If it wasn't for religion

[Angrboda]

You can take an infant, a baby, put on a puppet show where one puppet is cruel or mean, and they seem to recognize that there's something wrong about that behavior, that this level of recognization is not dependent on external social influences telling him that it is.

You mean that evolved morality shit? Good to know you're not a moral realist arguing that morals are an innate property of reality. </sarcasm>

lol.

[Acrobat]

You can take an infant, a baby, put on a puppet show where one puppet is cruel or mean, and they seem to recognize that there's something wrong about that behavior, that this level of recognization is not dependent on external social influences telling him that it is.

You mean that evolved morality shit?  Good to know you're not a moral realist arguing that morals are an innate property of reality. </sarcasm>

lol.

No, the recognition is of something external to them, not a recognition of their biological sensations and feelings. It's not a recognition of an internal discomfort, like a stomach ache, or the prick of a needle, but about something out there, not in here. 


The perception that there's something wrong about that behavior, isn't reducible to some discomforting biological sensation that's a product of our biological evolution. Or in other words i'm not saying something about my biology, when recognizing the wrongness here.

[Angrboda]

You mean that evolved morality shit?  Good to know you're not a moral realist arguing that morals are an innate property of reality. </sarcasm>

lol.

No, the recognition is of something external to them, not a recognition of their biological sensations and feelings. It's not a recognition of an internal discomfort, like a stomach ache, or the prick of a needle, but about something out there, not in here. 


The perception that there's something wrong about that behavior, isn't reducible to some discomforting biological sensation that's a product of our biological evolution. Or in other words i'm not saying something about my biology, when recognizing the wrongness here.

Mein Gott, you don't even get sarcasm! lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Now that I got all of the pleasantries and pretend out of the way....

I don't know why you're balling yourself up into a knot on this.  You've supplied your evaluative premise before.  There's no reason to be cagey about your beliefs, the beliefs that informed your assertion that there is some profound moral difference between religion and no religion.

We should not do bad things | because we were created by a god in it's image.

You've indicated, many times..that if the purported empirical fact after the line were not true, you would suddenly think that "all was permissible".

[GrandizerII]

Yet morality can be objective without existing in the platonic sense. The only article I know that equates moral realism to moral platonism is from Wikipedia. Other [more] academic articles, such as on IEP, do not.

Yet, in order for morality to be objective, reality needs to “possess the stuff of morality”, even if you want to suggest this exists in some non-platonic way.

Ok, let's rewind a little because we're getting sidetracked here. Suppose this is true, how do you turn this into an argument that logically favors theism over atheism? This is what I'm interested about.

There's a world of difference between accepting that other people have minds of their own (because that should be the default reasoning given that other people are just like us in so many ways and behave as if they have minds) and accepting that moral goodness exists in the platonic sense (my default reasoning does not lead me to such a conclusion and I have nothing to go by in terms of observations that would compel me to do so).

Not really. In fact i’m more confident that moral goodness exist in reality, more so than I am that your mind exists.

Such an unwarranted confidence you have there.

And you yourself seem to be of two minds when it comes to the question. Unsure of where you stand in the equation. You’ve never really argued otherwise.

Let's be really clear here. My agnosticism is on the nature of morality, and you yourself don't seem to be clear on what exactly is the nature of morality either. When asked how exactly does nature tell us we ought not to kill, or that killing is wrong, you're unable to provide the answer. So let's not pretend you know what you're talking about here. Have some intellectual humility for a change, and don't be a "Dunning-Krueger" guy.

On the other hand, what I am not agnostic about is whether a god is needed or not for objective morality to be a thing. Whether objective morality exists or not, IF it does exist (and I lean towards that view myself), then it can exist in the absence of God. God, at best, can assert/assume killing is wrong, and that we ought not to kill, but God's existence, character, nature or will cannot sufficiently explain how killing is wrong and why we ought not to kill. So theists have that problem that they need to resolve first before they can argue for anything else regarding objective morality. Theists generally argue as subjectivists even when they delude themselves into thinking they're realists.

