Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You being personally convinced counts for nothing. It's obvious to everyone that your entire FSK that claims to prove morals are facts but also relies on that fact claim for the FSK itself to be justified, is a circular turd. Somehow you don't understand that this is a problem for you, but that is a seperate problem - also for you.

Where did I claim the moral FSK must be justified?
I believe you don't understand what is a FSK i.e. framework and system of knowledge thoroughly.

If it isn't justified, it's just opinions.

You make fact claims by referencing that framework of your opinions.
You justify your is/ought argument by referencing your framework of personal opinion.
You pick numbers for the "evilness" of actions based on your own framework of opinions, and you decide what even gets a number on the basis of your personal opinions.

Note my explanation of the continuum from opinion [no justification] to belief [personal justifications] to knowledge [justified].

Note the 3 phases,

1. When one has a hunch about something and do not proceed to verify and justify it, that is an opinion.

2. However when one proceed to do sufficient verification and justification on that hunch and is able to confirm it coherently with other facts, then that is a belief, i.e. a personal belief that one is right. I have done that with my claims and numbers with a moral framework and system.

3. When my claims are are verified, justified, tested and agreed by sufficient people, then it becomes an accepted knowledge or theory. To reinforce it as knowledge it has to produce incremental positive results to humanity.

So what I claimed is at stage 2 and that is a belief not an opinion.

If you insist it is an 'opinion' it has to be qualified to the above phases.
Regardless of what name you want to assign to my views, do you insist I have not done the processes in phase 2?

Btw, I have basic foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism.

[FlashDangerpants]

Where did I claim the moral FSK must be justified?
I believe you don't understand what is a FSK i.e. framework and system of knowledge thoroughly.

If it isn't justified, it's just opinions.

You make fact claims by referencing that framework of your opinions.
You justify your is/ought argument by referencing your framework of personal opinion.
You pick numbers for the "evilness" of actions based on your own framework of opinions, and you decide what even gets a number on the basis of your personal opinions.

Note my explanation of the continuum from opinion [no justification] to belief [personal justifications] to knowledge [justified].

Note the 3 phases,

1. When one has a hunch about something and do not proceed to verify and justify it, that is an opinion.

2. However when one proceed to do sufficient verification and justification on that hunch and is able to confirm it coherently with other facts, then that is a belief, i.e. a personal belief that one is right. I have done that with my claims and numbers with a moral framework and system.

3. When my claims are are verified, justified, tested and agreed by sufficient people, then it becomes an accepted knowledge or theory. To reinforce it as knowledge it has to produce incremental positive results to humanity.

So what I claimed is at stage 2 and that is a belief not an opinion.

If you insist it is an 'opinion' it has to be qualified to the above phases.
Regardless of what name you want to assign to my views, do you insist I have not done the processes in phase 2?

Btw, I have basic foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism.

So you have a framework and system of belief.
Why have you been calling it a system of knowledge for years?

[Peter Holmes]

Where did I claim the moral FSK must be justified?
I believe you don't understand what is a FSK i.e. framework and system of knowledge thoroughly.

If it isn't justified, it's just opinions.

You make fact claims by referencing that framework of your opinions.
You justify your is/ought argument by referencing your framework of personal opinion.
You pick numbers for the "evilness" of actions based on your own framework of opinions, and you decide what even gets a number on the basis of your personal opinions.

Note my explanation of the continuum from opinion [no justification] to belief [personal justifications] to knowledge [justified].

Note the 3 phases,

1. When one has a hunch about something and do not proceed to verify and justify it, that is an opinion.

2. However when one proceed to do sufficient verification and justification on that hunch and is able to confirm it coherently with other facts, then that is a belief, i.e. a personal belief that one is right. I have done that with my claims and numbers with a moral framework and system.

3. When my claims are are verified, justified, tested and agreed by sufficient people, then it becomes an accepted knowledge or theory. To reinforce it as knowledge it has to produce incremental positive results to humanity.

So what I claimed is at stage 2 and that is a belief not an opinion.

If you insist it is an 'opinion' it has to be qualified to the above phases.
Regardless of what name you want to assign to my views, do you insist I have not done the processes in phase 2?

Btw, I have basic foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism.

This graded description - hunch-belief-knowledge - has no bearing on the thing about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims. So no, you haven't 'done the processes in phase 2' to justify belief in the existence of supposed moral facts.

