Originally Posted by VermisciousKnid View Post
That's a fine example of argumentum ad absurdism. A really good and stunning one.
I said this and only this: morality and physics (by which I mean anything having to do with matter) occupy different non-intersecting domains. You can't use one to infer anything about the other. If you do you are a kook.
I made no statement about the equivalence of all moral positions.
Like I said, IF
you are claiming morality is subjective--something others here are
claiming--then my comment logically follows. With that said, for those who are advocating subjective morality, my argument stands. If you are not, feel free to ignore it, you need not defend against it.
You are limiting logic to merely deductive, and ignoring the inductive. Inductive reasoning is primarily how morality and ethics are explored, and is used in the sciences as well.
Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy is what we call poisoning the well. Now, we can actually test your claim that morality and science don't intersect, and find it lacking. Science is merely the attempt to describe and understand the world we operate in. Morality is a description of the actions we take in that world. Take murder for example. When we describe the killing of a man, we are describing the scientific aspects, and then morality as how we interpret that. When we say "murder is wrong" we are saying something scientific, and something more. If the two did not intersect, one would have nothing to say about the other.
I'm enjoying your ridiculous line of reasoning, VK, because if we take it to its logical conclusion, and presume it is true, it confirms for the theists that they are right: "man cannot be moral without God's word." And it is absolutely against all the atheists who claim "We can be moral without religion!" If what you are saying were true, morality, should it exist, could only come from God or gods, and could never be explored by an atheist. I have a feeling that a lot of lefties will take issue with this.
ETA: Oh, I found the part that made me respond to you RE: Relative morals. You flat out said:
That proves that morality is relative.
Which again, would be a contradicting statement, if you believed it, because you believe that they can't intersect, therefore can prove nothing about each other if your premise were true. Like I said, the problem with Moral Relativism is that it is inherently self-defeating.