Axioms and Postmodernism

There's no problem being controversial after we discuss, but in the end we'll end up with you thinking this way and me thinking differently “and to each his own truth”. Isn't that a postmodern situation?

Absolutely not. Just because there is a disagreement doesn't mean there is no truth. One is right and the other is wrong. Just as when you see several opinions about morality, it doesn't mean there is no absolute morality. One is right and the other is wrong. Everyone acting according to their own truth is not postmodernism. Postmodernism claims that both are right (or that neither is right).

“If you are troubled by the question of which of you is right, think again about the arguments of the other and come to your own conclusions. If your opinion has not changed, then that is your opinion”

But if the other has also done so and remains of his opinion, then should his wits remain in doubt??

Sure. Do you think he has protection from me?

Of course it is.
a) The rabbi believes in God.
b) The debate about God is ancient in philosophy.
There are many wise people on both sides.
c) Each side knows the other side well and writes a lot about it.
d) Nevertheless, each side decides the question and leaves no doubt. Even though other wise people think differently.
For example, Rabbi Micha Avraham.
Conclusion) You have protection with you.
Over the atheist philosopher.

See column 247-8.

It explicitly says there that in such a case there is no reason to continue with your opinion.

You'll probably need to read again.

There are many places, one of which:
“The question of how the other person formulated his position is relevant in all types of arguments, and therefore it is relevant when deciding whether to stick to my own position. Now this is no longer a special situation, an exceptional example in which the existence of a dissenting colleague has no effect, but rather a consideration that can arise in any argument. Of course, it is not right to apply this to every argument. It can be relevant in any argument, but only if I have truly reached a reasonable conclusion that my interlocutor in this argument did not formulate a position based on a serious examination of the totality of considerations. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) As I explained above, this is a relevant consideration only if this is truly the case in my opinion”

So do you think that all the atheist philosophers and scientists in the world are truly and sincerely locked up!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??
Or maybe they have reached a different conclusion than you. Because if they are not locked up, then you explicitly wrote that there is no reason to continue to hold your position.

Absolutely yes. They came to the wrong conclusion because they were locked up or they made an error in judgment.

Claiming that they made a mistake in judgment is not an excuse in an article, except if they are locked up and did not check well.
Because otherwise the assumption that you are wrong is the same as the assumption that they are wrong (too true).

And claiming that half of the philosophers and scientists in the world are locked up doesn't sound like a narrow and ad hoc idea to you?

??

I wrote my opinion. I think they are locked in. The academic atmosphere leads people in this direction in a very pressing way.

Sounds illogical, there are so many atheist philosophers that this is a very strange claim.
After all, philosophers know how to challenge basic assumptions, so there is no doubt that they did not reach this conclusion out of a blind faith.
This is the purpose of philosophy, the search for truth.

So it's interesting how they come to such different conclusions. Okay, I've exhausted it.

On the contrary, because man is incapable of reaching the truth. In any case, it is clear why they arrive at different assumptions from each other.

I forgot to mention that according to studies I've read, most philosophers are atheists.

So not just half but everyone is wrong, because everyone thinks they have reached the truth.