Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your questioning is circular being an objectively moral person is what you should be doing, and don’t ask me how you do that because that was never my argument in this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How many times you have to ask me that? I told you already that under nihilism I have no advice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And you have missed the point again.
You clearly don’t have one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If your likening subjective morality to Santa Claus then I don’t see why you believe in the former and not the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Forget about subjective morality for a moment and focus on the concepts instead.
Your request makes no sense, if your arguing that subjective morality is solely a concept then it means nothing in terms of progressing this discussion, so if this thing (whatever it is) exists in your mind and your mind alone then it needs to stay there but once you make the decision to make it an argument in this very much concrete discussion you’re also making the decision that it’s more than just your personally derived concept regardless of how hard your fighting against that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF we agree that no objective morality exists
Do we agree that no subjective morality exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Just call it opinions about morals then. We agree those exist right?
Under nihilism morality doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t have an opinion on it because it doesn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Moral opinions
There’s no such thing, if you believe so then you must prove it, otherwise you leave me no choice but to dismiss this argument for the remainder of this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why? You haven’t provided any valid alternatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
you still haven't addressed my ACTUAL ARGUMENT or its validity
Still waiting on that third VALID option dude.
Or we could discuss what makes an argument valid in the first place and here is a news flash for you valid doesn't mean right or even correct. It means logically necessary.
Well in that case since you’re so certain of the meaning (even though you claimed to not be capable of complete certainty) I guess there’s nothing to discuss in regards to what makes an argument valid, instead you can present your VALID argument in terms of the third option your advocating for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why can’t I continue it without repeating myself over and over again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But didn't you define "moral" as "behavior that will be rewarded" and "immoral" as "behavior that will be punished"?
In the afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Just explain what makes an argument valid
I did that already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That implies the law is moral, which is a claim you’ve yet to prove, it also implies that every law breaker is held accountable, and don’t get me started on innocent people that are held accountable for crimes they didn’t even commit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It sounds to me like you are confirming "a non-GOD believer IS CAPABLE of moral action" is your claim.
Is this correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's a futile discussion.
Then why partake? You’ve been doing so for quite some time now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Forget it.
Sounds like what people who don’t seem to understand what constitutes a logically valid argument would say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not arguing in favor of any answer until some answer is demonstrated.
Then what’s this about a third or many more other options?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So given that you are not arguing for more we are we in agreement fundamentally for the purposes of this conversation?
But your not arguing in favor of nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I’m willing to omit mine for sake of the discussion and leave it all to nihilism, as for all the “others” unless you plan on arguing in defense of them all (which I suggest you don’t because that’s a lot of work) then maybe you should demonstrate your “third valid” option before you worry about anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How have you validated your preferred concept of morality or being a psychotic nihilist?
Nihilism is a negative position, so it doesn’t need to be validated, I don’t know how many times I have to say that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You asked me if there was a third "valid" option when the options you are already suggesting do not appear to have a sound basis in logic or fact.
That’s because your so hung up on your “third option” that you’ve failed to demonstrate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I really need to ask if you understand what a burden of proof is, why it is necessary BEFORE your idea is considered valid
I do, but I’m not sure you do. I don’t know how far you got with me and 3’s discussion but he’s the one that made an unsubstantial claim, so the BOP is on him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Seriously, if you're going to include the word "valid" as a qualifier, you really must explain what you mean by "valid", otherwise random casting for "valid" answers is an utterly pointless guessing game.
...No, are you serious? Every word I say now I gotta define? You guys act as if you don’t have access to the internet (you clearly do otherwise you wouldn’t be engaging in this discussion) I’m not about making my own “personally preferred” definitions what I mean by the word is the same as Google or any other source.
Valid-(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
And if your so called “third option” (which you’ve still yet to demonstrate) isn’t that then it’s not an option, and it’s not a false dichotomy fallacy. In fact misplacing a declared fallacy is a fallacy in itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What exactly isn't valid and why? Also why should we care if it is "valid"?
And I’m saying in order to answer that question you have to answer mine, what’s the third VALID option?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Like a hypothetical third option perhaps there might be someone who is NOT a believer in a GOD who still acts in a morally correct manner(?)
Perhaps not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Pardon me I jumped the gun here by assuming your mentality, what’s the third VALID option?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Please be slightly more specific.
there must exist at least a third option.
Why? He wasn’t, third option such as?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even a hypothetical psychopath can't live without other humans.
They can up to a certain point (I assume you’re not preaching immortality).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In regards to this specific example? Yeah sure you can call it that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t prefer anything in regards to suicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "suicidal" people are desperate for human attention.
Don’t generalize, you can’t possibly know every single case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you have a "survival instinct" and "social instinct"
So what about suicidal antisocial people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this means that you have developed some survival strategy that very likely involves caring about the general welfare of at least one other person
How so? The only conclusion I drew from that is you care about yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Since it is possible to not believe in objective morality and also not be a psychotic nihilist there must exist at least a third option.
That “option” means nothing if you can’t validate, and you’ve yet to validate whatever it is you believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
For the second time partakers in this discussion isn’t the narrative, the narrative was a hypothetical psychopath, you keep trying to draw a connection that doesn’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm only acknowledging the fact that in order to participate in this conversation (or any conversation for that matter) you must necessarily be alive (and conscious).
Yes, and I’m asking so what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, and my reason why is something that I’ve stressed many times so let’s see how well you’ve been paying attention, how about you take a guess as to why my answer is no (BTW I plan on giving you the answer regardless just trying to have a little fun here).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No one involved in the conversation is a nihilist.
Boy does this argument sound familiar, I have to ask because I’m genuinely concerned, is going around in a circle a goal for you in this discussion? Because that’s what you started by saying that, do you want me bring back up my previous post that’s responsive to that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, a hypothetical psychopath cannot survive without other hypothetical people.
And I’m asking what’s the point of bringing that up unless your trying to argue that we have to live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And, the hypothetical psychopath is ALSO alive.
Not if there without other humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But you and I weren’t the narrative, the narrative was a hypothetical psychopath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly so why do you bring up life as an argument?
Created: