Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 12:10 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 7:25 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 6:43 pm Christianity is not polytheistic, so there is no "your God."

There is just God.

This is a Christianity thread, not a polytheistic thread.

Christianity is the worship of a God that is not worshipped by everyone. So I refer to it as "your God". Whether there is a God or not and whether the Christian Bible is the definitive word of God are two separate issues and are often conflated by Christians. Try to use your brain if you can.

No, Christianity is the worship of God, not a God. Just ask any Christian. Ask IC, he will set you straight.

Saying “your God,” is like saying “your Reality,” when everyone knows there is only one Reality, which is apprehended according to the capacity of the receiver, thus giving the illusion of different realities when folks start comparing particulars.

People can experience one reality differently, and they can think of one God differently. If you wish to say that the Gods of the Hindus are all the same as the Christian God, then whatever. I believe the Bible even speaks of different Gods among different peoples.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:49 am If you wish to say that the Gods of the Hindus are all the same as the Christian God, then whatever.

I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say what you said, in place of what I said.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 11:47 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 8:52 pm There is no problem with secularity. Morality can exist with secularity.

Which moral axiom “exists” as a logical consequence of secularity?

We all know right from wong.

Well, you spelled it “wong.” But knowing it is instinctive, coded in every one of us by our Creator. Explaining the justification for you knowing it, that’s not so easy. How does a secularist know there’s any such thing as morality? Not from secularism. So how does he know it?

Yeah. Go for the typo. It's all you have for an argument anyway.

Genetics encodes a lot of stuff in a lot of people. If God exists then s/he/it maybe does too, but we don't know if God exists, let alone if s/he/it codes morality in people. Always putting the cart before the horse. Just about all your arguments for God are circular. They presume that a sentient mind/God is the only explanation for everything. Because, well, watches don't spontaneously assemble themselves like DNA or crystal formations do.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:57 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:49 am If you wish to say that the Gods of the Hindus are all the same as the Christian God, then whatever.

I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say what you said, in place of what I said.

Most of what you say is sage/poser gibberish, so I expect you wouldn't understand alternative formulations of ideas. Go back to Yoga class and hang with the rest of the "new age" bimbos.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:59 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:57 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:49 am If you wish to say that the Gods of the Hindus are all the same as the Christian God, then whatever.

I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say what you said, in place of what I said.

Most of what you say is sage/poser gibberish, so I expect you wouldn't understand alternative formulations of ideas. Go back to Yoga class and hang with the rest of the "new age" bimbos.

I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say that about myself, in place of who I actually am, which is not defined by the limits of your comprehension and experience.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 11:47 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 8:52 pm There is no problem with secularity. Morality can exist with secularity.

Which moral axiom “exists” as a logical consequence of secularity?

We all know right from wong.

Well, you spelled it “wong.” But knowing it is instinctive, coded in every one of us by our Creator. Explaining the justification for you knowing it, that’s not so easy. How does a secularist know there’s any such thing as morality? Not from secularism. So how does he know it?

Yeah. Go for the typo. It's all you have for an argument anyway.

You’re going to find a way to change the subject and get away from the moral bankruptcy of secularism, aren’t you? You’re just determined to find something that will let you off the hook.

But you know. You’ve seen it now. And you’re never going to unsee it.

You can stifle the conversation, clog it with abuse and irrelevancies, like an overpacked drain; but you know. There’s no escaping it. And we both know it.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:06 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:59 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:57 am
I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say what you said, in place of what I said.

Most of what you say is sage/poser gibberish, so I expect you wouldn't understand alternative formulations of ideas. Go back to Yoga class and hang with the rest of the "new age" bimbos.

I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say that about myself, in place of who I actually am, which is not defined by the limits of your comprehension and experience.

Funny, vulgarity seems to work for Trump. You lap his shit up like a lap dog. Not sure why you are on a philosophy forum.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:22 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:06 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:59 am

Most of what you say is sage/poser gibberish, so I expect you wouldn't understand alternative formulations of ideas. Go back to Yoga class and hang with the rest of the "new age" bimbos.

I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say that about myself, in place of who I actually am, which is not defined by the limits of your comprehension and experience.

Funny, vulgarity seems to work for Trump. You lap his shit up like a lap dog. Not sure why you are on a philosophy forum.

To keed the 'christianity' thread permanently at the top of 'active topics', just as you are doing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:07 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 11:47 pm
Which moral axiom “exists” as a logical consequence of secularity?


Well, you spelled it “wong.” But knowing it is instinctive, coded in every one of us by our Creator. Explaining the justification for you knowing it, that’s not so easy. How does a secularist know there’s any such thing as morality? Not from secularism. So how does he know it?

