I wouldn't know, but we don't need to.

Does your atheism inform you of that, or suggest that it's the case?

(March 29, 2019 at 2:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm suggesting that god beliefs are very compelling for those that hold them.  

Do you disagree?  Doesn't seem like you do.  

Sure, in so much as attaching eternal importance to things is more compelling than attaching finite of finicky importance to things.

Quote:-and since moral realism doesn't actually require the existence of a god..then they would be plain and simply wrong, just as you are plain and simply wrong.

It depends on what form of moral realism you're referring to, if its akin to some form of platonic moral realism, than yes that's dependent on platonic theism.

If we're talking about yours, which is just dressed up subjectivism than no. In our previous argument over this, I got you to concede to the idea of taste realism, that thin crispy pizza with the right proportion of cheese is objectively good. According to your logic, all thats required to shift any subjective preference to objectivism, is defining some measurable criteria to qualify one's subjective preferences. You fail to recognize your incoherencies, that's perhaps why you've done a poor job of selling moral realism onto other atheists here.

(March 29, 2019 at 2:54 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 2:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm suggesting that god beliefs are very compelling for those that hold them.  

Do you disagree?  Doesn't seem like you do.  

Sure, in so much as attaching eternal importance to things is more compelling than attaching finite of finicky importance to things.

Then there we are.  Attaching this sort of "eternal importance" to a shitty thing is very compelling.  Even if we all do know that treating someone as a subhuman or torturing kids is wrong, if we can be made to believe that doing so is of divine importance......

Quote:

Quote:-and since moral realism doesn't actually require the existence of a god..then they would be plain and simply wrong, just as you are plain and simply wrong.

It depends on what form of moral realism you're referring to

No, it doesn't.  You're plain and simply wrong.

Quote:In our previous argument over this, I got you to concede to the idea of taste realism, that thin crispy pizza with the right proportion of cheese is objectively good. According to your logic, all thats required to shift any subjective preference to objectivism, is defining some measurable criteria to qualify one's subjective preferences. You fail to recognize your incoherencies, that's perhaps why you've done a poor job of selling moral realism onto other atheists here.

In our previous argument you demonstrated that you don't know what moral realism is, and you seem intent on repeating that performance.

(March 29, 2019 at 2:43 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

*Raises appendage*

Uhm.... but aren't numbers (And numbering systems) , like other 'Languages' just subjective?

Such that.... when those that use a numbering or language system die out completely... then doesn't the systems they agreed upon also cease to exist?

To the extent that, effectivly, they are nonexistent?

Heck, did they even exist before/until said societies/cultures just happened to agree/reach a concensus on their values/meanings in the first place?

Hope my ideas are grokkable by others.

If a dog takes two bones into the woods, and no one is around to count them, or give each bone the symbol of 1, and the symbol of 2, or "two", when combined. Does this mean he didn't take two bones into the woods?

If there's no god in the woods, does that mean that there are not two bones?

(March 29, 2019 at 2:58 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 2:43 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

*Raises appendage*

Uhm.... but aren't numbers (And numbering systems) , like other 'Languages' just subjective?

Such that.... when those that use a numbering or language system die out completely... then doesn't the systems they agreed upon also cease to exist?

To the extent that, effectivly, they are nonexistent?

Heck, did they even exist before/until said societies/cultures just happened to agree/reach a concensus on their values/meanings in the first place?

Hope my ideas are grokkable by others.

If a dog takes two bones into the woods, and no one is around to count them, or give each bone the symbol of 1, and the symbol of 2, or "two", when combined. Does this mean he didn't take two bones into the woods?

Yes... but you're using the mutually agreed upon terms/symbols just to type that concept, no?

Would you be able to make heads or tails out of the above if it were expressed in, say, Cuniform B for example?

Now, I'm not saying certain concepts can't be ubiquitous.....

But the methods of expressing said concepts certainly are not.

(March 29, 2019 at 3:22 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 2:58 pm)Acrobat Wrote: If a dog takes two bones into the woods, and no one is around to count them, or give each bone the symbol of 1, and the symbol of 2, or "two", when combined. Does this mean he didn't take two bones into the woods?

Yes... but you're using the mutually agreed upon terms/symbols just to type that concept, no?

Would you be able to make heads or tails out of the above if it were expressed in, say, Cuniform B for example?

Now, I'm not saying certain concepts can't be ubiquitous.....

But the methods of expressing said concepts certainly are not.

You're referring to the language used to express such concepts, I'm referring to what the language and symbols represents. If I gave you a pineapple and another pineapple later, you'll have two pineapples, regardless if I expressed this in hindi, or with a series of grunts.

The fact that this has collapsed into a discussion about pineapples is demonstrative, lol.

(March 29, 2019 at 3:31 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 3:22 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Yes... but you're using the mutually agreed upon terms/symbols just to type that concept, no?

Would you be able to make heads or tails out of the above if it were expressed in, say, Cuniform B for example?

Now, I'm not saying certain concepts can't be ubiquitous.....

But the methods of expressing said concepts certainly are not.

You're referring to the language used to express such concepts, I'm referring to what the language and symbols represents. If I gave you a pineapple and another pineapple later, you'll have two pineapples, regardless if I expressed this in hindi, or with a series of grunts.

