Something something leftist infighting

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Because the only way the alternative exists is if we assume the supernatural, and in lieu of evidence to support that, we are unable to do so.

    • galanthus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I seem to be perfectly able to do so: objective morality is supernatural, but what makes you think it is reason enough to dismiss it?

      We assume some things to exist without proof all the time, and I am not even talking about how we assume the external world exists, but about things like dark matter and the Higgs bosom. Why is an assumption of the existence of a supernatural thing different in terms of credibility from an assumption of the existence of something that exists in nature.

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        What the fuck are you even talking about? You’re beyond grasping at straws if you’re comparing living life according to a concrete moral code based on nothing with the theoretical existence of the Higgs-bosom, which is absolutely not even remotely treated as sacred, and at this point I have to assume you are simply trying to waste my time, because this is fucking stupid.

        • galanthus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Could say the same to you.

          If morality is subjective, all morality is based on nothing, that is rather the point.

          I am not comparing “living according to a manufactured moral code” to the Higgs boson, this is both a misrepresentation of my argument and a category error.