BDM - It's not a sex thing

[FlashDangerpants]

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

That's fine, but if at some later point you want to use religion to provide a unified ethics for all men, it would get tricky. Not every religious type needs to do that, but it's something you would probably want to make a decision on up front.

No, it appears something you want to know about my predisposition since my claim that I know God exists.

Cultures have varying degrees of "religious" influence, Christianity is the Divine card one should hold close to one's chest.

I believe all religions have been formed from some Divine influence upon key people throughout cultures of most religions, the only one I have analysed and believe to have been formed without any Divine influence is Islam.

Getting back to the ETHICS in relation to consideration of the Divine: YES. I think it has great influence on societal ethics, indeed ones morals.

What argument can anyone present that will refute the following:-
- that ON AVERAGE people that do NOT believe in a God watching their every action will behave with lesser ethical standards (UK standards) as those that have belief.

You should really take what I am writing at face value instead of outthinking yourself. I am definitely not going to bother laying careful sneaky traps for you. If it is your considered opinion still in the light of this question that there is no such thing as an objective value, then so be it.

ETHICS and how one may attempt to be considered "ethical":

1. Ethics are imbued primarily by ones upbringing.

⠀⠀- Ones upbringing comes in many forms forming from such things as:
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- societal constructs (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- religious dogma (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- political constructs (CULTURE)

2. Ones personal persona (obviously affected by 1.)
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones emotional state
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones intelligence and ability to REASON out of points raised in 1.


BUT what is it to be ETHICAL, after any of the above?

- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you, to be ethical to suit your own needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for those around you, to be ethical to suit their needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you THAT YOU HAVE DEEMED ARE WORTHY OF YOUR EFFORT?

..of course the list could go on.

Good start. But if there are no objective values, can there be any correct answers to the questions you set at the end?

Beyond anything that can be answered with definitive binary answers, then where does "correct answers" come in to play? It comes back to what A.I. is trained upon, to simulate us and our reasoning - PROBABILITY --> in this case what our society deems probably ethical...or more to the point in case of an individual, what they deem is reasonably ethical in any situation.

Are you actually trying to just do away with the concepts of correct/incorrect, true/false etc?

In a culture that emphasises the virtue of self-reliance and despises weakness,

..my culture does not "despise" weakness. Clearly you need to readjust your assessment or otherwise - you are not from the English culture.

..it is correct to place your own and your families' needs ahead of all other concerns. In a culture that values kindness and coperation, it is often wrong to do that. If there is no objective value that makes the kinder culture better than the selfish one, then that's just the end of the matter?

You still are asking for binary definitive answers where not ALL answers can be resulted as such. Things that are subjective have a consensus and in an intelligent society\culture that is important.

Unfortunately - some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing - if you disagree then say so and I assure you, I will not resort to touting you as RACIST or FASCIST.

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not write that you have a culture that "despises" weakness.

[attofishpi]

That's fine, but if at some later point you want to use religion to provide a unified ethics for all men, it would get tricky. Not every religious type needs to do that, but it's something you would probably want to make a decision on up front.

No, it appears something you want to know about my predisposition since my claim that I know God exists.

Cultures have varying degrees of "religious" influence, Christianity is the Divine card one should hold close to one's chest.

I believe all religions have been formed from some Divine influence upon key people throughout cultures of most religions, the only one I have analysed and believe to have been formed without any Divine influence is Islam.

Getting back to the ETHICS in relation to consideration of the Divine: YES. I think it has great influence on societal ethics, indeed ones morals.

What argument can anyone present that will refute the following:-
- that ON AVERAGE people that do NOT believe in a God watching their every action will behave with lesser ethical standards (UK standards) as those that have belief.

You should really take what I am writing at face value instead of outthinking yourself. I am definitely not going to bother laying careful sneaky traps for you. If it is your considered opinion still in the light of this question that there is no such thing as an objective value, then so be it.

You know I am not stating there is no such thing as an 'objective value' and that all I am insisting where your area of interest "ethics" is concerned -is that no, there is not an objective value.

Good start. But if there are no objective values, can there be any correct answers to the questions you set at the end?

Beyond anything that can be answered with definitive binary answers, then where does "correct answers" come in to play? It comes back to what A.I. is trained upon, to simulate us and our reasoning - PROBABILITY --> in this case what our society deems probably ethical...or more to the point in case of an individual, what they deem is reasonably ethical in any situation.

Are you actually trying to just do away with the concepts of correct/incorrect, true/false etc?