I can recognize it exists objectively, and not just in my mind, by acknowledging a variety of similarities with other things that exists objectively like the cup. That the thing I’m perceiving with my mind exists independently of it. I can go around asking others whether they also see that the holocaust is objectively wrong. And they confirm they see this as well.

Yeah, sorry, but I can't agree with this reasoning at all. A cup for one thing is observable to us, and we can do such things as see and touch a cup and intuit/reason that therefore a cup exists. Even though the holocaust may objectively be wrong, you can't use the cup analogy to get to what you're trying to argue, because the existence of moral truths is clearly of a different nature than the existence of physical objects such as cups.

But nevertheless, many atheists believe the holocaust is objectively wrong, and you have yet to establish a clear logical link between a god and objective morality. Get working on that please, and stop with the distractions.

I can recognize that goodness, wrongness are not decorative frills of personal opinion, like my taste in music, nor are they imposed on us by our societies and other people, as evident by even babies having some basic moral cognitions, or the existence of core universal morality. I can acknowledge that morality is matter of objective truth, as evident by the level of delusions, lies, and falsehoods required to believe things like the holocaust is good, unlike for subjective things, like pepperoni pizza is good, which require no such false justification, to disagree.

Again, you aren't really arguing for theism here. All you're doing is making some case (whether it's a poor case or not) for moral realism, which if true, is true regardless of whether a god exists.

You're equivocating (as explained above), but then again, even the platonic sense I merely question. Like I said before, my view on this is provisional and am very open to adjusting my view in light of proper logic, which I have yet to see.

See even you can’t bring yourself to deny the existence of a reality that “possess moral stuff”, unlike the sort of confidence you might have about the God question. I’m also not sure how i’m supposed to reject that it does, when my opponents lack the confidence, and are so unsure as to whether it does or not?

All this focusing on my agnosticism regarding the nature of morality just so you can avoid addressing the challenges presented to you, eh?

Still no compelling argument for a god. And going by your last post, it looks like you submit that morality can be objective even if a god did not exist. That's good.

No I’m just saying my argument is not dependent on you acknowledging the existence of God, doesn’t require any agreement on what the term God means between us, etc… As a result for the purposes of this discussion, we can leave the God question out.

No you cannot do that without being disingenuous. If you want to convince us that the objective morality argument logically favors theism over atheism (something which you did attempt to do anyway earlier with the whole MLK thing but now choose to backtrack), the natural thing is to show that God is needed for objective morality to be a thing. As you have failed to establish the needed link, you have failed to provide any compelling case for your god.

Not to worry though, since you're not the first nor the last theist to fail to do so.

What I will say that it’s not merely coincidental that you as atheists are unsure about whether reality possess moral stuff, unsure about objective morality, regardless of whether you see the relationship between these views and your atheism or not.

It's called being a limited human being with limited knowledge on matters of metaphysics. You aren't any different, you just don't have the guts to admit you lack knowledge as well. For you, to admit agnosticism is to admit a weakness in your position of certitude (which you are forced to take because of the demands of faith). You need to be right for your own psychological wellbeing, so you will pretend you're certain you're right. I, on the other hand, don't have to struggle with that.

In fact  in my view, its your atheisms that makes  you unsure, a fear that such beliefs may undermine your disbelief. It’s a symptom of your disease.

Wow, there comes your true colors. You don't think too highly of atheists, and I was right to suggest earlier that you have a prejudice against atheists.

So what we have seen thus far is that you can't think of a compelling case to make for god being necessary for objective morality, so you dodge and distract (because that's theb est you can do). And you have a personal beef with atheists.

[Acrobat]

Yeah, sorry, but I can't agree with this reasoning at all. A cup for one thing is observable to us, and we can do such things as see and touch a cup and intuit/reason that therefore a cup exists. Even though the holocaust may objectively be wrong, you can't use the cup analogy to get to what you're trying to argue, because the existence of moral truths is clearly of a different nature than the existence of physical objects such as cups.

