I have thought hard about things of that matter, and every time, I've come out with the truth affirmed.
To call upon a being that you probably don't even believe in to help make a person who does believe in that being doubt their belief in that being is an insult to everyone involved, including yourself.
I'm not objecting to your beliefs. I'm objecting to the authority assertion you use to argue everything. Reasoning is a far richer consciousness. Correlation, causation, empirical phenomena are the building blocks of human knowledge.
We've been arguing about one topic, effectively: morals and religion. When it comes to morals and religion, I am correct, and everyone who does not a agree is wrong. That is how morals and religion work: only one thing can be correct in the end, and you only argue for a certain thing if you know it be the one thing that is true in the end. I speak with authority, because I know what I say to be true. You also know what you say to be true, as you have also been speaking with authority this entire time. You have authoritatively claimed myself to be a robot with no thought of my own. If you actually participate in the argument, you will find that I am a lot more reasonable than you believe what I have said above to imply.
No, I do not know; nor would I ever make such an ignorant statement. You need to study moral relativism. Here is a link. It will require thinking that may be difficult for you. But, you can persevere.
Do you agree with moral relativism? If the answer is yes, you still know what you say to be true. You simply don't claim differing morals to be false. Your morals are still the true morals, to you, and the others are true to others. The only difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you don't believe that other peoples' morals are inherently false while I do. You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it.
"You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it."
No, I do not. Socratic discourse is based on illustrative suppositions. That's why I referenced the link. I will say that Moral Relativism is a useful concept because it puts incisive questions into a useful context in a way that the world's major religions fail to do.
I will also say that I have few ideals. Acceptance of cold uncertainty is the mark of an intelligent mind.
I'm not suggesting that you can't be uncertain as to the truth of something. I am suggesting that it's entirely illogical to argue for someone that you do not believe is true.
Thoughts on cancel culture
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I have thought hard about things of that matter, and every time, I've come out with the truth affirmed.
To call upon a being that you probably don't even believe in to help make a person who does believe in that being doubt their belief in that being is an insult to everyone involved, including yourself.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suspect be didn't mean YHWH.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suspect he isn't a follower of any theistic religion.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suspect you are correct.
I'm not objecting to your beliefs. I'm objecting to the authority assertion you use to argue everything. Reasoning is a far richer consciousness. Correlation, causation, empirical phenomena are the building blocks of human knowledge.
You're impossible; sorry.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We've been arguing about one topic, effectively: morals and religion. When it comes to morals and religion, I am correct, and everyone who does not a agree is wrong. That is how morals and religion work: only one thing can be correct in the end, and you only argue for a certain thing if you know it be the one thing that is true in the end. I speak with authority, because I know what I say to be true. You also know what you say to be true, as you have also been speaking with authority this entire time. You have authoritatively claimed myself to be a robot with no thought of my own. If you actually participate in the argument, you will find that I am a lot more reasonable than you believe what I have said above to imply.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"You also know what you say to be true."
No, I do not know; nor would I ever make such an ignorant statement. You need to study moral relativism. Here is a link. It will require thinking that may be difficult for you. But, you can persevere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Do you agree with moral relativism? If the answer is yes, you still know what you say to be true. You simply don't claim differing morals to be false. Your morals are still the true morals, to you, and the others are true to others. The only difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you don't believe that other peoples' morals are inherently false while I do. You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it."
No, I do not. Socratic discourse is based on illustrative suppositions. That's why I referenced the link. I will say that Moral Relativism is a useful concept because it puts incisive questions into a useful context in a way that the world's major religions fail to do.
I will also say that I have few ideals. Acceptance of cold uncertainty is the mark of an intelligent mind.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I'm not suggesting that you can't be uncertain as to the truth of something. I am suggesting that it's entirely illogical to argue for someone that you do not believe is true.