How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[Stranger]

Good luck with that one old boy since human understanding of justice and fairness is by no means agreed.

Since when have you guys allowed subjective human understanding to suffice?
When it suits apparently.

I suggest you read and respond to all of what I said, instead of quote mining it (quite a bold step in such a short post).

A sense of basic fairness is fairly universal and even extends to non-human animals. The point also remains, that if we can't trust this god to give us a clear message, when it's vitally important that we get it, then we can't trust it to keep its promises.

Hence your daft 'punt' is undermined.

[Stranger]

Alright then freefloating. Should you insist though on irrealism you would be back to individual conceptions of fairness and justice.
Can fair mindedness be free floating? Surely that suggests a mind and fairness the dispensation of same from a source.

Yawn. Evolution of social animals.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest you read and respond to all of what I said, instead of quote mining it (quite a bold step in such a short post).

A sense of basic fairness is fairly universal and even extends to non-human animals. The point also remains, that if we can't trust this god to give us a clear message, when it's vitally important that we get it, then we can't trust it to keep its promises.

Hence your daft 'punt' is undermined.

Well then according to your argument fairness and Justice is agreed in humanity. That makes it akin to science. Therefore that favours absolute values. But the extent to the agreement is debateable between and within people so that might make it more like religion.

Your argument is a hedge between subjectivity and science.

We cant trust God? who is the we you are talking about.

Your appeal to non human animals is anthropomorphism of World of Disney proportions.

If subjective values count here then you cannot similarly dismiss them elsewhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yawn. Evolution of social animals.

Are you saying then that human moral history works by classic Darwinism?

[Nearly Sane]

Now you're being silly.

No. Just pointing out that your statement wassimoky an assertion. Please show how you have determined that justice and fairness are objective and absolute?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Just pointing out that your statement wassimoky an assertion. Please show how you have determined that justice and fairness are objective and absolute?

Are you saying they are subjective and individual?

[Nearly Sane]

Alright then freefloating. Should you insist though on irrealism you would be back to individual conceptions of fairness and justice.
Can fair mindedness be free floating? Surely that suggests a mind and fairness the dispensation of same from a source.

What in earth do you mean be 'free floating? What has irrealusm got to do with anything. Why introduce the idea of fair mindedness, and then use it as a form of begging the question?

[SteveH]

No. Just pointing out that your statement wassimoky an assertion. Please show how you have determined that justice and fairness are objective and absolute?

It's obvious to anyone except people like you who just enjoy being wind-up merchants. Now go away - you're boring me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What in earth do you mean be 'free floating? What has irrealusm got to do with anything. Why introduce the idea of fair mindedness, and then use it as a form of begging the question?

I didn't introduce fair mindedness into the discussion Stranger did.
I introduced the idea of free floating to answer any objections you might have with the term embodied.

[jeremyp]

Can I ask you if you think there may be a god.

No you can't.

Not until I get a straight answer from you about whether you think there is any possibility that you might be wrong about God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No you can't.

Oh alright.

[jeremyp]

I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being.

I'm sorry steve but that really is total nonsense. Something either exists or it is a figment of somebody's imagination. It's a binary thing.

It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.

If God does not manifest in the Universe in some sense, there's no difference between it existing or not existing,, from our point of view.

[jeremyp]

Oh alright.

Why are you so frightened of answering the question? All it needs is a yes or a no.If the answer is yes, you are just in the same boat as us atheists. If the answer is no, you are just a typical arrogant Christian, but we already believe that of you, so you won't lose any esteem.

[SteveH]

I'm sorry steve but that really is total nonsense. Something either exists or it is a figment of somebody's imagination. It's a binary thing.
If God does not manifest in the Universe in some sense, there's no difference between it existing or not existing,, from our point of view.

Numbers. They are real, but they don't exist. They are abstract concepts.

[Stranger]

Well then according to your argument fairness and Justice is agreed in humanity. That makes it akin to science. Therefore that favours absolute values. But the extent to the agreement is debateable between and within people so that might make it more like religion.

Your argument is a hedge between subjectivity and science.

My argument doesn't depend on how or why people come to a notion of fairness. It is an observation that a basic sense of fairness is common amongst humans but my argument doesn't even depend on that.

We cant trust God? who is the we you are talking about.

Anybody who thinks that it is basically unfair to hide or obscure a vitally important message from the people who need to hear it.

If subjective values count here then you cannot similarly dismiss them elsewhere.

Drivel. You seem to have a bizarre notion (apparent in your arguments about NdGT) that any vague similarity between arguments, or any shared concepts, somehow makes them equivalent. That is a stupid idea - each argument must be examined on its own merits.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying they are subjective and individual?

I'm asking SteveH to justify his assertion that they are objective and absolute.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No you can't.

Not until I get a straight answer from you about whether you think there is any possibility that you might be wrong about God.

No, I am no longer an agnostic. I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.

[jeremyp]

Numbers. They are real, but they don't exist. They are abstract concepts.

I don't argue with the existence of the abstract concept of God, although theists seem to have a lot of trouble agreeing on the form of that abstract concept.

As for whether numbers are real, can you show me -4?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm asking SteveH to justify his assertion that they are objective and absolute.

And i'm asking you whether you think they are subjective and individual.

[SteveH]

I'm asking SteveH to justify his assertion that they are objective and absolute.

Some things just are - they don't need justifying.

[Nearly Sane]

Some things just are - they don't need justifying.

No, that's just building up more assertions.

[Nearly Sane]

And i'm asking you whether you think they are subjective and individual.

since I don't claim absolutely that they are you are asking an incorrect question.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I am no longer an agnostic. I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.

So you are a gnostic theist?

[jeremyp]

No, I am no longer an agnostic. I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.

I'll take that as a declaration that you are completely certain that God exists and that you admit no possibility that you might be mistaken. Although, you could have just written "no". I wasn't asking you to justify your position.

I'm pretty certain that God does not exist although I admit the possibility that I might be mistaken. The reason I don't go round investigating it is that I am almost completely certain that I will not find any evidence of God and I'll be wasting my time.

The Sun may not rise tomorrow, but despite the stakes involved, I take it you do not go round investigating the possibility.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't argue with the existence of the abstract concept of God, although theists seem to have a lot of trouble agreeing on the form of that abstract concept.

As for whether numbers are real, can you show me -4?

Does the pint and crisps and peanuts at Wetherspoons count?