Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

We could conceive of a realist system which places exactly the same weight of value on both - and it will still be capable of assessing competing interests between two morally relevant items or actors. We do this all the time in the case of human beings. Insisting that both are equally valuable as people still leaves the moral question open.

[Belacqua]

But most of us have heard all the arguments, and have addressed them. 

I've heard the same mistakes from atheists many times, also. When someone new makes the same mistake, do I have justification to be rude to him?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I've heard the same mistakes from atheists many times, 

You call them mistakes we say you mistaken 

. When someone new makes the same mistake, do I have justification to be rude to him?

Yup but he has the right to be so right back

---

I am currently looking into your so called moral realism. Meanwhile, to me, what makes an act good or bad is never the act itself. The act itself is a pure mechanical event in materialistic world, good and bad are undefined.

Deism/theism makes talking about "good" and "bad" possible.

All baseless assertions

[The Grand Nudger]

Nevermind the machine gun thump of morally abhorrent and ignorant statements being dropped into thread. Bels got some atheists to correct on dates and quotes!

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nevermind the machine gun thump of morally abhorrent and ignorant statements being dropped into thread.  Bels got some atheists to correct on dates and quotes!

True

---

Nevermind the machine gun thump of morally abhorrent and ignorant statements being dropped into thread.  Bels got some atheists to correct on dates and quotes!

Just look forward to Kor to assertion his morality is right no matter what 

[The Grand Nudger]

Spend some time googling it.  The position of moral realism is open to anyone who would contend that moral facts exist, and that reference to these moral facts makes a given thing right or wrong.  It's a proposition that's true or false regardless of any god's existence.  

What do you think makes a thing good or bad?  True facts about the act itself, or true facts about gods?

I am currently looking into your so called moral realism. Meanwhile, to me, what makes an act good or bad is never the act itself. The act itself is a pure mechanical event in materialistic world, good and bad are undefined.

Deism/theism makes talking about "good" and "bad" possible.

Then you're not a moral realist, just as I've been telling you.  You're a cognitivist, same as I am, you think that moral propositions are truth alike.  There, however, we split.  I believe that objective facts are the moral facts.  You believe that facts about some subject..in this case god, are the moral facts.

As I said, moral realism is open to anyone, even you. It's not mine. Anyone who refers to the harm done to one's sister by slapping her in the face as to why it's "bad" to slap your sister is availing themselves of it. In fun point of fact, a person referring to the harm done to ones soul by some act is also making an attempt at realism.

You'd have to elaborate more on why you think deism and theism, two states of belief about gods, are required for any state of belief about moral value. As I've explained, moral realism needs to proceed only from the existence of moral facts. Whether there is or isn't a god doesn't change those facts, or whether or not there are facts.

[Peebothuhlu]

Don't you have some decency to respect other people's beliefs, since you obviously can't back up your silly insults ?

It's clear from the amount of content-free snark on this forum: many people are here simply to show disrespect. It's what they like to do.

I would like to think I in no way, shape or form resemble that remark with any of the posts I've made upon this forum.

Should my language use/style/etc be being construed I do herefore appologize and would seek assitance in correcting my ways.

I freely admit my sense of humour is quite possibly deplorable... But, again, my writing is a side effect of how my brain seems to currently work.

With all sincearity, Peebothuhlu.

Not at work.

[Objectivist]

There's more than just several, which is strong evidence that "God" is a product of the Human Imagination.  In fact, each believer seems to have his own personal definition which vary quite a bit.   When it comes to concepts which identify actually existing concretes, we don't find this happening.  The definition of a rock, a tree, a bridge, a snow cone, or a Rhinoceros are pretty much universal.  But, we do find this variation in "definitions" of imaginary things.

Indeed in fact believers like to move around what god means to please themselves. So my first task for any theist is to define god.
Often they seem aghast as though the concept is crystal clear and not as I find it as clear as mud. I
 don't know what a god is supposed to be, how one is supposed to have come into existence or how its supposed to do what they say it does.

Its like saying Brexit means Brexit, a nonsense and people believed it.

---

Don't you have some decency to respect other people's beliefs, since you obviously can't back up your silly insults ?

If people wanted us to respect their beliefs they'd stop having such silly beliefs.

I reject the whole notion of a definition of God.  We don't define concretes.  Definitions apply to concepts.  What we are actually getting from theists is descriptions of the god they are imagining.  We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.  Similarly, God is supposed to be a real existing thing and unique so the notion of defining God is a misapplication of the concept "definition".  We don't define a single shell that we pick up on the beach.  We identify it as a member of the class "shell" and we might describe this particular member of the class "shell" by its color, size, etc., but we don't form a definition of it.  We define the concept "shell".  We don't form concepts of single one-off things.  A concept is a mental integration of two or more similar things with their particular measurements omitted.  So anyone who offers a definition for God does not understand how concepts and definitions work.  There is no need for the concept "God" if there's only one.  That would negate the whole purpose of concepts in the first place.  The only way that "God" could be a concept is in the way that some writer comes up with a concept for a character in a story like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars.  The pupose of a definition is to name the things a concept subsumes, its units, and to condense that to essential characteristics.  A definition does not name every attribute of a unit but it implies them and only lists the essentials.  Another role of definitions is to differentiate a concept from other concepts in the mind, to keep them separate and to organize them.  

The "concept" "God" is actually an anti-concept.  If the purpose of a concept is to make cognition possible, an anti-concept renders it impossible.  They are cognitively useless and meaningless.  They can mean anything anyone wants them to mean.  After two thousand years, the "definition" of God is still not clear.  While the definition of the concept "apple" is.  That's because the concept "apple" is a legitimate concept with real cognitive usefulness.

[Peebothuhlu]

I've heard the same mistakes from atheists many times, also. When someone new makes the same mistake, do I have justification to be rude to him?

So.... you're a thiest, then?    

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

I've heard the same mistakes from atheists many times, also. When someone new makes the same mistake, do I have justification to be rude to him?

So.... you're a thiest, then?    

Not at work.

How does that follow? 

If I say: "I have heard this political justification many times from Americans," does this tell you that I'm not American? Or does it just say that Americans often say that thing (whereas, perhaps, Japanese people don't)?

---

We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.

I'm pretty sure that geologists and plant biologists can define these things.