The real face of relativism

[Elioenai26]

I don't think relativism is hypocritical. If relativism were true then it would have to be able to be expressed.

Relativism can't be hypocritical. Relativism is a concept not a person. The relativist, however is hypocritical. The relativist is a person. Hypocrite is a word reserved for persons.

 

[Elioenai26]

Every educated person in the Old Testament.

False.

But I will humor you on this one because it will actually serve a good purpose.

Tell us, what evidence do you bring to the table to support your above assertion?

 

[Elioenai26]

Clear? In light of your inability to demonstrate that there things like moral absolutes, you shoot yourself in the foot with your own thread.

I don't have to demonstrate to you or anyone else here that moral absolutes exist, we all affirm they exist everyday.

My suspicion is that you are here to preach, not to learn. Your OP confirms that.

You must enjoy my "preaching" as you label it. You out of all the people in this forum engage me and interact with me the most.

 

[Elioenai26]

You should go on... because you haven't answered the question of how prevalent this belief was.



What it more aptly demonstrates is that you need a better example.



You claimed that "many intelligent men and women held to a view that the earth was flat. In fact, this was the popular view held for many centuries." What makes you believe that this was a popular and widespread belief for centuries? Which centuries would those be?



Which long-held tradition were they loathe to relinquish?



Many? How many? According to Stephen Jay Gould, "Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology".

You seem to be appealing to some prevailing false belief that was never (or scarcely ever), well, prevailing.

Why are you trying to argue with me regarding whether or not people believed the earth was flat?

People still believe its flat today.

Look it up. If it's so important for you to disprove my point, please find another way. Your current approach is not working.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why are you trying to argue with me regarding whether or not people believed the earth was flat?

People still believe its flat today.

Look it up. If it's so important for you to disprove my point, please find another way. Your current approach is not working.

I'm merely pointing out that your example isn't a good one. And you still haven't responded to my question: how prevalent was this belief and for how many centuries was it popular?

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm merely pointing out that your example isn't a good one. And you still haven't responded to my question: how prevalent was this belief and for how many centuries was it popular?

Why are you asking me? I have supplied you with a list of names, not exhaustive of course.

You have already posted a link from wikipedia on its flat earth page. Open up your browser, click on it, and read it. I am not going to follow you on this red herring chase any longer.

If you are a relativist, then state your case. If not, then we agree.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you want to make a case concerning morality you better choose a case from that field.


No, you just misunderstood me. The line is between that which has been proven/demonstrated and that which hasn´t.
It´s just that all cases of proof happen to have taken place in the physical.


No, it´s a well founded bias against truth claims that aren´t proven.


Yes, I am, and that´s why the above paragraphs in your post wasted both of our time.




Exactly my point.

Yes, that´s why I said: The best way to do away with a relativistic attitude in a certain question is to present proof.



Give of "moral truths" that have been proven (in a similar way as the shape of the earth has been proven, so that I have an idea what you are talking about, and so that I can see the relevance of your example.
Thanks.

Thanks but no thanks. You affirm that moral absolutes exist everyday, so why ask me to make a case for their existence?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why are you asking me? I have supplied you with a list of names, not exhaustive of course.

I'm asking you because you claimed that it was a popular belief among educated men and women for centuries. Yet you seem unable to provide any evidence for its popularity or for how long it prevailed among scholars.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm asking you because you claimed that it was a popular belief among educated men and women for centuries. Yet you seem unable to provide any evidence for its popularity or for how long it prevailed among scholars.

I will have to ignore you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I will have to ignore you.

For what reason?

 

[Gadarene]

The real face of relativism is a Christian trying to explain away Yahweh's genocide of entire races.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The real face of relativism is a Christian trying to explain away Yahweh's genocide of entire races.

As thunderf00t put it, "if you can justify this as good, is there anything left to call evil?"

 

[Elioenai26]

The real face of relativism is a Christian trying to explain away Yahweh's genocide of entire races.

The relativist's reply:

"Hey, if genocide works for you, then do it! After all, there are no absolutes, everything is relative!"

 

[Elioenai26]

As thunderf00t put it, "if you can justify this as good, is there anything left to call evil?"

The relativist's reply:

"Good? What is good? Evil? What is evil? There are no absolutes remember? All is relative and subject to the preferences and opinions of the person. Good and evil alike are mere words with no objective meaning! Therefore, no judgement can be passed upon the Christian for believing what he does. What's true for him may not be true for you!"

 

[quatona]

You affirm that moral absolutes exist everyday

No, I don´t.

 

[quatona]

"Hey, if genocide works for you, then do it! After all, there are no absolutes, everything is relative!"

You seem to be under the impression that without believing in moral absolutes you can´t have a strong opinion and you are unable to act.
This is a non-sequitur. In a world without moral absolutes you can even fight for your opinions quite fine - without becoming a hypocrite.

 

[quatona]

The relativist's reply:

"Good? What is good? Evil? What is evil? There are no absolutes remember? All is relative and subject to the preferences and opinions of the person. Good and evil alike are mere words with no objective meaning! Therefore, no judgement can be passed upon the Christian for believing what he does. What's true for him may not be true for you!"

Sure a subjectivist can pass judgement - knowing fully well that all judgements are subjective.

 

[quatona]

Thanks but no thanks.

Yes, I was expecting you couldn´t support your moral absolutism.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, I don´t.

Yes you do.

 

[Elioenai26]

You seem to be under the impression that without believing in moral absolutes you can´t have a strong opinion and you are unable to act.
This is a non-sequitur. In a world without moral absolutes you can even fight for your opinions quite fine - without becoming a hypocrite.

And this "strong opinion" you speak of, how do you account for it? What standard are you appealing to that tells you you should have a strong opinion against....let's say... child abuse for example?