We rely on our perceptions to recognize what exists externally to us, as distinct from what we might say exists internally to us, like our subjective states.

I also don’t need to touch the cup to acknowledge its objective existence, seeing is sufficient. Or for a tune playing in background, hearing is sufficient, to recognize it’s not a sound just playing in our head, but being played out there.

You can say the sound of music, and a cup don’t exist the same way. A cup i can touch and see but not hear, while a sound I can’t touch or see but can hear, but our perceptions indicate that they exist external to us, regardless of the components of our perception used to deduce it.

When we recognize the wrongness of things, we’re not recognizing a decorative frill of personal opinion, like my toddler discovering that she likes the taste of guava, that guava taste good, or recognizing something about our biological sensations. We are perceiving it as external to us, as objective, not subjective. Objective like the cup in front of me, or the sound in the background, not subjective like my personal tastes.

Someone who denies such a perception, would be akin to someone denying the earth is round. Even you can’t bring yourself to deny this, you’re just unsure, feel uncomfortable committing to this one way or the other.

Without any significant reason to doubt the veracity of our sense perceptions, we have no more reason to reject them here, than I have to believe I’m a brain in a vat.

All this focusing on my agnosticism regarding the nature of morality just so you can avoid addressing the challenges presented to you, eh?

I have no interest in arguing for the existence of God, I have an interest in arguing for a reality that posses moral aims and purposes. So why should I argue about things I’m not interested in arguing with you about? You, and others here have indicated my argument, can be separated from God beliefs, and I am glad to treat it as they can be for pragmatic reasons.

If you want to convince us that the objective morality argument logically favors theism over atheism (something which you did attempt to do anyway earlier with the whole MLK thing but now choose to backtrack), the natural thing is to show that God is needed for objective morality to be a thing. As you have failed to establish the needed link, you have failed to provide any compelling case for your god.

Not to worry though, since you're not the first nor the last theist to fail to do so.

Let’s skip whether it logically favors theism. Clearly no atheist here seems to believe that reality possess moral aims and purposes, or that the “universe possess a moral arc” as MLK put it, or with Bhikkhu Bodhi: “ morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."

You may not deny such views of reality, but you have a hard time committing to them. Where as I, and other religious people like MLK and Bodhi don’t. It’s much easier for me to accept this as a theist, than it is for you to accept this as an atheist, regardless if we can or can’t make a logical connection between the two.

To put it less dodgey, such a reality that posses “ the stuff of morality”, moral aims and purposes is teleological. Teleological views of reality is an aspect far more comfortably accepted by theist, than atheist. It’s not just a coincidence that you as an atheist, have a reluctance to accept such a reality, even if you think it is just coincidental.

Wow, there comes your true colors. You don't think too highly of atheists, and I was right to suggest earlier that you have a prejudice against atheists.

I have a poor opinion about the beliefs and view atheists hold, most of which I think are delusional, and contradictory. I don't have a poor opinion of atheist personally. Meaning I don't doubt that you're a decent dude, who I wouldn't mind grabbing a drink with, or would mistrust watching my kids, etc... I'm sure there plenty of people in your life, that have stupid beliefs, who you think are a bit delusional, etc.. that you still consider friends, or decent people in general.

[The Grand Nudger]

Until you can give an example of some delusional or contradictory belief that atheists hold...no one is going to know what you're talking about. It's even less clear how your beliefs, in that regard, inform your previously stated beliefs that there would be some moral difference if your superstitions were false.

You may not deny such views of reality, but you have a hard time committing to them. Where as I, and other religious people like MLK and Bodhi don’t. It’s much easier for me to accept this as a theist, than it is for you to accept this as an atheist, regardless if we  can or can’t make a logical connection between the two.

