Welcome Josh….do you believe that good is bad and bad is good (+=- and -=+) and moral absolutes don’t exist.
Yes or No?
Many individuals have already made up their mind on this before they post.
They have a cognitively biased religious view.
Not the topic of my thread. When I make a thread about metaethics you will hear all about it. That’s if I’m still here by that stage.
Answer the question and stop wasting your time and everyone else’s time because your cognitively biased religious philosophy will dictate everything you post.
He’s the only one using that phrase, and yet he insists EVERYONE ELSE believes it. Puzzling, isn’t it?
Why do you claim that good is bad and bad is good and no moral absolutes exist like Josh, Flannel?
It’s a simple question that you cognitively biased religious philosophers refuse to answer.
Yeah I think what he(?) means by it is moral nihilism, maybe also moral relativism. But what that has to do with my original post, I haven’t the faintest idea. All he seems to know is, I didn’t jump up and down right away to totally agree with him we are biological machine bots that emit electromagnetic waves into our souls, so I must be one of the bad guys. Even though I’ve said nothing about ethics or religion.
Why do you claim that good is bad and bad is good and no moral absolutes exist Josh?
We don’t have to listen to atheists anymore because we know that atheistic science can’t cancel out attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force ABSOLUTES!!!
Quote where that was said by either one of us
Go away Flannel.We know what atheists believe when it comes to moral absolutes,
I think we should just ignore him until he says something that actually contributes to the conversation. Otherwise he’ll hijack every conversation with his trolling.
1 Like
Circular. You might as well reverse this.
Without humans nothing is true.
Without humans there is no knoweldge, nor truth.
The universe abides, regadless, such that without observation such things are non existent.
This is the basis for the subject and for relativism.
In this sense all knowledge, truth claims and so on are interested, and come with an unavoidable bias; a human bias.
If this is not your launching point then you do not really understand how the world works.
I disagree. It is possible to doubt we are human. Being human is an inference from our sense-data. Truth and knowledge would still have a nature even if I were a space alien. There is nothing that fundamental about being human, before you can grant we are human you need to get science off the ground epistemologically. You are assuming a lot of things before you say we are humans living in a society. I am assuming very little by saying knowledge relies on truth.
I will say however, that I did include “There are thoughts” in the list of evident truths. This is because knowledge is true belief, belief requires thought, and so does expressing ourselves in language to give reasons for our beliefs. Thinking, I would suggest, is more fundamental than being human. If we genetically engineer ourselves into non-humans, I would still be a thinker.
The point about bias, though, in a practical sense, is very important.
As for “you might as well reverse this”… I don’t think so, not if you are taking the definitions we normally give with any seriousness. Truth applies to truth-bearers, like propositions and sentences, while knowledge is a particular kind of true belief. Truth is broader than knowledge. You could in theory remove all the conscious beings in the universe, and there would be no more knowledge, but there might still be truths, that could be said, if anyone were alive to say them (or if we left behind books, we might want to say, there are truths in those books, even though the authors are long dead).
This is the problem with you atheists,you can’t answer simple questions and yet you try and force your religious cognitively biased philosophical nonsense down everyone’s throats.
Science doesn’t agree with a philosophy that claims that good is bad and bad is good and no moral absolutes exist because attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force ABSOLUTES!!! DO NOT CANCEL OUT!!!
So you Psychotic Delusionists need to get a life.
Which simple question is Josh not answering? Is it “Why do you claim that good is bad and bad is good and no moral absolutes exist”?
The answer is, that claim wasn’t made.
Josh does make that claim and so do you Flannel.Neither of you believe in moral absolutes.
Prove it then. Prove we make the claim.
Are you claiming that atheists don’t make the claim that good is bad and bad is good and moral absolutes don’t exist Flannel? This philosophy is what starts their science off.
They then go on to claim that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out and yet they don’t.
You and Josh are deluded,honestly and you have been sold a lie by your cognitively biased scientists.
Some atheists say there are no moral absolutes, and some say there are. I haven’t ever heard someone prior to you say “good is bad and bad is good”. That’s a new one to me.
HaHa…an atheist who claims that there are moral absolutes…now that will be a first.You are talking nonsense for the whole world to witness Flannel.You are being totally embarrassed.
Not everyone thinks you need God for morality. Some people think you can get morality through reason alone.