Deconversion and some doubts

[Acrobat]

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

Yes, I tend to google terms i’m not that familiar with duh. Unsurprisingly almost nothing pulled up, but I stand corrected there was 1 hit:

“ As an alternative, we are offered Hume’s hypothesis that moral propositions such as “X is good or bad, right or wrong” have no cognitive content and only serve to describe our feelings. If, for example, I say that premeditated murder is wrong, this proposition renders neither a natural fact of the empirical world nor a metaphysical fact of an invisible world, but merely describes my internal experience. It describes a sense of revulsion or outrage that I feel in the face of premeditated murder. Our moral language, then, leads us into a constant deception. It pretends to describe real properties, but only our emotions are real. That is why this position is called emotivism. As these feelings are described by moral propositions, we can also call this emotivism descriptive emotivism. And because emotions are normally regarded as subjective, we can also talk about a descriptive moral subjectivism.”

But since you and I both agree that x is bad, expresses an objective truth, and not an expression of feelings, it doesn’t seem to apply.

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s not a descriptive position, it’s a metaphysical assertion. Noncognitivism.

Learn the fucking terms. Even in that text wall -descriptive moral realism- was invoked as a foil. As on observation of what we’re doing, or think we’re doing - that in humes opinion was not a factual description of the metaphysical reality of moral schemas.

But....yes, we do both agree with moral realism, just as we both agree with anti realist descriptive positions.

Now that you know that, can you explain all the posts you wasted stomping your feet?

[Acrobat]

That’s not a descriptive position, it’s a metaphysical assertion. Noncognitivism.

Learn the fucking terms.

Yes, I’m in the process of enrolling in Gae university, where you acquire your own private language, and change the meaning of words, like normative and descriptive.

At the end of the term, you receive a degree in Obfuscation.

[The Grand Nudger]

If that’s what the voice in your head is telling you, it must be so.



So, to recap...

You can’t explain your initial outburst with the op.

You can’t explain your metaphysical position on morality.

You can’t explain what god has to do with it.

....and you cant even explain why you’re arguing over shit you’ve explicitly agreed with.

What you can do, is complain about not knowing shit that I do. Well....you could have solved that last problem by unclogging your ears at any point, huh? I can’t help you with the rest if you won’t help yourself on that.

---

Now that we’re done untying that knot, lets untie the one that has you tripping all over yourself in the first place.

Boo hoo, atheists don’t get your god (cutting the shit, that’s been the explanation for literally every silly non argument you’ve been making- an excuse to say that).

First, who cares, we’re allegedly discussing morality. Secondly, you sure it’s atheists that don’t get it? Your description of what you “consider” theism was missing any theism, and your rationalization for the defining characteristic of a theistic god or system was that your desire....your desire, to be a good father was somehow intrusive and compelling.

Do I need to lay out how, in terms you can understand, that has nothing to do with theism? Or are you capable of working that out for yourself, about your own selfs desires?

Unless you’re willing to posit that theism concerns -your desires- rather than any gods, you appear to have whipped out your dick and stomped on it, again.

[Acrobat]

now that we’re done untying that knot, lets untie the one that has you tripping all over yourself in the first place.

Boo hoo, atheists don’t get your god (cutting the shit, that’s been the explanation for literally every silly non argument you’ve been making- an excuse to say that).

Lol, I rarely ever use the terms of theism or God in any of the arguments I make, hence why you keep asking what does anything I’m arguing about have to do with God.

The times in which I do, and point out that folks like yourself have a very little understanding of theism and the concept of God, is when you and other atheists try and tell me as a theist, what theism is, or God is.

First, who cares, we’re allegedly discussing morality. Secondly, you sure it’s atheists that don’t get it? Your description of what you “consider” theism was missing any theism

You care silly, you’re the one that keep complaining about my moral arguments missing theism, complaining about the absence of God in them.

Do I need to lay out how, in terms you can understand, that has nothing to do with theism? Or are you capable of working that out for yourself, about your own selfs desires?

See there you go again, trying to tell me as a theist, what does and what doesn’t have to do with my theistic beliefs.

Atheists want us to understand atheism, as broad in scope encompassing a wide variety of perspectives and views, but many seem to fail to understand this when it comes to theism, and the concept of God, which encompasses traditions with a wide variety of perspectives over the course of thousands of years. Hence why Grandizer seems confused that many traditional theists, including Catholics and Easter orthodox, that subscribe to impassibility don’t believe god has emotions or feelings, at least not the sort effected by anything we do or say, like worship.

You’re not required to understand all the traditions that go into classical theism, but you should be more mindful when trying to tell a theist what theism contains. It might get you high fives from your fellow unbelievers, like a believer who paints all atheists as nihilist and more subjectivist, but it’s just going to get nothing other cringe for everyone else for the level of ignorance.

[Silver]

---

you should be more mindful when trying to tell a theist what theism contains.

To be honest, if theists were more mindful of what theism contained, they'd be atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said, just a bunch of excuses to air your usual grievance.

It’s not my problem that your description of what you consider theism didn’t have any personal and interacting gods in it, just a reference to what you desired to do or be.

Don’t get me wrong, I know that’s not what you actually believe, lol. It’s just how you chose to perpetuate this bullshit excuse to air your silly grievance.

Just as I know you’re not a Platonist, it just sounded like it might be useful to say. You’re a Christian, whose entire routine in these boards is a running game of “waaah, how can atheists be realists!” Who retreats into “you don’t get my god” every time your comments are thoroughly picked apart for the ignorant bullshit they dependably are.

[Acrobat]

---

you should be more mindful when trying to tell a theist what theism contains.

To be honest, if theists were more mindful of what theism contained, they'd be atheists.

If atheists where mindful of what theism contained they’d be more like Belaqua, than Gae.

It’s not all that surprising that most atheists seem to have an understanding of theism reserved almost exclusively to fundie evangelical views.

[The Grand Nudger]

You didn’t have to bullshit anyone about morality or your godless “theism” to say that, huh.

[Acrobat]

whose entire routine in these boards is a running game of “waaah, how can atheists be realists!”

No, after questioning people like yourself I understand exactly how atheists like yourself can be realist.

By defining moral statements like stealing as bad as descriptive rather than normative.

By elevating subjective good, to an objective good, by developing a measurable criteria for it. This as you indicated can be done for any subjective good, like good pizza.

By resolving the is/ought dilemma, by taking the ought out, and forming a morality of is.

See I understand it. I think it’s all silly, but I understand it nonetheless.

You might articulate it in a far more convoluted way, that I stated simply here, but it’s all the same.