"Dale" wrote in message
...
| solipsism implies there is no way to prove the external is not an
| extension of the internal
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
|
| I find that I take up faith in the external for purposes of fear, hope
| and enjoyment
|
| taking up any faith would negate solipsism
|
| atheism and science fall into the same categories of faith, as with
| anything else you cannot prove the external is not an extension of the
| internal
|

Yes, indeed....

| but I think this all justifies relative morality
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_Morality
|
| if everything is a choice to the internal, unless the external presents
| something tangible, there are no absolutes, and the external can only be
| known as a faith (does this mean I am still a solipsist), so one can
| only derive morality from the internal
|
| this said, empathy seems to be a majority opinion
|

But if you can't prove object then why do you
assume that subject exists? "I think, therefore I am"
is the best we've come up with, and that's just a
fuzzy-headed protest of desperation.
You're failing to stand outside the limited subject-object
absolutism of science when you question that absolutism.
That way lies nihilism and the danger of moral relativism.