Swap your roles

[OldTrees]

@Daxx
Ah. I understand a little better.
So you know of solid proofs borne solely from the nature of the universe and not atheistic premises against souls, free will and afterlives?
If not then
The existence of free will would permit objective morality
The existence of souls would permit more than material people
and the existence of a non material afterlife would permit the existence of a deity that does not interact with the material world

[Daxx]

@Daxx
Ah. I understand a little better.
So you know of solid proofs borne solely from the nature of the universe and not atheistic premises against souls, free will and afterlives?
If not then
The existence of free will would permit objective morality
The existence of souls would permit more than material people
and the existence of a non material afterlife would permit the existence of a deity that does not interact with the material world

But proposing that those things exist requires proof, and I cannot provide any. Thus I would be making a logical error. It would be falling into the same trap as many theists: presuming that I can assert things into existence without any evidence to support those assertions.

[OldTrees]

@Daxx
Ah. I understand a little better.
So you know of solid proofs borne solely from the nature of the universe and not atheistic premises against souls, free will and afterlives?
If not then
The existence of free will would permit objective morality
The existence of souls would permit more than material people
and the existence of a non material afterlife would permit the existence of a deity that does not interact with the material world

But proposing that those things exist requires proof, and I cannot provide any. Thus I would be making a logical error. It would be falling into the same trap as many theists: presuming that I can assert things into existence without any evidence to support those assertions.

Have you heard of a premise?
1+1=2 assuming the premises of 1,2,+ and =.
No argument is void of premises.
While most atheist belief that they should adopt the null hypothesis outside of science that premise is not universal nor is the disbelief of that position restricted to theists.

[Daxx]

Did I ever tell you about the invisible pink unicorn I keep in my garage?

Be serious, OldTrees. You cannot actually expect a person to start arguing from premises that they consider unsupported and to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I could make an argument predicated on the existence of a soul quite easily, but all someone would need to do is say "what proof do you have for souls" and the entire thing goes out the window because I have none.

[OldTrees]

Did I ever tell you about the invisible pink unicorn I keep in my garage?

Be serious, OldTrees. You cannot actually expect a person to start arguing from premises that they consider unsupported and to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I could make an argument predicated on the existence of a soul quite easily, but all someone would need to do is say "what proof do you have for souls" and the entire thing goes out the window because I have none.

You have clearly stated why Atheists and Theists are not able to convince each other (different sets of base premises that differ on premises beyond logic + universe).

As such then this phase of the exercise is not for you because you demand a worldview have an argument that can hold under the premises of another worldview.

I have only been mentioning defend for a reason. I find that offensive proofs are inherently flawed over such a large premise gap. Defensive proofs suffer less from such gaps but do not prove anything new.

PS: As for the imperceptible unicorn, it is a logically consistent theory that does not contradict reality thus I must consider the idea. I have no reason to believe (lack of proof) nor disbelieve (lack of disproof). If the existence were as important as morality then I would spend a lifetime on the question.

[az4rel]

so if im an absurdist what showld I become.

[OldTrees]

so if im an absurdist what showld I become.

It depends upon your response to the absurd.
You could try to imagine a world view that doesn't believe in the absurd. So a similar situation to the agnostic should take.

[az4rel]

so if im an absurdist what showld I become.

It depends upon your response to the absurd.
You could try to imagine a world view that doesn't believe in the absurd. So a similar situation to the agnostic should take.

so a world where I dont make up my own gods and care about things that dont really affect my life.
Ok, thats a tough one, but i'll try. i'll choose idiot path and be an atheist.

god don't exist because we have I have not seen him, also im intelligent and theist are stupid.

mmm also if a being of the myth of god existed he cant be within a stable body or form as he is god, he is present in all things on the universe 'cause if he's not he would be an incomplete being as us therefore not a god. and if god is the universe that means there really is not a god since we are the universe and we are not god, not our will is his. or something like that.

[Neopergoss]

Did I ever tell you about the invisible pink unicorn I keep in my garage?

Be serious, OldTrees. You cannot actually expect a person to start arguing from premises that they consider unsupported and to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I could make an argument predicated on the existence of a soul quite easily, but all someone would need to do is say "what proof do you have for souls" and the entire thing goes out the window because I have none.

You have clearly stated why Atheists and Theists are not able to convince each other (different sets of base premises that differ on premises beyond logic + universe).

As such then this phase of the exercise is not for you because you demand a worldview have an argument that can hold under the premises of another worldview.

I have only been mentioning defend for a reason. I find that offensive proofs are inherently flawed over such a large premise gap. Defensive proofs suffer less from such gaps but do not prove anything new.

PS: As for the imperceptible unicorn, it is a logically consistent theory that does not contradict reality thus I must consider the idea. I have no reason to believe (lack of proof) nor disbelieve (lack of disproof). If the existence were as important as morality then I would spend a lifetime on the question.

But the existence of his pink unicorn is extremely important! So you really should spend a lifetime on the question. You see, this unicorn will reward everyone who wears green on December 12, 2013 with eternal life and happiness. I know because it told me telepathically. So keep considering it.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Daxx. The only premises he's so insistent upon are basic logical principles.

[OldTrees]

Did I ever tell you about the invisible pink unicorn I keep in my garage?

Be serious, OldTrees. You cannot actually expect a person to start arguing from premises that they consider unsupported and to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I could make an argument predicated on the existence of a soul quite easily, but all someone would need to do is say "what proof do you have for souls" and the entire thing goes out the window because I have none.

