Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evidence is needed when you are trying to convince someone else of something. If you already believe something, you don't need further evidence to support what you already believe.
I'm not asking you to hold my hand, I'm just saying you need to provide more than just your opinion to refute what I say if you are going to expect me to believe you
No, facts are not required for reason. I've provided dictionary definitions that point this out to you.
If you don't need evidence to convince yourself of something, then you're going to just believe whatever suits your fancy. Go ahead, but I'm not going to bother providing evidence to someone who is okay with disregarding it just because it doesn't suit their fancy. If your beliefs aren't ruled by evidence, what's to stop you from believing whatever evidence I provide isn't dependable just because it suits your fancy, eh? You've plainly stated already that you can't be convinced that you're incorrect.
It's not an opinion, it's knowing what reason is and what an assumption is that allows me to make the statement I did. You called it "baseless" because you don't know what those words mean.
Reason deals in facts. You looked up the word "reasonable", now go study what "reason" is. Learn about logical fallacies while you're at it because your posts are rife with them.
How is that relevant to the content. All your doing is making an ad hominem logical fallacy.
But is he wrong and if so how. But once again another logical fallacy. All you are doing is attacking the person and not addressing the content. So let's just look at the content. How is it that there are many mainstream articles that say exactly the same thing as these so-called non-credible people who have authored these articles.I can see why you like this guy; he argues just like you do, by telling his opponents what their position must be.
You still haven't accounted for why it is morally wrong. How personal views, beliefs, socialization, "likes and dislikes" can be equated with moral right and wrong. Even if you say it is passed down and learned as a norm it still doesn't equate to moral right and wrong values and duties or explain why an act is right or wrong. There is no independent and objective measure to determine what is up and what is down.
Yes, you cannot believe that your moral views can be universal because "they're your moral views". That would be like a Dictator.
There are different forms of relativity. The most known one is cultural relativity. This is where different cultures may have different moral views, beliefs. IE an African tribe believes in human sacrifice or cannibalism. Whereas a western culture like us will think that is wrong. The difference to individual subjectivism is that relative moral values may underpin the entire culture. There could be two different cultures living within the same borders with different cultural moral judgments.
It's not really a belief that your morals should be for everyone because if you understand them you would realize they are only your opinion. Even if the society happened to converge with their moral values, that doesn't mean that everyone has to view them as right for them.
No, the problem is objective morality is not your or any human's morality. It is like saying that the objective fact the earth is round is not yours or anyone's view. It is round because it is really round independent of anyone's opinion.
You said you were a value Nilhilist but I cannot find much on this. I know about Nihilism but not sure about value Nihilism. I guess its Nihilism applied to values. But that sort of doesn't make sense. Most info on Nihilism says its a pretty untenable position to have anyway and pretty outdated now. I like Jorden Petersen on Nihilism. Pretty straight forward and logically argued.
Take all the time you need.
The content is irrelevant to your claim about "most philosophers and ethicists."
I don't care. The article is irreverent to your claim.
I didn't claim it was non-credible, just irrelevant. But the author does belong to a Calvinist splinter sect; that's not a claim, it's a fact. Hs opinions aren't representative of "most philosophers and ethicists."
I can't find that reference in the Matt Slick article we have been talking about, but if you had actually read Sam Harris on the subject you would find that he goes on to answer hs own question rather convincingly. Whoever fed you that quote is engaging in a dishonest practice known as "quote mining."
Yes, moral subjectivists are not moral objectivists. But since you don't care what moral subjectivists really think and don't want to find out, let's move on to the next step: If morals are objective, how do we find out what they are? Your "lived moral experience" argument holds no water, since moral subjectivists are as likely as moral objectivists to (in the words of that great moral philospher Jiminy Cricket) "let their conscience be their guide."
I'm not saying nothing I believe requires evidence, just not everything. Some things require empirical evidence before I can believe it, other things (like my car starting in the morning) a reasonable assumption is all that is needed.
The reason i looked up the word "reasonable" is because that is the term I used. Remember; a reasonable assumption that my car will start? I don't need to inspect the engine?
No; it has nothing to do with being a dictator, the reason I don't believe my moral views are universal is because a quick look at the real world I will see nobody is following my moral views.
If it is not a human morality, and nobody knows what it is, how do you know it even exists? Better yet, how is it different than that which doesn't exist?
My thoughts.Hey hey
Where do you get your morality from?
I would say that particular act you did was immoral. If such acts are typical of you, then I would assume you are immoral.
What you did was unfair.
Yes; but I would like to add the only way it can’t be up for interpretation is because it has to be verifiable. If you can’t verify it, you can’t call it objective.
No. I consider moral absolutism as the view that all moral views are equal and should be respected as such. However if you wish to discuss using your interpretation, I would be fine with that.
There need to be consequences for your actions otherwise you might try it again.
love your new avatar.
