Deconversion and some doubts

[GrandizerII]

Did it take your God to set the ought?

No, I don’t believe in any type of God that “sets” “makes” or “creates” oughts.

The ought comes from the recognization of what’s objectively wrong. Your the one suggesting that it takes society to set oughts.

Stealing causes some form of harm to others. Since it's bad for us to do this, then we ought not to do it. It's that simple.

I recognize that stealing is wrong, it’s from the recognition that it’s wrong, that I recognize that I ought not to do it, not from society, or some ought setting god.

---

And that's really all I'm interested in here. If there is a God who sets the rules

I don’t believe in a God who “sets” moral rules, so you should perhaps ask that to some theist who does.

I get the bit where you believe the rules aren't literally created. But you believe in some shape or form that the rules are contingent on God or that God and the rules are one or something like that. I guess I'm just trying to figure what exactly is the point of your God when it comes to morality if morality can be objective without God, and for whatever reason, you like last time we had this discussion a while ago choose not to elaborate on this bit.

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s not really any of that. The terms employed confuse him and he rankles against the flat observation of descriptive moral subjectivity, thinking that people are foisting metaphysical subjectivity on him ( or certifying it themselves).

Ofc he gets his ought from society, in the most generous view, we’re just lucky when our descriptively subjective morality happens to match up with any potential objective morality.

That old chestnut, that...somehow, the observed fact of societal influence renders whatever society says wrong or metaphysically subjective.

Obviously that’s not how any of this works...but why would he know that?

[Acrobat]

You recognize that you shouldn’t steal based on a descriptive statement in combination with at least one evaluative premise.

I recognize that I shouldn’t steal, based on the recognization of a normative statement, “stealing is bad”. You clearly don’t understand the difference between normative and descriptive statements, even after sharing with you a source indicting the basic definitions of the term.

You seem to want to have your own private vocabulary, where calling things good and bad are descriptive rather than normative.

[The Grand Nudger]

Stealing is bad.
Therefore you shouldn’t steal.

Ruh Ro....is ought dilemma, something’s missing.

Try
Stealing is bad
I shouldn’t do bad things
Therefore I shouldn’t steal.

Sure you recognize it, both the descriptive and the evaluative (and for that matter the means of inference). It’s good that you do, but you do so based on cultural prompting and deontological conditioning as a child.

This, is descriptive moral subjectivity. It also happens to be objectively true and rationally sound ( once you get around to just stating your fucking premises, lol).....obviously for the sake of discussion since neither of us disagrees.

As to the rest, no amount of you bitching about being too stupid, stubborn, or lazy to learn these terms will ever be anything more than or other than that. Stupid, stubborn, and lazy bitching.

......and still.....no gods.

[Acrobat]

No, I don’t believe in any type of God that “sets” “makes” or “creates” oughts.

The ought comes from the recognization of what’s objectively wrong. Your the one suggesting that it takes society to set oughts.


I recognize that stealing is wrong, it’s from the recognition that it’s wrong, that I recognize that I ought not to do it, not from society, or some ought setting god.

---

I don’t believe in a God who “sets” moral rules, so you should perhaps ask that to some theist who does.

I get the bit where you believe the rules aren't literally created. But you believe in some shape or form that the rules are contingent on God or that God and the rules are one or something like that.

No I don’t believed moral rules are contingent on God, I believe their contingent on some some sort of transcendent moral order, some sort of teleological foundation, something like Plato’s conception of the Good, or else nothing is objectively good or bad. Unless you wanted to go down Gae rabbit hole of trying to change the meaning of terms like descriptive and normative, objective and subjective, and call cats dogs.

A platonic conception of reality is theistic, though Vulcan subscribes to such a view of reality but classifies himself as an atheist, it seems because his idea of God is primarily limited to some fundie evangelical view.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol...pointless, as usual.

[Acrobat]

Try
Stealing is bad
I shouldn’t do bad things
Therefore I shouldn’t steal.

Sure you recognize it, both the descriptive and the evaluative (and for that matter the means of inference). It’s good that you do, but you do so based on cultural prompting and deontological conditioning as a child.

No I don’t recognize it from cultural prompting or deontological conditioning, for the same reason I don’t recognize it’s bad as the result of cultural prompting or deontological conditioning.

I recognize that I ought not do it from recognizing that it’s bad. If theres something you showed me that’s objectively bad, that I didn’t know before, I would recognize that I ought not do it, no additional cultural prompting or deontological conditioning is required.

You can continue to suggest its the result of cultural prompting or deontological conditioning, but you haven’t supported this in any remotely convincing way, in fact you seem to tied your own noose in doing so by subscribing to moral realism. An atheist who rejects moral realism, might have been able to make a more compelling case, but yours is dead on arrival, requires you to say really stupid things such as moral statement like stealing is bad are descriptive, lol.

[GrandizerII]

I get the bit where you believe the rules aren't literally created. But you believe in some shape or form that the rules are contingent on God or that God and the rules are one or something like that.

No I don’t believed moral rules are contingent on God, I believe their contingent on some some sort of transcendent moral order, some sort of teleological foundation, something like Plato’s conception of the Good, or else nothing is objectively good or bad. Unless you wanted to go down Gae rabbit hole of trying to change the meaning of terms like descriptive and normative, objective and subjective, and call cats dogs.

A platonic conception of reality is theistic, though Vulcan subscribes to such a view of reality but classifies himself as an atheist, it seems because his idea of God is primarily limited to some fundie evangelical view.

So Vulcan subscribes to that same view without appealing to any God. So nothing really to do with God. Great.

And no, Platonism is Platonism. If you want to call it theism, that's your prerogative. But people can reasonably disagree with the label here.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the voices in your head say so, it must be so.

As usual.

Back here in reality, as explained pages ago, descriptive moral subjectivism is just an observation about how moralities are formed and taught, and doesn’t have anything contradictory to say with regards to moral realism of any kind, including your own.

---

Let’s try this very simply Acro.

Because you believe that stealing is bad, and because you believe that you shouldn’t do bad things, you believe that you shouldn’t steal.

Now..,.before you start stomping your feet again, take a breath...and consider whether there’s really anything at all in that statement that you want to disagree with.

I’m asking because that’s a perfectly lucid chain of assertions. The conclusion follows from them. You could only argue your way out of being coherent and rational by objecting...again.

[Acrobat]

No I don’t believed moral rules are contingent on God, I believe their contingent on some some sort of transcendent moral order, some sort of teleological foundation, something like Plato’s conception of the Good, or else nothing is objectively good or bad. Unless you wanted to go down Gae rabbit hole of trying to change the meaning of terms like descriptive and normative, objective and subjective, and call cats dogs.

A platonic conception of reality is theistic, though Vulcan subscribes to such a view of reality but classifies himself as an atheist, it seems because his idea of God is primarily limited to some fundie evangelical view.

So Vulcan subscribes to that same view without appealing to any God. So nothing really to do with God. Great.

And no, Platonism is Platonism. If you want to call it theism, that's your prerogative. But people can reasonably disagree with the label here.

And if you want to call it a form of atheism that’s yours. I’m not that hung up on your personal labels, just the content contained in them.