Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:51 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:16 pm Mannie's god has been interpreted & reinterpreted, often by folks with an ax to grind against christianity...now, folks can do as much interpretin' as they like, but Mannie's god, as I understand him, ain't a monster, and neither is Mannie

Thank you kindly, as they allegedly say in the South.

As a matter of fact, in the case of the accusation of speaking from my worldview, I would make the Roddenberry plea. When asked, by Humanist magazine (1991) about why he put his own avowedly Humanist ideology into his scripts for the original Star Trek, he answered thusly:

"It is difficult for a writer not to do that [i.e. write his ideology into his scripts] because, well, what else is there to write about? Basically, the things you write about are your own beliefs. It is difficult for almost anything I write not to be Roddenberry: on Life."

I would say the same for myself. I'm a Christian: how is it even possible for everything I write not to be "a Christian on life"?

I would ask anyone who questions that, would I be more 'authentic' if I pretended to be a skeptic or an Atheist, and put on a pseudo-neutrality? That would seem to me to be less honest than declaring the truth about what I actually see, what I actually believe to be true, would it not?

I do believe I'm done leavin' off my religion from discussions here

Good time saver. It was fairly easy to see that your self-ownership principle predicated on some impossible to doubt but impossible to describe ineffability was just a secular sounding attempt to describe a mystical soul. Now we will be able to explain why it seems to need some religious belief to make any sense at all.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:23 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:51 pm
Thank you kindly, as they allegedly say in the South.

As a matter of fact, in the case of the accusation of speaking from my worldview, I would make the Roddenberry plea. When asked, by Humanist magazine (1991) about why he put his own avowedly Humanist ideology into his scripts for the original Star Trek, he answered thusly:

"It is difficult for a writer not to do that [i.e. write his ideology into his scripts] because, well, what else is there to write about? Basically, the things you write about are your own beliefs. It is difficult for almost anything I write not to be Roddenberry: on Life."

I would say the same for myself. I'm a Christian: how is it even possible for everything I write not to be "a Christian on life"?

I would ask anyone who questions that, would I be more 'authentic' if I pretended to be a skeptic or an Atheist, and put on a pseudo-neutrality? That would seem to me to be less honest than declaring the truth about what I actually see, what I actually believe to be true, would it not?

I do believe I'm done leavin' off my religion from discussions here

Good time saver. It was fairly easy to see that your self-ownership principle predicated on some impossible to doubt but impossible to describe ineffability was just a secular sounding attempt to describe a mystical soul. Now we will be able to explain why it seems to need some religious belief to make any sense at all.

uh, what?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:55 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:23 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:02 pm



I do believe I'm done leavin' off my religion from discussions here

Good time saver. It was fairly easy to see that your self-ownership principle predicated on some impossible to doubt but impossible to describe ineffability was just a secular sounding attempt to describe a mystical soul. Now we will be able to explain why it seems to need some religious belief to make any sense at all.

uh, what?

Your self-ownership thing looks and smells at first like a standard Mises style thing; an axiom that if agreed becomes the starting point for a whole set of entailments.

But you used mysticism to alter it from that standard, you made it some component of the human being which isn't normal, but made it something that you deemed impossible to doubt, which made that in turn sufficient in your view for a full explanation of the thing. Then you used it to separate man from animal for all moral purposes, and then you awarded it to fetuses and braind dead coma patients to cover that problem, but in a way that only makes sense if you really intend it to be a place holder for souls or some variation on the divine spark.

It's just quicker and simpler all round if everyone stops pretending your primary arguments haven't been religious in nature for a long time already.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:16 pmI never claimed to have evidence of god for the masses; I have reasons that make sense to me...

That is all anyone has.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:16 pmas for Mannie: he has, I suppose, an obligation & appetite for proselytizin'...seems to me: nobody has to engage hm, pay him mind, or walk his road...and yet: folks, like yourself, do...why?

Because he claims to have something better than "reasons that make sense".

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:16 pmmy god is indeed a standoffish fella...if I were like completely like him, I wouldn't bother posting'...

That's why he's a god. If anyone claims to be the equal of their god, back away slowly and look for something heavy to hit them over the head with.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:16 pm...and -- yeah -- my god is the ultimate natural rights libertarian...think on this: if I stand out in the rain: do I get wet cuz water is wet, or does the water become wet cuz I say it is?

