Lesbians leading the way in eugenics

[Maniac]

For certain things. There are limitations to both reason and empiricism. Empiricism requires the proper tools and the proper understanding of them to obtain reliable results. Without the proper tools, empiricism cannot do much at all.

Reason is broader in that it doesn't require any equipment whatsoever. However, the conclusions postulated by reason have less force than those proven by empirical means.

What you said after "For certain things." is a non-sequitur to "For certain things." and changes nothing to the vailidity of my statement that reason and empiricism are the only reliable tools to acquire knowledge.

This is an assumption that we are testing. How can we prove that morality does not have an absolute basis? We can't just reach agreement here and then move on.

You need to prove something exists (an absolute basis). I don't need to prove nothing exists.

I'd argue that morality ought to be accessible to reason, though it should not be defined by reason. Parts of it are governed by reason, and other parts of it are not, from our current understanding of reason.

What you feel ought to be, is irrelevant when trying to acquire knowledge on the nature of things.

I'm not making an empirical clais.

How is "X exists" not an empirical claim?

My response to you should have indicated this quite clearly. I'm making quite the opposite. I'm claiming that knowledge of God is entirely outside the empirical realm.

Which makes it unreliable "knowledge", and thus useless for figuring out how the universe works.

However, I'm also arguing that something can be just as valid and true even if it is outside empirical means.

You state no arguments to support that argument.

No, quite the opposite. They are asking the question, "how do I know X to be wrong?" with the answer that their conscience tells them so. This isn't an empirical observation. It's not even an argument through reason. They are arguing that conscience helps them make moral decisions.

And as I pointed out, that makes such people nothing more than irrational morons.

I'd argue that this is a weakness of both. You can't reconcile 2 with 3. The solution is therefore 1, because it explains this problem.

You can't reconcile 1 with 2, therefore the solution is 3.

What kind of retarded "logic" is that? Seriously, your claim that 2 and 3 can't both be true at the same time, and now your claim that this somehow would mean that 2 and 3 individually can't be true either, shows you don't even comprehend the most basic logic. Which makes a rational discussion impossible.