Yes, I said that morality is relative AND i also said that morality is subjective BECAUSE it's the same idea...I was literally just explaining it in more than one way. What exactly is the fallacy here? My statements mean the same thing because that is what my argument is, I simply explained it from multiple different angles: 1) morality is relative, 2) morality is subjective, and 3) morality is made up. They mean the same thing because the argument is the same: morality is not objective. What wasn't clear about that?
Secondly, your claim:
And you have said you do not believe in God because God lacks any evidence, but that's again begging the question, you have just restated your position without providing evidence for it.
is laughably against all argumentative rules of logic. If YOU claim that something is real, then the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the empirical evidence to prove, or even support, that it does actually exist. Without any evidence to support something, there is no reason to even bother assuming it exists in the first place. That is how evidence works, even on an argumentative basis. I do not believe any gods are real because there is no evidence to support that one actually exists, just as I do not believe in unicorns or fairies because there is no evidence to support they exist, and if YOU want to claim otherwise then the burden of proof is on YOU. You are the one assuming a god exists to begin with, so it is on YOU to prove that your assumption is even worth taking seriously.
इस टिप्पणी का उत्तर देने वाले पहले व्यक्ति बनें।