Religion vs Atheism Book 2

[Stubby]

Evidence of what? Science is a system of knowledge that describes the laws of nature and attempts to verify them via experimental evidence. Human actions (whether they happen to be based on religion and affecting non-believers or not) can use the knowledge provided by science as an input, can ignore it or can even deliberately be based on the assumption that the knowledge is wrong -- it makes no difference whatsoever to science. They're not even in the same category.

This means that you can justify someone's actions, disregarding scientific fact, even if those actions harm others, "because religion".  Truly, this is where your logic takes you.  So think about whether your logic is sound, please.

[Rorshach]

You'll probably be shocked to find out that I disagree with your conclusion, Stubby.

The problem with your rephrasing is that it removes the conflict you need, and which you rely on for your conclusion. Seeing as the worldview in question was scientifically informed, there isn't a conflict here per se. Instead, there is a conflict between differing worldviews as to what constitutes a life, and what should be done in a case such as this where, given the definition of "life" existing in the law, there was two lives at stake.

Sure, the law probably contributed to her death. But the reasons for it doing so didn't rely on a science vs religion-conflict. 

[Daemrion]

1. I never said it was always good. In your experience, are you always correct?  On everything?

2. No.  I accept that there is no evidence that there is a god.  If we are just the product of random chance and circumstance, so what?  That doesn't prove there is a god.

3. You are dodging the question, Daemrion.  Because according to the logic you expressed above, you should worship her if she turns out to be real. So, again, if it turns out that Kali is true, would you worship her?

5. I don't believe there is a place called hell.  I know Christians think that death isn't the end.  But they have never proven that to be the case either.  I accept that death is the end for me.  That's why it is more than just "sad".  Your casual dismissal of what is the only existence ever for people who don't believe in god is scary.

6. In other words, because kids are selfish they deserve to die. Wow.  Just wow.

1. No. I accept that I can and have made mistakes. And if Christianity is wrong, then I happily accept that I made a colossal mistake.

2. There either is a god or there is not a god. Regardless of evidence or what we ourselves personally believe. So I ask you, is your position that there is no god, or there is a god? God either exists or does not exist. Pick your position. 

3. I'd already answered that in relation to Islam. If Hinduism turned out to be true, I'd worship Hindu gods. You should be able to draw your conclusion from that.

You dodged my question about why you think it is better to deny the truth than to adjust to it. 

It's like a blind person denying that traffic lights are red, amber and green or denying that trains run on tracks. Just because they can't see it (and hence having evidence), doesn't mean that it isn't true.

It's like if GRRM, the creator of ASOIAF said in ASOIAF that Ned Stark's head was chopped off, would you go around saying that his head was not chopped off? That would be fanfiction.

5. Again, there is either existence after death, or there is not. Regardless of yours, mine or anyone else's belief. The state of existence after death either is, or is not. So, if there is actually an existence after death, just because you don't believe in it, doesn't make it false. And if there is not, then everyone is in the same boat as not having existence after death.

6. God created the world and everything in it. I guess I've repeated myself too many times. Either God is true or not true. (irrespective of evidence or our belief). If God is true, then his actions in Noah's Ark are already fully explained and justified in the Bible. If God is true, then it is true that children have a sinful nature and rightly deserve judgment. Sinful Nature is not merely selfishness, it is manifested in selfishness, lying, deceit, murder, stealing etc..., but trying to explain sinful nature to a person who does not even accept the concepts of sin is quite difficult.

For all we know, the world in Noah's time could have been a world of Joffrey's. Certainly, if the Bible is true, it states that that the wickedness of the human race was great (and that includes all of the human race including the children bar Noah and the others that were saved). 

In a way, it's like GRRM erasing the five year gap that he originally intended to have. As the creator of ASOIAF, it is his right to erase that gap and whatever had been planned for it regardless of our feelings as readers. It's a thing called sovereignty.

[Stubby]

1. No. I accept that I can and have made mistakes.

2. There either is a god or there is not a god. Regardless of evidence or what we ourselves personally believe. So I ask you, is your position that there is no god, or there is a god? God either exists or does not exist. Pick your position, otherwise you are just fence sitting.

3. I'd already answered that in relation to Islam. If Hinduism turned out to be true, I'd worship Hindu gods. You should be able to draw your conclusion from that.

You dodged my question about why you think it is better to deny the truth than to adjust to it.