Yeah. Go for the typo. It's all you have for an argument anyway.

You’re going to find a way to change the subject and get away from the moral bankruptcy of secularism, aren’t you? You’re just determined to find something that will let you off the hook.

But you know. You’ve seen it now. And you’re never going to unsee it.

You can stifle the conversation, clog it with abuse and irrelevancies, like an overpacked drain; but you know. There’s no escaping it. And we both know it.

There is no "bankruptcy" of secularism. The only bankruptcy is the imagined one that Christians get into when they ponder the possibility that there's no big daddy in the sky to guide Santa's sleigh--and the rest of the nonsense you all prescribe to.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:22 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:06 am
I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say that about myself, in place of who I actually am, which is not defined by the limits of your comprehension and experience.

Funny, vulgarity seems to work for Trump. You lap his shit up like a lap dog. Not sure why you are on a philosophy forum.

To keed the 'christianity' thread permanently at the top of 'active topics', just as you are doing.

Fair enough. However, I guarantee it'll stay at the top just as it has been even when I'm not contributing to it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:07 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:57 am

Yeah. Go for the typo. It's all you have for an argument anyway.

You’re going to find a way to change the subject and get away from the moral bankruptcy of secularism, aren’t you? You’re just determined to find something that will let you off the hook.

But you know. You’ve seen it now. And you’re never going to unsee it.

You can stifle the conversation, clog it with abuse and irrelevancies, like an overpacked drain; but you know. There’s no escaping it. And we both know it.

There is no "bankruptcy" of secularism.

Yep, there is. You can’t even name one thing secularism can tell us about morality. That’s because secularism is actually moral Nihilism, whether secularists are willing to acknowledge it or not. Logic forces them to that conclusion, so all they can do, like you are doing, is abandon logic, and keep pretending.

But they just can’t do it. They can’t name one thing secularism teaches, explains, or requires of them in the moral realm.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:07 am
You’re going to find a way to change the subject and get away from the moral bankruptcy of secularism, aren’t you? You’re just determined to find something that will let you off the hook.

But you know. You’ve seen it now. And you’re never going to unsee it.

You can stifle the conversation, clog it with abuse and irrelevancies, like an overpacked drain; but you know. There’s no escaping it. And we both know it.

There is no "bankruptcy" of secularism.

Yep, there is. You can’t even name one thing secularism can tell us about morality. That’s because secularism is actually moral Nihilism, whether secularists are willing to acknowledge it or not. Logic forces them to that conclusion, so all they can do, like you are doing, is abandon logic, and keep pretending.

But they just can’t do it. They can’t name one thing secularism teaches, explains, or requires of them in the moral realm.

Yeah, we know religion is solid, though. No problems with religion. Except that most intelligent people have abandoned it and left it for people going through drug and alcohol rehab.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:28 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:22 am

Funny, vulgarity seems to work for Trump. You lap his shit up like a lap dog. Not sure why you are on a philosophy forum.

To keed the 'christianity' thread permanently at the top of 'active topics', just as you are doing.

Fair enough. However, I guarantee it'll stay at the top just as it has been even when I'm not contributing to it.

And right on cue, your bed pal IC. You two need to get a room.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:57 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:49 am If you wish to say that the Gods of the Hindus are all the same as the Christian God, then whatever.

I can't imagine why I would ever wish to say what you said, in place of what I said.

That might be a bridge too far, so for the moment, let's leave what most of us perceive as polytheism out of (we might later ant to revisit Hinduism)

Walker, I realize that we might be wronging you. The key is reciprocity. You want us to say "god" instead of "your god". Do you feel that way for all of us monotheists? Do feel Muslims and Jews and Yazidis and Sikhs and Parsis, and Baha'is, ...., and Longhouse followers....would you say of all of us non-Christian monotheists are ALL just worshiping god. How about the Panentheists, god is also in all things and the Pantheists, there is nothing separate from god.

If you say that, then I apologize for saying "your god". The reason, if there can be an excuse, would be from our experience of rarely, if ever, encountering a Christian who did reciprocate in that way.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 2:25 am

There is no "bankruptcy" of secularism.

Yep, there is. You can’t even name one thing secularism can tell us about morality. That’s because secularism is actually moral Nihilism, whether secularists are willing to acknowledge it or not. Logic forces them to that conclusion, so all they can do, like you are doing, is abandon logic, and keep pretending.

But they just can’t do it. They can’t name one thing secularism teaches, explains, or requires of them in the moral realm.

Yeah, we know religion….

Is irrelevant to the problem secularism has. Whatever what you call “religions” can or cannot do, secularism still is a moral eunuch.