Since there are no moral facts - since the the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - having hunches, beliefs or supposed knowledge about them is vacuous.

And who cares how many people hold a belief? What bearing does that have on the truth-value of what they claim?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If it isn't justified, it's just opinions.

You make fact claims by referencing that framework of your opinions.
You justify your is/ought argument by referencing your framework of personal opinion.
You pick numbers for the "evilness" of actions based on your own framework of opinions, and you decide what even gets a number on the basis of your personal opinions.

Note my explanation of the continuum from opinion [no justification] to belief [personal justifications] to knowledge [justified].

Note the 3 phases,

1. When one has a hunch about something and do not proceed to verify and justify it, that is an opinion.

2. However when one proceed to do sufficient verification and justification on that hunch and is able to confirm it coherently with other facts, then that is a belief, i.e. a personal belief that one is right. I have done that with my claims and numbers with a moral framework and system.

3. When my claims are are verified, justified, tested and agreed by sufficient people, then it becomes an accepted knowledge or theory. To reinforce it as knowledge it has to produce incremental positive results to humanity.

So what I claimed is at stage 2 and that is a belief not an opinion.

If you insist it is an 'opinion' it has to be qualified to the above phases.
Regardless of what name you want to assign to my views, do you insist I have not done the processes in phase 2?

Btw, I have basic foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism.

So you have a framework and system of belief.
Why have you been calling it a system of knowledge for years?

Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR] is merely a general description to represent the specific field of knowledge involved.
The term 'knowledge' in this case is not critical.

For example when I mentioned the scientific FSK it will include various hypotheses that are potential knowledge and had not been confirmed as 'scientific knowledge per se' and they could be rejected subsequently.
Einstein's had discussed his views on QM within the Physics-Scientific FSK and had many supporters then, but his views on the major principles of QM was subsequently rejected.

While I stated 'FSK' Belinda did use the phrase Framework and System of Beliefs [FSB] and there was no fuss with the difference.

What counts is whether the claim is verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK and to be knowledge there has to be sufficient consensus [the theory tested and confirmed repeatedly].

[Veritas Aequitas]

If it isn't justified, it's just opinions.

You make fact claims by referencing that framework of your opinions.
You justify your is/ought argument by referencing your framework of personal opinion.
You pick numbers for the "evilness" of actions based on your own framework of opinions, and you decide what even gets a number on the basis of your personal opinions.

Note my explanation of the continuum from opinion [no justification] to belief [personal justifications] to knowledge [justified].

Note the 3 phases,

1. When one has a hunch about something and do not proceed to verify and justify it, that is an opinion.

2. However when one proceed to do sufficient verification and justification on that hunch and is able to confirm it coherently with other facts, then that is a belief, i.e. a personal belief that one is right. I have done that with my claims and numbers with a moral framework and system.

3. When my claims are are verified, justified, tested and agreed by sufficient people, then it becomes an accepted knowledge or theory. To reinforce it as knowledge it has to produce incremental positive results to humanity.

So what I claimed is at stage 2 and that is a belief not an opinion.

If you insist it is an 'opinion' it has to be qualified to the above phases.
Regardless of what name you want to assign to my views, do you insist I have not done the processes in phase 2?

Btw, I have basic foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism.

This graded description - hunch-belief-knowledge - has no bearing on the thing about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims. So no, you haven't 'done the processes in phase 2' to justify belief in the existence of supposed moral facts.

Since there are no moral facts - since the the very expression 'moral fact' is incoherent - having hunches, beliefs or supposed knowledge about them is vacuous.

And who cares how many people hold a belief? What bearing does that have on the truth-value of what they claim?

Nah!

The point is there is no way you can confirm the real existence of "the thing" about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims.
This 'the thing' is what I have been referring to as the thing-in-itself.

The best you can do is to ASSUME there is "the thing" about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims.
If you insist show me how it exists independent of the human conditions?

To reify that "the thing" about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims, as really real and independent of the human conditions is delusional.

I have always agree "the thing" about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims, is different from the description of it as opinion, belief or knowledge.

But "the thing" about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims, is not independent of the human conditions.

That "the thing" about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims, is a spontaneous emergent that is entangled with the existence of the person[s] and human conditions.

