@dj2becker saidThis continued behaviour cannot be good for you.
Because the last time I was accused of doing something and offered an explanation I was trolled endlessly. I have a perfectly valid explanation but I’m not going to let you have the satisfaction of trolling me again.
@dj2becker saidI 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.
You must be enjoying your witch hunt.
@dj2becker said"What does the word 'integrity' mean when one sees people's views on morality as being subjective?"
I am actually quite interested in what the word ‘integrity’ means to someone who's worldview is built upon a foundation of relative truth.
You should start a thread with a question of this kind.
20 Apr 20
@divegeester saidWhatever you say Dr Phil.
This continued behaviour cannot be good for you.
@dj2becker saidI 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.
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 saidWhy did you post as mariekeXIV on this thread?
I’m not really even sure you know what that word means within a framework of relative truth.
@fmf saidBecause he is a profoundly sad individual and has nothing else to offer the forum but endless posts about 'subjective' this and 'absolute truth' that.
Why did you post as mariekeXIV on this thread?
(An algorithm would show he uses those expressions in 89% of his posts, irrespective of the topc).
@secondson saidWas that the one where you labelled the physical universe as ‘Creation’ and then used that ‘Creation’ as evidence of a ‘Creator’?
Well don't. Refer instead to the main point of my assertion in the first post I made on the previous page.
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 saidIt'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".
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.
"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 saidAre any of the other 13 marieke’s still posting and or playing chess on this site.
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).