How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

Is your biology only capable of leading you to false facts? If so, wouldn’t your own set of facts be equally false for the same reason?

Chances are you do believe what you believe on account if religious indoctrination. That would account for three facts. Your own inability to account for the contents of your moral statements. Your belief ghat people who do not share your religion must not possess those moral goods, and your lack of a basic understanding of moral theory.

Don’t take it so hard, though. In an indirect way, your religion also accounts for why atheists think what they do....but probably not the way you’re imagining right this very instant.

The broader question, of why -we- as a species tend to experience our morality as a series of factual statements can rise no higher than intersubjectivity, on its own. It’s an intuition that most of us share. The trouble is that our false intuitions and our accurate comprehension both come from the same place.

That biological apparatus you so greatly distrust.

[Acrobat]

If you are talking about how religions have mythologized human morality here, then I agree that such assessments that morality is "out there" are illusory.

What I consider objective is our human nature, including the benefits or harms which comes from moral principles or their violation. On such a basis we have evolved our moral understanding, which is why we have drifted away from religious over-simplifications -- however much they contributed to our earlier thought on morality.

Who is this we that have drifted away from religious views of morality, the illusory out there you indicated? Some handful of non-religious people?

Most people are religious, and have been so for several thousands years, and if there's one area in which religious views are quite prevalent it in our moral thinking and beliefs. So it's little beyond hubristic to think we've shaken these assumptions off with ease relatively recently. In fact we have atheists on this forum who believe in morality out there, like Vulcan's beliefs in a platonic good.

Also your suggestion that the view of morality as out there, as a product of religion, gives too much credit to religion, it's putting the cart before the horse. Religions may attempt to articulate and capture the perception of morality out there, but it's not the source of such perceptions.

If you take a group of very young school students, and ask them if the teachers says it's okay to eat food in class, would it be okay to eat food in class? They'd say yes. If you ask them if the teacher says it okay to hit your classmates, would that be okay. They would say no it's wouldn't be. You can replace this with society, and it would be the same answer. The perception is of a "morality out there". It's on the basis of such beliefs that appear to us almost intuitively, that religions build their own moral views on. But the underlying perception here is far deeper and older than any religion.

---

Is your biology only capable of leading you to false facts?

No

[The Grand Nudger]

The prevailing moral view in the us, even among the religious, is secular.

Tell me, are things wrong because -god said so-

Or

Are things wrong because -insert a laundry list of mundane claims here-

[Acrobat]

The prevailing moral view in the us, even among the religious, is secular.  

The prevailing view of morality in the US, and pretty much everywhere else is teleological. 

Whether you want to say this is secular too, is irrelevant.

[The Grand Nudger]

God said so, then?

Rape is wrong because it goes against gods design and purpose....not because it, idk, hurts people?

You can’t rape a pie because god purposely designed them to be un-rape-able, whereas you can rape a person because god purposefully designed ya to be rapeable?

Call me crazy, but I don’t think you believe any of that nor do I think “because teleology” is the response even a slim minority’s if Americans would give when asked why rape was wrong.

But go right ahead.....lol. Anything to prevent being forced to reconcile with the fact that you’ve been ignorantly bitching about nothing in every thread you’ve participated in since joining. Huh.

[Acrobat]

God said so, then?

Nope.Teleological.


No sky wizards pointing fingers required.

[The Grand Nudger]

You realize that both definitions of teleology destroy your arguments, right?

Rhetorical, ofc you don’t.

[Acrobat]

Call me crazy, but I don’t think you believe any of that nor do I think “because teleology” is the response even a slim minority’s if Americans would give when asked why rape was wrong.

Sure, most Americans probably wouldn’t even know what teleology means, just like when scientist observe teleological beliefs in children, even those raised in non religious home, such as rocks are pointy so porcupines can scratch their backs on, require the children to understand the term, to acknowledge teleological beliefs in them.

[The Grand Nudger]

- the explanation of phenomena by reference to the purpose they serve rather than the cause by which they arise

-or

-the doctrine of purpose and design in theology.

Take your pick.

[LadyForCamus]

I’ll never understand why it’s so difficult for theists to comprehend secular morality.