(July 31, 2019 at 11:16 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(July 31, 2019 at 10:57 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Doesn't change the fact that social powers can have an impact on people and condition people to think in line with the current zeitgeist. The oughts we get continue to come from us, not from a silent ideal out there in a remote realm.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil”.

A verse which was written by members of an ancient human society.

Quote:What social powers often do is call bad things good and good things bad. Since good and bad are objective truths, what they’re doing is selling a lie, a deception to what’s true, sort of like convincing people that 9/11 was an inside job, and not like convincing people to change their fashion style.

Yes society isn't perfect and will distort the facts sometimes. That's human society for you.

Quote:If you wanted to convince someone to do something thats objectively bad, just lie and convince them that’s it good, and not bad

Yeah if you want to be a bullshitter, sure. Go for it.

---

(July 31, 2019 at 11:36 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(July 31, 2019 at 10:57 pm)Grandizer Wrote: But what exactly is theistic that you see about this view?

I consider any view of reality as teleological, possessing some sort of intrinsic goal, or aim, meaning, more like a narrative, a story, as opposed to some sort of nihilistic view, as theistic.

If the Good exists, I desire to serve, worship, submit to it, to share in it, be like it, etc.. I would see it as the way the truth, and the life.

I would see all that stands in opposition to the Good, as in a state of rebellion, broken, in need of redemption, to be whole again.

Now perhaps you disagree with this definition of theism, and believe I can hold such beliefs and not fall into either category. If so I’m okay with that, remaining undefined, because we don’t share the same understanding of terms like theism, or god.

I'm still not sure how that works worshipping something that isn't feeling the worship because they're just an ideal, but you do you.

(August 1, 2019 at 12:35 am)Grandizer Wrote: I'm still not sure how that works worshipping something that isn't feeling the worship because they're just an ideal, but you do you.

God feeling something from our worship, would violate Gods impassibility , a position held by most forms of classical and traditional theism.

This is just another example, that whatever atheists like yourself mean by God, it’s disconnected from large portion of theistic conceptions of God.

Quote:Yes society isn't perfect and will distort the facts sometimes. That's human society for you.

Yes, a distortion of facts, not some such subjective shift.

As I indicated that it’s the recognition of something being morally wrong, that I recognize that I ought not do it.

Something that you and Gae suggest otherwise, by suggesting that while right and wrong are objective truths, not the subjective creations of a society, the recognization that I ought not do things that are wrong are.

So far you failed to support this, and just seem to constantly find yourself with your foot in your mouth

You want to have your cake and eat it to, by trying to having objective good and bad, and subjective oughts, a belief that renders your supposed moral theory as incoherent and contradictory.

(August 1, 2019 at 6:27 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 1, 2019 at 12:35 am)Grandizer Wrote: I'm still not sure how that works worshipping something that isn't feeling the worship because they're just an ideal, but you do you.

God feeling something from our worship, would violate Gods impassibility , a position held by most forms  of classical and traditional theism.

The God that you worship is nothing more than an ideal, a passive impersonal entity that speaks no words and has no say in our affairs.

Quote:

Quote:Yes society isn't perfect and will distort the facts sometimes. That's human society for you.

Yes, a distortion of facts, not some such subjective shift.

Both things can happen. It's not just one or the other.

Quote:As I indicated that it’s the recognition of something being morally wrong, that I recognize that I ought not do it.

And yet you can't even explain why something is morally wrong, you haven't done so in this and past interactions with you, and I doubt you ever will.

Quote:Something that you and Gae suggest otherwise, by suggesting that while right and wrong are objective truths, not the subjective creations of a society, the recognization that I ought not do things that are wrong are.

Well, you haven't really explained how this "recognization" transcends your mere experiences into something beyond the material world. So I don't feel compelled to shift my views on this matter in light of what you're saying, because you're not really saying much that is in line with what can be observed.

