How to easily defeat any argument for God

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, okay. This is fun. So, I’ll place you in group B then. Everyone in group B, when asked how they know torturing babies is wrong, says: “by using my own eyes.”  Concomitantly, when group A is asked the same question, their answer also is: “by using my own eyes.

Let's make it even funner, by including you in a group C. Group C subscribes to some convoluted moral philosophy, with a list of criteria for what it takes for something to constitute as wrong.

Group B recognizes that torturing innocent babies is wrong, quicker than we recognize your dress is yellow. Group C on the other hand is lagging behind, they didn't recognize it was immediately wrong like group B, but instead had to take it, and submit it into the moral calculators they made, confirm that it meets their particular criteria and measurements, and only then was able to confirm that it was wrong.

Group C is total bullshit of course. Group C is actually a part of Group B. They just attach their standard and criteria after the fact. And then try and fool themselves into thinking that their recognition of wrong is the result of their special criteria.

How can group B know that Group A is wrong? They can just peer a little closer to group A, and realize that they're blind, that they're living in the dark. They're sick, deformed, and mad. Group C is also delusional, but it's more benign.

Lol, have I hit a nerve? 😏

 “Blind”, sick”, “deformed”, and “mad” are all subjective descriptions of the people perceiving the act. It tells us nothing objective about the act itself. Group A could make the exact same assertion about group B. You have utterly failed to solve the conflict between these two groups using an objective standard. 

And yeah, ofc I’m in group B. The difference between you and me though, is that I can articulate why I’m there, and you can’t. Or won’t. Acro, if you can’t give me one reason why it’s bad to torture babies, you probably can’t give me any reasons why it’s not. You do realize this is a problem for your position, yes?

What, exactly, are they being honest with themselves about with regard to the torture of babies, Acro? Is it that thing you don’t wanna say?

That it's dark, that it's a privation of the light. The wrongness is something seen, more so than said.

I don’t know what that means. Could you be more specific please?

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, it hardly matters how much Acro prevaricates and avoids confronting the necessary criteria of realism, or how.

It can’t be any simpler. Realism requires a fact of a matter. If he knows that fact, he can show that fact. If he can’t, he doesn’t know it. He believes it. Beliefs are a description of subjective states.

Functionally, knowing that genocide is wrong and believing that genocide is wrong are equivalent. The same moral system or theory can be built out of beliefs or facts.

If, however, he wants to call his moral system realism, there’s just no way around providing at least one fact of the matter. He’s only arguing against himself by babbling on about honesty. A person can be honestly wrong, but that, too, requires some fact of the matter to be wrong about.

[LadyForCamus]

At this point I’m just trying to figure out if he is cognizant of his errors, or just totally lost.

[The Grand Nudger]

Totally lost.

The trouble, though, is that his errors have a religious importance to him. He can’t shed them and continue to believe what he does.

About god.
About goodness.
About moral theory.
About atheists.
About himself.

That’s not the kind of knot that comes undone. These are all things he thinks are “really true” hence he must be a realist, and right. Others must be Not Realists™, and wrong, no matter how many times they offer a valid realists appraisal, even as he fails to have -ever- offered a valid realists appraisal.

The closest he’s ever gotten was in calling holocaust god “wrong”, as deleterious as that is to his position on god and goodness.....but I’d entirely certain that he’d find some way to fuck that up, too, if he kept talking about it.

[LadyForCamus]

If he stopped beginning with his conclusion and actually thought these hypotheticals through honestly, he’d be giving himself a tremendous leg up, lol.

[Acrobat]

Meh, it hardly matters how much Acro prevaricates and avoids confronting the necessary criteria of realism, or how.

It can’t be any simpler.  Realism requires a fact of a matter.  If he knows that fact, he can show that fact.  If he can’t, he doesn’t know it.  He believes it.  Beliefs are a description of subjective states.

Both of us recognizes that the holocaust is objectively wrong.

We lay out all the scientific and historical facts associated with it.

What we're not going find to laying among them, issome ethical truth, or an "objective badness" somewhere among the rubble. 

If objective badness and goodness, does exist, which you I acknowledge it does, it's not contained in this,.

[LastPoet]

What is dark, light will be shed by my trustworty samsung s4. What is fear? Being a dad.

So sayweth, from the pasta school.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or maybe he is thinking them through honestly, and he’s just honestly dense.

---

Meh, it hardly matters how much Acro prevaricates and avoids confronting the necessary criteria of realism, or how.

It can’t be any simpler.  Realism requires a fact of a matter.  If he knows that fact, he can show that fact.  If he can’t, he doesn’t know it.  He believes it.  Beliefs are a description of subjective states.

Both of us recognizes that the holocaust is objectively wrong.

We lay out all the scientific and historical facts associated with it.

What we're not going find to laying among them, issome ethical truth, or an "objective badness" somewhere among the rubble. 

If objective badness and goodness, does exist, which you I acknowledge it does, it's not contained in this,.

What’s this “we” business? I’m a realist. Realists do find ethical truth in these facts.

That’s what realism means.

[Acrobat]

Lol, have I hit a nerve? 😏

No, you seem fairly nice, and I don't get offended easily.

 

“Blind”, sick”, “deformed”, and “mad” are all subjective descriptions of the people perceiving the act. It tells us nothing objective about the act itself. Group A could make the exact same assertion about group B. You have utterly failed to solve the conflict between these two groups using an objective standard. 

Okay, then, how would you resolve the conflict between these two groups? By providing some scientific facts about torturing innocent babies?

And yeah, ofc I’m in group B. The difference between you and me though, is that I can articulate why I’m there, and you can’t. Or won’t. Acro, if you can’t give me one reason why it’s bad to torture babies, you probably can’t give me any reasons why it’s not. You do realize this is a problem for your position, yes?

I can give you all the sorts of reasons that you would give, but unlike you I know that none of those reasons establish it as objectively wrong. Out of all the facts you're likely to present as a defense, among none of those facts are we going to locate an objective badness.

But my all means, have a go at it, and I'll try to demonstrate that reasons you think you're there, are false.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, have I hit a nerve? 😏

No, you seem fairly nice, and I don't get offended easily.

 

“Blind”, sick”, “deformed”, and “mad” are all subjective descriptions of the people perceiving the act. It tells us nothing objective about the act itself. Group A could make the exact same assertion about group B. You have utterly failed to solve the conflict between these two groups using an objective standard. 

Okay, then, how would you resolve the conflict between these two groups? By providing some scientific facts about torturing innocent babies?

And yeah, ofc I’m in group B. The difference between you and me though, is that I can articulate why I’m there, and you can’t. Or won’t. Acro, if you can’t give me one reason why it’s bad to torture babies, you probably can’t give me any reasons why it’s not. You do realize this is a problem for your position, yes?

I can give you all the sorts of reasons  that you would give, but unlike you I know that none of those reasons establish it as objectively wrong. Out of all the facts you're likely to present as a defense, among none of those facts are we going to locate an objective badness.

But my all means, have a go at it, and I'll try to demonstrate that reasons you think you're  there, are false.

If you cut off my head, is that objectively bad for me? Yes or no? My answer is yes.

If you torture a baby, is that objectively bad for the baby? Yes or no? My answer is yes.