(August 10, 2019 at 10:08 pm)Sal Wrote:

(August 10, 2019 at 8:22 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: Would you be convinced of the existence of Bigfoot by an argument ?

Is there any argument, no matter how sound, that would convince you that Bigfoot exists ?

Would the "take it on faith" phrases that Bigfoot exists sway you at all ?

Now instead of Earth, let's say that people believed Bigfoot existed on another planet. Lots of planets in the universe. It would seem that maybe some kind of creature might exist out there somewhere that would resemble our Bigfoot.

So arguments come into play when NO evidence can be presented.

And if no evidence can be presented, why would you believe ?

The same reason I don't believe in Bigfoot, is the same reason I don't believe in a deity.

It's the lack of evidence. Theists use special pleading for their god.

I'm curious, when it comes to big foot, it's not hard to imagine what such evidence would look like, such as foot prints, photos, etc...

But what would evidence of God look like? Would evidence pointing to us being a product of some created order, as ID proponents, and their like often try to make a case for, constitute as evidence for God?

(August 11, 2019 at 6:06 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 10, 2019 at 10:08 pm)Sal Wrote: The same reason I don't believe in Bigfoot, is the same reason I don't believe in a deity.

It's the lack of evidence. Theists use special pleading for their god.

I'm curious, when it comes to big foot, it's nit hard to imagine what such evidence would look like, such as foot prints, photos, etc...

But what would evidence of God look like? Would evidence pointing to us being a product of some created order, as ID proponents, and their like often try to make a case for, constitute as evidence for God?

I've seen that you read a lot of the same writers I do... (Zizek, John Gray, etc.)

Have you read the Terry Eagleton book where he describes the "Yeti theory of God"? I think the Bigfoot theory would be the American version. 

He uses it specifically to identify people who don't know anything about theology, but nonetheless want to say that religion is stupid.

(August 11, 2019 at 7:05 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 6:06 am)Acrobat Wrote: I'm curious, when it comes to big foot, it's nit hard to imagine what such evidence would look like, such as foot prints, photos, etc...

But what would evidence of God look like? Would evidence pointing to us being a product of some created order, as ID proponents, and their like often try to make a case for, constitute as evidence for God?

I've seen that you read a lot of the same writers I do... (Zizek, John Gray, etc.)

Have you read the Terry Eagleton book where he describes the "Yeti theory of God"? I think the Bigfoot theory would be the American version. 

He uses it specifically to identify people who don't know anything about theology, but nonetheless want to say that religion is stupid.

Reason, Faith & Revolution? Yes, i credit Terry Eagleton for a lot, especially for introducing me to my favorite theologian, Herbert McCabe.

I think what many such unbelievers fail to recognize, is that most people live their religion, rather than develop an articulation of it. If my mother had to articulate a theology, it would have very little to do with the space in which her religion, faith, occupy in her life, it cuts deep within her. 

I think of this quote from Dostoevsky: "“the essence of religious feeling doesn’t fit in with any reasoning, with any crimes and trespasses, or with any atheisms; there’s something else here that’s not that, and it will eternally be not that; there’s something in it that atheisms will eternally glance off, and they will eternally be talking not about that.”

---

(August 10, 2019 at 12:23 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Basically, “god is good, and good is god.” And yet, we have no definition or explanation of either. What an incredibly useless basis for a moral system.

Goodness is a simple and undefinable property - G.E. Moore.

We can all recognize a variety of things that are good, like the 3 month old recognizes the a helping character is good. 

Or when I look at my daughter, and recognize her sweetness, her kindness, her innocence, purity as good, etc...

We can all recognize that someone who risked their lives to save Jews, or slaves, etc... did something good.

The recognition of Good is easy, the definition is not. There's a relationship between the meaning of Good in all these things. No Moral Theory is likely to articulate this meaning, with any justice at least.

---

(August 10, 2019 at 10:23 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, the truth that killing/torturing/raping someone is bad for their well being is independent of what anyone thinks. I think well-being is a good and moral goal for any group of people, because it is based on the fact that some actions are objectively bad for an individual’s well-being. No god necessary. Could there hypothetically be a group of people who’s societal goal is to rape and/or kill women and children? Sure. But that wouldn’t change the fact that raping and killing women and children is bad for their well-being. It would also be a pretty self-destructive goal for the group itself.

Good are bad, are not some mere descriptions of the consequences of certain actions. Their meanings are normative not descriptive. If I told my daughter that what she did is wrong, I'm not merely restating what she did, but indicating that she ought not have done what she did. "The ought not do what she did" is just as much an expression of a truth, as any sort of descriptions of the consequences of her actions. If my daughter respond, "i don't subscribe to such a goal, I ought to do whatever I want to do, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.", she would be stating something that's not true, like holocaust denial, or 9/11 was an inside job. She would be lying to herself, and not just me.

What some atheists attempt to do when trying to squeeze a objective morality out, is try to remove the normative quality of moral statements, and brush that part under the rug. Render the meaning of good and bad, as disconnected from the meanings implied in the way it's used by everyone else.

