You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The Good Vs Evil Delusion

in #philosophy7 years ago (edited)

We are talking about moral epistemology here about the reality of objective moral values. Whether someone is theist or not is beside the point all together. Atheist can act morally and theist immorally, but even then, according to your point of view there is no moral or immoral.

Whether or not it is written in a particular book is also beside the point. (that's moral ontology)

On the theist side, moral values are a transcendent reality, they are true independently to individual preferences.

But at this point, I think it's pointless to talk because in the post-modern point of view that you are holding on to, truth doesn't even exist..."everything is relative" as you say..

But then...is it objectively true that everything is relative? If so, you are living in a contradiction...if not, not everything is relative.

Sort:  

We are talking about moral epistemology here about the reality of objective moral values. Whether someone is theist or not is beside the point all together.

Dude, you brought it up and I answered. Follow up..

Atheist can act morally and theist immorally, but even then, according to your point of view there is no moral or immoral.

Exactly. Again, I was answering based on your own perception to demonstrate how subjective this is. again. follow up.

Whether or not it is written in a particular book is also beside the point. (that's moral ontology)

i know. exactly my point.

On the theist side, moral values are a transcendent reality, they are true independently to individual preferences.

not always. hence the thousands of heresies. each person on the face of this earth is his own special moral compass. No two people hold the same morality. not even the same person holds the same morality at different times of the day.

But at this point, I think it's pointless to talk because in the post-modern point of view that you are holding on to, truth doesn't even exist..."everything is relative" as you say..

no need to give it a name. "postmodern". I am trying to demonstrate to you EPISTEMOLOGICALLY . that your position is erroneous based on Popper's falsification. The burden of proof is on you. I merely hold the null hypothesis. You have to demonstrate everything else - hence why you drilled on the subject on a personal matter (what i think) rather than examine it philosophically. (you just started doing it).

But then...is it objectively true that everything is relative? If so, you are living in a contradiction...if not, not everything is relative.

Everything is relative including this statement. No need to put words in my mouth man. Now. All you have to do is demonstrate something, a premise that falsifies mine. I am waiting.

Everything is relative including this statement.

It's no use to talk with someone who can't see the contradiction in making a truth statement(an absolute) by saying "everything is relative". It's just empty words anyway right? Since there is no absolute or truth anyway.

I'm taking a leave. Have a good day.

This is what I am trying to say to you. You just happen to believe that objective truths exist THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. They do not. I wrote an article in the past detailing my position.

Again. 7.5 billion people on earth stemming from different cultures, backgrounds, histories, understandings of the world, etc..and you still believe that there are absolute truths? Again. show me. Make an argument. Don't "accuse" me of my moral values. That's lowly and cheap.

https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kyriacos/there-are-no-absolute-truths