It's like if GRRM, the creator of ASOIAF said in ASOIAF that Ned Stark's head was chopped off, would you go around saying that his head was not chopped off? That would be fanfiction.

5. Again, there is either existence after death, or there is not. Regardless of yours, mine or anyone else's belief. The state of existence after death either is, or is not.

6. God created the world and everything in it. I guess I've repeated myself too many times. Either God is true or not true. (irrespective of evidence or our belief). If God is true, then his actions in Noah's Ark are already fully explained and justified in the Bible. If God is true, then it is true that children have a sinful nature and rightly deserve judgment. Sinful Nature is not merely selfishness, it is manifested in selfishness, lying, deceit, murder, stealing etc..., but trying to explain sinful nature to a person who does not even accept the concepts of sin is quite difficult.

For all we know, the world in Noah's time could have been a world of Joffrey's. Certainly, if the Bible is true, it states that that the wickedness of the human race was great (and that includes all of the human race including the children bar Noah and the others that were saved). 

In a way, it's like GRRM erasing the five year gap that he originally intended to have. As the creator of ASOIAF, it is his right to erase that gap and whatever had been planned for it regardless of our feelings as readers. It's a thing called sovereignty.

1. OK. So when you made mistakes, did that lead to disagreements?  Are you suggesting that everyone who disagrees with the bible is wrong?

2. That is not a valid proposition, because you are the one asserting that there has to be a god. I make no claim that there has to be a god.  I am not fence sitting.  I am taking the view that I do not believe there is a god. I am saying that I don't know if there is a god or not, but I do not believe there is.  For your question to be valid, you would first have to prove that there needs to be a god.

3. So would you worship Kali or not? You claimed that you would accept the truth and follow Islam if it were true and that you were wrong about Christianity.  I am asking you if that applies to non-Abrahamaic religion as well.  I didn't dodge your question, because I told you that I would not worship your version of god because I think it is a being that is not worthy of worship because if it were real it would be unspeakably evil.

The GRRM comparison is a good one.  Because the bible is more likely than not a novel, IMO.  That some people took a little too seriously.

4. (sic 5 due to my earlier transcription error) I agree that there is either life or death for the human species.  However, there is no evidence that any particular human can be alive after it dies.  None.  Prove it, and you will get a Nobel Prize.  There is only this desperate belief among the religious that they will somehow live again after their brains stop receiving enough oxygen.  Without a brain, without the oxygen to keep that brain alive.  Without organs to help that oxygen keep flowing etc etc.  All you are doing is projecting your personal belief and attempting to reinforce it in your mind.  You are, of course, free to believe that.  But don't presume that others should believe the same things as you.

6. This paragraph deserves to broken down sentence by sentence.

God created the world and everything in it.

Prove it, or stop asserting it as truth.

If you say "I believe that god created the world and everything in it" you will get no argument from me that you believe it.  But if you are going to make a positive claim, you must prove it.

I guess I've repeated myself too many times.

Repeating an incorrect position is not the same as making it correct.

Either God is true or not true. (irrespective of evidence or our belief).

Nope.  I explained with this a falsely limited choice above.

If God is true, then his actions in Noah's Ark are already fully explained and justified in the Bible.

Agreed.  That justification being that he was pissed off with his creation so he decided to destroy it and start again. Like a two-year old with his sand castle.  Except in god's case, he killed virtually every living thing in doing so. He chucked the most monumental tanty ever.  It's a pathetic justification. Do you think the ark story is a good children's morality play?  

If God is true, then it is true that children have a sinful nature and rightly deserve judgment.

It is highly ironic that Christians can accuse atheists of being amoral and yet say something like this out of the same mouth.

Sinful Nature is not merely selfishness, it is manifested in selfishness, lying, deceit, murder, stealing etc..., but trying to explain sinful nature to a person who does not even accept the concepts of sin is quite difficult.

It shouldn't be difficult.  After all, I'm supposed to do my best to avoid sin, right?  How the fuck can I do that if you can't even tell me what to avoid?  The more likely situation is that sin is just a concept that was made up by people who had no understanding of how the world worked.  They looked to blame someone for something and made up some rules.

Now, how about those animals and plants, Daemrion.  What sin did they commit that justified your god killing them as part of his tanty?

[Stubby]

You'll probably be shocked to find out that I disagree with your conclusion, Stubby.

