Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel, it appears that what you are saying is that relativism is false because there is one absolute truth.

According to you, this purported absolute truth is contained exclusively in the mythology of the middle east two thousand years ago. Your claim is that this particular piece of mythology, published in a book called "The Bible" stands as inviolate truth while all other material produced by all other cultures in every other place and time are completely wrong.

Many of us consider that not to be an objective or rational stance.

Harbal wrote: If you say so, Immanuel. I'm just taken aback that you responded to my post, I was convinced you were ignoring me.

Mostly. But for once, you offered something relevant. And since I have no antipathy to you as a person, I was not reluctant to take it up.

Greta wrote:Immanuel, it appears that what you are saying is that relativism is false because there is one absolute truth.

Incorrect. What I was saying is that Relativism has zero percent chance of being truthful even on it's own terms.

Relativism is its own worst enemy. It's so irrational, it self-defeats, even without considering Objectivism at all.

Dubious wrote:Something being either this or that is not an argument.

Immanuel Can wrote:Sometimes it's the only right argument.

...and there you have it once again! It’s right for those who insist on it being right; no further argument required.

Immanuel Can wrote:Even if you don't like that, you'll just have to live with it. It's just reality.

Your reality begins 2500 years ago. It’s not the same anymore. Reality keeps on changing. That’s just how reality works. It keeps on modifying itself.

Dubious wrote:Why not show it if it’s so easy?

Immanuel Can wrote:I did. You might have to go back and read the ensuing paragraphs.

You mean the ones I questioned, that I couldn’t figure out, whose logic escaped me? All I asked was reasonable response to what creates the moral basis which divides moralities into theistic and secular models – since that would explain a lot - and all I’m referred to are the same posts which caused confusion in the first place!

Dubious wrote:I presume, though judge is a better word...

Immanuel Can wrote:Judging is done on evidence. So you have evidence there's no God? And it would be...what?

...so you have evidence there is a god? And it would be...what? Just turning the tables on you because if there were a god I think it would find absurd having its existence preconditioned on evidence. Demanding evidence for or against is a pathetic defense of theism and yet you do it all the time!

You also seem confused on the meaning of probability and certainty. If I judge according to the probability of something I can’t, at the same time, denote it as a certainty as you imply. Evidence is a matter of degree measured by probability before it can end in certainty...if it ever gets that far.

I said I judge on the PROBABILITY of something being true, NOT on whether it actually is. I’m not the one who keeps on asking for proof and demanding evidence. But one thing you have proven countless times. When not knowing how to respond you simply mutilate the argument to avoid a reply, this being a perfect example.

You, on the other hand...

Immanuel Can wrote:You don't know me. You know some of the things I think, but you don't know why I think them. Yet you tell me why you think I must think them. Presumption again.

A desperate statement or are you simply confused! I only know you through your posts which are what I and others respond to as usual on debate forums. Why or how you “think them” is of no concern to me. I’m not a psychoanalyst! Conversely you never cease to make presumptions of what others say and then hold them responsible for it. There’s not anyone on this site as adept in extracting any little clause from its context which you then exploit often to the point of absurdity.

Theism is NOT WELL-SEVERED in this manner!

Dubious wrote:Atheism does not require or even desire the kind of certainties theists lay claim to,...

Immanuel Can wrote:That's good. Because it would really seem that Atheism can't have any certainty.

...which is to its advantage as opposed to your certainty that the bible is the word of god. Give it time and truth will turn to myth and then to dust!

If we leave open the possibility that Gods exists then why presume, as you invariably do, that it has to be the god of the bible?

Immanuel Can wrote:It's possible to discuss that. There are reasons for thinking it is. But that's stage 2 of any discussion. Stage 1 is surely being open even slightly to the possibility God exists at all.

Through how many thousands of posts has Stage 1 already been debated where its been ascertained that it’s impossible to be certain? The statement is just another cop out.

To you...

Immanuel Can wrote:Again...presumption. And projection. You suppose me to be the embodiment of straw men you've cooked up in your own mind, thin and trite versions of Theism you imagine you already know and have dismissed. But me you do not know.

Is there any way YOU can make quoting me a little shorter. You might as well because I have no idea what the reference I supposedly made pertains to. As a word surgeon your ability to remove context is beyond impressive!

Dubious wrote:If secular morality which so vehemently condemned Hitler ...

Immanuel Can wrote:Please show the "secular morality" that, as you say, "vehemently condemned"
Hitler. Don't just show some person who did that; explain the rationale. Give me the particular secular morality that demanded secularists must condemn Hitler, and show on what rational and necessary grounds it did so.

...the morality which flows from conscience unmodified by prior terms and relates one’s behavior to that of other people. You debase ALL morality when you claim that the biblical textbook version of it is superior to that which strives through conscience and awareness. That kind of ‘uncolored’ morality is too primitive, too instinctive for you. As a theist, you need to be told what is or isn’t moral which demands a higher authority to mandate.

Nevertheless can you explain how one “shows a secular morality” or any morality except through events, behaviors and written laws? I’m truly interested in how this can be shown in any other way.

Your argument, as I see it, amounts to this – no matter how ethical one may be if you don’t believe in god as expounded in the bible, you aren’t truly human...

Immanuel Can wrote:I did not say that. You did.

I did indeed since you implied it many times. Since atheists are defunct of morality compared to all honest and upright theists, they cannot truly be human or at best somewhat less human than those who adhere to the word of god. Without god and its fiat orders of morality the atheist belongs in the jungle or the nether regions. This is how your views come across.