Now, we do have "the MORAL thing" [real moral element] about which we have hunches and beliefs, and then make knowledge-claims.
This real moral element [variable] is verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.

Note I am putting aside the term 'moral fact' until both parties has agreed to what "fact" meant. Will discuss that in the other thread;
Peter's 'Fact' is a Contradiction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32765

[FlashDangerpants]

Note my explanation of the continuum from opinion [no justification] to belief [personal justifications] to knowledge [justified].

Note the 3 phases,

1. When one has a hunch about something and do not proceed to verify and justify it, that is an opinion.

2. However when one proceed to do sufficient verification and justification on that hunch and is able to confirm it coherently with other facts, then that is a belief, i.e. a personal belief that one is right. I have done that with my claims and numbers with a moral framework and system.

3. When my claims are are verified, justified, tested and agreed by sufficient people, then it becomes an accepted knowledge or theory. To reinforce it as knowledge it has to produce incremental positive results to humanity.

So what I claimed is at stage 2 and that is a belief not an opinion.

If you insist it is an 'opinion' it has to be qualified to the above phases.
Regardless of what name you want to assign to my views, do you insist I have not done the processes in phase 2?

Btw, I have basic foundational support, i.e.
56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism.

So you have a framework and system of belief.
Why have you been calling it a system of knowledge for years?

Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR] is merely a general description to represent the specific field of knowledge involved.
The term 'knowledge' in this case is not critical.

For example when I mentioned the scientific FSK it will include various hypotheses that are potential knowledge and had not been confirmed as 'scientific knowledge per se' and they could be rejected subsequently.
Einstein's had discussed his views on QM within the Physics-Scientific FSK and had many supporters then, but his views on the major principles of QM was subsequently rejected.

While I stated 'FSK' Belinda did use the phrase Framework and System of Beliefs [FSB] and there was no fuss with the difference.

What counts is whether the claim is verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK and to be knowledge there has to be sufficient consensus [the theory tested and confirmed repeatedly].

And this consensus bit. Are you saying that consensus is necessary for fact claims to be true, or that is sufficent and necessary?

How can we consider your Framework and System of Supposition to be credible, when you are the only person in the entire world who thinks that it is. And given that it derives it's credibility (to you alone, the only person who thinks it isn't stupid) from within itself, which means that it is impossible for you to construct an argument that it should be seen as credible by anyone except you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you have a framework and system of belief.
Why have you been calling it a system of knowledge for years?

Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR] is merely a general description to represent the specific field of knowledge involved.
The term 'knowledge' in this case is not critical.

For example when I mentioned the scientific FSK it will include various hypotheses that are potential knowledge and had not been confirmed as 'scientific knowledge per se' and they could be rejected subsequently.
Einstein's had discussed his views on QM within the Physics-Scientific FSK and had many supporters then, but his views on the major principles of QM was subsequently rejected.

While I stated 'FSK' Belinda did use the phrase Framework and System of Beliefs [FSB] and there was no fuss with the difference.

What counts is whether the claim is verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK and to be knowledge there has to be sufficient consensus [the theory tested and confirmed repeatedly].

And this consensus bit. Are you saying that consensus is necessary for fact claims to be true, or that is sufficent and necessary?

How can we consider your Framework and System of Supposition to be credible, when you are the only person in the entire world who thinks that it is. And given that it derives it's credibility (to you alone, the only person who thinks it isn't stupid) from within itself, which means that it is impossible for you to construct an argument that it should be seen as credible by anyone except you?

Re "consensus" note for any scientific knowledge to be claimed as true, after the claim is verified and justified, tested to be true, there is a need for peers review and their consensus.

As I had stated I had a strong foundational consensus, e.g. 56% of philosophers in a poll agreed with Moral Realism.
As I had stated, what I had presented is merely the tip of an iceberg.
There is no official consensus of my thesis, but have reconciled ["triangulated"] what I am claiming to a wide range of accepted scientific and other truths coherently.

The other point is pseudo-models similar to mine are already working to a degree within their existing constraints. Thus my more refined model when implemented is likely to be more effective and optimal.

[FlashDangerpants]

Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR] is merely a general description to represent the specific field of knowledge involved.
The term 'knowledge' in this case is not critical.

