Here we go again............lol.

If a person says to you that it is well demonstrated that people’s opinions of what is or isn’t good do not agree, descriptive moral subjectivity- you will insist, then, that they are metaphysical subjectivists.

The two are nit the same position.

If, otoh, they say no, you will contend that their moral assertions only matter if someone cares, and then refer back to descriptive subjectivism ( disagreement) as an argument that their opinion that there are morally relevant facts ( the realist position) is “subjective”.

You’ve gone through this bit in every thread you’ve been in. Heads you win, tails they lose.....trouble is, you’re getting literally everything entirely wrong.

- and that, like people’s perception of their moral statements, is a fact.

Meanwhile, your position is that good comes from a sky wizard, and that without sky wizards there would be no good. You dislike this description because it’s perjorative, not because it’s inaccurate.

Can you see how the lack of a commitment to accuracy and a set of standard designations is all of the steam in your tank?

(August 5, 2019 at 11:36 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: How to upset a religious person of any faith: compare their mythology to any other mythology.

I don’t find that upsetting, I find it pretty informative, especially when those comparison are done seriously.

Such as the work of anthropologist Rene Girard, and his comparison of scapegoat mythologies, which is pretty brilliant work if you ask me.

I think it’s pretty interesting to observe the common threads in such mythologies and religions.

It's funny that this guy describes a Christian God as being omniscience. Yet the bible flat out states that He is not. So atheists always try to talk to me about God as if I believe the Christian crap they are also sold. Well, I don't! I've actually read the bible. I don't believe in a magic sky god, spirit, spiritual, spirituality, supernatural or, any other such nonsense.

I've often said that my proof of God is my own anecdotal life which is useless to you. Your own knowledge of, there is a God, will also only come through your own anecdotal life experiences and no where else. God never said "believe". He just said "Trust Me". I did. WOW!

(August 9, 2019 at 4:01 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 9, 2019 at 3:59 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well, then you’re simply asserting that what we know as good is a god; that goodness is god. You will have to somehow demonstrate that to be true, or else its merely your opinion.

Okay, do you see Good morally speaking as a matter of opinion, like we might say of a good movie, or as a matter of truth?

Neither. Is that a problem for you? How do you know that what god is, is pure good? How do you know that what you think is good, is a god?

(August 9, 2019 at 5:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 9, 2019 at 4:01 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Okay, do you see Good morally speaking as a matter of opinion, like we might say of a good movie, or as a matter of truth?

Neither. Is that a problem for you? How do you know that what god is, is pure good? How do you know that what you think is good, is a god?

I think it's more he intuits the ideal "good" (I still can't really grasp this bit but whatever) as something so divine as to call it "god". The issue here, I think, is that even if we did acknowledge that there is this ideal "good", from the perspective of atheists, there's no good reason to call it "god" if it doesn't behave as the kind of god that many of us intuit to be "god". For me, a "god" would have to have a mind and be personal, something that Acrobat's god doesn't seem to have.

So it's basically Acrobat arguing that Y exists, because the X that we all agree (or at least happy to assume) exists Acrobat calls Y (even though we don't intuit it as such). It's pretty much a word game at the end of the day.

That said, I do have my suspicions, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a different sort of discussion later on, Acrobat will argue for a literal Jesus and a literal Incarnation which (I think) is antithetical to his alleged notion of god.

(August 9, 2019 at 8:52 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 9, 2019 at 5:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Neither. Is that a problem for you? How do you know that what god is, is pure good? How do you know that what you think is good, is a god?

I think it's more he intuits the ideal "good" (I still can't really grasp this bit but whatever) as something so divine as to call it "god". The issue here, I think, is that even if we did acknowledge that there is this ideal "good", from the perspective of atheists, there's no good reason to call it "god" if it doesn't behave as the kind of god that many of us intuit to be "god". For me, a "god" would have to have a mind and be personal, something that Acrobat's god doesn't seem to have.

So it's basically Acrobat arguing that Y exists, because the X that we all agree (or at least happy to assume) exists Acrobat calls Y (even though we don't intuit it as such). It's pretty much a word game at the end of the day.

That said, I do have my suspicions, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a different sort of discussion later on, Acrobat will argue for a literal Jesus and a literal Incarnation which (I think) is antithetical to his alleged notion of god.

