>"No, I don't. When I say no reason, I mean no reason."

But I don't understand what you mean by bringing it up. If you had out of the blue said that you have no reason to survive, would you be trying to imply you no longer desire to survive or even that you desire the opposite, to die?

Or would you just be agreeing with me that organisms neither "should" or "must" survive (which would be absolutely redundant and be like out of the blue telling me you're human or that we're on reddit)?

Or would you be trying to imply that I have failed to provide you with a reason to survive rather than remain suicidal?

Because I have no interest in giving you a reason to do anything.

I have no interest in giving you a reason to agree with me that the Earth orbits the Sun, my interest would be in having a conversation about whether or not it does.

In other words, I am not here to give you a reason to agree with me or stop eating sugar or go kill yourself or to not go kill yourself. I have not been trying to do any of those things because I have no reason to do them. Can you give me a reason to do one of those things? How about I give you a gun to put to my head, would that change something?

Am I putting a gun to your head and demanding you agree with anything I say? No, I am simply having a conversation with you about a subject and that subject is "Does morality exist outside the mind?" I am arguing it does because you argued it doesn't, that's it. Anything beyond that, your agreement etc. that (in a nutshell) ain't none a' my beeezwax.

>"Why are you assuming something that I didn't even say?"

There was no assumption. In short: There was a question and then a 'in case'.

>"Having a reason to believe something does not mean you should believe it, all it does is provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness."

That's not quite how it works.

Me: The Stone Age lasted 3.4 million years.

You: I don't agree and I see no reason to do so. If I had such a reason it would provide proof that the Stone Age lasted 3.4 million years.

Me: The reason would? Isn't that kind of backwards? Cart before the horse? Isn't it that good enough proof of X being true MAY BE reason alone for you to agree that X is true?

EDIT: Note that I stuck with the word "agree" despite your just switching to the word "believe".

>"So, no, I'm not talking about should or must as you have decided to randomly assume."

See above.

>"Yeah, that's why it isn't necessarily. I didn't say it was necessarily, I said it wasn't. What are you even talking about? Your whole response there wasn't even contrary to anything I had said."

That's not quite true although of course I get the gist. You don't seem to get the gist of what I'm saying; that you're still using the term "necessarily" in our conversation as if I'm to still to conform to what it implies.

>"How have you logically proven this at all?"

Read on.

>"Morality is a word with a definition."

You're just going to willfully ignore what I've said about definitions, huh?

>"You're just using your own definition, which is fine, but don't act like you have at all proven what morality is factually."

Read on.

>"This whole section, as I understand it, was meant to prove that morality is as you say it is: "If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person""

Yes.

>"The issue with this, however, is it isn't even an argument. It's just a conclusion. I think you misunderstand how deductive logic works. You have to provide premises that show what you're saying is right. I'm not sure how to put this more clearly, but you simply have not done that."

Understood but read on.

>"No, that doesn't actually logically follow. Just because "should", "right", and "wrong" do not actually exist does not mean that morality necessarily has to ascribe to something real."

That was not what I was saying there. I was eliminating morality being about "should" and "right/wrong".

>"That's not a logically sound argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that would prove is that morality may not be talking about something real in the first place."

Exactly.

>"In fact, one of the viable, actually logical conclusion from these premises is that morality is imaginary, as I have been arguing. Let me demonstrate this with deductive logic: 1. Morality is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by philosophers to be about "should", "right", and "wrong" (premise)

>2. "Should", "right", and "wrong" are imaginary (premise)

>3. Therefore, morality as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)"

Yes, except right and wrong are not imaginary e.g. there's accurate and inaccurate just to give one example, so the second premise does not hold without rephrasing.

>"This is logically sound."

Except for the problem with the second premise.

>"If you disagree, please respond in a similar manner, using a deductive argument that is organized in a similar manner (with numbered points, and labelling your premises and your conclusion) or else I'm just not going to respond."

Please hold... (grumbles: Man, I'm gonna type this whole thing out in a very inefficient way, I just know it!)