The real face of relativism

[Davian]

You do not have to, but it will be seen as a retraction of your claim.

No, "we" do not. Watch the news recently?

Support your claim, or retract.

It would appear to be a more appropriate label than 'learning" or "discussing".

I am here to learn, and I find it interesting, as a n00b at all of this, to make points and ask questions, particularly of theists that, on the surface, appear so confident in their beliefs, of a nature that they evade and even delete sections from my posts in their response, as you just did in your response.

Seeing that you have abandoned those threads that you started, what brings you back here?

Honestly, and I do type this with nothing but good will in mind, I do not really care what you see to be a retraction because thus far you have proven very thoroughly to not have that great of perception regarding the matters which you attempt to interact in.

You typed that, with 'nothing but good will in mind', while being insulting.

Support your claim, or retract. Do you not have 'the truth'?

What has the news to do with you and I?

Where is this "we" that you claim affirms your "absolute" morality?

Even those that act like there are absolute morals do not affirm them as fact.

This might be the most humorous thing I have ever had the privilege of reading from you!

More evasion and deletion.

So says the master of goalpost relocation.

Care to provide evidence for this assertion?

 

[madaz]

This is the atheist's plight and the words of G.K Chesterton as found in my signature ring so true....

The words of G.K Chesterton as found in your signature is not true or rather uncommon sense to be more precise.

An analogy would be, if there was no baseball game there would be no non baseball players.

Therefore to conclude-the presence of non baseball players proves the existence of the baseball game.

But that was G.K Chesterton's unique style of argumentation, his gift of poetic skill could elegantly make any nonsensical quote "ring so true" with the rationally challenged.

 

[madaz]

IMO This thread is not about the real face of relativism, it is starting to appear to be about the OP's POV of relativism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point is really moot and not germane at all to my assertion: "relativism is not tenable".

In fact, you don't even believe God exists, which is the exact one who these men were referencing when they spoke of the things which we are discussing.

Yes, and these men were sincerely wrong in believing the Earth was a flat disk.

What I don't understand is why you would bring them into the discussion to make your point (that people can be sincerely wrong), only to later backtrack and make excuses for them.

It seems to me that you are spending a great deal of time arguing ultimately against someone you don't even believe exists!

I believe you exist.

 

[Elioenai26]

IMO This thread is not about the real face of relativism, it is starting to appear to be about the OP's POV of relativism.

Are you a relativist?

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, and these men were sincerely wrong in believing the Earth was a flat disk.

They would have been wrong had they said the earth was a flat disk. Since, in your repeated assertions you maintain that they did, I now know that you either:

1. Do not understand the most basic principles of hermeneutics...

2. Don't care to understand the most basic principles of hermeneutics...

or...

3. Understand but intentionally misrepresent their writings.

Either way, relativism remains untenable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They would have been wrong had they said the earth was a flat disk. Since, in your repeated assertions you maintain that they did, I now know that you either:

1. Do not understand the most basic principles of hermeneutics...

2. Don't care to understand the most basic principles of hermeneutics...

or...

3. Understand but intentionally misrepresent their writings.

Either way, relativism remains untenable.

Allow me to remind you that you introduced the Bible's authors as one of the many cultures that believed in a flat Earth. Now you are scrambling to make excuses for them. Why won't you admit that they were, in your words, sincerely wrong? Forget the flat Earth... what about the immovable Earth? Was that also a poetic embellishment?

 

[Elioenai26]

...that was G.K Chesterton's unique style of argumentation, his gift of poetic skill could elegantly make any nonsensical quote "ring so true" with the rationally challenged.

In posts 193 and 195 of a different thread in this philosophy forum, you demand that I substantiate certain claims by using various portions of the Bible, the NT and genesis respectively to prove my point. Then in your very next post, 196, you emphatically declare that using the NT to prove my point is hearsay!?

And you insinuate that I am the one who is "rationally challenged"?

You use phrases like "uncommon sense" and provide an analogy of baseball players and a baseball game and liken it to a quote about atheists and God?!?

Is this not akin to the pot calling the kettle black Madaz? If anyone here is rationally challenged, it is you.

 

[Elioenai26]

Allow me to remind you that you introduced the Bible's authors as one of the many cultures that believed in a flat Earth. Now you are scrambling to make excuses for them. Why won't you admit that they were, in your words, sincerely wrong? Forget the flat Earth... what about the immovable Earth? Was that also a poetic embellishment?

I do not have the time to indulge you in your off topic tangents and red herring fallacies sir. This thread is about relativism and since I am the IP, I ask that you try to stick to the topic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not have the time to indulge you in your off topic tangents and red herring fallacies sir. This thread is about relativism and since I am the IP, I ask that you try to stick to the topic.

Off-topic? If we are going off-topic then it is no one's fault but yours. You introduced the red herring (of course it's only a red herring when others respond to it, right?). Now you are looking for any excuse to avoid talking about it, and more specifically, to avoid having to admit that the maxim - "Sincerity can never be the measure for truth" - applies to the authors of Scripture.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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

You aren't the only one who has noted the irony in some apologetics. I think genocide is always wrong. And, it is almost as detestable to make excuses for (presumed(!)) genocides. Although, some people may just not really realize what they are doing.

 

[Elioenai26]

You aren't the only one who has noted the irony in some apologetics. I think genocide is always wrong. And, it is almost as detestable to make excuses for (presumed(!)) genocides. Although, some people may just not really realize what they are doing.

Bravo! An atheist who is honest enough to admit he is not a moral relativist!

Bravo!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Bravo! An atheist who is honest enough to admit he is not a moral relativist!

Bravo!

"Admit"? Not sure where you got that from.

 

[Davian]

Off-topic? If we are going off-topic then it is no one's fault but yours. You introduced the red herring (of course it's only a red herring when others respond to it, right?). Now you are looking for any excuse to avoid talking about it, and more specifically, to avoid having to admit that the maxim - "Sincerity can never be the measure for truth" - applies to the authors of Scripture.

You should know how he does not like it when he takes his threads off topic.

 

[Leap]

"A man who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't." (Roger Scruton)

 

[quatona]

"A man who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't." (Roger Scruton)

That´s witty and all, but the topic is moral relativism, and the quote doesn´t apply.

 

[Elioenai26]

That´s witty and all, but the topic is moral relativism, and the quote doesn´t apply.

The topic is relativism, and yes his quote does apply.

 

[Elioenai26]

...I think genocide is always wrong.

"Admit"? Not sure where you got that from.

admit [ədˈmɪt]
vb -mits, -mitting, -mitted (mainly tr) 1. to confess or acknowledge (a crime, mistake, etc.)
2. to concede (the truth or validity of something)

*Courtesy of www.thefreedictionary.com

Synonyms:

Acknowledge, affirm, assert, concede, confess, declare, proclaim, etc. etc. etc.

Explanation:

In quotation 1. above you state: "I think genocide is always wrong." This is a statement on morality which is implicitly non-relativistic in nature.

Therefore, you have confessed, or admitted to not being relativistic in your thinking in at least this one area in question.

 

[Elioenai26]

"Sincerity can never be the measure for truth" - applies to the authors of Scripture.

It applies to everyone, whether they were inspired by God to record His words or not.

At the very least, if you wish to make comments on scripture and their meaning, I would advise you, if you have the means, to take some classes on Hermeneutics which very broadly, is the science of text interpretation.

 

[Elioenai26]

You aren't the only one who has noted the irony in some apologetics. I think genocide is always wrong. And, it is almost as detestable to make excuses for (presumed(!)) genocides. Although, some people may just not really realize what they are doing.

How do you differentiate between right and wrong? What standard are you appealing to?