Sure, and the point that I’m trying (and failing, apparently, lol) to make is that when push comes to shove, Acrobat admits that he just “knows” what good is; he just “sees” good, like he can see the sun. In other words, he’s making subjective moral judgements about what he thinks is good. And yes, even if he can demonstrate that some maximal or perfect good exists, it doesn’t necessarily follow that that “good” is any kind of god.

(August 9, 2019 at 9:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 9, 2019 at 8:52 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I think it's more he intuits the ideal "good" (I still can't really grasp this bit but whatever) as something so divine as to call it "god". The issue here, I think, is that even if we did acknowledge that there is this ideal "good", from the perspective of atheists, there's no good reason to call it "god" if it doesn't behave as the kind of god that many of us intuit to be "god". For me, a "god" would have to have a mind and be personal, something that Acrobat's god doesn't seem to have.

So it's basically Acrobat arguing that Y exists, because the X that we all agree (or at least happy to assume) exists Acrobat calls Y (even though we don't intuit it as such). It's pretty much a word game at the end of the day.

That said, I do have my suspicions, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a different sort of discussion later on, Acrobat will argue for a literal Jesus and a literal Incarnation which (I think) is antithetical to his alleged notion of god.

Sure, and the point that I’m trying (and failing, apparently, lol) to make is that when push comes to shove, Acrobat admits that he just “knows” what good is; he just “sees” good, like he can see the sun. In other words, he’s making subjective moral judgements about what he thinks is good. And yes, even if he can demonstrate that some maximal or perfect good exists, it doesn’t necessarily follow that that “good” is any kind of god.

I don’t see statements lik holocaust is immoral/bad, or torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong as subjective, but you do?

In my view if someone claimed the holocaust was good, they would be wrong, just like someone said the earth is flat. But you disagree?

(August 9, 2019 at 10:13 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 9, 2019 at 9:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Sure, and the point that I’m trying (and failing, apparently, lol) to make is that when push comes to shove, Acrobat admits that he just “knows” what good is; he just “sees” good, like he can see the sun. In other words, he’s making subjective moral judgements about what he thinks is good. And yes, even if he can demonstrate that some maximal or perfect good exists, it doesn’t necessarily follow that that “good” is any kind of god.

I don’t see statements lik holocaust is immoral/bad, or torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong as subjective, but you do?

In my view if someone claimed the holocaust was good, they would be wrong, just like someone said the earth is flat. But you disagree?

Intuitively, when people really contemplate what makes the holocaust (or any moral act, for that matter) wrong, they often take into account the nature of the act itself, not what deity out there dictates or determines or substantiates it. The former is what lends moral credibility. "God says so" is just a stock statement many theists just "autobotically" say when they can't be arsed to contemplate what is it that really makes it so.

(August 9, 2019 at 10:13 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 9, 2019 at 9:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Sure, and the point that I’m trying (and failing, apparently, lol) to make is that when push comes to shove, Acrobat admits that he just “knows” what good is; he just “sees” good, like he can see the sun. In other words, he’s making subjective moral judgements about what he thinks is good. And yes, even if he can demonstrate that some maximal or perfect good exists, it doesn’t necessarily follow that that “good” is any kind of god.

I don’t see statements lik holocaust is immoral/bad, or torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong as subjective, but you do?

What I’m saying is that you, Acrobat, are the one who is making that determination. I agree with you that the holocaust, and torturing babies is immoral. I don’t agree with you that a god, and/or a ‘divine maximal good’ is necessary for me to make that moral judgement.

Quote:In my view if someone claimed the holocaust was good, they would be wrong, just like someone said the earth is flat. But you disagree?

No. I agree. If a group of people can agree on a set of goals for that group, then we can say that certain actions are objectively good or bad, based on the pre-set goals for the group. If we decide that physical well-being is generally good for the majority of the group, then we can judge rape as objectively wrong with respect to that goal. That would be a moral fact.

Just seeing good, can be realist. Based on the preset goals of the group, is relativist.

Realism - facts about an act.
Subjectivism - facts about a person
Relativism - facts about a group

Do you think that the thing that makes something bad is the designation by the group, such that whatever they designated as bad, is bad..,.and whatever they don’t, isn’t? Not as a comment on how they might see it, but literally as how it is. That the fact of the groups designation is the bad-making property.

If no one agreed that rape was wrong, would that mean there was nothing wrong with rape?