I vote that analyses such as these be archived for the purpose of being a valuable lesson in how not to argue against moral relativism, or even, really, how not to argue in general.

Far too much waffle. I'm not willing to put in the time and effort required to analyse all of that.

Ah, new terms to add to the catalogue of evidence in support of my charge against Tim: "Trumpian", "disgusting", "sickening", and "toxic". They are accompanied by "mere", "destructive", "childish", and others. Related is the guilt by association fallacy with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and others, although that's actually a 3-in-1, as it's also a straw man and an implied ad hominem: a straw man, because unlike them, we judge their actions to be wrong, yet Tim deliberately says otherwise; and an ad hominem because the suggestion is that you shouldn't even consider what a moral relativist says, because he is like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and others. The general category for these sort of fallacies is an appeal to emotion.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/268762

Dude, your analysis is praiseworthy and spot on. But is it really worth your time and effort? We're at 47 pages. When is enough enough?

Hear, hear! Less waffle, more demonstration.

First of all, I've explained why I think that Kant's categorical imperative is a joke directly in reply to you at least a couple of times now. Your forgetfulness or dishonesty in this regard is not excused. I don't know why some people here seem to think that this sort of denial is acceptable as a response. It isn't. Rank Amateur is by far the worst for doing this, as he does it with such frequency that it beggars belief.

Secondly, I read as far as your straw man that I cannot find anything at all wrong with the actions of the infamous mass murdering humans (I strongly believe that it is counterproductive to dehumanise them by calling them monsters. That they were human is extremely important to explicitly acknowledge) of the 20th century, and I decided not to read any further as result.

Yes, it's coming back to me now. We've had this problem before. You are the type of person who has a tendency to care more about tone or wording than philosophical substance, even to the extent that you'll ignore the latter and only focus on the former, whereas I'm very much the opposite.

Okay, so, just to be clear, you're signalling that you'd rather focus on irrelevancies and trivialities than the main philosophical point I made. I will try to remember that the next time I consider addressing something that you've said.

I said that your claim that my kind of atheism is "just faith" is not only unwarranted, but ludicrous. You reply with a red herring I've already addressed.

I quote what you said word for word, dispute it, and give my reasons for doing so. You reply by saying that I'm rejecting an assertion of my own invention.

You clearly said that we're too ignorant to know what theists and strong atheists claim. This is obviously a conclusion which you've reached. I have reached the same conclusion. You reply by saying I have no idea what your conclusions are.

Then there's your childish retort, "Stick it up your arse".

Then there's your stated opinion I don't care about, namely that, for you, the experience matters, but the explanation doesn't. Well, if you don't care about the explanation, which is a very unphilosophical attitude, then don't bother me with your opinion, just keep quiet about it or go bother someone else.

And it's hilariously absurd that you think that Rank Amateur is being rational when he psychologically closes himself off from engaging his beliefs rationally like that, yet you accuse my highly rational approach of being "just faith".

Oh no, I'm not neurotic in that way. Or maybe all of my other neuroticisms just overshadow it.

A universal moral truth would be a moral truth which is universal in some sense. Universal meaning of all. I don't think that is something which can be logically demonstrated, in any sense that I can think of. Sure, someone can string together a valid argument, but that's not too difficult. It seems that one would have to abandon the understanding of morality which makes the most sense in favour of a more problematic understanding which hasn't stood up to intellectual scrutiny. The debate has very much gone downhill in my assessment when there are just a small group of people agreeing amongst themselves with the dogmatic stance that any one who rejects the meta-ethics of moral universalism (at least in relation to something like murder) as unwarranted, is simply mistaken. I happen to feel very strongly against murder, but no matter how strongly I feel against it, or how strongly others feel against it, that isn't enough to support moral universalism. Where is the evidence? And no, not evidence that murder is wrong, which I think everyone in this discussion agrees on. But evidence that this is a universal moral truth. There is much talk, and much patting on the back, but little if any substance, it seems.

"I presented Tim with a logical proof for establishing the universality of murder being wrong...".

A logical proof! It doesn't establish anything unless it is logically sound. And likely, out of those of us who have already developed a meta-ethical position on such matters, only those of us who are already moral universalists on murder being wrong will accept that it's logically sound.

I get that spiritual deals with matters of the spirit, but that still doesn't explain it properly, just as shmlefflual dealing with matters of the shmleff, doesn't really explain it properly. What's a shmleff? What are matters relating to it?

If it's just a particular brain state, then, okay, I guess. Personally I still find it all rather odd and unnecessary.

And we'll remain stationary with unhelpful replies like that, Jimmy Clarky Sonny Boy My Laddy Lil' Scamp.

But the whole point is about what the experience is actually of. If it's only an experience of something which might be other than god, but which nevertheless influences them to believe in god, then why not just be clear about that? That would avoid the problem. At times it's like you don't even understand the problem, in spite of my efforts. I have certainly experienced love, pain, anger, and celery. That's not problematic in the same way, and I think that you know it. The problem here is the sort of problem with saying that you've experienced goblins and flying horses. A common reaction would be, "No you haven't!", or an assumption that you were talking about something else, like people in costumes or a film. Are you just going to continue to act oblivious to this problem, or...?

That they're called profound or even life-changing makes them a funny feeling. We don't have those everyday. And I don't care whether they want to share or not. Not sharing doesn't help their case if that want to be considered reasonable. And I take seriously what warrants being taken seriously.

"When it comes to universal moral truths...". But none have been demonstrated.

For a start, they're two different things: thought and belief. But no one really cares about your pet tangent. Most of us are sick to death of it by now.

And no, it isn't impossible, and the thought experiment doesn't preclude something as vague and infinitely broad as exposure to "something different", anyway. As usual, you're criticising something you don't properly understand.

