I would first like to point out that "emotion" is not the opposite of logic. That kind of "logic vs emotion" mentality is incredibly silly and often just leads people to ignorantly assume that their own emotional beliefs are somehow "not emotional" but simply based on "facts and logic" alone.
Sure, in terms of what we consider a "good/sound argument", yes. Again, the laws… Read more of logic are still merely the most basic of baselines for establishing objectivity within an argument, but "reasoning correctly" is still an incredibly odd way to phrase this. There are many different ways to argue, and not all of them are "correct" (whatever that even means to you).Are you thinking of "correct reasoning" as like a formatting thing or something? What's an example of "correct" vs "incorrect" reasoning to you?
History demonstrates that it is the tendency of humanity to be irrational and emotional...
Based on what? "Irrational" according to whom? Again, what are you considering "irrational" vs "rational" here, and what does being rational even have to do with the laws of logic? If I spend money on something I enjoy, instead of saving that money...is that "irrational"? What is the argument there? What laws of logic does "being irrational" supposedly violate? It feels like you have taken this so far off the issue that we're not even referring to the same things anymore.
I cannot but express dismay that you believe morality is some subjective, relativistic convention contrived by man.
Because it is. Morality is literally nothing more than the personal belief system of what each and every individual personally believes is justified or not. What exactly is objective about that?
That is literally the same logic Adolf Hitler's regime was built upon – Darwinian morality of survival of the fittest, perpetuation of the "favoured race" and extermination of those deemed unfit or unfavored.
What you are describing is simply "social darwinism" and "eugenics", and is not even tangentially related to what we were talking about. I'm not even sure how you think this argument fits into this topic? Morality being subjective means that people have their own beliefs and justifications for whatever it is that they think "good" and "bad" are. Everything that you, or I, or Hitler, or anybody else believe to be "good" or "bad" is nothing more than our own personal opinions...that's what morality being subjective means. This isn't an "ideology", it's just how personal values work; some people will believe things are good that you think are bad, and some people will believe things are bad that you think are good. Neither of you are "right" or "wrong", you just believe different things, based on whatever sets of premises you believe in. Morals are just opinions.
This twisted ideology has resulted in hundreds of millions of worldwide deaths and if that is not self-evidently wrong to you, then you have rejected all premises of decency and humanity for a cruel and depraved ideology of murder and destruction.
Again, what "ideology" are you talking about? If you're referring to Naziism, then yes I believe that is morally wrong. If you're referring to genocide or eugenics or fascism, then yes I believe those things are morally wrong and unjust. There are a lot of things I believe are wrong and unjust that you probably think otherwise, and vice versa. As you pointed out, I believe that capitalism is morally wrong and unjust, yet you disagree, but those are both simply our own subjective opinions. There is no way to measure "wrongness" or "rightness" or "good" or "bad" because they AREN'T objective. They're opinions.
I, however, believe that God decided what is right and wrong...
And that's your own personal belief. Again, that's not objective. Your set of morals relies solely on your personal belief in the premises that 1) there is a god, 2) your god actually said what you think it did, 3) you should accept what your god says, etc. Anyone who doesn't also believe in your premises has absolutely no reason to accept your conclusions either. Everyone has some kind of basis for WHY they hold the moral conclusions they do, and yours personally is "god said so". Obviously, not everyone believes in your god, so YOUR premises are not accepted by everyone, therefore your conclusions can subsequently only be validated by the acceptance of your premises. You can make whatever logical arguments you want to make based on your premises, but because not everyone accepts your premises, they don't have to accept your morals either. Everyone can make a logical argument for their own morality, because we all have our own premises that we accept. Most importantly, just because you believe that your god says so, doesn't make any of that objective...that's still just YOUR belief.
...thus creating basic moral laws like "do not murder" and "do not steal" that mankind used to universally agree upon...
You understand that people can believe that murder or theft is wrong without believing in your god or its "moral laws", right? In fact, these common moral beliefs likely came from the fact that humans have always been incredibly social animals, even before we were humans, and our empathy and care for other members of our species/community is what led us to thrive and prosper. The very concept of morality evolved as a social advantage for our early communal ancestors to survive together.
Without objective morality, you have no basis upon which to enforce your worldview or utopian vision upon others, nor, I may add, any right.
That is what laws are for..? Did you not know that? Because morality is subjective, groups of people needed a way to decide which set of morals would and would not be allowed in society...aka laws. If everyone could just do whatever they personally thought was okay, then anything would be permissible, so we created laws and governmental power structures as a means of determining, and enforcing, which things we would allow and not allow in society. It is BECAUSE morality is subjective that we even needed to do this in the first place.
Personally, I argue that the best means of deciding these things is via democracy, in which every member of the group/society has an equal say in the decision-making, thus the outcome is the most likely to be favorable for the most people (this is an incredibly oversimplified explanation btw). We have laws against murder not because it is objective, but simply because the vast majority of people (or at least, decision-makers) accept that it shouldn't be allowed.
I asked you why we can trust inventions invented by humans using their senses when the senses themselves are not reliable...
Because they produce repeatable results...that's what empirical scientific data relies on. We trust them because they work, consistently, in every given situation. If they didn't, then the tool would obviously not be reliable. That is definitionally what it means for something to be reliable: we can rely on it to produce consistent and universal results for anyone. Your senses cannot provide that because your senses are exclusive to your own personal experience, and cannot be used consistently, or even at all, by others. This should not be complicated, unless you're trying to bring solipsism or something into this...
...you just begged the question...
What question do you think I'm begging here? Every time I correct one of your misunderstandings of a concept, you then turn around and claim that I am somehow the one committing the fallacy. If YOU are going to insist that logic, morality, etc. are somehow objective, then it is on YOU to provide the empirical evidence to prove an objective metric of measure. And I''l give you a preemptive tip just in case: "god said so" is not at all objective OR empirical.
...without once confronting the logic hurdle I presented to you in my prior comments.
You have not provided any "hurdles". All you have done so far is completely misunderstand what logic is and does, as well as what morality is and does, and then pose an argument based on your misunderstood assumption.
And if you believe that truths can only be objective when they observed by tools, with what tool have you observed this empiricist principle?
I don't even understand how to answer this without knowing what you think "truths" are, as I believe I've already asked you this once before, without getting an answer. Is "my name is VulcanMan6" a truth? Is "it is 35° outside" a truth? Is "murder is bad" a truth? Is "evolution is real" a truth? Heck, I'm sure that there are plenty of things that I would argue are "true" that you would disagree with, so how am I supposed to know what YOU are referring to as "a truth" here..? You argue as though nothing is subjective in the universe, which is blatantly untrue, and it ruins the basis for so many of your arguments like this. Subjective things don't have tools to measure them with, because they fundamentally cannot be objectively measured...that's part of what it means to BE subjective. Again, if YOU are the one arguing that these things are objective, then YOU must come forward with some kind of objective means to prove that.
