How to easily defeat any argument for God

[EgoDeath]

@Belaqua

So, just keep asking "why" until there's a question we don't have an answer for... then... checkmate, atheists! Is that your strategy? Jesus.

[Belacqua]

I don't agree it ultimately boils down to tastes and individual preferences but rather there is something that makes sense about defining bad as that which causes harm, for example. From an evolutionary perspective and individual perspective, it makes sense to see it this way.

Right. It's a definition we make. And there is "something" that "makes sense" about this. 
That's true, but it certainly doesn't assert that our definition is true or unchangeable. 

What I mean is, if you look at the two statements below:

Harm is bad.

Harm is good.

One of them is almost true by definition. 

Yes, I'd say that the word "harm" just means "do bad to." That's what the word means. 
Now we still have to prove that doing bad to people is something we ought not do. 
If it's just true, then it's transcendent. If it's not just true, then it's not true. 

The other no rational person would agree can make sense. It's certainly not practical at least. Imagine a world in which the standard is harm is good.

Yes, in real life, things get really complicated but at the core the first statement just seems self-evident.

Probably no rational person would agree that doing harm is something we ought to do. But can it be proven? Is consensus enough? 

"It's not practical" is not a very good ethical argument, I think. "I refrain from killing because other methods of getting my desires are more efficient" is not something I'd argue.

So I think the argument hasn't progressed. We can take it as axiomatic that wellbeing is a good goal, but we can't prove it. If "wellbeing is a good thing to go for" is true (not a preference) but not provable, then what is it?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's interesting really because what realism means, the way as you and Vulcan have defined clearly over and over again in these forums (and from the videos I have seen on YouTube), many atheists here who would identify as subjectivists when it comes to morality would actually be moral realists but not realize they are.

I would be floored if it took more than one hand to count the number of atheists on this board who weren’t realists....and I’ve been having these discussions here for almost a decade.

Interestingly enough, I used to be on the other side of the line, here, myself.

We’re conditioned to defer to descriptive moral subjectivity and relativism as a function of tolerance and skepticism.

Even more powerfully, atheists commonly reject moral realism ( a position that they actually do hold, overwhelmingly, lol) as it smacks of religion or theism. This is due primarily to nutters like Acro using the term for anything -but- moral realism. Then, when they’re done, some other nut takes up the cause and argues against realism by arguing against things other-than realism. As above.

[Acrobat]

It's interesting really because what realism means, the way as you and Vulcan have defined clearly over and over again in these forums (and from the videos I have seen on YouTube), many atheists here who would identify as subjectivists when it comes to morality would actually be moral realists but not realize they are.

The way you and Gae have described it, you basically eradicated the meaning of subjectivism from pretty much everything. Gae even went so far as to indicate that as long I have an objective criteria for what constitutes as good pizza, "good" transforms from a subjective good, to an objective one. I think you have said the same thing. We can apply the same justification for moral objectivism, to any subjective preference, taste, or opinion.

Now, I agree with you that there is objective good and bad, but your justification for the "objectiveness" of it are complete baloney. I could create a onion parody of Pizza Taste Realism, leaving no aspect of the elements used to defend the objectiveness of morality absent.

[The Grand Nudger]

You do have an objective criteria, nutter. Your subjective tastes are -facts-....about you.

Moral subjectivism is a cognitivist theory. One which asserts that moral propositions are facts. They’re just not facts of the matter purported. They’re facts about you. Or someone else....or some silly fucking god.

Moral realism, also a cognitivist theory, also asserting that moral propositions are facts, differs only in the point of reference for those facts. They are not about you, or any other “you”. They are about the matter under review.

[GrandizerII]

I don't agree it ultimately boils down to tastes and individual preferences but rather there is something that makes sense about defining bad as that which causes harm, for example. From an evolutionary perspective and individual perspective, it makes sense to see it this way.

Right. It's a definition we make. And there is "something" that "makes sense" about this. 
That's true, but it certainly doesn't assert that our definition is true or unchangeable. 

What I mean is, if you look at the two statements below:

Harm is bad.

Harm is good.

One of them is almost true by definition. 

Yes, I'd say that the word "harm" just means "do bad to." That's what the word means. 
Now we still have to prove that doing bad to people is something we ought not do. 
If it's just true, then it's transcendent. If it's not just true, then it's not true. 

The other no rational person would agree can make sense. It's certainly not practical at least. Imagine a world in which the standard is harm is good.

Yes, in real life, things get really complicated but at the core the first statement just seems self-evident.

Probably no rational person would agree that doing harm is something we ought to do. But can it be proven? Is consensus enough? 

"It's not practical" is not a very good ethical argument, I think. "I refrain from killing because other methods of getting my desires are more efficient" is not something I'd argue.

So I think the argument hasn't progressed. We can take it as axiomatic that wellbeing is a good goal, but we can't prove it. If "wellbeing is a good thing to go for" is true (not a preference) but not provable, then what is it?

Reasonable ... Plausible ...

I'm not sure proof is the right word here anyway, and even so why do we always need that anyway?

It's reasonable to say promoting well-being is good. It's also reasonable to say that it's a good goal to strive for.

The majority of people can even disagree with this, and it would still be reasonable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Compulsion is necessarily subjective, even if morality isn’t. That which motivates you is yours and yours alone.

I know there’s nothing morally wrong with eating a cat....but I still won’t do it, and I know there’s a great deal wrong with killing people, but I’ll still do it.

[Acrobat]

[
What I mean is, if you look at the two statements below:

Harm is bad.

Harm is good.

One of them is almost true by definition. The other no rational person would agree can make sense. It's certainly not practical at least. Imagine a world in which the standard is harm is good.

Yes, in real life, things get really complicated but at the core the first statement just seems self-evident.

We can add a variety of other things here as well.

Kindness is good

Cruelty is bad.

Justice is good, fairness is good, injustice unfairness is bad.

Love is good.

Hatred is bad.

Selflessness is good

Selfishness is bad.

Honesty is good
Dishonesty is bad.

Truth is good.
Lies and falsehoods are bad.

Imagine a world in which thing labeled bad here, were good?

The core of these statements seem self evident.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean, holocaust gods world? Not an issue for me, I’m a realist.

That’s your problem.

[Acrobat]

You do have an objective criteria, nutter.  Your subjective tastes are -facts-....about you.

No they are objective facts about the pizza, the crispiness of the crust, the ratio of cheese, the selections of toppings, the overall temperature, etc..

I have established that this pizza is objectively good, by providing you a variety of objective facts about the pizza.