The problem with your rephrasing is that it removes the conflict you need, and which you rely on for your conclusion. Seeing as the worldview in question was scientifically informed, there isn't a conflict here per se. Instead, there is a conflict between differing worldviews as to what constitutes a life, and what should be done in a case such as this where, given the definition of "life" existing in the law, there was two lives at stake.

Sure, the law probably contributed to her death. But the reasons for it doing so didn't rely on a science vs religion-conflict. 

Wow, you finally get it.

Religion says there were two lives at stake and science said one. viz conflict.

[TrueMetis]

Doesn't evolutionary theory hold that we can trace backwards from what we have now to the beginning of life?

Using evolutionary theory we can find that all life on earth descends from a common ancestor, how that common ancestor came into being is the domain of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution requires life to already exist, so it can't tell us about the beginning of life.

You pointed out that the difference between micro and macro evolution is timescale. I assumed that macro evolution would take longer than micro evolution (which I accept may be wrong). But that's the thing, if it takes longer shouldn't we have more evidence of it?

We do. Every fossil, every piece of DNA, every lab experiment screwing with fruit fly's, every vaccine, every antibiotic, etc. is evidence for evolution. (the last two being like how GPS prove relativity since a GPS wouldn't work without it)

Or to put it plainer -  how did life evolve to what we have today from the beginning. 

The descendants of any given organism vary from it and each other. Some will do better than others based on how well they are adapted to a given environment, over time these descendants can vary even more wildly until you have two or more organisms that while being descended from a common ancestor are so wildly different they aren't capable of interbreeding.

[Rorshach]

Wow, you finally get it.

Religion says there were two lives at stake and science said one. viz conflict.

Your claim, that a foetus isn't alive, is not one science is able to make. As far as I've seen, no-one has been able to make a distinction as to where life starts scientifically. If you have that proof stashed away somewhere, you should share. 

Otherwise, you've made another unsupported assertion.

[Gears of the Beast]

Funnily enough IIRC both the Talmud and Hadith hold that a fetus is not human until 40 days and 120 days respectively. 

[Stubby]

Your claim, that a foetus isn't alive, is not one science is able to make. As far as I've seen, no-one has been able to make a distinction as to where life starts scientifically. If you have that proof stashed away somewhere, you should share. 

Otherwise, you've made another unsupported assertion.

I didn't claim that a fetus is not alive. That was you misrepresenting me again. You seem to be fond of doing so.

My claim is that the patient is the mother and that means that she is 'one life'.  To be specific, she is the patient and she has a medical condition known as 'pregnancy'.

 

[Rorshach]

I didn't claim that a fetus is not alive. That was you misrepresenting me again. You seem to be fond of doing so.

My claim is that the patient is the mother and that means that she is 'one life'.  To be specific, she is the patient and she has a medical condition known as 'pregnancy'.

 

Wow, you finally get it.

Religion says there were two lives at stake and science said one. viz conflict.

[Stubby]

 

 

And?

[Rorshach]

And?

Odd question.

The Irish legislation was based on the idea that the foetus is a life. And that taking that life is wrong, morally. Therefore, it posits that in the case of mrs. Halappanavar, there were two lives at stake when she entered the hospital. Their judgement, wrongly, was that one of them was not in immidiate danger, and thus they waited.

Now, if you are going to make this into a religion vs. science example, you need to show that, scientifically speaking, the view that the foetus is a life is wrong. Otherwise, your statement that "science says one" is meaningless in response to my post. Also, you need to show that the foetus isn't a life is scientifically wrong to be able to continue claiming this as an example of religion vs. science.

[Stubby]

Odd question.

The Irish legislation was based on the idea that the foetus is a life. And that taking that life is wrong, morally. Therefore, it posits that in the case of mrs. Halappanavar, there were two lives at stake when she entered the hospital. Their judgement, wrongly, was that one of them was not in immidiate danger, and thus they waited.

Now, if you are going to make this into a religion vs. science example, you need to show that, scientifically speaking, the view that the foetus is a life is wrong. Otherwise, your statement that "science says one" is meaningless in response to my post. Also, you need to show that the foetus isn't a life is scientifically wrong to be able to continue claiming this as an example of religion vs. science.

No I don't.

Science says the patient is the woman.  She is the only one that the doctors can treat because if she dies or stops breathing for even a few minutes the fetus dies. If you dispute that you are in conflict with science.

The law was religious. In spite of real world scientific fact.

Therefore conflict. Despite your continual attempts to avoid admitting that religion has more conflicts with science than just creationism and/or cosmology.

