How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

How to defeat any argument for god...

Hit theperson making the claim with a hammer

That may kill the person but not the argument. Lots of other people to make the argument. :p

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not about my likes or dislikes in that part, though. If we assume there is some perhaps scientific standard by which we can determine whether pizza is tasty or not based on things about the pizza, wouldn't that be objective?

It's like the whole thing about objective beauty. You know how there is a way in math to measure that using a standard based in symmetry and such. That's what I mean.

Both realist and subjectivist propositions can be objectively true. They’re both cognitivist positions.

[GrandizerII]

It's not about my likes or dislikes in that part, though. If we assume there is some perhaps scientific standard by which we can determine whether pizza is tasty or not based on things about the pizza, wouldn't that be objective?

It's like the whole thing about objective beauty. You know how there is a way in math to measure that using a standard based in symmetry and such. That's what I mean.

Both realist and subjectivist propositions can be objectively true. They’re both cognitivist positions.

What would be a realist's version of the pizza analogy?

[The Valkyrie]

How to defeat any argument for god...

Hit theperson making the claim with a hammer

That may kill the person but not the argument. Lots of other people to make the argument. :p

I call that “experience points” or “guaranteed, ongoing, hobbies”.

[The Grand Nudger]

There isn’t one. Our individual tastes are either subjectivist propositions or non cognitivist propositions, in moral theory.

[GrandizerII]

There isn’t one. Our individual tastes are either subjectivist propositions or non cognitivist propositions, in moral theory.

I see what you mean (I think). Even if we had an objective way to measure tastiness independent of each individual's preferences, it's not equivalent to saying something like "harm is bad" because it's arbitrary. Is this what you mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not quite, but people have studied that, btw, it’s super interesting.

I’m commenting more on the misconception that a statements objective truth is the difference between subjectivism and realism.

I’ll give one of the standard shock examples with three distinct justifications.

Why is rape bad?

Non cognitivist: Raaaaaaaaaage!
Subjectivist: Because I don’t like it.
Realist: Because it’s harmful.

Notice that the first cant even -be- a truth statement. It’s not something we believe is true or false. Just a primal reaction.

The second can be true or false. I can either like rape, or not like rape. I can even believe that the statement “rape is bad” is true, because I don’t like it. That’s a fact about me, either way. However, if my liking or not liking something, the fact of my opinion, is the bad or good making property...if I liked rape, it would be good.

The third can also be true or false, but it’s true or false without respect to whether or not I like rape, a fact about me. I can love the shit out of some rape, and it will still be bad, because it’s harmful. I can greatly dislike rape and it’s still bad, but still not on account of that fact about me.

The only difference between realism and subjectivism is whether an alleged moral fact properly refers to the matter, or to me. Even a description of all of the things about pizza that I like, is still ultimately a statement about what I like, as objectively true as the statement may be.

Pizza taste realism is explicitly a position on whether or not a pizza has what I like, and it’s as factual as all get out, but moral realism isn’t a position on what I like at all.

I may not like rape, but I do thoroughly enjoy shit that I think is wrong. All of us do. We call them guilty pleasures.

[GrandizerII]

Not quite, but people have studied that, btw, it’s super interesting.

I’m commenting more on the misconception that a statements objective truth is the difference between subjectivism and realism.

I’ll give one of the standard shock examples with three distinct justifications.

Why is rape bad?

Non cognitivist: Raaaaaaaaaage!
Subjectivist: Because I don’t like it.
Realist: Because it’s harmful.

Notice that the first cant even -be- a truth statement. It’s not something we believe is true or false. Just a primal reaction.

The second can be true or false. I can either like rape, or not like rape. I can even believe that the statement “rape is bad” is true, because I don’t like it. That’s a fact about me, either way. However, if my liking or not liking something, the fact of my opinion, is the bad or good making property...if I liked rape, it would be good.

The third can also be true or false, but it’s true or false without respect to whether or not I like rape, a fact about me. I can love the shit out of some rape, and it will still be bad, because it’s harmful. I can greatly dislike rape and it’s still bad, but still not on account of that fact about me.

The only difference between realism and subjectivism is whether an alleged moral fact properly refers to the matter, or to me. Even a description of all of the things about pizza that I like, is still ultimately a statement about what I like, as objectively true as the statement may be.

Pizza taste realism is explicitly a position on whether or not a pizza has what I like, and it’s as factual as all get out, but moral realism isn’t a position on what I like at all.

I may not like rape, but I do thoroughly enjoy shit that I think is wrong. All of us do. We call them guilty pleasures.

The second to last paragraph clears up for me what you're saying. Makes sense.

And the rest of the quote I have been in agreement the whole time.

That said, I used to really disagree with realists on this matter in the past, and for the reasons you stated earlier in the thread. Theistic conditioning can do that to you.

[Silver]

I do thoroughly enjoy shit that I think is wrong. All of us do. We call them guilty pleasures.

Here I thought a guilty pleasure had nothing to do with guilt and more to do with embarrassment regarding others discovering what we personally take pleasure in enjoying due to mainstream subjectivity of what is or is not popular.

[Acrobat]

"Reasonable" seems like a fair word to me. 

But that's certainly not the same as "factual" or "self-evident." 

Should we back off a little, and say "in my opinion wellbeing is a reasonable goal, although I have no way of proving this"?

It's a goal. Of course I have no way to prove it in the same way I have no way to prove that passing the exams is a reasonable goal. If I want to receive that uni degree, I ought to pass the exam. It's not a matter of proof or disproof.

That's the ought bit.

The is bit: Harm is bad. Sounds reasonable to me. Can I prove it? Not in the strong sense, but it seems almost tautological.

Is the goal an objective truth? Or is it a goal you subjectively assigned to yourself?

---

Your likes and dislikes about pizza are objectively true facts about you.

Subjectivism and realism are both cognitivist positions.  They both have an identical commitment to facts.  They differ in the point of reference for those facts.

If you wanted to argue against that commitment, competently, you would offer a non cognitivist objection.  That “good” in this context is not truth- alike. It’s nit something that even can be true or false.  It’s more like......”yum”.

I’m not really referring to facts about myself or facts about the pizza, just making a satisfied grunting sound in a complex way.

For the umpteenth time, learn the positions and terms.  Stop griping to me about how realism isn’t true.  It may not be, but to know what you’re disagreeing with you will have to learn the terms and positions.

Moral realism is based on some goal that you like, and assign to your self. I shouldn't do things that are bad for well being. This is fact about you, just like taste is a fact about me. 

It's like the goal I have to go to the gym everyday. Even though most days I don't want to, and I only manage to go once every six months.

Do you think the goal that I should avoid things that are bad for wellbeing, is an objective truth?

If you don't than you're whole moral edifice is as subjective, as pizza taste realism. If you say moral realism isn't about the goal, then I can apply the same logic and insist that pizza taste realism isn't about my personal taste, by insisting that it's about facts about the pizza.