God and morality

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not auditioning for some sort of grand enemy, and I promise I wouldn't pick you for the role if I were. None of that was interesting.

Well, the simple answer is, leave me alone then. By that I mean, stop giving me your opinion on me. That's not what philosophy forums are for.

Do you understand?

Can he give you his opinion that you are mistaken about something?

Not really. When you do that he asks a chatbot to tell him he's right and you're wrong, then he just tells you that the chatbot is on his side so he doesn't care what you say. Then he gets pissy if you mock him for that.

He's a bit like VA. Or the way that philosophyexplorer would have got, if he'd hung around long enough for Copilot to launch.

[Fanman]

Can he give you his opinion that you are mistaken about something?

Why do you ask?

You said for him to stop giving you his opinion of you. If he thinks you're wrong about something or not very good at philosophizing, isn't that an opinion he has of you?

No, I mean a personal opinion; he can talk about my arguments or philosophising if he wants. But most of my arguments on this forum, after I clarify myself, have gone unchallenged. I don't see any refutations, do you?

[Fanman]

Well, the simple answer is, leave me alone then. By that I mean, stop giving me your opinion on me. That's not what philosophy forums are for.

Do you understand?

Can he give you his opinion that you are mistaken about something?

Not really. When you do that he asks a chatbot to tell him he's right and you're wrong, then he just tells you that the chatbot is on his side so he doesn't care what you say. Then he gets pissy if you mock him for that.

He's a bit like VA. Or the way that philosophyexplorer would have got, if he'd hung around long enough for Copilot to launch.

Where's your evidence of that? I recall you asking ChatGPT about my argument. What's wrong with using AI? It's there to be used, like a calculator.

[Gary Childress]

Why do you ask?

You said for him to stop giving you his opinion of you. If he thinks you're wrong about something or not very good at philosophizing, isn't that an opinion he has of you?

No, I mean a personal opinion; he can talk about my arguments or philosophising if he wants. But most of my arguments on this forum, after I clarify myself, have gone unchallenged. I don't see any refutations, do you?

No. But it's hard to say sometimes what is dodging an answer and what is not entertaining someone that you're going to have to spend the rest of your Internet days squabbling with because they've been brainwashed in a way that won't let them see the obvious. And hey, sometimes I don't see the obvious until someone points it out to me. I've had to take my licks at times.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, I said I wouldn't believe he's Jesus.

Well, then, you owe it to him, as a friend, to stand for his healthier, better self. And that means you can't cultivate his delusions. So if you stand against the delusions, by any means you have, you'll be a friend.

Did you read my whole post.

Yep. I didn't find it particularly illuminating, though. You were asking a very off-point kind of question, so I went back on point.

[Gary Childress]

Well, then, you owe it to him, as a friend, to stand for his healthier, better self. And that means you can't cultivate his delusions. So if you stand against the delusions, by any means you have, you'll be a friend.

Did you read my whole post.

Yep. I didn't find it particularly illuminating, though. You were asking a very off-point kind of question, so I went back on point.

Does not believing his delusions and not affirming them count as being a friend? Or do I have to sit there and argue with him until I'm blue in the face about it and get him to the point where he's lashing out?

[Fanman]

You said for him to stop giving you his opinion of you. If he thinks you're wrong about something or not very good at philosophizing, isn't that an opinion he has of you?

No, I mean a personal opinion; he can talk about my arguments or philosophising if he wants. But most of my arguments on this forum, after I clarify myself, have gone unchallenged. I don't see any refutations, do you?

No. But it's hard to say sometimes what is dodging an answer and what is not entertaining someone that you're going to have to spend the rest of your Internet days squabbling with because they've been brainwashed in a way that won't let them see the obvious. And hey, sometimes I don't see the obvious until someone points it out to me. I've had to take my licks at times.

Well, that "No" is very important.

If there are no refutations, then I don't understand why so much of the discussion has focused on the philosopher rather than the philosophy. If you catch my drift.

I mean no offence, Gary, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the rest of your point. If someone believes a position is obviously mistaken, I'd expect them to explain why it's mistaken rather than explain why they don't want to explain it. (Flash ).

[Gary Childress]

No, I mean a personal opinion; he can talk about my arguments or philosophising if he wants. But most of my arguments on this forum, after I clarify myself, have gone unchallenged. I don't see any refutations, do you?

No. But it's hard to say sometimes what is dodging an answer and what is not entertaining someone that you're going to have to spend the rest of your Internet days squabbling with because they've been brainwashed in a way that won't let them see the obvious. And hey, sometimes I don't see the obvious until someone points it out to me. I've had to take my licks at times.

Well, that "No" is very important.

If there are no refutations, then I don't understand why so much of the discussion has focused on the philosopher rather than the philosophy. If you catch my drift.

I mean no offence, Gary, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the rest of your point. If someone believes a position is obviously mistaken, I'd expect them to explain why it's mistaken rather than explain why they don't want to explain it. (Flash ).

That's a fair point. Maybe I'm thinking too much of my arguments with IC. He insistst that the Bible is the work of God and since it's the work of God, everything in the Bible is true. Therefore, if the Bible says it, by definition, it can't be false.

Honestly, I can't tell if you are anything like IC. I wasn't paying too much attention to your posts, other than some things you insisted were true about metaphysics that I'm not sure are right or wrong. So I don't know if Flash was heated up in argument over frustration with you not admitting you're wrong, or because Flash is a bag of hot air.

