Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

I prefer to keep my cards in my hand.

So you're playing a game, then?

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer to keep my cards in my hand.

So you're playing a game, then?

Not a "game." I simply prefer that people respond to me spontaneously and frankly...and for that, the less information they have about me, the more likely they will be frank. Moreover, I have contempt for it when people use their qualifications or titles to demand unnecessary respect. What I have put in my profile is all I think it's necessary for people to understand. So I prefer to go with that.

[Gary Childress]

Moreover, I have contempt for it when people use their qualifications or titles to demand unnecessary respect. What I have put in my profile is all I think it's necessary for people to understand. So I prefer to go with that.

Fair enough.

[Harbal]

Here, I'm only asking you to understand what it means when somebody speaks of "a layman's knowledge."

What entitles you to claim being more than a layman on scientific matters?

On scientific matters? It depends on which avenue of science you're referring to. We're all mere "laymen" in somebody else's department.

So we are both laymen, then.

And on theology? Definitely not at the level of the ordinary layman.

I don't think anyone is questioning your familiarity with the Bible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If it's all the same to you, I prefer to keep my cards in my hand.

Eventually, Immanuel, you will have to play your hand or fold.

The poker metaphor, in your case, is pretty apt. This is what it has come to? Bluff, bluster, feints — all part of a confidence game.

[Harbal]

If it's all the same to you, I prefer to keep my cards in my hand.

Eventually, Immanuel, you will have to play your hand or fold.

The poker metaphor, in your case, is pretty apt. This is what it has come to? Bluff, bluster, feints — all part of a confidence game.

This isn't poker; nobody ever ends up winning anything here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We are dealing though, in one dimension, with a mental confidence game. A Ponzi scheme of the mind.

I am compelled to make the assertion that IC is playing a manipulative confidence game where, as he feels the need, that one terrible card he does hold — eternal torture by the hand of his ‘loving God’ — is his trump card.

Unlike some others I do not advocate for the renunciation of our metaphysical concepts — we construct our world on their basis — rather I am opposed to specific elements of his fanaticism.

Sometimes the players around this table don’t seem to play hard enough. Recently, Gary had a strong hand but folded with a “fair enough”.

In the game I envision each shall bring a piece of kindling to the constructed immolation pyre, but it is Immanuel who will light It!

[Gary Childress]

I am compelled to make the assertion that IC is playing a manipulative confidence game where, as he feels the need, that one terrible card he does hold — eternal torture by the hand of his ‘loving God’ — is his trump card.

Who can argue against a God who will torture you for eternity if you don't believe in him? I'm agnostic.

EDIT: I almost choked on my food at lunch yesterday but fortunately managed to cough it up after some effort. It could have gone very badly if it weren't for luck, fate, God, or whatever. We're all mere mortals vying against potentially horrible outcomes. It tends to humble a guy.

[Immanuel Can]

If it's all the same to you, I prefer to keep my cards in my hand.

Eventually, Immanuel, you will have to play your hand or fold.

We'll see.

[Harbal]

We are dealing though, in one dimension, with a mental confidence game. A Ponzi scheme of the mind.

I am compelled to make the assertion that IC is playing a manipulative confidence game where, as he feels the need, that one terrible card he does hold — eternal torture by the hand of his ‘loving God’ — is his trump card.

I imagine he thinks that if he says it often enough it will lodge somewhere in our subconscious and make us start believing it. Just like politicians do when they somehow manage to work their campaign slogan into every sentence. It doesn't really work very well here; most of us already know what we are willing to believe, and what we are absolutely not prepared to, beforehand. There aren't many floating voters in this place.

Sometimes the players around this table don’t seem to play hard enough. Recently, Gary had a strong hand but folded with a “fair enough”.

There comes a point when you ask yourself what you have to gain by putting in the effort. I'm sure that to anyone who has studied persuasion techniques, IC is a textbook practitioner of the art. I don't know much about the subject, but I am finding it quite fascinating to watch him go through his repertoire of tricks, and I suspect what I am learning will be of value to me out in the real world when next I am hit on by some sort of con artist.

In the game I envision each shall bring a piece of kindling to the constructed immolation pyre, but it is Immanuel who will light It!

For those with the patience, I think a gradual chipping away is probably the best strategy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

EDIT: I almost choked on my food at lunch yesterday but fortunately managed to cough it up after some effort. It could have gone very badly if it weren't for luck, fate, God, or whatever. We're all mere mortals vying against potentially horrible outcomes. It tends to humble a guy.

AJ said previously: Sometimes the players around this table don’t seem to play hard enough. Recently, Gary had a strong hand but folded with a “fair enough”.

That tortellini had Providential power!

It tends to humble a guy.

Yet some are driven to the heights of hubris …

[Gary Childress]

That tortellini had Providential power!

If it had been a burning bush telling me it's God, I'd have have been skeptical. But who can argue against tortellini?

[Alexis Jacobi]

We'll see.

[Immanuel Can]

I imagine he thinks that if he says it often enough it will lodge somewhere in our subconscious and make us start believing it.

It's so much simpler.

I'm willing to tell people what I think the truth is. They get to believe me, or they get to choose not to. Whether I'm completely right in everything I say, or only partly right, those that are prepared to consider God, win. Those that are not, have been told, whether they want to consider God, or not.

It's not my job to make anybody believe...particularly anything they don't want to believe. But as a Christian, it's my job to be forthright in delivering the message. And there, my obligation ends.

The rest is up to the hearer. I have no interest in subverting his ability to choose -- and if I did, I would be acting contrary to the intentions of God, who wants all men to have and informed, free choice about their own present and eternal disposition.

[Harbal]

It's not my job to make anybody believe...

All the more credit to you for putting so much effort into it, then.