Quote:So far you failed to support this, and just seem to constantly find yourself with your foot in your mouth

I gave you examples, which all you did was handwave and insist on your opinion that society has no sway on what people ought to do or not do.

Quote:You want to have your cake and eat it to, by trying to having objective good and bad, and subjective oughts, a belief that renders your supposed moral theory as incoherent and contradictory.

Oh well, suit yourself. When you are willing to explain to me what is it about stealing that makes it wrong, then get back to me.

Of for fucks sake Acro, lol. The only reason you even know the -words- right and wrong is because of society, lol.

Unclog your ears, for once. Descriptive moral subjectivism.....a belief that you have explicitly affirmed as holding, yourself, is not a metaphysical position.

(August 1, 2019 at 7:24 am)Grandizer Wrote: I gave you examples, which all you did was handwave and insist on your opinion that society has no sway on what people ought to do or not do.

And I pointed that you’re saying here is inaccurate, by indicating that sway you’re referring to is in regards to what people see as good and bad. Society has sway on what people think is true, in believing false things instead of true things, same from sway when it comes to morality.

Society can sway people to think that bad things are good things, and vice versa.

You and I both accept that morally good and bad are objective truths, society can’t sway what is true, just conceal, distort it, or fool us into believing a lie.

Quote:The God that you worship is nothing more than an ideal, a passive impersonal entity that speaks no words and has no say in our affairs.

I find the Good to be intrusive, and personal, even if seen as no more than an existing ideal, like moral good, than an entity. As a dad, I find nothing more invasive, confrontational, demanding, of that of being a “good” father, failures produce guilt and tension. Good doesn’t have to change or move, or do anything. The invasive and penetrating effect it has is a result of how acute my recognition of it is.

Quote:And yet you can't even explain why something is morally wrong, you haven't done so in this and past interactions with you, and I doubt you ever will.

I’m just acknowledging what it is I see in front of me, not explaining how it is it got there. I don’t need to have an explanation of how the Sun got here in the morning, to recognize it in the morning.

You and I both recognize that right and wrong are objective, just like you and I can acknowledge the sun staining out my window. I am merely having discussion about what is it that we’re perceiving here, rather than work out some origin story for it.

On that question, I don’t have much a view to offer you.

Society can also get things right. That’s where you got Plato’s ideas and the idea of Christ from.

That’s descriptive moral subjectivism, which is a position you hold...even though you think you’re arguing with Grand and I over it.

(August 1, 2019 at 7:40 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Of for fucks sake Acro, lol. The only reason you even know the -words- right and wrong is because of society, lol.

True, just like the only reason I know the word truth, or love, or cats, or dogs is because of society. But the referent of those words exist objectively, hence why right and wrong are matters of objective truth, and not subjective taste.

It’s not because of society that I recognize good and bad, but the language im using here is.

Negotiate with reality all you like, but you’re still not arguing any point. Just saying “no” while agreeing.

Moral realism is a metaphysical position, wich you and grand and I all have in common. Descriptive moral subjectivism is not a metaphysical position, and does not contradict moral realism.....and which you, grand, and I all have in common.

See why you should learn the terms yet?

(August 1, 2019 at 8:00 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Society can also get things right. That’s where you got Plato’s ideas and the idea of Christ from.

That’s descriptive moral subjectivism, which is a position you hold...even though you think you’re arguing with Grand and I over it.

I typed in “ descriptive moral subjectivism” into google, and literally received 0 hits, suggesting it’s one of those Gae terms, part of his private vocabulary.

Do you mean descriptive relativism, or is “ descriptive moral subjectivism”, something different?

You’re arguing with me over shit you have to google. That outta be your first alarm bell.

Descriptive moral subjectivism is entirely like descriptive moral relativism and descriptive moral realism. Yeah. The “descriptive” qualifier setting it aside from metaphysical positions. They’re empirical assertions. AKA “observations”.

In this case, an observation you agree with, but argue against....for reasons™.