Where ethics is concerned, YES. Are you suggesting there is always a definitive binary answer to any question of ethics?

In a culture that emphasises the virtue of self-reliance and despises weakness,

..my culture does not "despise" weakness. Clearly you need to readjust your assessment or otherwise - you are not from the English culture.

..it is correct to place your own and your families' needs ahead of all other concerns. In a culture that values kindness and coperation, it is often wrong to do that. If there is no objective value that makes the kinder culture better than the selfish one, then that's just the end of the matter?

You still are asking for binary definitive answers where not ALL answers can be resulted as such. Things that are subjective have a consensus and in an intelligent society\culture that is important.

Unfortunately - some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing - if you disagree then say so and I assure you, I will not resort to touting you as RACIST or FASCIST.

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not write that you have a culture that "despises" weakness.

You wrote that "A" culture despises weakness, the red bit above, which one?

Indeed, what about my question for you that some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree? or are you going to ignore that question because it might render you a "X_cist" ?

[FlashDangerpants]

Indeed, what about my question for you that some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree? or are you going to ignore that question because it might render you a "X_cist" ?

You've just disposed of all moral certainties, and all possiblity of any objective moral value. You made a whole deal out of both and you rejected any suggestion that it doesn't seem like something you would want to do. You embraced moral relativism.

If you agree with yourself on those matters, then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

You can afford to slow down here and make methodical steps if you like. It works better that way.

[attofishpi]

NOTED: How you just discarded my questioning and half the conversation - usually types do that as they feel uncomfortable about having to deal with it.

Indeed, what about my question for you that some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree? or are you going to ignore that question because it might render you a "X_cist" ?

You've just disposed of all moral certainties, and all possiblity of any objective moral value. You made a whole deal out of both and you rejected any suggestion that it doesn't seem like something you would want to do. You embraced moral relativism.

..did I? oh..diddy o!

If you agree with yourself on those matters,

If I tend to agree with anyone, I start with myself.

..then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

Idiot. It would only make such a thing true or false to YOU and your subjective opinion. FFS - that's SUBJECTIVITY.

You can afford to slow down here and make methodical steps if you like. It works better that way.

Don't condescend and underestimate me, what you present is rather common sense material to me (deep philosophical crap to the world of ""PHILOSOPHY"")

[FlashDangerpants]

Idiot.

Try again

[accelafine]

Only just noticed this thread but out of curiosity (foolish me) had a look to see what 'BDM' stood for. What I found was a mile-long essay where 'BDM' wasn't mentioned once as far as I could tell (reading it in depth wasn't an option).

[promethean75]

"Don't condescend and underestimate me, what you present is rather common sense material to me (deep philosophical crap to the world of ""PHILOSOPHY"")"

No it isn't, and buffoons like u don't get to pass judgment on philosophy. Only real philosophers who have been knee deep in the world's nonsense have the right to call philosophy bullshit.

[attofishpi]

Indeed, what about my question for you that some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree? or are you going to ignore that question because it might render you a "X_cist" ?

You've just disposed of all moral certainties, and all possiblity of any objective moral value. You made a whole deal out of both and you rejected any suggestion that it doesn't seem like something you would want to do. You embraced moral relativism.

If you agree with yourself on those matters, then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

It would only make such a thing true or false to YOU and your subjective opinion - that's SUBJECTIVITY.

To extend further regarding my point of consensus within a society as to what is deemed ethical\moral there is NO definitive TRUE/FALSE value, but there is a value that a group will agree to where the terms : It is true that X is ethical or false that X is ethical –the same applied on an individual basis, it (true/false) remains SUBJECTIVE values.

So again: Some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree?

..then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

But I haven’t disposed of the rationale, I have explained that in the context of ethics true and false values are subjective.

In a culture that emphasises the virtue of self-reliance and despises weakness,

I’m still interested in an example of such a culture? (I'm pretty certain they exist)

PS. So it turns out I am a 'moral relativist' ..is that what all the sane people are?

[FlashDangerpants]

Indeed, what about my question for you that some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree? or are you going to ignore that question because it might render you a "X_cist" ?

You've just disposed of all moral certainties, and all possiblity of any objective moral value. You made a whole deal out of both and you rejected any suggestion that it doesn't seem like something you would want to do. You embraced moral relativism.

If you agree with yourself on those matters, then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

It would only make such a thing true or false to YOU and your subjective opinion - that's SUBJECTIVITY.

