Do you wish there's a god?

[Acrobat]

External to you... but is it external to the whole of humanity? Is there such a thing as morality in the absence of humanity? Or rather, in the absence of any social species!
I'd wager that no. Morality applies to a social group.
For species that are not social... and I'm going for an obviously not social example... like an ameba, do you suppose that morality would somehow apply?

What does 1+1 mean in the absence of a conscience that keeps a tally on an amount?

Might as well ask what does reality, or truth mean in absence of conscience, self aware creatures who acknowledge and recognize it? Does truth cease to exist, absent of conscience observers to acknowledge it?

Does 1 and 1 still equal two, if there’s no one left do add them?

Let’s ask another question, if some objective observer was trying to categorize things the human species perceives as objective truths, like 1+1 =2, the roundness of a ball, the existence of the chair in my room etc, and subjective preferences, like our affinity to a particular band, or food, etc…

Which category do you think morality would fall into? Would statements like torturing innocent babies is wrong, resemble or be synonymous with statements of personal taste, like pepperoni pizza taste bad, or more like 1+1 = 4 is wrong?

It shouldn’t be too surprising that our moral perceptions don’t resemble our subjective taste, but rather objective truths. Only compounded by the fact of immoralities reliance on lies and deceptions, the resemblance of moral arguments to arguments about truth, etc….

Those others that perceive the same moral wrongness as you... could they not have been the recipients a moral code handed down through genetics? A moral code that you then perceive as exdernal, for you cannot consciously account for its origin?

Or our genetics gave us the tools to recognize right and wrong, much like they’ve given us the tools to recognize what’s true and false. Without an external truth, there’s nothing for these tools to recognize or discern.

Secondly it makes little sense to locate a moral code in our genetics. Because if strictly speaking about biology here, we’d be merely appealing to biological sensations, ultimately describing our feelings so to say. Saying torturing innocent babies just for fun, would be a mere description of the negative feelings this idea illicits.

But very few people, including atheists would suggesting that all that’s wrong with torturing innocent babies just for fun is simply that they don’t like it, or equivocate such statements, as no more than stating they don’t like pizza.

As far as origins are concerned, I don’t need to account for the origins of the chair in my room, to acknowledge it’s existence independent of my mind perceiving it, anymore so that I need to account for origins of moral reality, to acknowledge it’s existence.

But the truth value of the statement "the earth is flat" is very near the 0% I mentioned earlier...
The statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.

The truth value of the statement “torturing innocent babies for fun is morally good” is very near 0%. This statement does not align with reality, it is thus false.

If someone here claims that torturing innocent babies just for fun is a good thing, they would be no less wrong, than some who claim the earth is flat. In fact he’d likely be more delusional than a person who thinks the earth is flat.

Why do you anthropomorphize Evil and Good?

I don’t see my previous statement as anthropomorphizing evil and good.

I’m merely pointing out that when people perform evil, they’re often reliant on lies and delusions to justify it, such as blacks are less than white, that the jews were responsible for all the ailments of german society, etc….They have to resort to things like dehumanization, scapegoating etc… in order to conceal the truth. They tend to be maladapted, unhinged, etc.. Which they wouldn’t have to do if it’s merely subjective. No false justification is needed to defend why I like chocolate, the fact that I like it is sufficient enough.

---

Not believing in a god doesn't necessitate, lend support, or even suggest a particular stance on morality.  I've been having this convo on the boards for awhile.  The notion that atheists actually do reject moral realism isn't entirely accurate in the first place.  You've been trying to suggest as much with your own comments.  

Some atheists subscribe to moral realism, some reject it.

So, you know, make up your mind, do atheists accept moral realism and just not know it, or do they reject it because hurr dur their atheism?

Some do some don't.

It certainly seems to help to believe in a god to think otherwise though, doesn't it? 

Particularly when commanded to do so by a god or justified by some gods inherent claims to ethnocentric supremacy or possession and gifting of land, lol.

Whatever you have in mind when you think of the term God, and what I view as God, are not one and the same. Yours seems to rely on some fundie evangelical conception of God, which I don't share. Hence why I don't even bother appealing to or mentioning God, in most of my posts at all. You should learn to stick with what I've said, rather than ascribing beliefs and view points to me that I have not expressed. I have little interest in wasting my time on strawmen.