C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

@dj2becker said
You must be enjoying your witch hunt.

I don't think you are any kind of "witch". And there is no "hunt" going on. There is no need to be so paranoid. You are simply being asked to explain your behaviour earlier on this thread [on page 7] and your evasiveness ever since.

@dj2becker said
I am actually quite interested in what the word ‘integrity’ means to someone who's worldview is built upon a foundation of relative truth.

"What does the word 'integrity' mean when one sees people's views on morality as being subjective?"

You should start a thread with a question of this kind.

-Removed-

Whatever you say Dr Phil.

@fmf said
"What does the word 'integrity' mean when one sees people's views on morality as being subjective?"

You should start a thread with a question of this kind.

It was based on a comment made in this thread. But obviously only we only have to start a new thread when it suits you.

@dj2becker said
It was based on a comment made in this thread. But obviously only we only have to start a new thread when it suits you.

I don't need to start a thread about it because I already know what the word "integrity" means. According to YOUR definition of the word, have you been behaving with integrity on this thread.

@dj2becker said
I’m not really even sure you know what that word means within a framework of relative truth.

Why did you post as mariekeXIV on this thread?

@fmf said
Why did you post as mariekeXIV on this thread?

Because he is a profoundly sad individual and has nothing else to offer the forum but endless posts about 'subjective' this and 'absolute truth' that.

(An algorithm would show he uses those expressions in 89% of his posts, irrespective of the topc).

@fmf said
"What does the word 'integrity' mean when one sees people's views on morality as being subjective?"

You should start a thread with a question of this kind.

Oh please dear god no. 😯

@secondson said
Well don't. Refer instead to the main point of my assertion in the first post I made on the previous page.

Was that the one where you labelled the physical universe as ‘Creation’ and then used that ‘Creation’ as evidence of a ‘Creator’?
I take it that you have some evidence that the universe was actively created. Otherwise it’s just another circular proposition hinging on your own subjective opinion regarding the supernatural origins of a physical universe.

@kevcvs57 said
I take it that you have some evidence that the universe was actively created.

He also offers, as evidence, the assertion that it is "obvious".

@fmf said
He also offers, as evidence, the assertion that it is "obvious".

Must be nice not to be bound by any evidential requirement’s for a theory on something as profound as life, the universe and everything.

@kevcvs57 said
Must be nice not to be bound by any evidential requirement’s for a theory on something as profound as life, the universe and everything.

It's also "nice" to take the profoundly subjective notions one settles for, having speculated about supernatural things and aligned oneself with some form of codified superstition [a.k.a. religion], and declare them to be the "objective" basis of "absolute" truths, unbound, as you say "by any evidential requirements".

"Nice" is right. And, of course, if it makes someone feel "nice", they should go for it. But if they make assertions about it in public, they should expect some debate and discussion and dissenting views.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Because he is a profoundly sad individual and has nothing else to offer the forum but endless posts about 'subjective' this and 'absolute truth' that.

(An algorithm would show he uses those expressions in 89% of his posts, irrespective of the topc).

Are any of the other 13 marieke’s still posting and or playing chess on this site.