How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

It's a goal. Goals are always subjective.

They’re not in a teleological view. If human being like watches poses an intrinsic purpose (a telos), like humans beings ought to be good, the way watches ought to tell time. That goal at least in terms of us, is not subjective.

Moral language is built on such teleological assumptions, that most of us when making moral statements are basing it on.

You on the other hand reject such teleological assumptions, and indicate that what you mean by an oughts is some subjective goal of yours, something you wish I subscribe to.

Your entire moral foundation is built on this subjective goal? What you try and sell us an objective is just sexed up subjectivism, subjectivism all the way down.

You just conceal it by trying to sweep the ought under the rug, and try to dishonestly reframe moral statements as descriptive rather than normative.

[GrandizerII]

It's a goal. Goals are always subjective.

They’re not in a teleological view. If human being like watches poses an intrinsic purpose (a telos), like humans beings ought to be good, the way watches ought to tell time. That goal at least in terms of us, is not subjective.

Moral language is built on such teleological assumptions, that most of us when making moral statements are basing it on.

You on the other hand reject such teleological assumptions, and indicate that what you mean by an oughts is some subjective goal of yours, something you wish I subscribe to.

Your entire moral foundation is built on this subjective goal? What you try and sell us an objective is just sexed up subjectivism, subjectivism all the way down.

You just conceal it by trying to sweep the ought under the rug, and try to dishonestly reframe moral statements as descriptive rather than normative.

Watches are designed to tell time. They don't ought to do anything. There's no ought (in the strong moral sense) with watches.

You accuse me of being dishonest, and I accuse you of confusing yourself and trying to confuse others in the process.

I'm willing to bet you implicitly follow a goal that is judged by you as reasonable that drives you to believe you ought not do X. You don't believe you ought not do X simply because X is bad. You ought not do X because X is bad and you don't want to do bad.

---

Having said all that, let's say my view of morality makes no sense. Even better, let's go beyond my provisional view and say moral naturalism is false in all aspects, and thus accept that moral "non-naturalism" is true.

What then are you trying to accomplish here in an atheist forum given your intense focus on this one topic of morality? Are you trying to argue that atheism allows for a "transcendental" morality that is objective, and here's arguments X and Y supporting this? If so, great! Vulcan and, I suspect, Belaqua are two among many atheists here who are "non-naturalists" when it comes to morality and yet still manage to be atheists. What's the agenda you're trying to fulfill otherwise if not that?

[Acrobat]

Watches are designed to tell time. They don't ought to do anything. There's no ought (in the strong moral sense) with watches.

Watches are designed with an intrinsic purpose (telos) to tell time. Human beings similarly have an intrinsic purpose to be Good. If my watch wasn’t telling time, it’s not serving the purpose in which it’s supposed to served, in same way human being not doing good, doing bad are not serving the purpose in which they are suppose to serve. In fact we use parallel type of language here, immoral human appears broken, we use expressions as inhumane, absence of humanity, etc.

When most of us address immorality, when I tell my daughter she did something wrong, it’s with such implications in mind. That when she does something wrong, that she ought to have done what was right, ought to have done what was good, not as some subjective goal assigned to her by herself, me, or society, but one she’s endowed with, posses regardless of her subjective opinions or preferences, one she can no more deny, than a conscious watch can deny its purpose to tell time.

I'm willing to bet you implicitly follow a goal that is judged by you as reasonable that drives you to believe you ought not do X.

I don’t so much as follow a goal, but rather recognize one, one that I recognize as one not of my own creation, yours, or societies. In fact I often don’t follow it, give in to immorality, and find the idea of being good to be a struggle, and hard work, rather than something that comes naturally or something easy. But I can’t deny that the goal/purpose is a matter of some fundamental truth, rather than some subjective preference, as you implied. To actually view it as subjective, would require that I lie to myself, deny the earth is round.

This teleological view, isn’t a position I reasoned my way into, it’s the default assumption, the prevalent view of humanity, of a toddler, or a child, as teleology so entwined into our perceptions of reality, that it’s very difficult to be rid of.

If a toddler could articulate his moral perception, this is what it would look like.

You don't believe you ought not do X simply because X is bad. You ought not do X because X is bad and you don't want to do bad.

I believe I ought to do good, and as a result of this not do bad. If I didn’t hold to such a belief, than nothing would be good or bad. The terms would lack any real meaning, if removed from such a goal.

X would just be a series of scientific and historical descriptions of x, absent of any moral quality or judgement.

[Acrobat]

What then are you trying to accomplish here in an atheist forum given your intense focus on this one topic of morality?

Because I find no other topic remotely as interesting or rewarding, my entire religious views revolve around this topic, my personal life, my relationship all orbit around it’s sphere. I’m not just intensely focused in it in discussions with atheists, but with Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc....

I think of nothing I want more from my daughters than to be Good.

Are you trying to argue that atheism allows for a "transcendental" morality that is objective, and here's arguments X and Y supporting this? If so, great! Vulcan and, I suspect, Belaqua are two among many atheists here who are "non-naturalists" when it comes to morality and yet still manage to be atheists. What's the agenda you're trying to fulfill otherwise if not that?

