jasory

Agreed"

So you recognise that it is therefore irrelevant, and the conclusion does not follow from the premises (it is invalid). So why are you so slavishly defending it?

"I don't see myself as a moral relativist... I don't see how my ethical framework is relevant"

Ok, you are literally too stupid to have this conversation.

The idea that moral judgements come from synthetic frameworks,is moral relativism. You deny that you are a moral relativist (good for you) but the reason I call you one is because the assumptions you make require that moral systems be synthetic. (Since you read a philosophy article you must know what this means).

So either you are a moral relativist or you are lying. I'm a rational person and cannot prove that you are lying so I defer to believing you to be a moral relativist who simply doesn't understand what it entails.

"Which is the basis of a lot of morality"

Morally good behavior is not a logical consequence of empathy. Therefore measuring empathy will not tell you anything about morally good behaviour. This is true even in moral relativism, because as you correctly claim the moral system to be judged by still does not intrinsically require empathy.

"Avoid these kinds of fundamental relative discussions"

So you claim to not be a moral relativist, and yet the clear basis for your argument is intrinsic to moral relativism (and contrary to non-relativism). Now to clarify the error you are making is not that you are a moral relativist, it's that you are asserting that moral relativism makes your argument valid. It doesn't, it does absolutely nothing to your argument.

"No"

Yes. Firstly, it's the basis for your flawed defence. Secondly, I can't claim clairvoyance (you might just be lying) but I think I can build a pretty strong inductive argument that you probably believe the same things as all the hundreds of other pop philosophy anti-realists I've debated.

"to make the setting clear"

Which was that people are considered moral because they engage in behavior that is not intrinsically moral. You realised that directly claiming that atheists are more morally good requires them to engage in morally good behavior, but for some reason (probably because you are a individualistic moral relativist who wouldn't want to be caught arguing for following moral principles) you wanted to avoid claiming that and so searched for the closest thing that you thought would suffice.

"We agree that compassion and empathy are our foundations of moral"

So something that is widely rejected as irrelevant in moral philosophy.

By changing the definitions you can falsely equivocate anything, what an intelligent person...

Whenever you read "X-year old does something", it's usually already been done or a slight modification of something already been done.

CamelCase directories and snake_case files.