on discussing god and religion

He wants us to have an argument. Then we can embody his conflicting goods, not find a resolution, and demonstrate that there is no argument, or at least neither you nor I have one, that will convince all rational people that X is moral or the best path or how one ought to live. That’s part one of the desire.

No, he wants us to mirror what he claims he has inside, the fracturing and fragmentation he experiences internally. We would have that fight outside him. We would disagree. We would not resolves all or even any of our differences. There would of course be points of common likes and dislikes, but his interest is in the areas we would disagree, and of course those areas exist.

The grammar in this sentence, I think, is messy. But it’s disingenous. He can see such discussions all around him, in threads on all sorts of forums, including philosophy forums. If he wants to learn, as the sentence claims, than he has a great wealth to work with regardless of whether we engage or not in that same dynamic. No, what he wants must be something else.

We have been his most steady critics, on and off, for a while. Let’s get them to fight. As if this would shed any light on the many areas where we agree in relation to him and his ideas. As if this would show that our critique is off, because, look, they didn’t come to agreement. Look, I Iambiguous was right, conflicting goods are a gnarly knot, those two can’t solve all the problems or create the arguments that all rational people can follow (or one or both of them is not rational).

Notice he says ‘without all the accusations’: but the truth is many of our posts are actually much more than accusations, they take his situation, as presented or implied or sometimes even what I think it is actually underneath, and try to resolve it. Point out the contradictions and assumptions and ways he may be 1) causing himself more pain 2) not allowing himself more fruitful approaches to feeling better and 3) trying to spread ideas that are just as unfounded if not more so than those many of his objectivist targets believe in. He frames it all as ‘accusations’. And, of course, there are accusations in there. But I, and I think you also, have moved from questioning to probing to pointing out, to critiquing and then also yes, to accusing and labeling negatively and more. Once he refused to consider any of these critiques or disagreements (often as even valid or on topic), we certainly aimed more accusatory posts. We got a kind of dynamic with him, at least I did. But I still discuss the ideas, still over solutions, still critique specific points made, still try to lift out assumptions in his posts. He frames it as just accusations. And I can imagine it feels that way. But it’s not. And it ends up being facile and binary. They just accuse me, they make me the topic (a topic that generally is presented as to do with his fractured mind and his particular dasein) when in fact our responses are much more complicated and cannot be dismissed as just accusations.

But it serves his position of IGNORING everything that might shift anything that potentially be inspiration for reevalutation of his assumptions, methods and assertions.

To get us to fight. There’s a simple psychological, let’s get my ‘enemies’ to fight thing playing in here, I would guess, but I also think it is to generate what he thinks is evidence that our critiques are not well grounded. He is confused about what evidence our disagreements would be.

I admit directly that I know Phyllo and I will have differences of opinion about a number of things - some of which we be ‘things’ that some call morals and I would call preferences, and even this framing is something we would likely disagree on. I am sure there are others. I am quite positive that I do not have the perfect argument to convince Phyllo that he is wrong or should live like I live (and there are assumptions in there that I am just too tired to go into, but since I am not an objectivist in part his desire is even sillier).

None of this would take away the tiniest little nano-kilo from any argument I have made. In fact it supports many statements I have made. And then the fact that we have differences that we are not likely to resolve through rational discussion
does
not
say
a
damn
thing
about
the
assumptions I have critiqued in Iamb’s positions
nor
does
it
refute
what i have pointed out are the problems in the way he relates to other people.

So, on the level of it as ‘hey, let’s get you guys to fight’ childishness, while I understand the urge and I have had it myself in life many times, it’s nothing to respect.
And on the level of this somehow being evidence of anything relevent to points I have made, such a discussion would not be evidence any assertion I have ever made in relation to Iamb is incorrect. I don’t have the answer to solving conflicting goods or conflicting metaphysics. I know that. I am not looking for one.

He is. I don’t think there are such things. Experiences can shift such things, but words on a screen, nah. And even with experiences there is no guarantee and often time and curiosity and intention and more are necessary.

