Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why Science Can’t Replace Religion [View all]intaglio
(8,170 posts)I pointed out that your definition of morality depends upon meaningless terms. Utterly meaningless because they depend solely upon relative and undefined terms. By your lights "right and wrong" are wholly relative thus making your morality wholly relative. You refused to clarify, merely saying right and wrong are defined within a community but not even attempting to explicate those terms or how communities might so interpret those terms. By doing so you run away from the argument piling an Ossa of assertion upon the Pelion of false opinion.
I have offered nothing Platonic, just established reasoning and the possibility that morals might be based upon real effects. If you still consider my reasoning platonic then remember Augustine used Platonism when it suited him. You again insert your unjustified assertion, say it is mine and then argue against that falsehood.
So what do I mean by "Others of your ilk"? I mean people who mendaciously misinterpret others views. People who ignore all valid objections to their objectionable opinions. People who offer blind assertion and call it argument. People like you who ignore established fact, who ignore even the opinion of their church, when it suits them. People like you, - apologists.