For example when I mentioned the scientific FSK it will include various hypotheses that are potential knowledge and had not been confirmed as 'scientific knowledge per se' and they could be rejected subsequently.
Einstein's had discussed his views on QM within the Physics-Scientific FSK and had many supporters then, but his views on the major principles of QM was subsequently rejected.

While I stated 'FSK' Belinda did use the phrase Framework and System of Beliefs [FSB] and there was no fuss with the difference.

What counts is whether the claim is verified/verifiable and justified/justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK and to be knowledge there has to be sufficient consensus [the theory tested and confirmed repeatedly].

And this consensus bit. Are you saying that consensus is necessary for fact claims to be true, or that is sufficent and necessary?

How can we consider your Framework and System of Supposition to be credible, when you are the only person in the entire world who thinks that it is. And given that it derives it's credibility (to you alone, the only person who thinks it isn't stupid) from within itself, which means that it is impossible for you to construct an argument that it should be seen as credible by anyone except you?

Re "consensus" note for any scientific knowledge to be claimed as true, after the claim is verified and justified, tested to be true, there is a need for peers review and their consensus.

Yeah, but actual science can do stuff that your thing can't do. You know once upon a time most scientists believed in phlogiston, but then experiments proved it didn't exist. That's not really an option with your framework and system of bs.

As I had stated I had a strong foundational consensus, e.g. 56% of philosophers in a poll agreed with Moral Realism.
As I had stated, what I had presented is merely the tip of an iceberg.
There is no official consensus of my thesis, but have reconciled ["triangulated"] what I am claiming to a wide range of accepted scientific and other truths coherently.

Well that sort of avoids the point doens't it? There are precisely no persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible.

The other point is pseudo-models similar to mine are already working to a degree within their existing constraints. Thus my more refined model when implemented is likely to be more effective and optimal.

An alternative interpretation is that you are delusional, your FSK is a fantasy that nobody shares, and your faith in any hidden arguments you haven't presented yet is as misplaced as your faith in the old ones you have batted about for years and which nobody finds credible because none of us believes in the FSK you use to justify them all.

[Terrapin Station]

And this consensus bit. Are you saying that consensus is necessary for fact claims to be true, or that is sufficent and necessary?

He has to be saying that it's sufficient, because he doesn't believe there are any facts/he doesn't believe that anything is the case independent of humans.

Which, as I mentioned yesterday but he didn't address, makes his idea of empirical verification/justification curious, because it can only amount to checking what other people say. (And then we have to wonder what it could even amount to to check what other people say, because it's difficult to understand what other people could be/how they could be observed if they're not humans bodily-situated in a world consisting of sedimentary rocks, atmosphere, etc., that would exist whether those humans existed or not.)

[FlashDangerpants]

And this consensus bit. Are you saying that consensus is necessary for fact claims to be true, or that is sufficent and necessary?

He has to be saying that it's sufficient, because he doesn't believe there are any facts/he doesn't believe that anything is the case independent of humans.

Which, as I mentioned yesterday but he didn't address, makes his idea of empirical verification/justification curious, because it can only amount to checking what other people say. (And then we have to wonder what it could even amount to to check what other people say, because it's difficult to understand what other people could be/how they could be observed if they're not humans bodily-situated in a world consisting of sedimentary rocks, atmosphere, etc., that would exist whether those humans existed or not.)

The weird thing is, he's quite obsessed also with consensus being wrong. All his talk of vulgar common morality versus the special morality-proper stuff that he is flogging rests on this notion that everyone except him doesn't even know what morality is about. The consensus is clear, morality is very much about right and wrongness, good and badness. VA doesn't agree with the rest of humanity on this matter, so, by his own argument, he must be wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

And this consensus bit. Are you saying that consensus is necessary for fact claims to be true, or that is sufficent and necessary?

He has to be saying that it's sufficient, because he doesn't believe there are any facts/he doesn't believe that anything is the case independent of humans.

Which, as I mentioned yesterday but he didn't address, makes his idea of empirical verification/justification curious, because it can only amount to checking what other people say. (And then we have to wonder what it could even amount to to check what other people say, because it's difficult to understand what other people could be/how they could be observed if they're not humans bodily-situated in a world consisting of sedimentary rocks, atmosphere, etc., that would exist whether those humans existed or not.)