[Fanman]

No. But it's hard to say sometimes what is dodging an answer and what is not entertaining someone that you're going to have to spend the rest of your Internet days squabbling with because they've been brainwashed in a way that won't let them see the obvious. And hey, sometimes I don't see the obvious until someone points it out to me. I've had to take my licks at times.

Well, that "No" is very important.

If there are no refutations, then I don't understand why so much of the discussion has focused on the philosopher rather than the philosophy. If you catch my drift.

I mean no offence, Gary, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the rest of your point. If someone believes a position is obviously mistaken, I'd expect them to explain why it's mistaken rather than explain why they don't want to explain it. (Flash ).

That's a fair point. Maybe I'm thinking too much of my arguments with IC. He insistst that the Bible is the work of God and since it's the work of God, everything in the Bible is true. Therefore, if the Bible says it, by definition, it can't be false.

Honestly, I can't tell if you are anything like IC. I wasn't paying too much attention to your posts, other than some things you insisted were true about metaphysics that I'm not sure are right or wrong. So I don't know if Flash was heated up in argument over frustration with you not admitting you're wrong, or because Flash is a bag of hot air.

Okay, Gary, I appreciate your interjection, but I don't want to get into a discussion about who's correct or not — in the sense you suggest. I'm more concerned with what the record shows. But thank you.

[FlashDangerpants]

No. But it's hard to say sometimes what is dodging an answer and what is not entertaining someone that you're going to have to spend the rest of your Internet days squabbling with because they've been brainwashed in a way that won't let them see the obvious. And hey, sometimes I don't see the obvious until someone points it out to me. I've had to take my licks at times.

Well, that "No" is very important.

If there are no refutations, then I don't understand why so much of the discussion has focused on the philosopher rather than the philosophy. If you catch my drift.

I mean no offence, Gary, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the rest of your point. If someone believes a position is obviously mistaken, I'd expect them to explain why it's mistaken rather than explain why they don't want to explain it. (Flash ).

That's a fair point. Maybe I'm thinking too much of my arguments with IC. He insistst that the Bible is the work of God and since it's the work of God, everything in the Bible is true. Therefore, if the Bible says it, by definition, it can't be false.

Honestly, I can't tell if you are anything like IC. I wasn't paying too much attention to your posts, other than some things you insisted were true about metaphysics that I'm not sure are right or wrong. So I don't know if Flash was heated up in argument over frustration with you not admitting you're wrong, or because Flash is a bag of hot air.

The truth is that I have pointed to fairly obvious logical problems with a number of his arguments.

In this thread he had something about metaphysics not operating in a domain where we can clearly say some output is metaphysical (which is quite obviously a metaphysical claim itself). A secondary claim from that states that metaphysical claims usually collapse into something else such as "religion, spirituality, or esotericism" (really he should report to Willy B for a lecture on aeshtetics but I doubt Willy would pay him much attention tbh). And then he follows with what looks a lot like a conclusion to that syllogistic format: "Consequently, when someone claims to be a metaphysicist, from my perspective the label carries no more practical meaning than witch or wizard."

When I pointed out the logical flaws in that construct, he tried to tell me that it isn't an argument at all, just a statement of opinions. Given how prickly he has been at the suggestion that he doesn't know what metaphysicis is, I decided not to annoy him by pointing out that an argument is just an opinion with a bunch of reasons given, and that is indeed what he presented...

I raised other issues with his reasoning for other arguments he has presented. And I am not alone in that. He in every case simple refuses to believe he has been challenged on the rationale of his arguments and just takes offence at something instead. After a while, the problem seems to be him. His claim that his arguments have gone unchallenged is just a reflection of his self-pity, or whatever it is. His best arguments are tepid and easily challenged, but persuading their author to attend to the challenges isn't actually a valuable use of anybody's time because his personality will get in the way. This is why he will find fewer and fewer people to discuss his ideas with, even on this empty and decaying corpse of a forum.

[Gary Childress]

Did you read my whole post.

Yep. I didn't find it particularly illuminating, though. You were asking a very off-point kind of question, so I went back on point.

Does not believing his delusions and not affirming them count as being a friend? Or do I have to sit there and argue with him until I'm blue in the face about it and get him to the point where he's lashing out?

Now that I think about it, maybe IC is mentally ill. I seem to argue with him until he's blue in the face and it doesn't do any good. Unless, of course, he capitulates and admits that if Romans 1 says that all people who reject God are "mentally ill" or "deranged" then he must either think everyone in the world who is not a Christian is "mentally ill" or "deranged", or he must concede that the Bible is not God's words.

Do you admit you were wrong, IC? Or do you:

1) insist that everyone in the world who rejects God is mentally ill or insane

or else

2) concede that the Bible is not the word of God?

Which is it going to be #1 or #2.

[Gary Childress]

Or there is a third possibility, IC. The third possibility is that Romans 1 does not say what you think it says. I'll give you that one too. If you want you can take it as an out and keep both the belief that not everyone who is NOT Christian is mentally ill or deranged AND that the Bible IS the word of God.

[Gary Childress]

Three possibilities, IC. Which one do you affirm?

[Immanuel Can]

Did you read my whole post.

Yep. I didn't find it particularly illuminating, though. You were asking a very off-point kind of question, so I went back on point.

Does not believing his delusions and not affirming them count as being a friend?

You'll have to explain to me what possible relevance that question has. I'm not seeing it.

[Immanuel Can]

Or there is a third possibility, IC. The third possibility is that Romans 1 does not say what you think it says.

I invite you to read it for yourself. I think you'll find the language very, very plain. I don't think you'll have a hard time understanding what it says; however, depending on your reaction, you might have a hard time liking what it says. That's not my department.