It's not really a choice. If I'm reasonable, then I need a good reason. I can't force myself to believe in something like that, without good reason, even if I wanted to. I don't think that I could deceive myself. Others aren't as reasonable as me. They have a funny feeling and jump to conclusions about it.

The only controversial part of the first sentence is the last part, about a sensed presence of a personal God. That's unwarranted. Why should I believe that part?

No, wrong question. Off topic. Where did their moral judgement come from? From them. From their feelings. It is obviously not impossible to be a black sheep. It is obviously not impossible to have a different judgement from your parents or the prevailing judgement of the time and place.

Silly monkey.

The Oracle has spoken. The Oracle is a monkey in a jungle. Therefore, 'tis true!

Yes, you've got it. :grin: :up:

But I still disagree with your use of "God" which has rather obvious shortcomings and will likely cause confusion. There's supposed to be controversy, is there not? Or did I imagine that? I was under the impression that atheists and theists were in disagreement about something... :chin:

To get to the other side!

But seriously, regarding climate change, I'm pretty cynical. I think that it may already be too late, and there's nothing I can really do. We need big change fast, and I just can't see that happening. Capitalism is a giant obstacle, and too many people are under its spell, and those who aren't are relatively powerless.

The Oracle has spoken. The Oracle has said that it's impossible. Therefore, it must be.

A circumstantial ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance whereby you address the person instead of the point, and whereby you address the personal circumstances, alleging that they're predisposed to take a particular position, which is exactly what you did.

Now, back to the point. You still have failed to properly explain yourself. I have had those experiences because I'm a normal human being. Yet if you want me to go by my own interpretation, then no, I haven't experienced God, and neither do I believe that you have. But you appear to be playing a rather immature language game, where you just use "God" to mean a thing like 10,000 other things that we've both experienced, in which case, yes, I suppose I have experienced that by your language game, but I consider that an improper and problematic use of language which suggests that you haven't thought through the logical consequences. But perhaps you just don't care about that. You only care about what some ancient text says.

Has anyone even clearly explained what a "spiritual" experience is, and why we should call them that? Is it just a coincidence? Then why not just say so? A funny feeling? It seems to amount to either something uncontroversial but obscured with religious language, or indeed, something pretty crazy. Is God talking to you? Then perhaps you should get your head checked. Had a funny feeling? Experienced something coincidental or romantic? Yeah, that happens. It's quite normal, not miraculous. It wound be miraculous if God really did talk to you, or you really did have a supernatural experience, but there's no reasonable grounds for reaching that conclusion.

I guess that's the problem when you link too many respondents into a reply and try to speak to them all at once. Why would I care to disprove the dictionary? That's laughable. I already acknowledged both usages and commented that this is trivial. It is something already known, not a novel insight. Faith - it's what we already knew it to be through prior knowledge of the English language. If you have something to say that's more worthy of my thinking, then hit me up.

He only calls matters which can only be known to the individual a red herring in the context of moral truth because he defines moral truth in accordance with herd-morality. But of course, morality isn't herd-morality. Herd-morality is just a morality, and it has no authority over my morality. I know my own moral truths.

Yes, I know myself. I know my own psychological mechanisms, and can be open about them. I already suggested earlier that I am self-aware of my superiority complex, and I also make light of things as a coping mechanism. But you don't know yourself. Know thyself.

Okay, you keep telling yourself that. But I know your psych better than you do. I've learnt how it manifests itself in how you react.

But your desire not to intellectually engage it is very important, psychologically. You don't want to confront the logical equivalence of your cherished faith in God to faith in something you find ridiculous. But the truth is that they're similarly ridiculous. Are you really so attached to your faith in God? Can you really not cope without it?

For starters, you have (deliberately, it seems) misrepresented my claim multiple times now, in spite of my clarification of it. Yet you accuse me of trolling. You even quoted my clarification, yet you ignore it.

That faith in God is on epistemological par with guesswork in a space teapot necessarily relates to evidence, even if your faith, like guesswork, has nothing to do with evidence. If the evidence isn't enough to support the conclusion, then in that sense, and in that sense alone, they are on par with each other, and the difference between the subject of the faith or of the guesswork, whether God or a space teapot or something else, is logically irrelevant. Does a teapot have a handle? Yes. Does God? Who the hell knows? But are they both equally unreasonable? Yes. Are they both on the same epistemological level? Yes. Reason takes into account the evidence. Neither are reasonably justified beliefs.

All I want from you is an intellectually honest response to this. Do you accept the equivalence, or is it too much to psychologically handle for a cherished belief of yours to be exposed in this way? You want your faith in God to be a special exception, right? So you deny the analogy, or misconstrue it.

Told you so. You can't even bring yourself to answer a yes-or-no question. Your psychological barriers are impervious.

Your last delaying tactic was to manipulate me into filling in gaps which should be obvious from the context. If I do this, you'll just respond with another delaying tactic, because you're predictable like that.

There is no sufficient evidence to be found to the best of my knowledge [for either the existence of God or the existence of a space teapot], and you aren't providing any, so it wouldn't be reasonable for me to reach any other conclusion [than that the two positions are on the same epistemological level], would it?

Answer the question.

If you're not trolling, then you must have psychological issues. There must be a psychological reason why you aren't addressing the problem I raised, and which you can still decide to address. I think that you're just so attached to your belief that you can't bear scrutiny. That's why you respond with delaying tactics.

Yes, I know. I was typing up my reply saying just that when you got there first.

You're the troll. You are far more manipulative than me. Instead of addressing your problems, you deflect back to me with unnecessary and unreasonable requests, so that we get further and further away each time.

Delaying tactics don't help resolve the problem, they exacerbate it. It's clear what I was talking about from the context without me having to repeat myself word for word each time. Don't play dumb. Retrace the conversation and use your brain.