[Rorshach]

No I don't.

Science says the patient is the woman.  She is the only one that the doctors can treat because if she dies or stops breathing for even a few minutes the fetus dies. If you dispute that you are in conflict with science.

The law was religious. In spite of real world scientific fact.

Therefore conflict. Despite your continual attempts to avoid admitting that religion has more conflicts with science than just creationism and/or cosmology.

Your framing is disingenous. The patient is the woman, but that's not a scientific fact. It's a definition, regardless of science. 

The bolded I've never argued. But it is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as the fetus aslo dies if it's aborted (assuming it's a life). So, if one is to save both lives, one has to save the mother. Sure. But ... how is it you argue they did not? As differing from what I have said already? You cannot argue that a scientifically informed worldview would lead to the mother being saved, as both worldviews are scientifically informed. What you have to do, then, is to argue that there only was one life at stake. But in doing so, you are implicitly arguing that the fetus isn't a life. 

Now, if you cannot make that claim based on science, you have no argument. And so, that is the argument you need to make.

[Stubby]

Your framing is disingenous. The patient is the woman, but that's not a scientific fact. It's a definition, regardless of science. 

The bolded I've never argued. But it is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as the fetus aslo dies if it's aborted (assuming it's a life). So, if one is to save both lives, one has to save the mother. Sure. But ... how is it you argue they did not? As differing from what I have said already? You cannot argue that a scientifically informed worldview would lead to the mother being saved, as both worldviews are scientifically informed. What you have to do, then, is to argue that there only was one life at stake. But in doing so, you are implicitly arguing that the fetus isn't a life. 

Now, if you cannot make that claim based on science, you have no argument. And so, that is the argument you need to make.

1. Nonsense.  I'm framing it in real world terms.

2. It is a real world fact, not some philosophical definition.

3. I know you haven't, because (as you admit with the next sentence) you don't think it's relevant.  Bit it's the truth. Scientifically.

4. Nonsense.  Religion is not interested in facts. It is interested in beliefs.  If you don't accept this yet, go read Daemrion's posts.

5. Only because you don't think the need to save the mother is paramount.

6. No it really isn't.  I've made all the arguments I need to make.  What you need to do is stop trying to constantly shift the goalposts.

Is it really worth all this sophistry and hand waving just to support the assertion that it is :fundamentally wrongheaded" for atheists to assert that religion is only in conflict with science in creationism and/or cosmology.

 

[Rorshach]

1. Nonsense.  I'm framing it in real world terms.

2. It is a real world fact, not some philosophical definition.

3. I know you haven't, because (as you admit with the next sentence) you don't think it's relevant.  Bit it's the truth. Scientifically.

4. Nonsense.  Religion is not interested in facts. It is interested in beliefs.  If you don't accept this yet, go read Daemrion's posts.

5. Only because you don't think the need to save the mother is paramount.

6. No it really isn't.  I've made all the arguments I need to make.  What you need to do is stop trying to constantly shift the goalposts.

Is it really worth all this sophistry and hand waving just to support the assertion that it is :fundamentally wrongheaded" for atheists to assert that religion is only in conflict with science in creationism and/or cosmology.

 

I'm not sure that continued discussion holds any value, if this is the level you aim at. However, possibly for the last time:

1: Your framing is disingenous, because within your framing you can claim that the fetus isn't part of the equation. Thus, you attempt to wiggle out of the need to define its charachteristics wrt life. Since that definition very much is a part of the discussion, trying to frame the discussion in a way that takes your position as granted. That is to beg the question.

2: As a "real world fact", is this something that is "scientifically true"? I think that mixing your terms in this way isn't helpful, as it obscures your meaning. That it is a "real world fact" is true, but it has no relevance to science whatsoever. 

3: You assert this as scientifically true, but you don't show how it's relevant to the argument. I'd suggest you do that, if we are to actually discuss.

4: Assertion. Certainly not something you've showed to be true so far. As for Daemrion's posts ... well, you are again arguing by anecdote 

5: This point contains at least two wrongful statements: 1: That I hold the position that the Irish law was correct, and support it. You cannot read this from my posts, as it isn't in them. 2: That neither I nor the law was interested in the mother's life. As I've argued, and you haven't argued against (seriously!), this isn't true. You are again begging the question wrt the status of the fetus.

6: I haven't shifted the goalposts. The goalposts are science and religion. What you are arguing is that science somehow leads to your values. That is, at its heart, a misunderstanding of what science is. 

