nod their heads and agree with everything you say don't "think". Have you ever tried thinking too? I mean, thinking through some of your assertions and trying to trace logical necessity in them?