Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I prefer having faith in things that can be proven, if I press the issue. Like, really press. Faith in things with a tangible, identifiable effect. It's why I have faith that radar waves are real, but feng shui isn't.

Here's the problem with that: you have faith that they were proven. It is only in your subjective opinion that the subjective assessment of the information you are provided is magically objective. Even the tests themselves are subjective: the tools selected, the methods used, the reasoning of such data. From whence came that leap from the obviously subjective to the objective?

It is a massive leap of faith. You have only been conditioned to think it is something in which you can solidly believe.

As an existential nihilist, I thought you'd be more about that approach. I now have to go into the corner and weirdly hum to by myself.

Edit - I read the rest of your post (especially the part about morality). It would seem, yet again, you were already aware of the above and I was wrong to think I am alone in that corner. Dude...stop doing that. At least let me have some sort of victory. uhuh 🙁

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I like that last line. It is the template to the answer of every moral quandary. Bear with me here as I attempt to summarize my viewpoint on why morality's such a b*tch:

Morality is the name applied to the subjective preferences of individuals. People prefer what benefits them on some level or another, and defining your morality is all about defining what pleases you psychologically. Moral=beneficial. Immoral=detrimental. The only argument I've heard that attempts to solidify morality as a genuine, objective, incontrovertible, universal constant is where a deity is invoked. They can't prove morality, so they bring in a god that can also not be proven (nor disproven). It is beyond our abilities to provide a shred of evidence for Universal Morality, or Universal Purpose, or God. But there is a ton of evidence to prove your own preferences.

I know you're about to echo the "what is proof/knowledge" view. But my subscription to Nihilism Weekly ends with the Existential and Moral editions. I've never found there's any practical application in the rest. The issue of 'what is reality', 'is knowledge real' and the like are questions whose answers travel in endless circles. They ask a lot, but none of it can be proven--including the demand that existence of proof be proven (I shit you not, I've been asked to do that by one very priggish college kid). I've been at the receiving end of enough "Well what is knowledge, anyway. How can you prove that what you know exists." Someone demanding a piece of specific knowledge that will prove all knowledge exists. A paradox. An endless circle of answer-counter-answer-counter. The query inside a solution inside a query, like an eternal Russian doll. Whatever we learn about reality can (and always is) rebuffed with a further demand that said explanation is indeed within reality. Useless arguments. And I'm not making a jab at you, by the way, but rather at those who think epistemological and metaphysical statements prove their point. Which is ironic, considering their stance on the nature of "proof".

I said before that my behaviour and choices in life are based off of what I experience. I have never experienced what I just phrased as "genuine, objective, incontrovertible, Universal Morality". Nor have I experienced Purpose. Nor God. But I have experienced (and witnessed) subjective preferences. And I have experienced (been given a lecture on) why that person's preference is more important to him (her) than anyone else's preference. I have experienced (debated on) why execution is moral to someone, and immoral to another. Same with wars, drugs, piracy, theft, fraud, name-calling, lying, sweeping things under the rug (metaphorically), and any variable of any issue under the sun. So many opinions on so many kinds of issues--all of them about whether something is morally wrong or not. Subjective preferences galore, but not a whit of objective morality to be found.

Ditto for Purpose. And God.

No, that's definitely not a jab at me. I fully agree with your point about them thinking an Objective Entity (God) somehow proves their point while pretending that proof is not provable.

"Well, nothing is provable and all morals are subjective. Alright, let's go to Church, now. God proves my moral choices are right."

WTF?

But, yes, ditto to the rest, too.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I... think that's all I have to say on it. I think... Can't quite seem to scoop up any more.

You admit that the subjective sum of your experiences filtered through your subjective reasoning lens. That is the absolute best anyone could ever hope to get anyone to admit in any moral debate. There is no more final or inexorable admission to any sort of moral debate than to admit that. It is from that seemingly benign position that all of us should hope from which to build common morals.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Pff, typical Chazz.

Even though it is a parody, it was still so damn annoying that I could not make it through the vid. pained