Nostr Web Client

Yeah, I think this describes how we differ. It accounts for why I'm a Christian and you're an atheist (or agnostic? I can't remember).

The problem with not invoking ethics (or, really, ontology to bring it even farther back) is you can't ever find a complete answer to any question. With no fixed point of reference, there is no truth. In practice, we don't need to invoke ontology to have a conversation, because we have a functional shared worldview. The irony is that in order for atheists to argue at all they have to adopt a Christian ontology (or at least an ontology that accounts for transcendent reality). Without base reality, all propositions are relative, in infinite regress.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

I disagree with about seventeen things you said there, but I know you well enough not to argue any of those points with you.

#lastword

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

(I'm just joking about #lastword you can reply)

hodlbod 1y ago

Now I'm curious

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

ok!

- 17 was a totaly exaggeration for its humorous effect

- I think ethics are naturally embedded in every decision every human makes, so the argument Vitor makes I also disagree with, that you could avoid the ethical considerations, and so it's not what makes you and Vitor different.

- The fixed point of reference defining truth is the objective universe

- Atheists can argue withtout adopting a Christian ontology

- and the other things you said don't make enough sense for me to comment on.

I did a post on ethics just a few moments ago. It is my honest view of ethics. I might be wrong, but you could learn how I (and probably most atheists) see the situation differently than you do.