To extend further regarding my point of consensus within a society as to what is deemed ethical\moral there is NO definitive TRUE/FALSE value, but there is a value that a group will agree to where the terms : It is true that X is ethical or false that X is ethical –the same applied on an individual basis, it (true/false) remains SUBJECTIVE values.

So again: Some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree?

So why not call anybody who makes such a judgments "X_cist"? By your own line of reason they are doing nothing but expose their prejudices. Clearly "X-cist" prejudices.

..then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

But I haven’t disposed of the rationale, I have explained that in the context of ethics true and false values are subjective.

Yes, and in that case we end with a silly situation where something is at one and the same time "true" for you, but "false" for somebody else. Those are just opinions, not truths.

In a culture that emphasises the virtue of self-reliance and despises weakness,

I’m still interested in an example of such a culture? (I'm pretty certain they exist)

All I did in that paragraph was contrast a hypothetical society that vlaues one thing with a hypothetical society that values another to explain the point I had made in the previous sentence. I didn't forsee the conceptual difficulty that you would experience with this, and I find it hard to explain. They can be Spartans if you like. Or those crinkly headed guys out of Star Trek who were the baddies against Kirk but then goodies in the next thing. I don't really care, it's hypothetical.

PS. So it turns out I am a 'moral relativist' ..is that what all the sane people are?

I doubt you will remain a moral relativist once you come to understand that it costs you your right to be judgemental about foreign cultures.

[attofishpi]

You've just disposed of all moral certainties, and all possiblity of any objective moral value. You made a whole deal out of both and you rejected any suggestion that it doesn't seem like something you would want to do. You embraced moral relativism.

If you agree with yourself on those matters, then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

It would only make such a thing true or false to YOU and your subjective opinion - that's SUBJECTIVITY.

To extend further regarding my point of consensus within a society as to what is deemed ethical\moral there is NO definitive TRUE/FALSE value, but there is a value that a group will agree to where the terms : It is true that X is ethical or false that X is ethical –the same applied on an individual basis, it (true/false) remains SUBJECTIVE values.

So again: Some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree?

So why not call anybody who makes such a judgments "X_cist"? By your own line of reason they are doing nothing but expose their prejudices. Clearly "X-cist" prejudices.

Ethical opinions being subjective does not automatically render anyone that has an opinion, in this case that one culture may have greater ethical\moral standards than another, as being "prejudiced". Thus calling me a Nazi or a FASCIST simply because I don't want uncontrolled borders that allow thousands\millions of people that I am certain (and the statistics backs me up) that do not hold the level of ethical standards that I expect of people into my society....does not render me "X_ist", nor "prejudiced".

..then you cannot hold that there is any meaning to this notion that "some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing" you have disposed of the rationale that would make such a statement true or false.

But I haven’t disposed of the rationale, I have explained that in the context of ethics true and false values are subjective.

Yes, and in that case we end with a silly situation where something is at one and the same time "true" for you, but "false" for somebody else. Those are just opinions, not truths.

Seems in ethics Truth varies per context. Most people would agree that the practice of Hindus burning the widowers alive beside the Ganges was TRULY unethical, or do you disagree?

PS. So it turns out I am a 'moral relativist' ..is that what all the sane people are?

I doubt you will remain a moral relativist once you come to understand that it costs you your right to be judgemental about foreign cultures.

How so?

[FlashDangerpants]

It would only make such a thing true or false to YOU and your subjective opinion - that's SUBJECTIVITY.

To extend further regarding my point of consensus within a society as to what is deemed ethical\moral there is NO definitive TRUE/FALSE value, but there is a value that a group will agree to where the terms : It is true that X is ethical or false that X is ethical –the same applied on an individual basis, it (true/false) remains SUBJECTIVE values.

So again: Some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing? --> do you agree?

So why not call anybody who makes such a judgments "X_cist"? By your own line of reason they are doing nothing but expose their prejudices. Clearly "X-cist" prejudices.

Ethical opinions being subjective does not automatically render anyone that has an opinion, in this case that one culture may have greater ethical\moral standards than another, as being "prejudiced". Thus calling me a Nazi or a FASCIST simply because I don't want uncontrolled borders that allow thousands\millions of people that I am certain (and the statistics backs me up) that do not hold the level of ethical standards that I expect of people into my society....does not render me "X_ist", nor "prejudiced".

You seem to care much more about what you get called a result of your opinions than you care about getting things right.

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion. Your X_phobia is preventing you from realising the outcomes of your own argument because you cannot let go of the prejudice.

That there, is what I mean about you not accepting the price of relativism.

But I haven’t disposed of the rationale, I have explained that in the context of ethics true and false values are subjective.

