Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not bothering with the rest of your self-satisfied ramblings. There isn't enough meat in there to be worth my time. If you can be shorter and more substantial, I might bother.

When I respond to a post of yours, I do so not because I believe you can be engaged with, but simply because I work to clarify my ideas in relation to you.

Then you think very slowly and rather weakly, I have to say, if what you write is any reflection of how you develop an idea.

[FlashDangerpants]

So...you don't know what "colloquially" means?

I know that you are too much of a pedant to intentionally refer to an induction as a deduction on some supposed grounds that you like to communicate more easily with the common man, especially as it is he over whom you absolutely love to lord your supposed superior education via that same pedantry.

I really can't be bothered with a response to anything this petty.

Let's not be too hasty.

Perhaps you weren't making up some face-saving cope with that talk of colloquialism. But if that excuse wasn't the lie, then prima facie you were taking a weak inductive inference and trying to pass it off as a much stronger "natural deduction", and by your own account you were doing so in full knowledge of your own mendacity. You were after all replying to Willy B when you confused the two. Expecting him not to know what induction and deduction are would just be stupid so it can't be true that you would feel the need to colloquialise for his benefit.

Abductively (that means inference to the best explanation, FYI), it seems slightly more probable that you just cocked up and then tried to save face with the first silly excuse you could think up due to your debilitating sin of pride.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not bothering with the rest of your self-satisfied ramblings. There isn't enough meat in there to be worth my time. If you can be shorter and more substantial, I might bother.

When I respond to a post of yours, I do so not because I believe you can be engaged with, but simply because I work to clarify my ideas in relation to you.

Then you think very slowly and rather weakly, I have to say, if what you write is any reflection of how you develop an idea.

The truer fact here, between us, is that you slither out from any acute focus on your bizarre ideas and orientation. Paint that how you wish to, myself I see it as the very core of deceptiveness. Self-deception.

If your comment about slowness (if I am to take you seriously and as sincere — I do not but let’s pretend) — is entertained, I agree: I go back and forth over the same questions and have been for years. I engaged with you first about ten years ago but with a very different mood and attitude. Only in the last 6-8 months has my attitude to what you represent to me become one of contempt. Less as a personal thing of course, more for what you represent (obscurantism).

To develop an idea that is a viable alternative to the type of construct that you operate within, and which we all have inherited, amounts to a profound and fundamental restructuring or re-envisioning, and cannot be taken lightly. So my hesitation is there: I do not want to make mistakes by hastily jumping to bad conclusions.

In the realm of careful thought — honest thought and personal reorientation — you are no help at all but rather an obstacle. You have no other choice in the matter.

Weakness? Weak ideas? Again I perceive you as fundamentally dishonest and therefore you cannot actually judge these issues. Your opinions and comments cannot — should not — be trusted.

[Dubious]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not bothering with the rest of your self-satisfied ramblings. There isn't enough meat in there to be worth my time. If you can be shorter and more substantial, I might bother.

When I respond to a post of yours, I do so not because I believe you can be engaged with, but simply because I work to clarify my ideas in relation to you.

Then you think very slowly and rather weakly, I have to say, if what you write is any reflection of how you develop an idea.

...as compared to you, who never had any ideas that didn't come or conform to the bible. In your case, there is nothing to develop, only accept, "slowness" not being a factor since all erstwhile moving parts have become permanently frozen. This hardly requires an influx of brain power; the entire significance of your existence is based on an ad hoc memory dedicated to a single script. On the other hand, you are very prolific in maintaining silence for questions you can't answer or very creative in distorting all such questions out of context.

But who here doesn't already know this!

In comparison to a more normal type of mentality attempting to understand and come to terms with what lies external to its customary Weltanschauung, your cognitive abilities resemble that of a manikin...a demonstrable, verifiable diminution of the usual normal ability to judge and think, that is, a mentally deformed type of homunculus.

[Dontaskme]

The world is what it is. We've all contributed to it.

Life is like a video game. The ending is fixed and it can't be changed no matter what you do. You can either enjoy it or rush through levels or just quit whenever you want.

[Lacewing]

...the world is crumbling in front of us and all those who tried to make it better obviously failed to make it better.

So no one has ever made the world better? To your way of thinking, the current state you see negates all other states?

The world is what it is. We've all contributed to it.

Are you attempting to impose your crappy-ass attitude onto ultimate reality like a Christian who imposes their beliefs onto everyone?

[Lacewing]

They don't help us in the case of "spirit" in the theological sense.

Why are you using the term theology when you're only considering your own particular Christian view?

"Theology" is the study of God. The study of false gods is called "mythology."

Theology encompasses much more than your belief system, right? So claiming that theology somehow supports your singular position is a false manipulation. Why must you resort to such tactics? Are you not able to support and demonstrate your belief system by more truthful means? Have your indulgently senseless claims eroded your credibility such that you've been reduced to blatant lying and distortions? And you carry on with it, even though nearly everyone here acknowledges seeing what you're doing.

Maybe in-person your techniques can actually impress and influence gullible people, but on this forum you only demonstrate the sham of what you claim to represent. So what is it that you get from doing this?

[Atla]

Have your indulgently senseless claims eroded your credibility such that you've been reduced to blatant lying and distortions?

I'll have to disagree with you there, I think he never had any credibility to begin with, so it couldn't have eroded. But maybe when one tries really hard, one can reach negative credibility?

[iambiguous]

"Theology" is the study of God. The study of false gods is called "mythology."

Of course, to any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...the Christian God is mythological.

Which brings us back around to just how fundamentally crucial it is for those who do believe in God to at least make an attempt to demonstrate why it is their God.

And, admittedly, in addition to quoting the Christian Bible to "prove" that He does exist, IC also provides us with jaw-dropping scientific and historical proof: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Sort of.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's not be too hasty.

No worries.

[Immanuel Can]

Weakness? Weak ideas?

No, just not "weak." Now, "windy" and "pompous" and "wrong," as well. You keep piling up the adjectives, it seems.

[Immanuel Can]

Why are you using the term theology when you're only considering your own particular Christian view?

"Theology" is the study of God. The study of false gods is called "mythology."

Theology encompasses much more than your belief system, right?

It depends. All it "encompasses" is anything that's accurate about the one God that exists. The rest is either "error" or "mythology."

[Lacewing]

Theology encompasses much more than your belief system, right?

All it "encompasses" is anything that's accurate about the one God that exists.

That's ridiculous.

Theology is the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; a theological theory or system.

Falsely defining theology to serve your specific and limited beliefs is such a gross misrepresentation -- it shows, once again, how much your claims are based on dishonest manipulation. Truth is beyond such tactics -- and clearly you are not.

[Immanuel Can]

Theology encompasses much more than your belief system, right?

All it "encompasses" is anything that's accurate about the one God that exists.

Theology is the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; a theological theory or system.

That's the sort of definition that will only satisfy somebody agnostic/Atheistic, who thinks theology does not contain true statements. If somebody does recognize that it does, then there is truthful theology and errant theology -- otherwise known as "heresy." And the former is good, and the latter is bad.

[Lacewing]

All it "encompasses" is anything that's accurate about the one God that exists.

Theology is the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; a theological theory or system.

That's the sort of definition that will only satisfy somebody agnostic/Atheistic

It's the Merriam-Webster definition. Must you insist on being the authoritative mouthpiece and judge over all?