Do you wish there's a god?

[pocaracas]

Wut?!
What does morality have to do with math and the existence of an elephant?

Because like the answer to 1+1, and the existence of an elephant, it’s not a matter of agreement but a recognition of truth. The wrongness of torturing babies just for fun, is as objectively true as 1+1 =2, and the existence of an elephant at my local zoo.

I see.... you're on the objective train...
ok... then I'm going to have to ask you to define "objective" as it pertains to morality.

From my point of view, morality is something that arises of the social group. It seems objective because it is shared by the majority (or all) the elements of the group. However, I don't think that morality is independent of the group. In the absence of the group, morality is meaningless.

Perhaps you're right.... perhaps I'm right. How can we discern which of us is right?

Well I’m of the view that I’m right, and as so when I counter those that are wrong, I tend to ask myself what motivates and sustains their false beliefs. There’s  hardly a remotely convincing argument, or compelling one otherwise. The best I can do is try and understand those arguments, and indicate why they’re not particularly compelling, and perhaps not even for those who make them. That they’re more held for the sake of sustaining disbelief, and not because they’re anymore believable to those who hold them then me.

I don’t know how to convince you that you’re wrong, but I’m willing to explore the questions with you regardless.

Hehe... how curious... I do the same, I think the same: I'm right and you're wrong and I try to understand why you're wrong.

You seem to be consistently operating under the assumption that there is a realm underlying reality and which gives rise and support to reality.
While I'm just using the reality at hand to build my hypothesis of how we got to be here.
I think my position is more intellectually honest than yours, as it relies on less assumptions.

You say it's "a cute counter argument", but we have no real way of finding out how these things happened, so we have to go with our best guesses. And these best guesses are informed by our perception of the world. Yours include the possibility of what I'd describe as magic yielded by a single individual entity, while mine tries to come up with guesses that require only regular physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc... While all these are enough to account for all that we see, there's no reason why we should include the magical realm in our arsenal of guesses, is there?

I don’t deny any physics, chemistry, or biology, i also don’t deny my fundamental experiences of reality. I may perceive reality through my mind, but those things i experience as external to myself, i recognize as aspects of reality.

I never said you denied anything...
I left almost explicit that you add an extra layer of what I called magic. A layer that I consider to be unnecessary and unevidenced.

I experience the wrongness of the holocaust, as external to myself, not as articulation of my feelings, or as the opinions of my society, but as part of objective reality, outside of my mind, just as the yellow of my wife’s dress, or the shape of the ball. I recognize it as an objective truth. If there’s a supposed objective reality absent of such moral elements, than that’s not a reality any of us know or can know.

Do you think the group that made the Holocaust thought it was right? It clearly wasn't a single individual with his own subjective set of morals.
Do you think most of the world of antiquity thought it was right to have slaves?

I don't think that morality can ever be equated to physical quantities, like light wavelength (for yellow) or geometric shapes.

Someone trying to convince me that objective morality does not exist, is like someone try to convince me that other minds outside of my own don’t exist, or that objective truth doesn’t exist.

If you read what I've been writing, you'll find that I merely share my point of view and ask a lot of questions with the purpose of making you think about them... I'm not trying to change your mind directly, because I know that is a useless endeavor.
I ask questions.... you do your own thinking, if you want, if you can... if not, I have no problem with it.

You rely on physics, science, etc.. to make excuses to try and deny your own experiences of reality, not because those excuses actually make sense, or are true, but because they provide you just enough to sustain you disbelief, it’s driven by a desire not to believe, than anything else.

Why do you say this?
Have I said anything that remotely hints at a desire on my part to not believe? Where am I denying my experiences of reality? What excuses am I making?