...commonsense laws of reason...

Immanuel Can wrote:Name one.

...forever busy on the amputation front!
...so there is no common sense in reason or its laws? Considering the source, it makes perfect sense.

Dubious wrote: This is how your views come across.

Translation: "This is what I'm feeling, so it must be true."

You'll need to read words, instead of launching ire based on erroneous readings. For example, you wrote:

...commonsense laws of reason...

And I responded:

Immanuel Can wrote:Name one.

From this, you derived this interpretation:

...so there is no common sense in reason or its laws?

No, I asked you to specify one of the alleged "commonsense laws of reason" you perceive. From that, you got "there is no common sense in reason"?

I can't really be bothered to defend things I just didn't say...and there's really no reason I should. They're your ideas, derived from misreading and wrong impressions, and there really isn't anyone who is able to tell you why you imagine what you imagine.

Immanuel Can wrote:I can't really be bothered to defend things I just didn't say...and there's really no reason I should. They're your ideas, derived from misreading and wrong impressions, and there really isn't anyone who is able to tell you why you imagine what you imagine.

What an amazing thing the human brain is. Who would have thought that one could function reasonably well on an intellectual level, and at the same time operate without any reference to a sense of irony?
Mr Can, attributing things to people who have never expressed them, and even insisting that they believe what you tell them they believe, despite them telling you bluntly that they do not believe it, is pretty much your modus operandi. The 'Atheists', 'Relativists', 'Materialists' and all the other 'Capital Letterist' windmills you tilt at, are strawmen; they exist only in your head, yet you put these two dimensional images between yourself and other people, who are way more sophisticated than your medieval logic.
If you weren't such a self-righteous berk, I'd feel sorry for you.

Immanuel Can wrote: I can't really be bothered to defend things I just didn't say...

Any idea how many people felt that way reading your responses to them, twisting, mutilating or simply excising all which exceeded your powers to debate!!...and now poor fellow you cry because someone in one instance has done unto you what you so prolifically have done unto others!
God should be embarrassed having the likes of you on Its team of defense attorneys when you are clearly not the man for the job.

Immanuel Can wrote:They're your ideas, derived from misreading and wrong impressions, and there really isn't anyone who is able to tell you why you imagine what you imagine.

This somewhat reminds me of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dvo6EHEJQE

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:Immanuel, it appears that what you are saying is that relativism is false because there is one absolute truth.

Incorrect. What I was saying is that Relativism has zero percent chance of being truthful even on it's own terms.

If the alternative is irrational belief in the anthropomorphic absolutes of ancient middle eastern mythology, then I will continue interest in the relativities of life as at least a practical option, and definitely less wrong.

I find it bizarre that 2,000 years on, knowing what we do, that so many people continue to clutch at the "comfort toy" of religion, ignoring everything that has been actually rigorously proved in favour of the fantasies and manipulations of ancient scribes.

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Incorrect. What I was saying is that Relativism has zero percent chance of being truthful even on it's own terms.

I will continue interest in the relativities of life as at least a practical option, and definitely less wrong.

Well, you can, of course: but you'll be guaranteed...by simple logic, not by anyone else's opinion...to be wrong. You'll have to decide whether or not you're comfortable with that.

You can probably find a way to live like that. Many people can. They tell themselves things they know aren't true...but they prefer something familiar to thinking about it any further. It's a fairly common strategy.

Sometimes it does work, after a fashion. At least it keeps doubt from the door most of the time.

The only time it really doesn't work at all is at the end.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote: I will continue interest in the relativities of life as at least a practical option, and definitely less wrong.

Well, you can, of course: but you'll be guaranteed...by simple logic, not by anyone else's opinion...to be wrong. You'll have to decide whether or not you're comfortable with that.

Sure. I'm comfortable with uncertainty. Little animals, locked into crawling around the surface of one world for an extremely short amount of time in cosmic terms are not going to fully understand the nature of reality. I expect that humanity's descendants in the far future will have a much more informed opinion than we do.

Greta wrote:Sure. I'm comfortable with uncertainty.

In regard to Relativism, that isn't really the question. The question is whether or not you can be comfortable telling yourself something you know to be a lie.

Immanuel Can wrote: The only time it really doesn't work at all is at the end.

You shouldn't present a personal belief as a fact, it tends to undermine ones credibility.

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: The only time it really doesn't work at all is at the end.

You shouldn't present a personal belief as a fact, it tends to undermine ones credibility.

It's not just a "personal belief": it's an incontrovertible fact. There will be an end.

At that end, something will be true. If oblivion follows, Atheism was right...and we'll never know it. If Theism's right, then everybody is going to know it.

That kind of gives Theists the pole position, I would say.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: The only time it really doesn't work at all is at the end.

You shouldn't present a personal belief as a fact, it tends to undermine ones credibility.

It's not just a "personal belief": it's an incontrovertible fact. There will be an end.

At that end, something will be true. If oblivion follows, Atheism was right...and we'll never know it. If Theism's right, then everybody is going to know it.

That kind of gives Theists the pole position, I would say.

That is without a doubt the stupidest thing I've read in a long while.

Immanuel Can wrote:
At that end, something will be true. If oblivion follows, Atheism was right...and we'll never know it. If Theism's right, then everybody is going to know it.

Which particular theism? I'm sure there are countless notions of what follows death.

That kind of gives Theists the pole position, I would say.

Not necessarily, perhaps only the ones who backed the right horse, that's why you simply can't allow any doubt to creep into your mind.