@fmf saidYou prove my point; for us to be coherent with one another, there must be some
You touting the permanence and baseline-ness of your moral compass is all well and good, but some of the things you believe are nevertheless incoherent.
agreement, all communication is going to be off if we don't see things the same
way when we communicate. If we were talking about giving directions and our
compass, all pointed in different directions, then none of us could talk to another
with clear precision saying, go west, east, north, or south when all our personal
north all pointed in different directions. In addition to that, there would not be a
true anything if the only directions could come from the eyes of all of the
beholders, they all are pointing in different directions; the only way that could be
said, anyone was wrong as if there is true north, there has to be a right answer
before anyone could say that another is wrong, as you constantly do to others,
acknowledging others are wrong is acknowledging there is the right way, even if
you don't know what it is.
@kellyjay saidWait a minute. Let me guess. Your moral compass indicates an "objective" "true north"?
If we were talking about giving directions and our
compass, all pointed in different directions, then none of us could talk to another
with clear precision saying, go west, east, north, or south when all our personal
north all pointed in different directions. In addition to that, there would not be a
true anything if the only directions could come from the eyes of all of ...[text shortened]... there is true north, there has to be a right answer
before anyone could say that another is wrong,
@fmf saidUs agreeing!? Realities truth, the Meta-Narrative discussed elsewhere; is the only
No, not really. We each have our moral compass. As free moral agents with free will, we use them to evaluate things and to govern our actions. You and I don't have to agree on things.
truth of consequence; we either agree with what that is, or we run afoul of it,
which would mean our agreeing with one another isn't worth discussing. We can
both be wrong about what we are talking about. We can acknowledge the truth
found in reality on each topic or come up with our own, which is confined to just
us, opinions, and nothing more. If our reality views are based on personal
preferences, we alone are the standard of judgment; we have taken on the role of
defining good and evil according to us. If our personal views of good calls real
evil good that is on us, if our personal views call real good evil, that too will be on
us.
@kellyjay saidI don't care what the outcomes of your speculations about supernatural things are, and I don't care how many times you refer to your superstitious beliefs as "the truth"; you can use your moral compass to evaluate what I believe and make your way in the world, and I will do the same with mine.
Us agreeing!? Realities truth, the Meta-Narrative discussed elsewhere; is the only
truth of consequence; we either agree with what that is, or we run afoul of it,
which would mean our agreeing with one another isn't worth discussing.
@kellyjay saidAre you asking me to "acknowledge" "the truth" of your purported immortality and "acknowledge" "the truth" about how I will be tortured for eternity by your God figure after I die? You are asking me to "acknowledge" "the truth" of these kinds of personal opinions you just so happen to have?
We can acknowledge the truth
found in reality on each topic or come up with our own, which is confined to just
us, opinions, and nothing more.
@kellyjay saidI "acknowledge" that your personal preference is for one of the three versions of the Abrahamic God. You define good and evil according to your moral compass, and I will define good and evil according to mine. If ever our divergent beliefs cause you harm, you can ask law enforcement and the courts to intervene.
If our reality views are based on personal
preferences, we alone are the standard of judgment; we have taken on the role of
defining good and evil according to us.