The weird thing is, he's quite obsessed also with consensus being wrong. All his talk of vulgar common morality versus the special morality-proper stuff that he is flogging rests on this notion that everyone except him doesn't even know what morality is about. The consensus is clear, morality is very much about right and wrongness, good and badness. VA doesn't agree with the rest of humanity on this matter, so, by his own argument, he must be wrong.

Yeah, that's always the case.

Objectivists always wind up so that objective reality just so happens to completely agree with their personal views.

And consensus theorists always wind up that whatever they happen to believe happens to be the consensus, even if it's apparently not--in that case, that's "not really the consensus," or "well, it's only the consensus of these folks that matter (these folks who happen to agree with me)," etc.

It's just egoism, where the person is trying to justify their egoism externally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And this consensus bit. Are you saying that consensus is necessary for fact claims to be true, or that is sufficent and necessary?

How can we consider your Framework and System of Supposition to be credible, when you are the only person in the entire world who thinks that it is. And given that it derives it's credibility (to you alone, the only person who thinks it isn't stupid) from within itself, which means that it is impossible for you to construct an argument that it should be seen as credible by anyone except you?

Re "consensus" note for any scientific knowledge to be claimed as true, after the claim is verified and justified, tested to be true, there is a need for peers review and their consensus.

Yeah, but actual science can do stuff that your thing can't do. You know once upon a time most scientists believed in phlogiston, but then experiments proved it didn't exist. That's not really an option with your framework and system of bs.

As I had stated I had a strong foundational consensus, e.g. 56% of philosophers in a poll agreed with Moral Realism.
As I had stated, what I had presented is merely the tip of an iceberg.
There is no official consensus of my thesis, but have reconciled ["triangulated"] what I am claiming to a wide range of accepted scientific and other truths coherently.

Well that sort of avoids the point doens't it? There are precisely no persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible.

The other point is pseudo-models similar to mine are already working to a degree within their existing constraints. Thus my more refined model when implemented is likely to be more effective and optimal.

An alternative interpretation is that you are delusional, your FSK is a fantasy that nobody shares, and your faith in any hidden arguments you haven't presented yet is as misplaced as your faith in the old ones you have batted about for years and which nobody finds credible because none of us believes in the FSK you use to justify them all.

Rather than address my arguments specifically, you are merely making noises with the above.
For example, you could prove to me my claim there are physical moral oughtness in the human brain is an impossibility.

As I had stated why you cannot align with my views absolutely is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and Classical analytic philosophers.
This is like theists never seeing eye to eye non-theists or the far-left never agreeing with Trump's supporters and vice versa.

[FlashDangerpants]

Re "consensus" note for any scientific knowledge to be claimed as true, after the claim is verified and justified, tested to be true, there is a need for peers review and their consensus.

Yeah, but actual science can do stuff that your thing can't do. You know once upon a time most scientists believed in phlogiston, but then experiments proved it didn't exist. That's not really an option with your framework and system of bs.

As I had stated I had a strong foundational consensus, e.g. 56% of philosophers in a poll agreed with Moral Realism.
As I had stated, what I had presented is merely the tip of an iceberg.
There is no official consensus of my thesis, but have reconciled ["triangulated"] what I am claiming to a wide range of accepted scientific and other truths coherently.

Well that sort of avoids the point doens't it? There are precisely no persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible.

The other point is pseudo-models similar to mine are already working to a degree within their existing constraints. Thus my more refined model when implemented is likely to be more effective and optimal.

An alternative interpretation is that you are delusional, your FSK is a fantasy that nobody shares, and your faith in any hidden arguments you haven't presented yet is as misplaced as your faith in the old ones you have batted about for years and which nobody finds credible because none of us believes in the FSK you use to justify them all.

Rather than address my arguments specifically, you are merely making noises with the above.
For example, you could prove to me my claim there are physical moral oughtness in the human brain is an impossibility.

As I had stated why you cannot align with my views absolutely is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and Classical analytic philosophers.
This is like theists never seeing eye to eye non-theists or the far-left never agreeing with Trump's supporters and vice versa.

Did you do that move because you know it is true that there are exactly zero persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible?
So you decided that you wished I had written something else.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah, but actual science can do stuff that your thing can't do. You know once upon a time most scientists believed in phlogiston, but then experiments proved it didn't exist. That's not really an option with your framework and system of bs.


