How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

The world is also a wonderful place on account of those who “see evil” and do nothing.

Mostly due to how different people “see evil”. It’s a good thing when a fundy decides not to kill a homosex-er.

Einstein’s comment was profound in context, but a deepity as a comment on the world vis a vis moral obligations and what we see. The world is all of everything that it is, on account of what we do and don’t do, what we see and what we don’t.

[GrandizerII]

Being helpful is good. 
Being harmful or cruel is bad.
Being kind is good.
Being honest is good, being dishonest is bad. 
To be loving is good, being hateful is bad.

This comes across as highly problematic.

  Stealing a wallet filled with cash is dishonest and is therefore bad.  But suppose the original owner of the cash intended to use it to finance a murder or arrange to have sex with a child, or some other despicable act.  The theft of the wallet thus prevents crime and is therefore good.  How, in this instance, is dishonesty bad?

If being helpful is good, then all German citizens who were accessories to the Holocaust were being good, as they were 'helpful' to the Party in (among other things), rounding up Jews.

And so on.

Boru

I find this position very understandable, and you're spot on with regards to help and harm from a subjective point of view.

That said, putting this another way: from an objective outsider "perspective", rather than from the perspective of the Germans or the Jews, it seems that those who were accessories to the Holocaust were being harmful rather than helpful. Reasoning here is the Germans did not have to harm the Jews, the reasons to do so weren't warranted, the harm was severe and trauma-inducing, and a very large number of people were killed unnecessarily. Nothing about this can lead to a reasonable argument that those who were accessories to the Holocaust were being helpful in the moral sense. Hence, 'helpful' instead of helpful.

The wallet one is a bit tricky, and I'll need to further think this one a bit. Suffice to say, we may have basic subconscious intuitions on what is morally good or bad, but we're not generally well-equipped to intuit the morality of trickier and more complex situations. Not unless we consciously indulge in philosophical thinking and reflection on such matter.

ETA:
If it was known that the guy was going to commit such an immoral act, then stealing his wallet would not be that bad and would probably be a good thing. But even better, report to the cops. If, however, it was not known at all that the guy was going to commit a heinous act, then that's where it's tricky.

[Acrobat]

Acros morality is one of arbitrary and subjective absolutism.  He simply -calls- it “objective”.....

That's silly I don't have a separate morality, than anyone else including you.

If we scanned our brains when thinking of the holocaust, and draw the conclusions that it was bad, I'd expect it to travel through the same neuropathways.

The basis of the recognition of the holocaust is wrong is the same. And doesn't change as a the result of whatever peculiar moral theory or philosophy you subscribe too.

We both recognize that it's objectively wrong. Now maybe you'll say that you did so, because you have some definition of wrong, based on your particular moral theory that you currently subscribe to, and you took the holocaust and applied the criteria of that definition, to derive that it was wrong.

But that's complete horseshit. You're only apply your criteria after the fact, after you've already recognized it as wrong. You may strongly believe otherwise, but you're just fooling yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

I’m only providing you with the accurate designations of the morality you have described.

If that’s a problem, then the issue is entirely down to your description and arguments.

You have two options. Work on your description and arguments, or accept that you really do think that morality is arbitrary subjective and absolutist. These may sound like pejoratives to you, but if that’s how you think it works...then, fuck man that’s how you think it works.

Own it, one way or another.

Also, I’m seeing a strong no on getting any confirmation that you listened to what anyone has told you about anything in response to your questions.

What’s the point of asking them, or answering them, in that case?

Moving forward. Can we get affirmation from you that you now understand both that and why neither natural nor non natural realism require a god?

That your earlier misapprehension to that effect, and subsequent befuddlement as to how an atheist could account for realism was just another quirk of your mistaken beliefs?

[GrandizerII]

Acros morality is one of arbitrary and subjective absolutism.  He simply -calls- it “objective”.....

That's silly I don't have a separate morality, than anyone else including you.

If we scanned our brains when thinking of the holocaust, and draw the conclusions that it was bad, I'd expect it to travel through the same neuropathways.

The basis of the recognition of the holocaust is wrong is the same. And doesn't change as a the result of whatever peculiar moral theory or philosophy you subscribe too.

We both recognize that it's objectively wrong. Now maybe you'll say that you did so, because you have some definition of wrong, based on your particular moral theory that you currently subscribe to, and you took the holocaust and applied the criteria of that definition, to derive that it was wrong.

But that's complete horseshit. You're only apply your criteria after the fact, after you've already recognized it as wrong. You may strongly believe otherwise, but you're just fooling yourself.

There is something wrong (in the amoral sense) about believing the Holocaust is wrong simply because it's not in line with the Good. When pressed to answer what is it that makes the Holocaust wrong, I am driven to appeal to something about the Holocaust act itself, not to something about Good/God.

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s the basic difference in moral currency between realists and subjectivists.

Facts about an act.
Facts about a person.

If acros explanation for why something is bad reduces to a comment on some fact of the divine person, then he’s a subjectivist. Full stop, no further argument is required, and no possible objection can be offered.

[LadyForCamus]

You can’t think of a reason or explanation for the yellow color of your wife’s dress, lol?

That's good.

Your question here is asking how my wife's dress came to acquire it's yellowness.

I’m starting to think you’ve just decided to troll at this point rather than admit you have a problem here. Do you not know of any objective facts about the color yellow that could be referred to when asked for an explanation for the yellow color of your wife’s dress? Is your feigned ignorance about the facts of the color spectrum the same feigned ignorance your employing when asked why torturing babies is wrong, or...lol?

[Acrobat]

That's good.

Your question here is asking how my wife's dress came to acquire it's yellowness.

I’m starting to think you’ve just decided to troll at this point rather than admit you have a problem here. Do you not know of any objective facts about the color yellow that could be referred to when asked for an explanation for the yellow color of your wife’s dress? Is your feigned ignorance about the facts of the color spectrum the same feigned ignorance your employing when asked why torturing babies is wrong, or...lol?

No, I just dont the understand question, though it seems to be a little less vague now that we’ve used an analogy.

Rather than attempting to clarify what it is you’re asking you just keep repeating the same question.

Are you asking what are the objective properties of wrongness here, like you are asking about the properties of yellow?

Why can’t just be a bit more clear about what it is your exactly asking me?

[LadyForCamus]

Is guy shitting me right now?

[Acrobat]

Is guy shitting me right now?

So you can’t be clearer about what it is you're asking?