How to easily defeat any argument for God

[LadyForCamus]

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.

No, I don’t think that. And, thank you for clarification with the definitions. I’m not overly familiar with the terminology here, but I’ve already jumped in the water, so it’s sink or swim. 😏

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

Again, no. I don’t think that. I do think that well-being, or at least minimizing suffering, is a morally acceptable goal for any group based on the fact that we are all physical, living beings capable of being harmed and experiencing pain. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable or tenuous platform to leap from. It certainly doesn’t require any god.

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s natural realism. An (allegedly) objective morality.

You think that good and bad -can be- facts, and you refer to this set of natural facts or properties as at least one of the relevant sets of facts or properties designated as moral facts, or moral properties.

[Acrobat]

[auote]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.

You’re the one that makes the determination as to whether something is true, whether you’re a real person, or a brain in vat, whether the earth is round, whether the holocaust happened.

You and I may agree that the holocaust is bad, but you and I don’t agree about the nature of good and bad, even without any notion of God.

You don’t think that the holocaust is bad is an objective truth, but the subjective whims of groups.

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.

If a group of people thought the holocaust was good, like the Nazis etc.. they would be wrong, just like if a group of people thought the earth is flat would be wrong.

The truth is independent of any groups opinion or subjective goals.

Subjective judgements don’t become objective because a group of people share them with you, they remain subjective.

If something that may be true for you, and your group, but not true for someone else, and their group, it’s not an objective truth.

So should I take that when you say the holocaust is objectively bad, that what you mean is that it’s bad because your group thinks it is. If your group thought it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be? That you have no grounds to tell others who’s are not a part of your group that something is objectively wrong?

---

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.

I didn’t think the holocaust is wrong because a god said so, I also don’t believe some of the suggestions by atheists that it’s wrong because my society or group says so, like Lady suggested, or even because I said so

It’s wrong regardless of whatever anyone says, just like the earth is flat is wrong regardless of whatever anyone says.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and it wasn’t hard to figure out that Camus would consider the statement to be objectively true.

There are two basic forms of realism, of objective morality. Neither of them require a god.

[GrandizerII]

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.

I didn’t think the holocaust is wrong because a god said so, I also don’t believe some of the suggestions by atheists that it’s wrong because my society or group says so, like Lady suggested,  or even because I said so

It’s wrong regardless of whatever anyone says, just like the earth is flat is wrong regardless of whatever anyone says.

lol, no, you ain't bullshitting me. You have made it clear that "good" and "God" are one and the same. You're definitely saying X is wrong because God says so, just in a flowery language.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or, because good flows from god, or good is a part of god, or...any invocation of divine necessity.

These are many ways of saying the same thing with respect to moral positions. That morality is subjective and arbitrary. Not based on a fact of an act, not based on a fact of a group.

Based on the facts of an individual. If that individual were different good would be different. If that individual didn’t exist good wouldn’t exist. What is good because of that fact of the individual could be bad if there were some other fact if the individual.

Acro applies a realists intuitional argument to a metaphysically subjective position on the nature of good. Unfortunately, he’s been conditioned to respond negatively to the term “subjective” in reference to his god. It’s a moral slur, lol.

[Acrobat]

I didn’t think the holocaust is wrong because a god said so, I also don’t believe some of the suggestions by atheists that it’s wrong because my society or group says so, like Lady suggested,  or even because I said so

It’s wrong regardless of whatever anyone says, just like the earth is flat is wrong regardless of whatever anyone says.

lol, no, you ain't bullshitting me. You have made it clear that "good" and "God" are one and the same. You're definitely saying X is wrong because God says so, just in a flowery language.

Yes, I said Good and God are the same, what i didn’t say is that Good is whatever god says is good, because the statement implies that Good and God are not the same thing, but rather some rules that some god arbitrarily said or commanded

If there was such a god as you implied that said that the holocaust wasn’t wrong, he would be wrong as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or some way that god arbitrarily -is-.

But, the jig ‘s up anyway. If a god can be god, but wrong, then god and good are not synonyms. Every angle you take to evade criticism imperils some other leg of this barstool.

For extra fun, the wonkiness of acro’s moral rationalization aside, he’s more interested in how atheists conceptualize morality than in describing his.

He seems specifically interested in non natural forms of realism. Much like Plato’s form of the good, contemporary non natural realism posits that bad is a rational product, not an empirical one. In the way that Plato might say that the things we call good are those things which partake of the form of the good, NNR reasons that empirical cues point out when something typifies the content of “bad”, but that those empirical properties are not bad-itself. This, in contrast to the notion that the empirical....or natural.....property of harm -is- bad-itself.

Obviously, nothing above ( right or wrong) depends on or necessitates anything other than s thinking brain. No gods required.

[GrandizerII]

lol, no, you ain't bullshitting me. You have made it clear that "good" and "God" are one and the same. You're definitely saying X is wrong because God says so, just in a flowery language.

Yes, I said good and god are the same, what i didn’t say is that Good is whatever god says is good, because the statement implies that Good and God are not the same thing, but rather some rules that some god arbitrarily said or commanded

If there was such a god as you implied that said that the holocaust wasn’t wrong, he would be wrong as well.

I did say "just in a flowery language".

Your god is "good itself", and that good substantiates the "moralness" of the Holocaust act, determining/revealing it to be wrong through the good itself. I can do flowery language as well!

[The Grand Nudger]

We can use possible worlds semantics to show how vacuous the notion is.

Take two possible worlds.

World A is as Acro asserts this world is. Where god and good are synonymous and the holocaust is not compatible or typifying of the god/good.

World B is as Acro asserts this world is. Where god and good are synonymous, but the holocaust -is- compatible with god/good.

As we can see, if god and good are synonymous, the character of the god determines the moral designation. These sorts of rationalizations always trip over the bastard god possibility.