Well that sort of avoids the point doens't it? There are precisely no persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible.


An alternative interpretation is that you are delusional, your FSK is a fantasy that nobody shares, and your faith in any hidden arguments you haven't presented yet is as misplaced as your faith in the old ones you have batted about for years and which nobody finds credible because none of us believes in the FSK you use to justify them all.

Rather than address my arguments specifically, you are merely making noises with the above.
For example, you could prove to me my claim there are physical moral oughtness in the human brain is an impossibility.

As I had stated why you cannot align with my views absolutely is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and Classical analytic philosophers.
This is like theists never seeing eye to eye non-theists or the far-left never agreeing with Trump's supporters and vice versa.

Did you do that move because you know it is true that there are exactly zero persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible?
So you decided that you wished I had written something else.

Are you familiar with Framework and System, i.e. of Knowledge [FSK], Reality [FSR] or if you prefer Beliefs [FSB].

It is obvious scientific knowledge are generated within a scientific FSK and the majority believe the scientific FSK is credible in general. But there is no guarantee of credibility in particular cases due to biasness because of funding, and cheats.
Let say we rate the credibility of the scientific FSK at 90/100.

The majority of theists also insist their claims from a divine based framework and system are spiritual knowledge, thus the theistic-FSK. You cannot stop them from using the term FSK. Theists will rate the credibility of their theistic-FSK at 100/100.
But for the more rational people, the theistic-FSK so claimed is not credible and rational non-theists would likely rate the credibility of the theistic-FSK at 5/100.

At this stage I do not expect anyone to rate the credibility of my FSK.
Since my moral FSK is similar [not exactly] with the features of the scientific FSK at 90/100, I would personally rate it >80/100.
Features of the Scientific FSK to support its credibility
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Since my FSK is similar to the scientific FSK it cannot be the same as the theistic-FSK.

Based on inference if anyone were to rate my moral FSK it would be at least be rated at >50/100, thus my moral FSK is credible based on the above inference.

[FlashDangerpants]

Rather than address my arguments specifically, you are merely making noises with the above.
For example, you could prove to me my claim there are physical moral oughtness in the human brain is an impossibility.

As I had stated why you cannot align with my views absolutely is because you are stuck in an archaic paradigm as influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs and Classical analytic philosophers.
This is like theists never seeing eye to eye non-theists or the far-left never agreeing with Trump's supporters and vice versa.

Did you do that move because you know it is true that there are exactly zero persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible?
So you decided that you wished I had written something else.

Are you familiar with Framework and System, i.e. of Knowledge [FSK], Reality [FSR] or if you prefer Beliefs [FSB].

It is obvious scientific knowledge are generated within a scientific FSK and the majority believe the scientific FSK is credible in general. But there is no guarantee of credibility in particular cases due to biasness because of funding, and cheats.
Let say we rate the credibility of the scientific FSK at 90/100.

The majority of theists also insist their claims from a divine based framework and system are spiritual knowledge, thus the theistic-FSK. You cannot stop them from using the term FSK. Theists will rate the credibility of their theistic-FSK at 100/100.
But for the more rational people, the theistic-FSK so claimed is not credible and rational non-theists would likely rate the credibility of the theistic-FSK at 5/100.

At this stage I do not expect anyone to rate the credibility of my FSK.
Since my moral FSK is similar [not exactly] with the features of the scientific FSK at 90/100, I would personally rate it >80/100.
Features of the Scientific FSK to support its credibility
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Since my FSK is similar to the scientific FSK it cannot be the same as the theistic-FSK.

Based on inference if anyone were to rate my moral FSK it would be at least be rated at >50/100, thus my moral FSK is credible based on the above inference.

But the credibility of the FSK is a factor of the number of people who believe it is accurate in describing reality.
Your FSK has one person only who believes any such thing, everyone else thinks it is stupid.
Your arguments, by which you hope to persuade people that your FSK does describe a reality all depend on the FSK itself.
Therefore people who don't already believe the FSK don't have any reason to believe them.
Therefore the FSK can never be credible.
And therefore none of the arguments which depend on a credible FSK can be true.

Other belief systems which provide argument that can only persuade existing believers have the same problem, but they at least benefit from having some believers. You don't even have that. You are a one man cult.