I’m not here to convince you or anyone else of anything, it’s only for the sake of developing my own views and perspectives, to think threw them more clearly, to find ways to express them simply, and in correspondence with the actual human experience. Not of morality as something theoretical, but morality as lived and perceived through the lens of human life.

I think most people if not everyone here, acknowledges the same underlying perception, they see what I do, but their attempts to articulate it, don’t align with this perception. And I like working through this quagmire, to glean what lays beneath its rubble. Something you derive better by pushing against what you don’t believe than what you think you do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your kids will end up fine in spite of you. Or, at least, that’s been my experience.

Probably a knock off effect of our notions of goodness being powerfully rooted in some portion of human nature. IE, the concept of a good person is by necessity a description of some human beings behavior and decisions, rather than an aardvarks.

We’ve domesticated ourselves, effectively selecting for temperament over generations by our semi-fixed notions of right and wrong. Not entirely unlike selecting dogs that like to be petted, have a soft mouth, and are comfortable with gunfire.

[GrandizerII]

Watches are designed to tell time. They don't ought to do anything. There's no ought (in the strong moral sense) with watches.

Watches are designed with an intrinsic purpose (telos) to tell time. Human beings similarly have an intrinsic purpose to be Good. If my watch wasn’t telling time, it’s not serving the purpose in which it’s supposed to served, in same way human being not doing good, doing bad are not serving the purpose in which they are suppose to serve. In fact we use parallel type of language here, immoral human appears broken, we use expressions as inhumane, absence of humanity, etc.

Human beings evolved to be, well, human (prone to be selfish in some contexts and altruistic in others and human in all contexts). They weren't designed specifically to be Good (this is such a bizarre way of using the English language, btw).

And often times, when a human individual has been referred to as broken, it is because they were considered to be behaving in ways that are not socially acceptable (this is not necessarily the same as moral).

When most of us address immorality, when I tell my daughter she did something wrong, it’s with such implications in mind. That when she does something wrong, that she ought to have done what was right, ought to have done what was good, not as some subjective goal assigned to her by herself, me, or society, but one she’s endowed with, posses regardless of her subjective opinions or preferences, one she can no more deny, than a conscious watch can deny its purpose to tell time.

It's very possible, however, that there is a hidden premise here that you may not be conscious of, and you only believe that there isn't any.

Psychology, man. We don't have access to most of what goes on in our brains because most of what goes on psychologically is not consciously brought to light.

I don’t so much as follow a goal, but rather recognize one, one that I recognize as one not of my own creation, yours, or societies. In fact I often don’t follow it, give in to immorality, and find the idea of being good to be a struggle, and hard work, rather than something that comes naturally or something easy. But I can’t deny that the goal/purpose is a matter of some fundamental truth, rather than some subjective preference, as you implied. To actually view it as subjective, would require that I lie to myself, deny the earth is round.

You telling me about the various feels you have, but there's no indicator that any of this has brought you close to the truth on this matter.

This teleological view, isn’t a position I reasoned my way into, it’s the default assumption, the prevalent view of humanity, of a toddler, or a child, as teleology so entwined into our perceptions of reality, that it’s very difficult to be rid of.

If a toddler could articulate his moral perception, this is what it would look like.

Very young children have clearly wrong conceptions of how the world works. They think rocks were made so we could scratch our backs on them. Do you really want to appeal to young kids as a support for your position?

[The Grand Nudger]

Utilitarian teleology is an exceedingly poor place to draw support for realism from. Some cultures think dogs are good for eating. Their children would be likely to conceive of a dogs existence by its purpose as food.

These observations support the broader observation of descriptive subjectivism and relativism.

Those trends are compounded by the likely pluralist value scheme native to human cognition.

[GrandizerII]

As for this:

I think of nothing I want more from my daughters than to be Good.

Noble goal. If I had kids, I'd want them to be good to others but I'd also want them to be happy, to try hard in life, to be healthy. I don't want to just emphasize that they be "Good".

[The Grand Nudger]

There’s a possible world where a super rational intellect engages in moral reasoning based on singular and consistent metrics, but we aren’t that intellect, this isn’t that world.

Our children having virtue is seen as good for its ability to satisfy us, but not necessarily its benefit to the child or its well being.

In a world of cheaters being an honest man is a liability. So we create categories where the virtue of simple honesty can exist concurrently with its antithetical value - strategic deception.

We want our kids to be Good People™, but not suckers. We want them to do the right thing, but we’re inherently permissive with useful or necessary infractions.

A lot of moral confusion and disagreement is resolved by this acknowledgement. That the nature of morality is (or can be) distinct from the nature of a moral agent. For example, even if morality is best described by realism, our passionate desire to see our children possess, whether that’s wealth or virtue, is necessarily subjective, but even more likely emotivism masquerading as subjectivism being misidentified as realism.

We’re ambulators, lol. Just as we’re more rationalizing than rational, we’re more moralizing than moral.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As for this:

I think of nothing I want more from my daughters than to be Good.

Noble goal. If I had kids, I'd want them to be good to others but I'd also want them to be happy, to try hard in life, to be healthy. I don't want to just emphasize that they be "Good".

If I had kids, my fondest hope would have been for them to be evil genius super-villains, preferably with a Secret Volcano Lair (patent applied for).

Boru