Whats pedantic is focusing on the word “absolute” instead of the clear intention of the OP. Again, everyone else understood what the OP meant and only the pedant choose not to in favour of belabouring the semantics of a single word.
Pedant doesnt mean wrong. We all know the strictest definition of “absolute” is as you say. Its just as obvious thats not how the OP was using the term, even offering examples to further clarify. Do you know why nobody else made the point you did? They weren't being pedantic.
Even after you admitted to understanding what was meant you didnt bother to answer the question. You were only interested in sharing your superior understanding of “absolute” (thanks champ!) with us regardless of any engagement of the OP. Pedantic.

I think they actually have not been able to answer the question: all things mentioned in the answers as absolute things aren’t absolute at all. — Angelo Cannata

n short, it seems that, when you say “absolute”, you actually mean something like “absolute, but not too much”, “absolute, but not too absolute, not absolutely absolute” :smile: . That’s fine, it just needed to be clarified. — Angelo Cannata

Everybody else understood this without clarification. You didnt, or refused to, understand this because you are being pedantic.

How do you figure other people were able to answer the question and have dialogue about it if its like impossible to answer?
Be less pedantic and try reading it again.

I don't really want to live but I sort of have to. — Darkneos

No you dont, you can check out any time you’d like. I think if you wanted to be dead you would be. You don’t really want to check out though do you? What you actually want here is attention, to validate your feelings about how unimpressed you are with life as an option.

Im not one thats going to tell you life is precious or that you have a gift or you have good in your life if you'd just embrace it. I accept you get nothing out of life, that you see nothing special about living and that death/oblivion seems like a better option than living…I’ll concede all that to you right now.
What your wrong about is that any of those feelings have anything to do with how much life sucks or how much better an option death is. Life isnt the problem, you are.
Your thoughts are those of a depressed mind. Just because its a common response you get ( get therapy) doesn't mean its wrong. You might need meds or something else that you are unqualified to dismiss as a cure for your little dilemma.
If youre adamant about depression or other mental illness not being the source of your view here then you’ve already gotten the best advice in the form of a question:

Are you sure youre doing life right?
If you truly have nothing worthwhile to live for, then you are actually more free than most other people. With such little attachment to life you have a freedom, a liberation of action, that means you can fill your life with whatever you want. If you cant exercise that freedom, then thats on you, not life.

Efficiency is ONE of the goals of the market. Again, efficiency is not mutually exclusive with morality (fair exchange of goods.) Its both.
Additionally, the markets development is not the same as the markets goals. You subtly shifted some language there.
You have not shown that markets do not aim for a fair exchange. Who would want a market that didnt aim for fair exchange? Greedy assholes, people who don’t let pesky morality interfere in their money making, yes. Thats a people problem, not a market problem.

Some of those rules overlap with morality, so I do not agree that playing by the rules is the most you can morally claim. The fact there are rules in no way entails that there is no morality.
As to the goal of the system…a free market place aims at a fair (a moral goal) exchange of goods and services. Greedy assholes try to game that system and do their best to make it unfair but this is the fault of greedy assholes not the system itself. After all, if greedy assholes can act immorally in a system then surely good folks can act morally in that same system.

So no, there no moral right for that store to claim payment from me, the claim is economic and legal. — Benkei

This is what I was asking about. Why are you denying morality can be a part of it like economics and legality?
Im not following how your responses answered that.

Also, when we are talking markets are you intending to claim there is no moral aspect to how it works?

Why cant it be economical, legal AND moral. Those are not mutually exclusive so why cant it be all 3? Why are you excluding the moral aspects? It would clearly be morally wrong to steal from the store right?

Idealism is believing that reality needs minds in order to exist, solipsism is believing that only your own mind exists.
They differ in the implications of each of those beliefs.

You're trading on a conflation between dying and being dead

1. If dying harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Dying harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time (of dying).

There: fixed for you. And it is uncontroversial.

1. If being dead harms the one who is dead, then the one who is dead must exist at the time
2. Being dead harms the one who is dead
3. Therefore, the one who is dead exists at the time.

In this form the argument tells us nothing about whether the dead person exists, so whether the argument is sound or not depends on that big "if" in the first premise. The alternative argument is:

1. If being dead harms the one who is dead, then the one who is dead must exist at the time
2. Being dead does not harm the one who is dead
3. Therefore, the one who is dead does not exist at the time.

Both valid arguments, both of which cannot be sound, the determination of which is sound depends on knowledge we do not possess. — Janus

:100:
Very nicely broken down, a complete waste of time with Bart but very nicely put.

Ok. So why remain in the dugout? Are you holding out hope that the political system will change? Also, what forces other than voting would result in the changes you want?
I often think about modern times and how its just the wrong time to be born for people who want to live outside the control of governments and corporations. In yesteryears there were places you could go that weren’t owned by either, a place where you could do your own thing. In the future when we expand to the stars you grab your people and set off for some distant star to do your own thing.
Today, where do you go that isnt owned by some country or corporation?