You have clearly stated why Atheists and Theists are not able to convince each other (different sets of base premises that differ on premises beyond logic + universe).

As such then this phase of the exercise is not for you because you demand a worldview have an argument that can hold under the premises of another worldview.

I have only been mentioning defend for a reason. I find that offensive proofs are inherently flawed over such a large premise gap. Defensive proofs suffer less from such gaps but do not prove anything new.

PS: As for the imperceptible unicorn, it is a logically consistent theory that does not contradict reality thus I must consider the idea. I have no reason to believe (lack of proof) nor disbelieve (lack of disproof). If the existence were as important as morality then I would spend a lifetime on the question.

But the existence of his pink unicorn is extremely important! So you really should spend a lifetime on the question. You see, this unicorn will reward everyone who wears green on December 12, 2013 with eternal life and happiness. I know because it told me telepathically. So keep considering it.
not an important reason. If it concerning the moral imperative then and only then would I spend a lifetime on it.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Daxx. The only premises he's so insistent upon are basic logical principles.

Assuming a moral imperative could exist (fair assumption), you would prefer to ignore it due to the null hypothesis rather than try to obey the potential moral imperative despite not knowing it?

[Neopergoss]

Did I ever tell you about the invisible pink unicorn I keep in my garage?

Be serious, OldTrees. You cannot actually expect a person to start arguing from premises that they consider unsupported and to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I could make an argument predicated on the existence of a soul quite easily, but all someone would need to do is say "what proof do you have for souls" and the entire thing goes out the window because I have none.

You have clearly stated why Atheists and Theists are not able to convince each other (different sets of base premises that differ on premises beyond logic + universe).

As such then this phase of the exercise is not for you because you demand a worldview have an argument that can hold under the premises of another worldview.

I have only been mentioning defend for a reason. I find that offensive proofs are inherently flawed over such a large premise gap. Defensive proofs suffer less from such gaps but do not prove anything new.

PS: As for the imperceptible unicorn, it is a logically consistent theory that does not contradict reality thus I must consider the idea. I have no reason to believe (lack of proof) nor disbelieve (lack of disproof). If the existence were as important as morality then I would spend a lifetime on the question.

But the existence of his pink unicorn is extremely important! So you really should spend a lifetime on the question. You see, this unicorn will reward everyone who wears green on December 12, 2013 with eternal life and happiness. I know because it told me telepathically. So keep considering it.
not an important reason. If it concerning the moral imperative then and only then would I spend a lifetime on it.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Daxx. The only premises he's so insistent upon are basic logical principles.

Assuming a moral imperative could exist (fair assumption), you would prefer to ignore it due to the null hypothesis rather than try to obey the potential moral imperative despite not knowing it?

There are infinitely many moral imperatives that could exist. It could be that I'm an insane person whose world is a complete hallucination. Perhaps what I perceive as typing is actually, in the real world, murdering countless innocents. It can't be disproved, but should I worry about it? Of course not! Similarly, I'm not too worried about Pascal's Gambit, and I don't ring bells all the time so angels can get their wings  Really, belief must have a rational basis or absolutely any and all arguments are equally valid, as Daxx has already stated.

[OldTrees]

Did I ever tell you about the invisible pink unicorn I keep in my garage?

Be serious, OldTrees. You cannot actually expect a person to start arguing from premises that they consider unsupported and to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I could make an argument predicated on the existence of a soul quite easily, but all someone would need to do is say "what proof do you have for souls" and the entire thing goes out the window because I have none.

You have clearly stated why Atheists and Theists are not able to convince each other (different sets of base premises that differ on premises beyond logic + universe).

As such then this phase of the exercise is not for you because you demand a worldview have an argument that can hold under the premises of another worldview.

I have only been mentioning defend for a reason. I find that offensive proofs are inherently flawed over such a large premise gap. Defensive proofs suffer less from such gaps but do not prove anything new.

PS: As for the imperceptible unicorn, it is a logically consistent theory that does not contradict reality thus I must consider the idea. I have no reason to believe (lack of proof) nor disbelieve (lack of disproof). If the existence were as important as morality then I would spend a lifetime on the question.

But the existence of his pink unicorn is extremely important! So you really should spend a lifetime on the question. You see, this unicorn will reward everyone who wears green on December 12, 2013 with eternal life and happiness. I know because it told me telepathically. So keep considering it.
not an important reason. If it concerning the moral imperative then and only then would I spend a lifetime on it.
Sorry, but I have to agree with Daxx. The only premises he's so insistent upon are basic logical principles.

Assuming a moral imperative could exist (fair assumption), you would prefer to ignore it due to the null hypothesis rather than try to obey the potential moral imperative despite not knowing it?

There are infinitely many moral imperatives that could exist. It could be that I'm an insane person whose world is a complete hallucination. Perhaps what I perceive as typing is actually, in the real world, murdering countless innocents. It can't be disproved, but should I worry about it? Of course not! Similarly, I'm not too worried about Pascal's Gambit, and I don't ring bells all the time so angels can get their wings  Really, belief must have a rational basis or absolutely any and all arguments are equally valid, as Daxx has already stated.

Perhaps I am blind but I did not see an argument here against trying to be moral despite not knowing what is moral or if moral exists. Also I agree that belief in a specific moral theory should be based on rationality but I do not believe the null hypothesis of "there is no objective morality" would be suitable a suitable assumption given the question. The hypothesis "this opinion about an objective morality is incorrect" is more suitable in my opinion.
If you disagree please explain why the null hypothesis is suitable.