He uses the verb ‘avoid’. Coming from him that’s a joke. Critiques of him and his assumptions and actions is not an issue. Only what he wants to see happen is an issue. The King of avoiders. The King of not reassessing anything in his latest - and seemingly rather permanent - belief system - nihilism and the only possible resolution of it in his mind.

We have disagreed here in ILP and may yet again. But there is absolutely no reason, in the context of our criticism of him, to dance when he says dance.

And he can’t even be honest about why he wants it - to learn, lol.
And he doesn’t have, I am finally going to say it, the analytical skills to realize that it would not indicate, remotely, what he thinks it would.

A kid gets caught taking money from his father’s wallet.
Both parents get angry.
The kid says ‘Mom says you spend too much time with your friends on the weekend.’

Yeah, mommy and daddy have issues, but we’ve been talking about what you are doing and what you are assuming around honesty and property and respect and so on. Nice try Jimmy, sit back down.

And since I know Mommy and Daddy have issues and make no claim to an ability to resolve conflicting goods or metaphysics between all rational people or even consider finding such a thing a rational quest, us having such a disagreement in front of him demonstrates nothing relevent to my criticisms of his ideas, implicit and explicit, nor of his behavior.

He’s a deflector and, ironically, an avoider.

Do conflicting goods have to be resolved?

Ought the arguments that produce conflicting goods “go away”?

One can picture conflicting goods as being divisive and counterproductive.

But one could also picture conflicting goods as representing a useful diversity.

In a sense, it’s like not putting all your eggs into one basket.

Those with power will try to push their goods onto others of course.

Iambiguous has demonstrated on this thread for more than 5 years that he has a closed mind. So why are we still talking with him? What about his game of bait-and-switch is so fascinating?

Huh?!!!

I am presuming you both live lives that [like most folks] involve coming into contact with conflicting value judgments relating to different sets of behaviors revolving around any number of contexts. Or you get into discussions with others and the converstation gets around to any number of conflicting goods that pop up on the news. You are asked what you think about this or that issue.

Then, for some, the experiences or the discussions might involve speculating about the relationship between living and dying. And this will almost always involve one’s views on God and religion.

After all, does this sort of thing not happen to millions and millions of us around the globe over the course of living our lives from day to day?

Only most folks do not pursue philosophy here much below the surface.

But you two do.

So, on a thread that was created precisely for the sort of discussion I am interested in here, you will either go that route or, instead, wonder why on earth anyone would actually seriously consider doing it in the first place.

As though some might not construe that to be a really bizarre point of view in a philosophy forum on a thread devoted to discussing God and religion as they pertain to morality on this side of the grave and mortality on the other side of it.

My guess: There’s only one way to find out. With God [you] or without God [him].

Decide that between the two of you before you commence.

Sure, make my suggestion all about me again.

But: I created this thread with zinnat because I respected both his intelligence and his commitment to pursuing these relationships as they reflect a fundamental explanation for the existence of gods and religions down through the ages.

How ought one to behave “here and now”? And how is that related to what one wants his or her fate to be “there and then” after they have died?

The two of you will either explore this [with me or with each other] from different points of view along the God/religion spectrum or you won’t.

Indeed, if you choose to have this discussion between the two of you, I will agree not to make any comments at all about the exchange. I will simply follow it and use it as a way in which to grasp how you avoid all the accusation that you make about me on this thread.

Again: Are you or are you not going to examine in some detail the relationship between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave, your thinking about death and its consequences, and your views on the relevance of God and religion in how this has played out for you given the life that you have lived so far.

That’s the whole point of this thread. Where does the part where I bait-and-switch come in?

We’ll need a context of course.

One in an a God, the God, my God world.
And another in a No God world.

Two contexts now?

OMG

In regard to God and religion, how could there not be two?

Or three if you count agnostics.

Which, come on, given the gap between what we think we know about God and religion here and now and all that there is to be known about them going back to an explanation for existence itself, we all really are anyway.

Looks like a new use of the word ‘context’.

Unless Biggus has been using it that way all along.

A priest and an atheist walk into a bar.

That’s a context. It can’t be two contexts. That wouldn’t make any sense.

