My goodness. Do you want to do philosophy or not? Because the above is just excuse and red herring. If you want to do philosophy, please go back to my post and probably engage my philosophical enquiry — S
Faith is inconsistent with reason. — S
They are two fundamentally different things, — S
Reason leads me to reject what you have faith in. — S
, because you don't know what the factual situation is regarding the existence of God. — S
Standing by it is not the same as justifying it. What's your counter to the claim that lack of evidence in support of a proposition constitutes reasonable grounds for not believing it? — S
Science does indeed make claims of the latter type. A pristine bedroom with no evidence of mud, fur, paw prints, and disorder, is scientific evidence of the absence of a filthy and excited dog having been in there. — S
Again, I'm just saying that moral sentiments are contained within minds, and everyone already agrees with that so I feel no need to support it. — Isaac
I don't understand what you mean by supported. — Isaac
So the relativists, not believing that to be the case, have nothing to support — Isaac
I don't want to write anything else for a moment, because I want the only response to be asking you HOW that would be evidence of objectivity — Terrapin Station
there's a complete lack of evidence of moral judgments occurring outside of minds. — Terrapin Station
"Therefore subjective" is just a stipulation of definition. We're using "subjective" to refer to "occurs only in minds." That doesn't need any support. It's just a stipulation about how we're going to use a term — Terrapin Station
What makes something bad morally is that an individual has the disposition that it's bad morally. That's what making something bad morally is. Things are morally good or bad to someone. — Terrapin Station
This seems true, but that doesn't automatically equal it being wise. Instead of debating competing meanings we might look more closely at what meaning is. — Jake
The truly rational act for the atheist is not so much how one might define reality, but rather what one's relationship with reality is. Emotional relationship. That's where human beings primarily live. As example, philosophy forums are supposed to be about razor sharp reason etc, but as we all know they are actually primarily about the male ego, ie. emotions. — Jake
What the God debate should have taught us is that we are fundamentally ignorant, and all our opinions on such matters are basically a thin wallpaper veneer attempting to hide that ignorance, mostly from ourselves. This vast sea of our ignorance aligns with the nature of reality. Our internal knowings are mostly nothing, a void, just as the external reality is. — Jake
It's just a particular brain state, and nothing besides. — praxis
Science doesn't deny the existence of minds though, nor does it deny the existence of god. It actually makes no statement about the existence or non-existence of gods whatsoever. You're confusing "is observable" with "exists". No respectable scientist goes around saying that X, Y, and Z unobserved phenomenon don't exist purely because we have not yet observed them. — VagabondSpectre
It's just a particular brain state, and nothing besides. — praxis
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? — S
You are being trolled dude. Im guessing because he feels like he’s giving you your own medicine or something but its clear he is being deliberately obtuse and dishonest. I think its a personal issue with you since he isnt always like that...not on purpose like he is here anyway. — DingoJones
↪Rank Amateur It is up to you to support any supposed difference in epistemological level. I can't do that for you. Either I'm right or I'm ignorant, but you have done nothing which could possibly change my assessment by simply pointing to my burden of proof. The burden of proof can be avoided, as you well know. You avoid it all the time. I can avoid it by retracting my claim for scepticism, which means I have nothing to defend, but you have a questionable faith which seems no different in epistemological terms to faith in a space teapot. — S