You cannot win a moral argument because there is no evidence of any moral facts.

If there were moral facts and rules nature breaks them all. — Andrew4Handel

I am not interested in the abortion debate per se, but are there not facts in criminal cases and laws broken? It seems that that is analogous to moral laws and facts. Personally, I believe there are at least some moral truths, including that genocide is morally wrong. Act according to that maxim that you could will it to be a universal law. It seems the categorical imperative is a good guiding principle, in my opinion, and it conveys at least some moral truths. However, I differ from Kant in that context needs to be taken into account. For example, always lie to the murderer at the door.

Do you have any pets? If not, I might recommend getting a six week-old kitten. It would rely on you for all of its needs would grow to love you and you it. Caring for the kitty would get your mind off of yourself, and you would have a companion for 15 to 20 years.

Is that humility coming from a Randian? There may be hope for you yet! :)

hahaha! It’s been a long time since I heard that.

I don't know what idea or drug or strategic shove would get you moving again. — Bitter Crank

Magic mushrooms. Seriously. They’re doing research on it for depression (at Harvard I think) and it seems to work wonders.

I am an INFP personality. It sounds like you may be as well. The number one recommended occupation for someone with this personality profile is poet. One may also be happy being an artist or philosopher. It seems that society doesn’t have a good place for our personalities given the low demand for such jobs. I’m blessed to have a support system, however. Not everyone is so lucky.

Exactly

You’re 20 and just discovered Ayn Rand, and I made the mistake of taking you seriously yesterday. lol

It sounds like you may have clinical depression. Have you thought about seeking help for that?

Well, I don’t have a problem with atheism qua atheism. I do have a problem with atheists telling me what the meaning of life is and that faith that God exists doesn’t offer my life any meaning. That’s evangelism.

People who believe in God tell homosexuals that they be homosexual. Homosexuals are forced to suppress themselves and are told that they will burn in hell if they don't. Why? Because it's based on faith. Any rational person would tell you to be homosexual if it makes you happy. — AppLeo

That is a case of a Christian fundamentalist. Faith isn’t the problem.

Or when someone is is suffering from cancer, but they have this irrational belief that God is testing their faith. That if they rely on a doctor to save them that must mean that they don't trust God to do what's right for their life. And there are people who take their faith seriously and would actually deny help from a doctor. — AppLeo

This is what Christian Scientists believe. Faith that God exists isn’t the problem.

As for the last paragraph, it seems you have a problem with evangelism. People can have faith without forcing their beliefs on others. I have a problem with evangelism, too.

I shouldn’t have been a dick to you. My delusions of reference at work. You may have a point.

If the purpose of life is simply to live, then it doesn’t follow that people can’t have faith in some things. How is faith in God, as in believing that God exists, detrimental to life? You have failed to show this.

Your conclusion that life has an objective meaning doesn’t follow from the premise that we have reason. That God doesn’t exist doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise that there is no empirical proof of Her existence.

A sound argument has true premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows. You have miserably failed to argue anything.

erik2 has seen hard times. We have not. He has grown into an enlightened individual. We have not. Now if we could only get him to learn proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar; then we could follow him as the guru he is.

Ayn Rand would hold the billionaires as virtuous, not some young buck who just read “Atlas Shrugged” for the first time and thought he was one of their club and who spends hours a day on a philosophy forum trying and failing to make a coherent argument. lol

Well said

Just what we need: another asshole on the forum. Except this one worships Ayn Rand as well.

Especially if you're just lazing and loafing around doing nothing productive. — AppLeo

This sounds like a “only the strong will survive and prosper” or “only the strong achieve happiness” voice as opposed to a “the gentle will inherit the earth” type voice. But I could be wrong about you. That’s just the impression I got.

Just wondering what category you are because from your previous comments, you seem to have this voice as well.

A lot of people have an inner fascist, a voice in their heads. Some people absorb that value judgment as something to live by, some get beaten down by it, and some yet transcend it, living by a spiritual mindset. I’m trying to become the third category.

So what is the corresponding cannon (library) worth reading by which Homo philosophicus might discover something about himself worth discovering? — Nils Loc

Anything by Kurt Vonnegut.

Shit on the floor! Lol

I’m confused. What is the contradiction? That something can exist outside the universe? Obviously you never saw “Rick and Morty”. Rick created a mini-universe to power his space car.

Other universes could be outside our universe. Angels are just inter dimensional beings. God is a programmer(s) who created our simulated universe to evolve into the culmination of the universe, S, god among men. Lol

I believe I can clear up some confusion. S is saying that “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” are metaphysical issues. You are making them epistemic issues.

S and Terrapin Station are right. You haven’t made your case, and I’m afraid there is no rational argument based case to be made on matters of faith. It just makes us happier people and it doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t work for everyone.

necessary and contingent truths are just another way of saying primary and secondary qualities aren't they? — Hanover

Maybe. I’m not sure. AJ Ayer only accounted for the necessary a priori (analytic truths) and the contingent a posteriori (synthetic truths). Kripke added two more categories.

If the actual world determines everything, then all actual states of affairs would be necessary truths. But we can still speak of counterfactuals somehow, right?

“Nixon” is a rigid designator so we know who we are talking about in other stipulated possible worlds. It’s a contingent truth that he was president because we can logically conceive of him not being president. It’s a necessary truth that he is not a cow, for example. We wouldn’t be talking about Nixon then.

We can logically conceive of him being called “Smith” in a possible world that he was adopted. However, “Nixon” is still a rigid designator because that is how we know we are talking about the same person. It’s a rigid designator, but that name given to him is a contingent truth.

Setting up a possible world to conform (altering the accessibility relations) to a certain set of circumstances instead of having it (rightly so) , the other way around of the world dictating or determining states of affairs. — Wallows

All this. It’s difficult for me to parse.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but your language and grammar are difficult for me to follow. That’s probably my fault, not yours.

The possible worlds thing is just a modal logic language game. You shouldn’t take them as actually existing literal possible worlds. It’s meant to help us determine necessary from contingent truths.

Like I said, the laws of nature are stipulated or assumed to hold in all possible worlds where Noah exists.

All what seems like hand-waiving?

Kripke holds that something is necessary if you can’t logically conceive of it being otherwise.

What do you mean by “accessibility”?

If by accessibility you mean that they are human life supporting, then they are possible worlds. If they are not, then the meter stick wouldn’t exist in that possible (or maybe impossible) world. “Meter” is a human construction. So, rigid designators refer to all possible worlds in which they occur. “Noah” refers to all instances of me in all possible worlds where I am stipulated to exist. It is not necessarily true in all possible worlds that I exist, however.

Possible worlds are stipulated. We stipulate the counterfactuals. So, we would have to stipulate that the laws of nature are the same or different.

I fail to see how any of those things would improve my life (and I should include the caveat that it shouldn’t harm others as well). Believing things that would get me committed if I acted on them wouldn’t improve my life. And believe me, I would know, as someone who has spent time on several psych wards. Lol

Furthermore, it’s not an epistemic standard in that it is a source of knowledge. Justified true belief is knowledge, and having that is one way to be rational. I’m proposing another way.