True voting isnt synonymous with politics, but I would say its a necessary part of the political system in Canada or the US. Aren’t you opting out of a system based on votes when you refuse to vote? I would compare it to playing baseball but refusing to take the field. Not really playing baseball then. (And likewise the baseball field is not synonymous with baseball).

So…move? It sounds like you want to opt out of the system. Whats the dilemma exactly?
Is refusing to vote a viable political position? No. Its a position, a moral one perhaps, but its not a political one since it necessarily entails not being political, not participating in the politics.

Im not sure they do share common purpose. Creationism is an ad hoc justification for biblical writings, an effort to explain contradictions with what science has discovered. Its purpose is in direct opposition to the purpose of science, and its method.

Well, other people might not want to be treated the exact same way you want to be treated. That’s why the golden rule fails, in my opinion. Better to find out how they want to be treated first of all instead of assuming that everyone wants the same treatment as yourself. — NOS4A2

There may be specific ways of being treated they may not want (not sharing a taste in music or some S&M shit) but pushing that treatment on them would be ignoring the golden rule for other specific ways of being treated (like not having things pushed on you).
It seems to me the golden rule remains intact. The exception to its merit you described above would only be valid if you ignored the golden rule in the first place. Unless you want to argue that people generally dont mind people making assumptions about how they like to be treated then I think the golden rule demands you do not make such assumptions. So it is as you say we shouldnt make those assumptions but the golden rule has that covered as far as I can tell.

I guess it made sense but not in the way I intended. Lol

Like a fish needs another set of gills :wink:

Edited to make sense.

Big bang only shows how to derive our current universe from that situation. Says nothing about what happened before. — Jackson

I agree with you, Im just not sure what answer you are looking for with “what if”…we would have to adjust our models in physics I would think, lest we lose out on some potential insight the before universe might provide for our current one.
I mention parallel universes as another possibility about where big bangs fit in the universe. There could be big bangs happening within big bangs.

Our universe today is derived from this event. What if there were other universes before that? — Jackson

Or parallel universes to this one, sure. I dont see why not but “what if?”?
Ya suppose if there were other universes before this one we would need to adjust our models? They would be incorrect? What are you getting at?

This perennial "what if" assumes that, in contemporary physics terms, there is "time" independent of – "before" – spacetime, which seems as conceptually incoherent as "north of the North Pole" (i.e. edge of a sphere, torus, loop, etc). And if we do away with "spacetime", for the sake of discussion, we then lose more than a century of physical and cosmological grounds to even discuss "the expanding universe" and its retrodicted BB. What does an event mean "before" spacetime? – is the implication of that old "what if". — 180 Proof

Why couldn't there be more than one instance of space time? If it starts with a big bang then ends with something else then why couldn't each such space/time “bubble” be its own thing? Time space could have its own instances of time space within it, like the way time flows differently with different gravitational forces.

How do you figure?

It is an equivocation fallacy, or a Suppressed correlative fallacy.

all we can say is that god thought it wise to issue the rule. — Moses

Ok, thanks for the convo.

there is a difference between the written law and the implementation of that law. — Moses

Indeed, and I addressed this already and why its not a valid defence for your position.

Why should the authority matter? This is a philosophy forum. Unless you're trying to get into theology. Then it would be the Talmud. ↪ — Moses

You said commandments can be overridden…says you? What justification do you have for the claim that commandments (gods commandments no less!) can be overridden? By who? Where is this written?

Commandments in that section of leviticus are not absolute in the sense that they must be followed under all circumstances and across all times. Commandments can be overridden. — Moses

According to what authority?
Anyway, that doesnt excuse a contradiction so you have still to do.

The most straight-off description of the laws in leviticus is that they are laws. they are laws from god. if you want to say that they were issued with divine wisdom then fine. I usually think of wisdom as more bigger picture than just e.g. a law, but this isn't a major point IMO. The Bible is undoubtedly against homosexuality, but the application of that is a different matter. I don't see why we're getting so hung up on this word 'wisdom.' — Moses

It is your claims about the wisdom of the bible we are discussing is it not?
Anyway, the point is that if they are laws from god and god is wise then so too should his laws be wise, right? But you said that stoning gays isnt wise so Im just observing that this is a contradiction, and to one of my original points you are left ignoring it or rectifying it with the wisdom of the bible.

Typically when I think of wisdom I think of practical timeless advice, not commandments. But God does possess infinite wisdom according to the book. — Moses

I think that leads to contradiction, even through a biblical lense.

L

Ok but then you are talking about a rule/law with no wisdom in it aren’t you?

Edited to add:
Also, you DID say it was a judgement from god. Isnt god wise?

I understand, I’m just choosing something specific so we have direct context for this discussion.
Ok, so if it isnt part of the wisdom then I wonder A) what is it then? And B) why is it in the bible?
I think we have to do A) first, but could be wrong.

Is the bibles edict to kill people who are gay part of its wisdom?
Im not asking about whether the edict can be proved in a religious court, I AM asking whether the edict is part of the bibles “wisdom”…well Im asking more than that but lets just focus in and not get distracted, as you yourself suggested.
So is the edict to kill gay people part of the bibles wisdom? Is it wise to stone gay people to death?

