The Tanager wrote:
You have made a claim and made a case for that position. I have not been persuaded.
How can you claim to not have been persuaded when all I did was point out the clear and obvious facts of reality?
Are you denying that all that we can observe is that there are different human opinions on morality?
What is there to not to be persuaded about?
The Tanager wrote:
I have made claims and made a case for those positions. You have not been persuaded.
You have not made a case for objective morality. All you've done is claim that there exists universal moral intuition when in fact we both know that no such thing exists.
Both scientists and philosophers would have made a huge deal about universal moral intuition if it actually existed. The fact is that it doesn't exist. And the fact that it doesn't exist is a counter-example to your claim that it does exist.
The Tanager wrote:
We think each other has misunderstood things about our view. We have tried to clarify and it hasn't worked. I see no need for us to now make statements like...note I said like, not that I'm quoting you..."I've clearly made my case and you have clearly not, and you should just admit it, admit you have moved the goalpost like I say you have, you are obviously being dishonest..." and other empty rhetoric like that. We don't agree with each other on our perception of how this discussion has gone. That's okay. Let our posts speak for themselves.
I'm pretty sure our posts already have spoken crystal clear for themselves.
And I think this thread will stand as a prime example of how some theists simply cannot accept reality.
It's difficult for me to understand how you can claim to be able to make logical arguments yet you cannot see the obvious results of our discussion.
Morality as a human subjective view is all there is any evidence for. And no two humans can even agree on what things should be considered to be moral or immoral save for a very few extreme cases.
The evidence that morality is nothing other than human subjective opinions is as crystal clear as the earth is globe.
And you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. All you've done is try to lay claim to universal moral intuition which is clearly not supported by the real world.
Why is it that you cannot accept the truth of reality?
You claim to want truth, but you flat out refuse to acknowledge it.
This makes about as much sense as the people who are still arguing for a flat earth even after they've flown around the globe to attend their flat earth meetings.
It just truly baffles me how some people can continue to stand behind claims and arguments that are so clearly proven wrong by everyday reality.
So go ahead, climb on board a jumbo jet and fly around the globe to attend your next flat earth meeting. Because that's basically exactly what your doing with your argument for objective morality for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
You can call that "
empty rhetoric" if you like. That makes about the same amount of sense as your arguments for objective morality with no evidence. You have nothing, and you refuse to acknowledge that all we have evidence for is individual subjective human opinions that aren't even in agreement on the vast majority of moral issues.
You'd be far better off to argue that you think there "
should be" an objective morality, while at least confessing that there is unfortunately no evidence to suggest that such a thing exist.
At least that would make sense. I would love for there to be a "
Perfect Objective Morality" and a "
Perfectly Fair and Just Judge" for all humanity too. That would be GREAT! I'll take that any day of the week!
But wanting something to be true, and finding evidence for it, are two entirely different things.
If you want to argue that this would be a good thing if it did exist, I'll stand right beside you and argue right along with you!
But if you're going to try to argue that there is any evidence for such a thing, that's when I'll need to step away because there is no evidence for it.
I'm at least willing to accept the reality of that.
Wishing something could exist, and having evidence that something exists are two entirely different things.