You not being able to find a reason to assign beliefs not grounded in empirical evidence any moral value is far from proof. You are still asking us to concede a point for which you have provided no empirical evidence.
You are telling me "x has value". I am asking "on what basis does x have value?". No answer.
Many persons engage in charitable activities due to their religious convictions. These convictions cannot be demonstrated to be true by use of empirical evidence, but they result in a moral good, anyway. So there's a nice, neat counterexample.
You can also contribute to charity because spoon waggle. Does spoon waggle therefore "result in a moral good"? Morality is a human construct. If we assign charity as a good act, we have reason for doing so. It's the act and its benefits that are good, but it's still up to us to even define "good". Without empirical evidence, you wouldn't even be capable of identifying an act as charitable, because you would necessarily be incapable of determining whether it is beneficial regardless of standards you chose.
That matters too. Harmful actions can be and are taken with intentions that are not harmful.
Google "natural rights" dude
"Natural rights?" Haha, no. That's not how physics works. No matter what measure you want to use, there is no evidence for "natural rights" dictated by physical reality. They are dictated by people. A simple measure of what laws a child is born into in various countries of the world shows hard evidence that people are not born with "equal rights", and there is no clear worldwide agreement as to what rights are "natural" (I'll be charitable and assume you mean rights that should theoretically be social norms everywhere, but clearly aren't, rather than legit claiming rights as an actual property of reality). The fact of the matter is that a child born in northern Nigeria and a child born in China have different rights, both per the legal definition and their own society's social norms. These are different from the "natural" rights you enjoy, and real evidence is pretty clear on this.
It is questionable to present a supposedly unfalsifiable belief system that tells other people how they should act. The burden of evidence is not on me to refute such a statement, it is on you to show why other people should act according to your stated beliefs rather than their own. If you don't have that evidence, you have no case that your own value system is better.
May I ask if your stance that beliefs not grounded by empirical evidence are either immoral or amoral based on careful observation? If so, do you have a study published?
As human beings we have to define morality/good/evil somehow. I've never seen anybody manage to demonstrate an absolute morality external to real world evidence. Even you're not. You used a physical example (charity) with implications of measurable real-world results...results trivially measured by empirical evidence.
If you can't trace actions to real world outcomes then what's the basis for evaluating an action as good in the first place? And if you are tracing actions to real world outcomes, how are you getting away from evidence?
He said, which has been quoted 3 times in the last few posts now, that there is no reason to assign any moral value to a belief founded outside of empirical evidence. That is insane.
Acting on beliefs inconsistent with reality is insane. There is no coherent reasoning that allows a conclusion that relying on real evidence is insane.
The inner dialogue usually goes something like this: "I'm smarter than everyone else so the things I believe are based on facts and reason and anyone who disagrees with me about anything, at any time, is clouded by emotion." The playbook has been wide open for years. Step one: argue in bad faith. Step two: continue to do so until you frustrate your opponent into an angry and/or emotional response. Step three: declare victory as your opponents are obviously hysterical.
Ad hominem and straw. I made arguments, and it should not be impossible to address them properly if I'm mistaken.
)