Not sure what your point is. One of the properties of water is called wetness; cuz we say it is.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:16 pmMannie's god has been interpreted & reinterpreted, often by folks with an ax to grind against christianity...now, folks can do as much interpretin' as they like, but Mannie's god, as I understand him, ain't a monster, and neither is Mannie

Mr Can's god is Mr Can's god; he's just interpreted a book of bronze age mythology in a way that makes sense to him. The core message of that mythology is that before a child has taken her first breath she has sinned. That is not interpretation, that is christianity. Monstrous or not, it is batshit crazy and anyone who can accept that for "reasons that make sense" is similarly batshit crazy. What christians typically call the 'good news' is that one human sacrifice is enough to atone for every sin ever committed, so long as you believe it. Think on this: if you fuck up, are you forgiven because you say sorry to the person you hurt, or because you say sorry to an almighty being?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 1:55 pm what is a person?

ask the Supreme court of the 1880's to today - thanks Alito per Citizens United - not related (but same mindset), but soon suspect per him and his ilk no the court (Gorsich?) - $$$ will soon = people.

Corporations are People now - since 140 yrs ago.

It's just quicker and simpler all round if everyone stops pretending your primary arguments haven't been religious in nature for a long time already.

works for me

hey, everyone! I'm a deist! I believe in God and souls and moral fact!

there...good on me...

he claims to have something better than "reasons that make sense".

so what? his claims of sumthin better obligate you to engage?


Not sure what your point is.

yeah, B didn't get it either...the whole rain thing was about tryin' to make the point god defines me, not the other way around


Mr Can's god is Mr Can's god...you say sorry to an almighty being?

I don't agree with your particular interpretation, but let's say your spot on: so what? are you afraid Mannie is gonna reach through the screen and gut you in the middle of the night? are you afraid he'll infect the net with his filthy pagan sin orgy?

even if you're right and Mannie is a flat out nutjob, why engage him, here, in this place where only the mods can exercise any control over anyone?

mebbe Mannie's patented Xtian Psychotronic Thought Manipulator has you a'fear'd

aluminum foil hats offer excellent protection

you know... a d is barely better than an f...

and an "f"ist hits harder than a "d"ist...

train of thought thing ...

-Imp

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:34 am he claims to have something better than "reasons that make sense".

so what? his claims of sumthin better obligate you to engage?

What a a stupid question. No one here is obliged to say anything, but anyone who doesn't want their opinions challenged is a fucking idiot for airing them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:34 amNot sure what your point is.

yeah, B didn't get it either...the whole rain thing was about tryin' to make the point god defines me, not the other way around

A god that only you believe in doesn't define you? Whatever else your god may have done, it clearly didn't think to furnish you with sense of irony.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:34 amMr Can's god is Mr Can's god...you say sorry to an almighty being?

I don't agree with your particular interpretation, but let's say your spot on: so what? are you afraid Mannie is gonna reach through the screen and gut you in the middle of the night? are you afraid he'll infect the net with his filthy pagan sin orgy?

even if you're right and Mannie is a flat out nutjob, why engage him, here, in this place where only the mods can exercise any control over anyone?

mebbe Mannie's patented Xtian Psychotronic Thought Manipulator has you a'fear'd

aluminum foil hats offer excellent protection

My guess is you've been on the moonshine, but if you wake up and still think any of that dumb shit is worth asking, do so again.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:19 am It's just quicker and simpler all round if everyone stops pretending your primary arguments haven't been religious in nature for a long time already.

works for me

hey, everyone! I'm a deist! I believe in God and souls and moral fact!

there...good on me...

Awesome. Now we just have to grasp that all this stuff about how there must be moral fact because the alternative isn't good enough (morally) is just an attempt to derive an is from an ought, and that's a wrap.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:41 am Awesome. Now we just have to grasp that all this stuff about how there must be moral fact because the alternative isn't good enough (morally) is just an attempt to derive an is from an ought, and that's a wrap.

Heh, treating the is-ought gap as prescriptive is an irony of epic proportions.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:49 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:41 am Awesome. Now we just have to grasp that all this stuff about how there must be moral fact because the alternative isn't good enough (morally) is just an attempt to derive an is from an ought, and that's a wrap.

Heh, treating the is-ought gap as prescriptive is an irony of epic proportions.

Yeah. If it's you, Henry and Vegetable Aneurism versus Hume, my money's on the dead guy.

No one here is obliged to say anything, but anyone who doesn't want their opinions challenged is a fucking idiot for airing them.

if he's just another nutjob, why is it so important for you to challenge him?

Awesome. Now we just have to grasp that all this stuff about how there must be moral fact because the alternative isn't good enough (morally) is just an attempt to derive an is from an ought, and that's a wrap.

er, what?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:19 am No one here is obliged to say anything, but anyone who doesn't want their opinions challenged is a fucking idiot for airing them.

if he's just another nutjob, why is it so important for you to challenge him?

As Bertrand Russell said: 'One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important.' I just think Mr Can's ideas are horrible, the way he defends them utterly dishonest and calling anyone who doesn't accept his bollocks "irrational" is a bloody cheek. Why is it so important for you to defend him?