Since no one has to commit to any of those statements or views in order to be a realist, why would it matter if a person did or didn't commit to those views? Meanwhile, other realists can make logical connections, you may feel that the ease with which you accept something is relevant, but even if you do find it easy..you're at a disadvantage to those other realists who can do what you cannot, and need not accept what you have, regardless of how easily you've done so.

Bluntly, I wouldn't boast about the fundamental laziness of my moral position as I compared it to other rigorous and systematic appraisals...but that's just me.

[Acrobat]

Until you can give an example of some delusional or contradictory belief that atheists hold...no one is going to know what you're talking about.

Sure, we’ll start with you.

Your inability to recognize that calling the holocaust morally bad is a value based judgement, and as a result an evaluative proposition. Your inability to recognize that claiming that moral oughts are subjective, such as one ought to do good etc.. renders propositions such as the holocaust is bad as subjective.

Your weird belief that saying the holocaust is bad is synonymous with a historical statement about it, that it amounts to some physical description of what occurred and its impact, and that labelling of bad, isn’t implying moral guidance, or directive.

Now, it should go without saying that typically when people hold contradictory or delusional beliefs, they tend not to recognize it no matter how plainly you indicate it to them.

You may not deny such views of reality, but you have a hard time committing to them. Where as I, and other religious people like MLK and Bodhi don’t. It’s much easier for me to accept this as a theist, than it is for you to accept this as an atheist, regardless if we  can or can’t make a logical connection between the two.

Since no one has to commit to any of those statements or views in order to be a realist, why would it matter if a person did or didn't commit to those views?  Meanwhile, other realists can make logical connections, you may feel that the ease with which you accept something is relevant, but even if you do find it easy..you're at a disadvantage to those other realists who can do what you cannot, and need not accept what you have, regardless of how easily you've done so.

Yes, you’re right there does seem to be plenty of atheists who don’t subscribe to any teleological views of reality, that consider themselves moral realist, and defined the label as such to apply to them. This doesn’t mean their beliefs and views are no less contradictory or incoherent as yours.

But the commitment here is not about whether you can fall under the moral realist label or not, the original point I made here, is that you wouldn’t get an MLK absent of such commitments, of the very thing you refuse to commit to believing in.

No MLK will come out of a lack of belief in something equivalent to an “arc of the moral universe”, or a lack of a belief in a reality that possess moral aims and goals, and purposes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Until you can give an example of some delusional or contradictory belief that atheists hold...no one is going to know what you're talking about.

Sure, we’ll start with you.

Your inability to recognize that calling the holocaust morally bad is a value based judgement, and as a result an evaluative proposition.

You're mistaken.  This has been explained to you at length, multiple times, in two threads.  

There are bad things - the moral fact.
holocaust is a bad thing - the value judgement.
we should avoid doing bad things because of x - the evaluative proposition.  

Your inability to recognize that claiming that moral oughts are subjective, such as one ought to do good etc.. renders propositions such as the holocaust is bad as subjective.

I recognize that they can be because to claim otherwise would be to reject an actual fact of morality as practiced.  That an ought can be (and often is) subjective doesn't mean that oughts must be or always are subjective.  

Your weird belief that saying the holocaust is bad is synonymous with a historical statement about it, that it amounts to some physical description of what occurred and its impact, and that labelling of bad, isn’t implying moral guidance, or directive.

What else would you expect a natural realist to be referring to when they made a value judgement from a moral fact?  I think that there is some empirical fact(s) of a matter x that establishes whether or not that thing belongs to the set of Bad Things™.  That's what identifies me as a moral realist, and even more specifically, as a natural realist.   OFC I don;t think that knowing whether or not something is bad establishes what we ought to do about it.

To derive an ought from an is......at least one evaluative premise is required. The evaluative premise informs me as to what I should do about it, and why... not the possession of the moral fact in and of itself. Is/ought.

Now, it should go without saying that typically when people hold contradictory or delusional beliefs, they tend not to recognize it no matter how plainly you indicate it to them.