Yes, and in that case we end with a silly situation where something is at one and the same time "true" for you, but "false" for somebody else. Those are just opinions, not truths.

Seems in ethics Truth varies per context. Most people would agree that the practice of Hindus burning the widowers alive beside the Ganges was TRULY unethical, or do you disagree?

You have no valid use for the word "true" here, even in all capps. You've chosen to throw it away, so live with your choice. The whole "most people would agree..." thing is unimportant, numbers and popularity mean nothing in this context, and my opinion isn't important either.

PS. So it turns out I am a 'moral relativist' ..is that what all the sane people are?

I doubt you will remain a moral relativist once you come to understand that it costs you your right to be judgemental about foreign cultures.

How so?

Presumably you are catching on now?

[attofishpi]

So why not call anybody who makes such a judgments "X_cist"? By your own line of reason they are doing nothing but expose their prejudices. Clearly "X-cist" prejudices.

Ethical opinions being subjective does not automatically render anyone that has an opinion, in this case that one culture may have greater ethical\moral standards than another, as being "prejudiced". Thus calling me a Nazi or a FASCIST simply because I don't want uncontrolled borders that allow thousands\millions of people that I am certain (and the statistics backs me up) that do not hold the level of ethical standards that I expect of people into my society....does not render me "X_ist", nor "prejudiced".

You seem to care much more about what you get called a result of your opinions than you care about getting things right.

I care as much about both. To be called an "X-ist" needs to have reasonable grounding, you have no reasonable evidence to label as either racist or fascist or for that matter -Nazi. Doing so makes you sound like a bigoted idiot.

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Matters of opinion are based upon reasoning and consideration of what is deemed ethical is part of that reasoning. Not all societies are basing their reasoning without bias, religious or other influence can affect their ability to reasonably assess what is ethical within their society.

Your X_phobia is preventing you from realising the outcomes of your own argument because you cannot let go of the prejudice.

That there, is what I mean about you not accepting the price of relativism.

Yet I have no prejudice.
DICTIONARY Prejudice: an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge.

I am reasonably assessing with statistical data and forming my opinions based on that information. You on the other hand, are unreasonably labelling me in ways that prejudice me - by stating I am a racist, a fascist, a Nazi.

Yes, and in that case we end with a silly situation where something is at one and the same time "true" for you, but "false" for somebody else. Those are just opinions, not truths.

Seems in ethics Truth varies per context. Most people would agree that the practice of Hindus burning the widowers alive beside the Ganges was TRULY unethical, or do you disagree?

You have no valid use for the word "true" here, even in all capps. You've chosen to throw it away, so live with your choice. The whole "most people would agree..." thing is unimportant, numbers and popularity mean nothing in this context, and my opinion isn't important either.

Only if you think "ethics" in "philosophy" must be reduced to objective binary yay or nay values. (I don't agree with that assessment of ethics in a philosophical context).

I doubt you will remain a moral relativist once you come to understand that it costs you your right to be judgemental about foreign cultures.

How so?

Presumably you are catching on now?

Clearly you are wrong in your entire assessment of what can constitute what is or is not ethical within any context, even and especially within philosophy - where love and wisdom should be of paramount consideration.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ethical opinions being subjective does not automatically render anyone that has an opinion, in this case that one culture may have greater ethical\moral standards than another, as being "prejudiced". Thus calling me a Nazi or a FASCIST simply because I don't want uncontrolled borders that allow thousands\millions of people that I am certain (and the statistics backs me up) that do not hold the level of ethical standards that I expect of people into my society....does not render me "X_ist", nor "prejudiced".

You seem to care much more about what you get called a result of your opinions than you care about getting things right.

I care as much about both. To be called an "X-ist" needs to have reasonable grounding, you have no reasonable evidence to label as either racist or fascist or for that matter -Nazi. Doing so makes you sound like a bigoted idiot.

That's off topic in this thread unless all your talk of some accord was just a bait and switch.

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Matters of opinion are based upon reasoning and consideration of what is deemed ethical is part of that reasoning. Not all societies are basing their reasoning without bias, religious or other influence can affect their ability to reasonably assess what is ethical within their society.

Opinions you have about matters of opinion are only founded upon good reason in your own opinion. That's really all there is to it.

Your X_phobia is preventing you from realising the outcomes of your own argument because you cannot let go of the prejudice.
That there, is what I mean about you not accepting the price of relativism.

Yet I have no prejudice.

That's just absurd, prejudice is part of ordinary human psychology.