(August 11, 2019 at 7:36 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 10, 2019 at 12:23 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Basically, “god is good, and good is god.” And yet, we have no definition or explanation of either. What an incredibly useless basis for a moral system.

Goodness is a simple and undefinable property - G.E. Moore.

If it’s not definable, how do we decide what things are good and what things aren’t?

Quote:We can all recognize a variety of things that are good, like the 3 month old recognizes the a helping character is good.

Can we? What do we do when two people disagree on whether or not something is good? 

Quote:Or when I look at my daughter, and recognize her sweetness, her kindness, her innocence, purity as good, etc...

Some people resent and despise their children, and drown them in the bathtub. 

Quote:We can all recognize that someone who risked their lives to save Jews, or slaves, etc... did something good.

All of us? Even Nazis and white supremacists?  What do we do when people disagree on what is right? How do we figure out the truth of the matter?

Quote:The recognition of Good is easy.

You mean you can easily recognize things that fit your own personal definition of good. Why is it wrong to torture a baby, Acro? Before you answer, bear in mind, “it just is” is not an answer because it tells us nothing about why something is good or not good, and because I could just as well assert, “it just isn’t”. How do we figure out who is right?

(August 11, 2019 at 8:43 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: "
If it’s not definable, how do we decide what things are good and what things aren’t?"

Let's think of that for a second.

Person A subscribe to a particular moral theory like your own, and has a definition of good and bad in mind.

Person B lacks any particular moral theory, and has no particular definition of good and bad in mind, and finds in undefinable.

Both person A and person B recognize "torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong".

Do you think person A unlike person B ran this question through the formula of their particular moral theory, and derived that it's "bad" as a result?

Or would you agree with me that Person A and Person B recognized that this is wrong, by the same basis, regardless of whatever moral theory they subscribed to? That if we took scans of their brains, we'd likely see the question processed through a similar pathway?

If person A unlike Person B has a definition of Good in mind, has a well articulated moral theory, it's attachment to the recognition here, is done after the fact, attached after the recognition.

How did person B recognize that torturing innocent babies just for is wrong, if he has no real definition of wrongness, no particular moral theory he subscribes too? How does a 3 month old recognize that the actions of the helper are good, but the hinderer are not, when he has yet to acquire a language let alone definitions?

Quote: All of us? Even Nazis and white supremacists?  

The prevailing elements of such things as the Holocaust, is that it's built of delusions, dishonesty, and lies, not a difference in subjective taste, like the Nazis just liked Country Music, and we liked Hip Hop.

How do we show dishonest people the truth? Well that's easy, the same way we've done with Trump, and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist.

(August 11, 2019 at 9:17 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 8:43 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: "
If it’s not definable, how do we decide what things are good and what things aren’t?"

Let's think of that for a second.

Person A subscribe to a particular moral theory like your own, and has a definition of good and bad in mind.

Person B lacks any particular moral theory, and has no particular definition of good and bad in mind, and finds in undefinable.

Both person A and person B recognize "torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong".

Do you think person A unlike person B ran this question through the formula of their particular moral theory, and derived that it's "bad" as a result?

Or would you agree with me that Person A and Person B recognized that this is wrong, by the same basis, regardless of whatever moral theory they subscribed to? That if we  took scans of their brains, we'd likely see the question processed through a similar pathway?

If person A unlike Person B has a definition of Good in mind, has a well articulated moral theory, it's attachment to the recognition here, is done after the fact, attached after the recognition.

How did person B recognize that torturing innocent babies just for is wrong, if he has no real definition of wrongness, no particular moral theory he subscribes too? How does a 3 month old recognize that the actions of the helper are good, but the hinderer are not, when he has yet to acquire a language let alone definitions?

Quote: All of us? Even Nazis and white supremacists?  

The prevailing elements of such things as the Holocaust, is that it's built of delusions, dishonesty, and lies, not a difference in subjective taste, like the Nazis just liked Country Music, and we liked Hip Hop.

How do we show dishonest people the truth? Well that's easy, the same way we've done with Trump, and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist.

Why is it morally wrong to torture a baby for fun, Acrobat?

(August 11, 2019 at 9:17 am)Acrobat Wrote: Let's think of that for a second.

Person A subscribe to a particular moral theory like your own, and has a definition of good and bad in mind.

Person B lacks any particular moral theory, and has no particular definition of good and bad in mind, and finds in undefinable.

Both person A and person B recognize "torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong".

Do you think person A unlike person B ran this question through the formula of their particular moral theory, and derived that it's "bad" as a result?

Or would you agree with me that Person A and Person B recognized that this is wrong, by the same basis, regardless of whatever moral theory they subscribed to? That if we  took scans of their brains, we'd likely see the question processed through a similar pathway?

If person A unlike Person B has a definition of Good in mind, has a well articulated moral theory, it's attachment to the recognition here, is done after the fact, attached after the recognition.

How did person B recognize that torturing innocent babies just for is wrong, if he has no real definition of wrongness, no particular moral theory he subscribes too? How does a 3 month old recognize that the actions of the helper are good, but the hinderer are not, when he has yet to acquire a language let alone definitions?