[Seli]

No, it does not. I'm going to try this one more time before giving up. You (and a few others in the locked thread) have infused your view of science with elements of your morality and then refer to this abomination as science that is in conflict with religion. Science has no such elements -- it is a description of the universe and as such is totally amoral. It is completely irrelevant from the scientific point of view whether the woman lives or dies, whether the hospital workers rely on religion or wishful thinking or coin tosses rather than scientific results or anything of the sort. To give you more obvious examples, science can be used to build nuclear weapons and design custom viruses intended to be used in a genocidal war.

The scientific framework tells you nothing about morality or ethics; it is simply knowledge of the how the universe works backed by experimental verification. It can conflict with religion when the latter makes falsifiable statements about the universe (e.g. the claim that the Earth is around 6000 years old is in conflict with science). However, your example with the pregnancy gone wrong doesn't have anything like that -- it's simply the actions of human beings that led to a result nobody wanted.

By the way, I found a nice page from Berkeley about science that clearly addresses issues like this one.

No need for science to make any moral statements, it is enough that it shows that the moral statements made on religious grounds are not based in and often in contradiction to fact and as such can and perhaps ought to be ignored.

To keep on the abortion example, it is simple enough to show that the people who campaign most against abortion ignore the best tools we have to prevent them (good sex ed and access to anti-conception). It is simple enough to show that the claim it is about protecting life is wrong, since it ignores the lives of everyone involved (bar, perhaps depending on definition a single particular potential one [or more in the case of some multiple pregnancies]).

Which is in most cases what the conflict between science and religion, heck science and many ideologies, boils down to. One is allowed their opinion, their morals, their priorities. But one cannot have their own facts without being fact-checked by the best tools available.

 

So then where did life first begin in your opinion? So are you saying that there were multiple created species to begin with? It's been a while since I've done school science and biology, but I thought evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a single-celled organism.

Doesn't evolutionary theory hold that we can trace backwards from what we have now to the beginning of life?

You pointed out that the difference between micro and macro evolution is timescale. I assumed that macro evolution would take longer than micro evolution (which I accept may be wrong). But that's the thing, if it takes longer shouldn't we have more evidence of it? For example, have we got fossil evidence tracing the evolution of gills to lungs, and if it is a series of micro-changes, where are all the stages of that evolution in fossil evidence?

The discussion on what makes life is not yet settled, but consensus seems to be that the version we know originated from some complex temporal and spatial networks of chemical reactions stabilizing. 

And technically that discussion has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which is our tool to examine changes and relations in life.

[Jo498]

No need for science to make any moral statements, it is enough that it shows that the moral statements made on religious grounds are not based in and often in contradiction to fact and as such can and perhaps ought to be ignored.

To keep on the abortion example, it is simple enough to show that the people who campaign most against abortion ignore the best tools we have to prevent them (good sex ed and access to anti-conception). It is simple enough to show that the claim it is about protecting life is wrong, since it ignores the lives of everyone involved (bar, perhaps depending on definition a single particular potential one [or more in the case of some multiple pregnancies]).

Why is the difference several people have tried to explain meticulously so hard to understand? The people who are against abortion are often also against contraceptives and extra-marital sex, where is the lack of consistency? (And even if they were inconsistent that would not automatically invalidate their reasons against abortion. BTW there are of course also people against abortion but pro contraceptives, most Protestants I'd guess.) Such a trad catholic stance may be wrong but it is not based on faulty science or plays science vs. religion. The conflict here is traditional (usually but not necessarily religion-based) morality vs. "modern" secular morality. Those who deny this evade the conflict and try to claim science's authority (which is in some respect similar to the authority of religion or tradition in former times) for a particular ethical position.

If the lives of a mother and her fetus/baby (depending on the stage) are in danger, I do not think anyone today says that per default the life of the baby should be saved first (although this was probably a viable position in Henry VIII. time when a surviving male heir could have been more important than the life of the queen ). So we try to save both, but may have different attitudes how much we will risk to save both or how easily we will abort to reduce the risk for the mother. This mainly depends on how high we value the life of the baby (because the high value of the mother's life is recognized by all parties). So first of all, it has to be recognized that probably everyone finds this a hard, dilemmatic situation.

