How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s relativism, not subjectivism....and it certainly doesn’t posit that.

It observes......observes that regardless of our ability to form our own conclusions, the conclusions we hold can be reliably placed to a culture and time.

As a metaphysical position, it’s strength lies in observational data. By asserting that the nature of morality is just like that observational data.

A subjectivist asserts that our ability to come to our own conclusions is the sum total of the moral field. The conclusions may be fact free, in a meaningful sense, but we’re certainly good at reaching them anyway.

[Alan V]

It's clear that we associate rudeness and vulgarity with honesty these days. We think it's downright bad to hold back from calling someone a fuckwad if we happen to disagree with him about metaphysics. "Desublimation" is a useful word, I think.

People often confuse emotional expressions with honesty, without realizing how often our emotions themselves are dishonest. Emotions were evolved to take perceptual shortcuts so that accuracy is sacrificed for speed of reactions. Those shortcuts lead to all sorts of mistakes, so they really are ineffective in dealing with modern situations like intellectual discussions.

[Acrobat]

I'm curious about Acrobat's conception of how intrinsic meaning works. From what he says, it seems to be teleological, and that makes sense to me. Unfortunately some atheists think that teleology can be only divine, but I don't think that's right.

"Life's..a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" -Macbeth

Unlike Macbeth, I view life as signifying something regardless of how inadequately I might be able to describe this something.

It's this "something" that I refer to as intrinsic meaning. It's not a meaning that I gave to life, but rather one it's possess itself.

An analogy would be that of a novel, or a story, or a parable. Such works can contain intrinsic meanings, some moral, etc.. woven into them by the author, contained within the work itself, like a watch possessing an intrinsic purpose to tell time. The only distinction between this analogy and my religious belief, are that there is no distinction between the meaning of this story, and it's author. It's all just one thing, and one thing only.

There was an old slave song, that used to go "over my head I hear music in the air, there must be a God somewhere." In my view God isn't a musician playing the song, but is the song itself.

In my view, most of us, whether unbeliever or not, at some level, even if we're not fully aware of it, recognize that life is about something rather than nothing, concealed within our rejections of nihilism, of moral subjectivism, of moral statements as analogous to our likes and dislikes, and there's usually something contradictory about it.

"I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it. I have no difficulty in practical moral judgments, which I find I make on a roughly hedonistic [i.e. utilitarian] basis, but, when it comes to the philosophy of moral judgments, I am impelled in two opposite directions and remain perplexed." - Bertrand Russell

It's this intersection, that drives any sort of curiosity or interest in atheists and unbelievers. Some unbelievers here would indicate that an atheist can believe in "something"/intrinsic meaning, the good, etc.. without believing in God, and that's perfectly fine, because we primarily seem to be working off two different understandings of the word God, one in which God and this "something" are two different things, and one in which it's just one thing. I don't need them to accept my definition, nor do I have to accept there's, but we can drop the word God, divine, etc.. and manage just fine.

[Acrobat]

What I want to know is what exactly does Acrobat find theistic about the clearly secular moral view that he alleges to hold, other than that he chooses to call it such? I know he doesn't see it this way, but the god that Acrobat alleges to believe in seems to me an impersonal god that, through Acrobat's agency, is moved to move Acrobat to feel various sorts of feels and oughts. But then, what important causal role does such a god play then if all this can be done without it? What exactly is an atheist like Vulcan missing in his moral view that Acrobat thinks he has?

Yes, it renders god completely obsolete, especially considering the fact that the Bible (if he is Christian) doesn’t even condemn the most horrible moral atrocities, like rape and human slavery, that Acrobat himself probably (hopefully) has no internal inclination toward, and never has.

You're right about one thing, Christianity, as expressed in the NT, isn't all that interested in condemning actions, because it's not really about actions at all. It hardly ever addresses the injustices or immorality of Rome, or the political concerns of the time. It concerns itself with being, or what might closely be understand as "character". So rather than Paul condemning the actions of the slave owner, he demands something more radical, that he love his slave like his own brother, treat him as he would Paul himself, etc...

It's less concerned with condemnation, and more concerned with reconciliation, the uniting of the slave and his master in love. Such love might make it possible for a man to own a slave, but Christianity need not say that much.

Christianity isn't concerned so much with the fruits of sin/bad/evil, but the root of it. Something that liberal politcal ideologies, might say is rooted by economical/political disparities, which Christianity sees as far deeper than any of those things, but as the collective failing to submit to Love, and our inability to recognize the weight of that failing.

Racism is failure of the heart, that isn't resolved by any sort of political structure, or implantation of new laws, but it does require a recognition of the lynching tree, of an innocent man hung up on a tree, whose blood lays upon our hands as the result of our collective failure.

[downbeatplumb]

How exactly does "morals come from god " work?
What is the mechanism and the evidence for the workings of this mechanism because it seems that the more religious people are the LESS moral they tend to be. Look at the USA and the middle East to see what I mean.

[Acrobat]

How exactly does "morals come from god " work?
What is the mechanism and the evidence for the workings of this mechanism because it seems that the more religious people are the LESS moral they tend to be. Look at the USA and the middle East to see what I mean.

Morals don't come from God. 

There's just a part of knowledge of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

So much dishonest shit in so many threads, including this one, all to say “morals are a part of knowledge of god”.



No, they’re not.

[LadyForCamus]

@Acrobat

Let me ask you something. It seems you think that humans need god’s objective morality because we are not capable of making accurate moral judgements on our own. If that’s your position, then you have made a moral judgement regarding god’s morality. If you are incapable of making accurate moral judgements on your own, by what method did you conclude that god’s morality is better than everyone else’s?

No, I don't think that all. In fact nothing I said has anything to do with how we derive moral judgements, but the ontological nature of moral judgments. I also don't believe you need to believe in god to make more judgements, our conscious often reveals to us what's right and wrong, regardless of our particular beliefs or lack of them. 

A subjectivist might suggest that good and bad are social constructs. 

Would you say if society didn't tell us or indoctrinate concepts of good and bad to us, that we wouldn't be able to make moral judgements?

Are you a Christian?

[Acrobat]

No, I don't think that all. In fact nothing I said has anything to do with how we derive moral judgements, but the ontological nature of moral judgments. I also don't believe you need to believe in god to make more judgements, our conscious often reveals to us what's right and wrong, regardless of our particular beliefs or lack of them. 

A subjectivist might suggest that good and bad are social constructs. 

Would you say if society didn't tell us or indoctrinate concepts of good and bad to us, that we wouldn't be able to make moral judgements?

Are you a Christian?

Yes, but only as to what can be said of Christ, expressed in a Wim Wenders film “a storyteller both an infant and an ancient and him reveals Everyman.” Only in as much as concepts like forgiveness, love, redemption, the weight of sin, tragedy, suffering, faith etc.. are housed within that tradition.

But not in the way often housed in common discussions/debates with Christians and theists, but is fairly common in discussion between believers.

[LadyForCamus]

Are you a Christian?

Yes, but only as to what can be said of Christ, expressed in a Wim Wenders film “a storyteller both an infant and an ancient and him reveals Everyman.”  Only in as much as concepts like forgiveness, love, redemption, the weight of sin, tragedy, suffering, faith etc.. are housed within that tradition.

But not in the way often housed in common discussions/debates with Christians and theists, but is fairly common in discussion between believers.

Okay...I’m going to go with “yes”, lol. 

Is god moral?