Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Angrboda]

All you've done is double-down on your original assertion and attempted to shift the burden of proof.  What you haven't done is give a reason why moral opinions are evidence of moral facts.  

Exactly right. I want you to come out clearly and say that the evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact. If someone has to explain to you why it was wrong then you wouldn't understand anyway.

You're fucking hysterical. If there are moral facts, they exist only in as much as they are a reflection of a shared, evolved psychology. As such, I don't believe there are any absolute moral facts, including whether the holocaust was evil. Moral truth is relative, the appropriate level of context being that of the species. A lion cares not one whit that humans were killed during the holocaust. Your appeal to emotion with the "wouldn't understand [it] anyway" remark is noted and ignored. You're simply begging off on providing an explanation because you, yourself, are incapable of providing an explanation for your noncognitive grunts and groans. All you've managed to say is, "The holocaust -- boo!" You haven't given any kind of explanation for moral facts whatsoever, and thus your assertion that the revulsion toward the holocaust is evidence of a moral fact is nothing but a lot of posturing to avoid having to face the failure of your worldview to account for morality as something other than magic.

Sure, physicalism posits a mind which exists in a world of its own making.  This 'intentionality' that you speak of can be of things that are entirely fictions of the mind.  Even without physicalism, we know that not everything thought up by the mind exists as a real world thing.

You just cut off the branch on which you were sitting. Since everything in the mind is of its own making, then any connection to something real is entirely fortuitous.

That doesn't even remotely follow. Any connection between something real and our mind's contents is a result of selective pressures upon the evolution of the brain. Only under your theory of the mind is the connection between reality and the contents of the mind fortuitous, literally. You call it God. It's nothing more than explaining the resemblance between mind and reality as something that "just happened"; it's magic, according to you. Pot, meet kettle.

Care to disprove physicalism?

I don't need to. It's mere assertion.

So I'm expected to accept whole hog your metaphysical gobbledy gook about moral facts, but you don't need to do squat. Nice double standard you've got there.