It may be that atheists hold contradictory and delusional beliefs..I say that half giggling, because I'm certain that we do..but you've failed to explain why it would be relevant and failed to present an example of such a belief in this conversation......so...?

Yes, you’re right there does seem to be plenty of atheists who don’t subscribe to any teleological views of reality, that consider themselves moral realist, and defined the label as such to apply to them. This doesn’t mean their beliefs and views are no less contradictory or incoherent as yours.

................?

I think that there are moral facts of a matter.  This is the only requirement of moral realism.  Since I don't simultaneously think that there are -not- moral facts of a matter.....it's difficult to understand why you would imagine that I hold some contradictory or incoherent belief that precludes me from being an authentic moral realist. I just don't share your superstitions.

But the commitment here is not about whether you can fall under the moral realist label or not, the original point I made here, is that you wouldn’t get an MLK absent of such commitments, of the very thing you refuse to commit to believing in.

A point as poorly attempted as any other in this thread or the last.  You're not actually making points..you're just saying ignorant things that you can't explain, establish, demonstrate, or even competently communicate.  

No MLK will come out of a lack of belief in something equivalent to an “arc of the moral universe”, or a lack of a belief in a reality that possess moral aims and goals, and purposes.

Until you can establish a superstitious requirement to moral realism or civil rights this is as doa as it was the first time you asserted it. Simple empirical facts such as the existence of atheists in the civil rights movement and the preponderance of atheists advocating for moral realism, combined with the presence of influential atheists in both areas...in addition to the compatibility of any reason or rationalization to either effect that needs no reference to gods or any other superstition tells me that you're just flat out wrong.

Ultimately, it seems as though you've taken a rejection of your own purported facts of a matter as a rejection of facts of a matter in toto. Can you see why this would be a mistake? If we're going to engage with each other as realists, you're going to have to abandon the sloganeering your prejudices have inculcated in you. You say that there is some fact of a matter, and that fact of the matter is x. I say that yes, there are facts of a matter, but x is not one of them.

Your beef, as a realist, to another realist, could only be that I am wrong..not that I'm delusional or incoherent or not-a-realist, lol. Well, okay...but if that's so then get to fucking work and show that your purported fact is a fact.

Good luck.

[Acrobat]

There are bad things - the moral fact.
holocaust is a bad thing - the value judgement.
we should avoid doing bad things because of x - the evaluative proposition.  

Lets try the same thing with food taste.

1.)There are bad things (things that taste bad), and good things (things that taste good). A taste fact

Indian food tastes bad - the value judgement

We should avoid eating things that taste bad because of x - the evaluative proposition.

I’m a taste realist. I believe in objective tastism.

Tell me why this argument for objective tastism is false, since it borrows your basic logic.


Or let's try it alternatively.


2.)There are bad things, just like there are yellow things, and blue things, and circle things, and square things. Moral Goodness and Badness exist independently of us, reality possess good and bad moral properties, that exist indepedently of our minds, just like yellow and blue do.

Reality possess “the stuff of morality”, which our minds can perceive, but exists independently of them, exists objectively. A persons inability to see the bad or good things, is sort of like being color blind, and not seeing the objective yellowness of my wife’s dress.


Do you agree with 2?

Until you can establish a superstitious requirement to moral realism or civil rights this is as doa as it was the first time you asserted it. Simple empirical facts such as the existence of atheists in the civil rights movement and the preponderance of atheists advocating for moral realism, combined with the presence of influential atheists in both areas tells me that you're just flat out wrong.

No atheists and others have and can support and be a part of things like the civil rights movement, and lack the basic moral commitments of folks like MLK, in his belief in a moral order of the cosmos. But their lack of such commitments render them unable to rise above sheep following a shepherd willing to make the commitments they refuse to, or an unable too. Their lack of commitments to such beliefs renders them unable to be an MLK, though they can be supportive followers of him.