Why? So I can hear again from you how it is nothing but an intellectual contraption? Such a clever response from you. You could say that to every religious or philosophical or scientific idea in history. It wouldn’t require you to do anything like comprehending what any of the greatest thinkers of history had to say. Just trot out the same old shit time after time.
Don’t you ever tire of your narrow little frame of reference? Transcendence = contraption. There. I saved you the trouble. As if you would understand what I’m talking about.
“What on Earth are you talking about”? Again, I saved you the trouble.
I think the fascination of phyllo and Karpal Tunnel and myself with you derives from the paradox of interacting with an intelligence that has no insight into itself. You are dasein as self contradiction. But, there’s something ugly about playing with you. Like poking Quasimodo with a stick.

Again:

Give it a go. If only prompting me to respond exactly as you predict above. Thus allowing you to bellow “SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!!”

So, is it more that I succeed in reducing you down to crap like this, or that you continue to allow me to.

Being a moral nihilist I guess you don’t understand that people engage in discourse because they hope some reward i.e.greater good may come out of it. “I told you so” ain’t a good enough pay-off for the trouble. You’ll have to do better. Oh but that would require a greater good, so you can’t cuz values must be meaningless to nihilist you. Geez man, I’m sorry.

Being a moral nihilist I guess you don’t understand that people engage in discourse because they hope some reward i.e.greater good may come out of it. “I told you so” ain’t a good enough pay-off for the trouble. You’ll have to do better. Oh but that would require a greater good, so you can’t cuz values must be meaningless to nihilist you. Geez man, I’m sorry.

Next!!!

I think ‘what is going on’ is more complicated than just ‘bait and switch’. And it’s also a situation where others have gotten drawn in or may be drawn in. The issue of having a real conversation with iamb died for me quite a long time ago. The phenomenon of someone taking the positions he does (which are not consistent with each other nor with his behavior) and his interactions with people here, I’ve actually found generated a lot of interesting thoughts for me. Apart from the iamb in each of us, I think we all have to deal with people who present themselves a certain way, but really are doing something else. When one meets the person IRL it is easier to determine what they are up to. Not always possible or easy, but easier. We can come more comfortably to a conclusion about motive, what they don’t want to look at, what they are hiding, perhaps from themselves also, in fact usually. Here it is much easier for him to control what is seen - though many of the contradictions come through anyway. So, it’s kind of a generalized training in dealing with the pattern. When there was a part of me that thought ‘just around the next corner, some part of what I am saying may reach him or he’ll at least acknowledge X’, thinking even the minimal that it might happen, then it was a serious waste of time. I have no such illusion now. He will never admit or concede anything
unless
something rather big happens in his personal life.
Or he has some ongoing change that can whittle away at some of his beliefs, but again coming from perhaps a relationship IRL.
But words on a screen have not gotten even a minimal concession that I have seen over many years about anything. He could be a bot.

I can play chess against a computer online, and have, to train for real games. Though here it’s more like pointing out the habitual heuristics of the program to those who want to play with it. And then mulling over what is happening, in conversation with others, and what might really be going on. I think that is useful. Because that happens all the time irl.

It should be added that as long as it doesn’t entail him looking at his own assumptions and behavior, he can make good points. Also he does seem to integrate ideas over time. They don’t change his positions, but it keeps the necessary jujitsu fresh.

And it should be emphasized: look at what he thinks would be rewarding for you. There is no reason a moral nihilist would assume that is people’s primary motivation or even a motivation at all. That he assumes it is could mean that this is a strong motive for him. It could mean he thinks people in general but not him, as the exception, are in this to say things like that. It is not clear which. But it is telling that he thinks this would be motivation. Motivation to try something you have surely already tried and perhaps more than once. If you’re old enough to get the reference, it’s a bit like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football. He may not realize he is like Lucy there. He may not share her motivations. The result, however, is the same. Moral nihilists should not have blinders to the complicated motivations around them. In fact, it moral nihilism could potentially allow them to see complicated motivations where others are more partisan.

In any case…

And, of course, he can simply come up with another way to not have the discussion move forward - he has a few methods - and thus avoid the I told you so.

Yeah well you and Phillo seem to be smart guys. Therefore, You shouldn’t be wasting your time on this thread.