We're going to stick to this one topic instead of branching off to homosexuality which is its own separate topic. I want to get this done first then we can move on.↪ — Moses

Its not branching off to homosexuality, homosexuality is just one specific reason the bible gives for the death penalty. I dont need to discuss the morality of being gay, its not a moral issue to me.
So staying on the topic of murder in the bible, is your position that killing gays as prescribed in the bible is wisdom or if it isnt wisdom then how do you reckon this awful part of the bible with this “wisdom” you purport it has?

So murder in the bible is justified because the people in the bible or those the bible identifies as murder worthy deserved to die?
What about gay men? The bible calls for them to be stoned to death.
Also, you mentioned “in theory”, but we dont need to theorise because the bible is specific. Im not asking you about theory but the actual instances of the murder described in the bible.

I just meaning general. Whatever wisdom the book provides it also Condones slavery and murder.:.are you just ignoring those parts or…?

Fair enough I suppose.
So how do you reckon the parts of the bible that are awful with the parts with this wisdom you claim it has?

Well, it's faith + my reading and understanding of the bible. — Moses

Well it can’t be faith + your reading…it would have to be just your reading then right? Cuz faith isnt a reason…?

But the bible has moral wisdom that I cannot pinpoint the source of. — Moses

That is an argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because
You cannot pinpoint the source doesnt mean you get to insert the one you want. All that can be concluded from your lack of pinpointing is that you do not know. The source of that moral wisdom could be anything, why is the answer god? I dont think it makes sense to answer faith so what factor does faith actually play for you?

You should question your sources because sources are human and humans are not unquestionable. For instance, lets take Sennacherib's assassination purportedly by his own sons in 681 BCE. We come to know this because of royal inscriptions and this is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (I guess word got around). Is it insane to think that a royal assassination may have been pinned on someone else? Wouldn't be the first time. — Moses

I can agree with that, Im a historical skeptic, further back the more skeptical I am. I am less skeptical when there is corroborated evidence to reinforce a historical fact. For example, the evidence that pyramids were built long ago is so strong ( “hey look, a pyramid!”) that it is foolish to think otherwise.
However, this level of evidence is still much much stronger than any case based on faith alone.

Faith is not a reason. It is a jump. I do not know that God exists, but I believe that he does. I may be wrong. — Moses

I don't think there is a real distinction between faith being a reason and a jump.
But ok, so your answer to “why do you believe in god?” Is NOT faith? What is it then?

We need to narrow down our discussion if we want it to be more fruitful: Do you wish to discuss faith in the context of believing whether a historical event occurred or reliability of a news story? These are separate and I don't want our discussion to get too convoluted. — Moses

I didnt want to not respond to your opening paragraph here, but it seems like you move on from it anyway…

In any case when it comes to history it's about what we consider good reasons/evidence to accept that an event happened. In other words whether you place faith in your sources. — Moses

I disagree that reasons and evidence that an event happened are based on “faith” in your sources. Its a figure of speech to say you have faith in a source, but that way of using the word “faith” is not the same as having faith in the religious sense of the word.

I was talking about utility in the realm of praxeology, i.e. human action - it allows us to basically cut off our thinking at a certain point and invites action. I agree that utility has no bearing on whether a proposition is true or false, nor should faith be a reason. I think another benefit to faith, if used correctly, is that it acknowledges our own very limited knowledge of this world. — Moses

Ok, so what is faith in the religious sense if its not a reason? Why when people are asked why they belief in god they say “faith”? I do not understand how faith isnt being offered as a reason in that common example.

You are using different meanings of “value” interchangeably. Im sorry but it makes it difficult to find a spot to engage with.

That doesnt really make sense. Its like saying “the reason for me walking to the store is reason itself”.
You gave a non-answer to my question.

utility is the value. it's necessary unless you want to remain a very serious skeptic your entire life. you will have to make jumps if you want to believe e.g. that certain historical events happened or that the news you read is accurate. — Moses

I don’t think this is true. Those are not leaps of faith, or faith based conclusions. Just because you trust the reliability of something doesnt mean you are taking it in faith. The opposite in fact is true, you have specific reasons for believing certain historical events happened or if the news is accurate. Not faith based at all, but based in the past reliability of historical research or news program.
Anyway, you said the value of faith is its utility. Its utility doesnt make it true or false, and when faith is given as a reason for belief it is a matter of whether its true or false not whether or not it is useful. Lies have utility too, but that doesnt mean they are true.
So I think you have made a false equivalence.

You'll see rhetoric which discounts the role of faith all the time. I could dig up quotes from the new atheist movement of the 2010s or with many atheists today. There are tons of quotes which discount the role of faith. I just don't see where we're going with this. It's an epistemological matter. I'm sure I could dig up some quote from Dawkins or Penn Jillette or Ricky Gervais... it's a constant theme. — Moses

People are dismissive of faith because they see it as a meaningless placeholder term, with no real value except to avoid accountability for a belief in god that has no other defense.
Maybe they are wrong though…what is the value of faith?