DICTIONARY Prejudice: an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge.

I am reasonably assessing with statistical data and forming my opinions based on that information. You on the other hand, are unreasonably labelling me in ways that prejudice me - by stating I am a racist, a fascist, a Nazi.

I am not going to bother with this conversation for many more rounds unless you get the promised discussion and apply your own accord.

Seems in ethics Truth varies per context. Most people would agree that the practice of Hindus burning the widowers alive beside the Ganges was TRULY unethical, or do you disagree?

You have no valid use for the word "true" here, even in all capps. You've chosen to throw it away, so live with your choice. The whole "most people would agree..." thing is unimportant, numbers and popularity mean nothing in this context, and my opinion isn't important either.

Only if you think "ethics" in "philosophy" must be reduced to objective binary yay or nay values. (I don't agree with that assessment of ethics in a philosophical context).

Sorry, that's just pretentious. True and False are binary, subject to bivalence, if X is true, X is not false. If you genuinely think I am wrong, then you have to also think I am right at the same time. If you can't do that, I am right, and you know it.

How so?

Presumably you are catching on now?

Clearly you are wrong in your entire assessment of what can constitute what is or is not ethical within any context, even and especially within philosophy - where love and wisdom should be of paramount consideration.

You are running out of road.

[attofishpi]

You seem to care much more about what you get called a result of your opinions than you care about getting things right.

I care as much about both. To be called an "X-ist" needs to have reasonable grounding, you have no reasonable evidence to label as either racist or fascist or for that matter -Nazi. Doing so makes you sound like a bigoted idiot.

That's off topic in this thread unless all your talk of some accord was just a bait and switch.

How is you being prejudiced and thus behaving unethically towards me not on topic? ..granted, it’s personal ..but ethics is a rather personal comprehension.

If it is the case that your ethical standards are subjective, and that other people's ethical standards are also subjective then your judgement that their standards are worse than yours, and their judgement that your standards are worse than theirs, are equally well founded - ie, not founded on anything except opinion, which makes it a matter of opinion.

Matters of opinion are based upon reasoning and consideration of what is deemed ethical is part of that reasoning. Not all societies are basing their reasoning without bias, religious or other influence can affect their ability to reasonably assess what is ethical within their society.

Opinions you have about matters of opinion are only founded upon good reason in your own opinion. That's really all there is to it.

..and good reason (opinion) especially where ethics are concerned should remain with a firm grounding untainted by bias.

Your X_phobia is preventing you from realising the outcomes of your own argument because you cannot let go of the prejudice.
That there, is what I mean about you not accepting the price of relativism.

Yet I have no prejudice.

That's just absurd, prejudice is part of ordinary human psychology.

Within context, the point being that I am not prejudicial on the basis of things that you have labelled and prejudiced me about.

DICTIONARY Prejudice: an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge.

I am reasonably assessing with statistical data and forming my opinions based on that information. You on the other hand, are unreasonably labelling me in ways that prejudice me - by stating I am a racist, a fascist, a Nazi.

I am not going to bother with this conversation for many more rounds unless you get the promised discussion and apply your own accord.

This entire conversation regarding ethics is on point. You are the one that raised the term ‘prejudice’ within the conversation and I am simply pointing out your hypocrisy.

You have no valid use for the word "true" here, even in all capps. You've chosen to throw it away, so live with your choice. The whole "most people would agree..." thing is unimportant, numbers and popularity mean nothing in this context, and my opinion isn't important either.

Only if you think "ethics" in "philosophy" must be reduced to objective binary yay or nay values. (I don't agree with that assessment of ethics in a philosophical context).

Sorry, that's just pretentious. True and False are binary, subject to bivalence, if X is true, X is not false. If you genuinely think I am wrong, then you have to also think I am right at the same time. If you can't do that, I am right, and you know it.

Sure, true and false are binary but my point being within this discussion is that these true and false values are NOT objective true and false. Clearly within ethics, they remain subject to opinion that true and false remain binary, but they are subjective values.

Presumably you are catching on now?

Clearly you are wrong in your entire assessment of what can constitute what is or is not ethical within any context, even and especially within philosophy - where love and wisdom should be of paramount consideration.

You are running out of road.

“Philosophy” started to lose its wheels upon the road way back when so many ‘deep’ thinkers started to listen to atheist philosophers and close their minds entirely to anything of theism. (not wise at all)

[FlashDangerpants]

...

Not one word of that was worth me bothering with.

Look back at what you said you were going to deliver in that other thread, then decide if you are going to deliver it.