Dude, that's just nonsense, dodging around the fact that you have not and in all probability can not offer a substantive reason for moral absolutism. 'It's true because it's true' doesn't wash.
To discuss and understand morality, absolutism and relativism doesn't it have to be defined correctly first ? So could we please have your definition ? and is "that's just nonsense,dodging around the fact..." in reply to post #590 where I was giving my expanded definition of truth only, can we also please hear your definition of truth ?
Yes I agree. To discuss and understand absolute and relative morality they have to be defined first. I take it I'm right in saying you're a proponent for morality being absolute. You define absolute morality based in truth . This from your earlier post.... And things change, and what occurred in the past and what occurs now may well be altogether in conflict with each other. So what was considered moral then and now or vice versa, might have to adjust. Quite evidently that has been the case. That too by the same definition is truth..right!? If you base moral action and ethics on that description of truth, it is going to be a better argument for moral relativism. History is full with examples of absolute morality acting in the name of truth, even infallible truth, only to find it was nothing of the kind.
When saying "No God", there must be a definition of God first. Otherwise, either illogical or meaningless! ...
It is precisely the search for something that we cannot sharply define that perpetuates endless discussions on something that is impossible to prove from first principles of any rational system of thought. Trying to inject logic into a blurry fuzzy statement is not possible. Science's first principle requires sharply defined statements, or in modern Logics, at least be able to give fuzzy membership in a set. In fact, although I have not thought it through, it is very likely that it should be relatively straightforward to embed some traditional statements about God in Godel's proposition to the effect of "This statement is not provable" - the statement negates its own provability. Or if you want to turn it around, you can say that God is the [Absolute Infinite] limit of Godel's numbering of axiomatic systems. So the types of discussions on ET about religion, following traditional logics of Aristotle and Plato are endless chasing your tail arguments about an inherently not provable statement. And, since there is no data one way or the other, empiricism doesn't help. [There are hints that the Universe is not an accident, but there are clever arguments against that argument too] Religion is ultimately an act of faith, or more axiomatically, an act of intuition. No one should be told what their faith is. The reason scientists even bother with this stuff is when these nuts want to inject themselves in education and the daily life of people and infest the general public with the stuff. The greatest crime today is parents continuing a failed tradition of religious learning to their children. Until religion is abolished as anything other than a psychological system of morals from the past aimed at 19 year olds, humanity will forever be in the chains of the very same past.
What is funny is, Christians, because of the printing press and general other informational revolutions like the internet, fax machines, etc, have slowly progressed away from religion, though still chained to it. Christians do not see themselves in Muslims. Muslims are stuck in the 15th century versions of Christians because Muslim "Kings" forbade the printing press, and in general oppress many forms of freedoms and free exchange of ideas. Freedoms Christians formed (or took back) from the church in the Renaissance - let alone today! Scientists are to modern religious Christians/Jews, what moderate Muslims are to ISIS/Daesh. The progression away from mysticism, maintaining a moral center with strong tolerance for opposing points of view, is the key to the future.
As mentioned below, a possible definition should be still feasible, to be developed for practical uses. Most importantly, an associated peace theory then can be also mapped/ built-in! 1. The definition ideally should be acceptable not just by religious believers of all major faiths (including theological and philosophical studies), but also secular societies (including scientists of various fields). 2. We may need a new set of logic system that the God definition to be based on. The limitations of existing logic systems might be not good enough for this purpose. 3. The definition should be offered comfortably for education purpose at all levels including kids around the world, while introducing sciences concurrently, since there should be no conflict among them (faiths/sciences) according to this new definition system. Just 2 cents!
do you get points from the troll society for being such a wanker. very little lower than someone who rewrites other quotes and takes them out of context, instead of responding substantively. you