Yes... I already agreed that certain 'Thing's are/might be ubiquitous.

'Splan' 'GLecvk' Splan' 'Spleed' 'Glorf', however, just doesn't have the same ring as some of your other examples now, does it?

We're of the agreement that language is subjective. At a base level. Like, all of it, yes?

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(March 29, 2019 at 11:54 am)pocaracas Wrote: External to you... but is it external to the whole of humanity? Is there such a thing as morality in the absence of humanity? Or rather, in the absence of any social species!
I'd wager that no. Morality applies to a social group.
For species that are not social... and I'm going for an obviously not social example... like an ameba, do you suppose that morality would somehow apply?

What does 1+1 mean in the absence of a conscience that keeps a tally on an amount?

Might as well ask what does reality, or truth mean in absence of conscience, self aware creatures who acknowledge and recognize it? Does truth cease to exist, absent of conscience observers to acknowledge it?

If truth is something pertaining to statements, then, in the absence of statements (which would happen in the absence of consciences), truth is non-existent.

Reality, though, would be what it is, regardless.

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Does 1 and 1 still equal two, if there’s no one left do add them?

My question was more in line of what is an addition in the absence of a conscious entity?
Does reality do addition?
Does reality count items?

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Let’s ask another question, if some objective observer was trying to categorize things the human species perceives as objective truths, like 1+1 =2, the roundness of a ball, the existence of the chair in my room etc, and subjective preferences, like our affinity to a particular band, or food, etc…

Which category do you think morality would fall into? Would statements like torturing innocent babies is wrong, resemble or be synonymous with statements of personal taste, like pepperoni pizza taste bad, or more  like 1+1 = 4 is wrong?

Possibly... if they extrapolate torture to their own kind...
I don't know how wrong will they consider if it's done to the self species.
Also, you're assuming that a non-human would also categorize things as we do, with a pattern seeking brain. That need not be so.

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: It shouldn’t be too surprising that our moral perceptions don’t resemble our subjective taste, but rather objective truths. Only compounded by the fact of immoralities reliance on lies and deceptions, the resemblance of moral arguments to arguments about truth, etc….

It shouldn't be surprising that our moral perceptions resemble the set of behaviors that lead to a healthy and thriving community. Some of those behaviors have been genetically selected for and are similar to those found in other social species, while other behaviors seem unique to or species and tend to be learned and imposed by society, either by laws and rules, or by peer pressure.

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:Those others that perceive the same moral wrongness as you... could they not have been the recipients a moral code handed down through genetics? A moral code that you then perceive as exdernal, for you cannot consciously account for its origin?

Or our genetics gave us the tools to recognize right and wrong, much like they’ve given us the tools to recognize what’s true and false. Without an external truth, there’s nothing for these tools to recognize or discern.

Mostly trial and error, I'd say...

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Secondly it makes little sense to locate a moral code in our genetics. Because if strictly speaking about biology here, we’d be merely appealing to biological sensations, ultimately describing our feelings so to say. Saying torturing innocent babies just for fun, would be a mere description of the negative feelings this idea illicits.

It is typically described as something more akin to disgust... not a simple negative feeling, but one of the strongest there is.

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote: But very few people, including atheists would suggesting that all that’s wrong with torturing innocent babies just for fun is simply that they don’t like it, or equivocate such statements, as no more than stating they don’t like pizza.

As far as origins are concerned, I don’t need to account for the origins of the chair in my room, to acknowledge it’s existence independent of my mind perceiving it, anymore so that I need to account for origins of moral reality, to acknowledge it’s existence.

Wrong. Psychological phenomena needs such an account.
You easily acknowledge that you have morals, that within you is a sense of a moral reality... but you can't bestow that moral reality upon the rest of the world.

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:But the truth value of the statement "the earth is flat" is very near the 0% I mentioned earlier...
The statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.

The truth value of the statement “torturing innocent babies for fun is morally good” is very near 0%. This statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.

If someone here claims that torturing innocent babies just for fun is a good thing, they would be no less wrong, than some who claim the earth is flat. In fact he’d likely be more delusional than a person who thinks the earth is flat.

But why do you (and most of us) consider that harming another human being is morally wrong? (see?, it doesn't need to be torture and babies, nor for fun)
I'm certain that such a "rule" is not floating around in the ether and it somehow crystallizes upon most of the human brains...

(March 29, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

Quote:Why do you anthropomorphize Evil and Good?

I don’t see my previous statement as anthropomorphizing evil and good.

I’m merely pointing out that when people perform evil, they’re often reliant on lies and delusions to justify it, such as blacks are less than white, that the jews were responsible for all the ailments of german society, etc….They have to resort to things like dehumanization, scapegoating etc… in order to conceal the truth. They tend to be maladapted, unhinged, etc.. Which they wouldn’t have to do if it’s merely subjective. No false justification is needed to defend why I like chocolate, the fact that I like it is sufficient enough.

But, if they perceive a lie to be a truth, then what you consider to be an evil, they consider to be a good.
You may try to draw upon some global consensus to ascertain that you hold the opinion of the majority, but that doesn't change the fact that those people were convinced they were doing good (or, at least, not evil).