How could "science" decide that the life of the mother is more valuable (or so far more valuable that even a fairly small risk for the mother should lead to abortion)? This is not a scientific dilemma but a moral one. (This is not to deny that there may be good reasons to deem the mother more valuable, but these are not medical reasons.) Most people (including myself) would probably go for the least risk for the mother. But what if the mother wants to run the risk for the chance to keep the child? Should this decide the issue or be overruled by doctors?

Science will help establishing the risk probabilities but it cannot decide whether to run the risk and maybe save both or abort and more probably save the mother. Again, those who think that questions like these are settled by science, please explain how this should be understood. Which experiment or which mathematical derivation from scientific principles yields the solution to such a dilemma?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

If you get into Solipsim or debates about perception and Epistomology what consituties a "real world fact" can absolutely be debated.  Everything you and I believe and debate about rests upon some unprovable assumptions because I cannot percieve what you percieve and you cannot percieve what I percieve.  It'a actually a wee bit amazing anyone agrees on anything if you drill down to basic assumptions.

Daemerion,

Actually, your question about abiogenesis is an interesting one, in my opinion.

We haven't replicated abiogenesis in the lab and we don't know if life on Earth is the product of multipule episodes of abiogenesis or not.  If it is could something nasty and dangerous arise tomorrow that could outcompete all life currently inhabiting our planet?  If so could it be a non-DNA based life form.  Heck, viruses are RNA based life forms could they have arisen from a seperate episode of abiogenesis?

One thing I'm very curious about is if there will be deep philosophical and scientific implications if it is discovered that exo-biology is also DNA based rather than using some other method of encoding to pass biological and genetic information.  I can't wait to find some exo-biological life so we can check.

I say all this as a churchgoing Orthodox Christian.

:)

[Stubby]

I'm not sure that continued discussion holds any value, if this is the level you aim at. However, possibly for the last time:

1: Your framing is disingenous, because within your framing you can claim that the fetus isn't part of the equation. Thus, you attempt to wiggle out of the need to define its charachteristics wrt life. Since that definition very much is a part of the discussion, trying to frame the discussion in a way that takes your position as granted. That is to beg the question.

2: As a "real world fact", is this something that is "scientifically true"? I think that mixing your terms in this way isn't helpful, as it obscures your meaning. That it is a "real world fact" is true, but it has no relevance to science whatsoever. 

3: You assert this as scientifically true, but you don't show how it's relevant to the argument. I'd suggest you do that, if we are to actually discuss.

4: Assertion. Certainly not something you've showed to be true so far. As for Daemrion's posts ... well, you are again arguing by anecdote 

5: This point contains at least two wrongful statements: 1: That I hold the position that the Irish law was correct, and support it. You cannot read this from my posts, as it isn't in them. 2: That neither I nor the law was interested in the mother's life. As I've argued, and you haven't argued against (seriously!), this isn't true. You are again begging the question wrt the status of the fetus.

6: I haven't shifted the goalposts. The goalposts are science and religion. What you are arguing is that science somehow leads to your values. That is, at its heart, a misunderstanding of what science is. 

No need for science to make any moral statements, it is enough that it shows that the moral statements made on religious grounds are not based in and often in contradiction to fact and as such can and perhaps ought to be ignored.

To keep on the abortion example, it is simple enough to show that the people who campaign most against abortion ignore the best tools we have to prevent them (good sex ed and access to anti-conception). It is simple enough to show that the claim it is about protecting life is wrong, since it ignores the lives of everyone involved (bar, perhaps depending on definition a single particular potential one [or more in the case of some multiple pregnancies]).

Which is in most cases what the conflict between science and religion, heck science and many ideologies, boils down to. One is allowed their opinion, their morals, their priorities. But one cannot have their own facts without being fact-checked by the best tools available.

What Seli said.  In particular, the final paragraph.

Which confirms what I've been arguing beyond any doubt.

Applying the logic used by you and Lord Mord in practical terns, at the Rosrhach & Lord Mord Private Hospital, during an emergency admission for a mother with serious complications of pregnancy, the woman would die before the attending medical staff could get through their first philosophical debate about which values they should apply to the situation.  This is before the chaplain and the resident philosopher and the resident homeopath and the resident psychic even have their input into the argument.

You know what guys?  Philosophical discussion is a good thing.  But if the ideas and values it comes up with cannot be translated into a practical real-world situation that affects every human - not just those that share the same beliefs - then it's probably useless.  Given that you've had plenty of time to come up with something, we have to conclude that there is no such evidence because the notion cannot be translated into a practical situation.