S

They amuse me, which is all that ultimately matters. If I didn't amuse myself, then I would have jumped off of a bridge long ago. There's no value in ...

By the way, did you know that Wittgenstein once said that a serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes?

I considered those since deleted additions to be examples of permissible facetiousness, which is a stated exception to the rule. They obviously weren'...

Your comments are tolerable. That rule was about what you may say, not what you may do. It's your poor judgement, rash decisions, and control-freakish...

If you can't see the ethical content, then you must be blind. But you're disappointingly predictable, Baden.

There are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism! So of course that doesn't follow. It is designed to avoid conflicting statement...

Well, are you not concerned that your peculiarly personal take on the matter is wildly off mark? What safeguards do you have? Do you think that you're...

You do realise that by substance, I mean actual content, like an argument, and not boasting about publications? Making an assessment about probability...

Cigarettes?! Who cares about cigarettes when civil war is fast approaching!?! Just because it is a product of my imagination, that's no excuse not to ...

What you're doing speaks for itself. When I offer you a chance to be reasonable, you demonstrate only that you are all talk and no substance. You talk...

Yes, but who cares about drug gangs, fascist execution squads, and deep poverty when you have an imagined civil war to fret over from your relatively ...

So you have chosen the last option, which is the least dignified. What I said is as clear as day, and there are two acceptable spellings of "scepticis...

Whether you find what I said insulting or otherwise, one thing you'll pick up about me is that I speak my mind. And I like to have the last word. Now,...

Here is what I take to be a very important value: not only having the right values, but being principled enough to stand by them, even if it makes you...

What part of "I talk about this in terms besides probability" don't you understand? Or are you acting deliberately morose in order to be combative? I ...

What academic has ever interpreted or criticised either of those two great thinkers in those terms? Can you provide a citation or a source? Or will yo...

I'm not playing a silly game, you seem to be, because I have already addressed your issue in your one and only discussion, which I've already referred...

I like your list. Also, brevity. :grin::up:

Diogenes and Nietzsche were good on values, as was Aristotle. The first two for critiquing traditional or popular values, and the latter for laying th...

That's alright. It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. I don't expect you'd be conscious of the real reasons. Some of us are just better at intr...

Neither. If you've forgotten my position, you need only use your discussion as a reference.

No, you cannot grasp that that's beside the point, as I argued in your own discussion. You seemed to agree with me then, but now I realise that that's...

Oh dear. That's even worse. So you have no excuse.

We do not need definitive proof one way or the other to reasonably resolve the question of whether or not to believe in God. That question is a questi...

Ah yes, the reading between the lines thing. I meant a serious response, not just using you for sarcasm. If you want a serious response to something I...

Okay. Understood. I hereby announce that from this point onwards, I will just do things! Wait, the green text isn't working. How will people know that...

Does that distinction matter to her, or doesn't it? And if so, for what reason? These are important related questions. As evidenced above, she has mad...

You don't seem on a level worth responding to, so I'm going to end it on that note. You don't really take in what I say, you just vigorously deny and ...

I think he was suggesting that ontology is redundant, as it is subsumed in some Kantian gibberish which needs translating back into normal human talk.

There's no necessary link between being super smart and the excessive use of obscure language. Otherwise Hegel would surely be in the running for smar...

Well, you haven't said why that is, not that I'm particularly interested. I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say, because, for starters...

Your "opinion" is wrong. That is a false accusation. I did answer your question. You asked what I mean when I use "atheism", and I told you. Once agai...

You'll have to ask him. But the logic is unproblematic.

Yes, and the implication is that he does care what it is, because he thinks that it's presupposed. The "irrelevant" part is itself irrelevant in this ...

You know, there's a more efficient way of solving that problem, and it will ensure that it doesn't reoccur.

I don't follow your logic. If ontology isn’t presupposed or irrelevant, then he doesn't care what it is. It is presupposed (or so he suggests), so it'...

You could ask Tiff and others like her. But I don't expect that many people here will share her alarmist way of reacting to matters such as this. I me...

No, it's only useful if it's necessary, and it isn't in this case. This isn't a discussion specifically about my kind of atheism. And I did answer you...

And what's more important than that is to condemn the setting aside of such an important matter to indulge unrestrained psychological or emotional dri...

If the meaning of "agnosticism" is basically the same as that of "weak atheism", which is obviously a type of atheism, then that specific distinction ...

The term covers both. And we generally understand the gist of it. You don't always need to get into specifics, and this seems like a case in point. At...

It sounds bad because it is. It's not the opium of the masses because it is used as a medicine in a way that a doctor would recommend. It's abused lik...

It comes down to values and what you happen to find convincing, and psychology. I value rationality over irrationality, and I value seeking the truth....

Yes, it was clickbait and attention seeking.

So said the fox in Aesop's fable. The point in question was about a supposed social inferiority. I addressed the point in question. You responded to m...

Okay. I'm going to stop feeding you now and walk away.

The alternative isn't much better. You're telling me that you can't spot the logical problem in responding to my point about a supposed social inferio...

It's not that difficult to understand, so you must be trolling.

Yes you are. Do you understand the logical problem I explained, or you do you require further explanation?

Trolling is prohibited here.