Our moral intuitions are product of evolutionary and/or social conditioning (depending on level of morality and what exactly we're talking about). Yet some people, due to defects in the brain, don't even have that concept of right or wrong.

And 3 month olds lack the capacity to recognize much of anything as right or wrong.

Yes, people don't normally reason out why X is right or wrong, but that doesn't [necessarily] mean that the intuition came about because of some divine entity or because of some platonic thingy out there whatever it may be. You jump the gun when you conclude that all this must be because of the Good.

(August 11, 2019 at 9:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 9:17 am)Acrobat Wrote: Let's think of that for a second.

Person A subscribe to a particular moral theory like your own, and has a definition of good and bad in mind.

Person B lacks any particular moral theory, and has no particular definition of good and bad in mind, and finds in undefinable.

Both person A and person B recognize "torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong".

Do you think person A unlike person B ran this question through the formula of their particular moral theory, and derived that it's "bad" as a result?

Or would you agree with me that Person A and Person B recognized that this is wrong, by the same basis, regardless of whatever moral theory they subscribed to? That if we  took scans of their brains, we'd likely see the question processed through a similar pathway?

If person A unlike Person B has a definition of Good in mind, has a well articulated moral theory, it's attachment to the recognition here, is done after the fact, attached after the recognition.

How did person B recognize that torturing innocent babies just for is wrong, if he has no real definition of wrongness, no particular moral theory he subscribes too? How does a 3 month old recognize that the actions of the helper are good, but the hinderer are not, when he has yet to acquire a language let alone definitions?


The prevailing elements of such things as the Holocaust, is that it's built of delusions, dishonesty, and lies, not a difference in subjective taste, like the Nazis just liked Country Music, and we liked Hip Hop.

How do we show dishonest people the truth? Well that's easy, the same way we've done with Trump, and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist.

Why is it morally wrong to torture a baby for fun, Acrobat?

Because it’s hateful.

Which is probably a bit accurate than suggesting it’s recognized as wrong, because of the impact such actions have on a societies well being.

(August 11, 2019 at 9:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 9:17 am)Acrobat Wrote: Let's think of that for a second.

Person A subscribe to a particular moral theory like your own, and has a definition of good and bad in mind.

Person B lacks any particular moral theory, and has no particular definition of good and bad in mind, and finds in undefinable.

Both person A and person B recognize "torturing innocent babies just for fun is morally wrong".

Do you think person A unlike person B ran this question through the formula of their particular moral theory, and derived that it's "bad" as a result?

Or would you agree with me that Person A and Person B recognized that this is wrong, by the same basis, regardless of whatever moral theory they subscribed to? That if we  took scans of their brains, we'd likely see the question processed through a similar pathway?

If person A unlike Person B has a definition of Good in mind, has a well articulated moral theory, it's attachment to the recognition here, is done after the fact, attached after the recognition.

How did person B recognize that torturing innocent babies just for is wrong, if he has no real definition of wrongness, no particular moral theory he subscribes too? How does a 3 month old recognize that the actions of the helper are good, but the hinderer are not, when he has yet to acquire a language let alone definitions?


The prevailing elements of such things as the Holocaust, is that it's built of delusions, dishonesty, and lies, not a difference in subjective taste, like the Nazis just liked Country Music, and we liked Hip Hop.

How do we show dishonest people the truth? Well that's easy, the same way we've done with Trump, and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist.

Why is it morally wrong to torture a baby for fun, Acrobat?

Inb4 "I don't know why, and don't have to know why ... I just know"

---

(August 11, 2019 at 10:44 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(August 11, 2019 at 9:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why is it morally wrong to torture a baby for fun, Acrobat?

Because it’s hateful.

Which is probably a bit accurate than suggesting it’s recognized as wrong, because of the impact such actions have on a societies well being.

Oh surprise, surprise. A descriptive statement there.

(August 11, 2019 at 10:43 am)Grandizer Wrote: Our moral intuitions are product of evolutionary and/or social conditioning (depending on level of morality and what exactly we're talking about). Yet some people, due to defects in the brain, don't even have that concept of right or wrong.

And 3 month olds lack the capacity to recognize much of anything as right or wrong.

Yes, people don't normally reason out why X is right or wrong, but that doesn't [necessarily] mean that the intuition came about because of some divine entity or because of some platonic thingy out there whatever it may be. You jump the gun when you conclude that all this must be because of the Good.

Your appeal to evolution is incomplete.

Our ability to recognize or perceive the sun outside, is a result of multitude of ways evolution has developed our perception related biological elements. But what we are seeing (the sun) is not an illusion of our biological make up, but something external to us.

Evolution shaped the biological tools that aid in our perception of the good, just like in regards to the sun. Most people recognize a moral reality transcendent to themselves, don’t recognize good and evil as some internal biological state, but of reality itself.

The good is not some illusion of our biology, but an external reality itself.

You might want to argue otherwise, but it’s only a short path before it turns to solipsism.