How to easily defeat any argument for God

[LastPoet]

We don't torture babies for fun, but we sure enjoy eating them.

No praise for the cook and fine cuisine.

At any rate I saw two things in this thread. Belaqua is the official defender of the opressed, sorry fr0d0, you got surpassed. Also this talk about god is best discussed between the faithful when they confront their subjective "knowlege" about the good gods do. While atheists diverge in many things, we discuss it openly. Between theists, they turn a blind eye as a is a "brother in faith", a lost sheep.

The only shred of unity between atheists is the disbelief in gods. The rest is political ideas and it would be good for theists to keep their believed god out of it.

[Acrobat]

I’ll take that as a yes, that is the type of answer you were looking for. Now I tried to explain why that answer regardless if I gave it, or anyone else here gave it doesn’t answer your question as to why it’s “objectively wrong”.

Imagine if I claimed that good and bad when it comes to pizza is objective, rejecting those that suggest it’s subjective:

And you ask me why is dominos pizza objectively good?

I start describing to you the physical facts of the pizza, the ratio of cheese to crust the variety of toppings, the degree of crispness.

Perhaps you can see why this response doesn’t actually answer the question? It doesn’t establish the “objectiveness” of good here.

Perhaps you recall Grandizer indicating that good and bad are not in the physical properties of anything, they’re not anywhere.

So when the question is what is “objectively wrong” about x, the answer isn’t anywhere in the physical description of x, or it’s consequences, etc...

The type of answer you’re expecting, that you’re frustrated with me for not providing, is one that doesn’t actually answer the question, it just pulls the wool over your eyes.

First of all, comparing physical facts about harm to living beings to physical facts about a cheese pizza is a terrible analogy. Let’s try this another way:

Group A “just knows” torturing babies is good, and group B “just knows” torturing babies is bad. Both groups cannot be right, and both groups have a confidence level in their knowledge of 100%. How do we determine who is objectively right?

By using my own eyes. When using my own eyes I can see the torturing babies is bad, regardless of whatever group A or B say. But in this situation I'm in agreement with B. And group A is just delusional, worse than holocaust deniers, the sort of people you wouldn't want to water your plants, let alone watch your children. 

An honest person would see the "badness" in torturing babies, dishonesty, delusions, lies, etc.. are required to see it as good, like can be said of the Nazis, with their scapegoating delusions, and all the lies the holocaust was built upon.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your eyes provide you with empirical, or “natural” facts.

---

As a sideline for people who actually give a shit, lol - the non natural realists explanation for moral disagreement is that the other party ( presumed to be the party in error) simply does not see what you see. If they did, they would be expected to agree.

( there are generous assumptions at play here. That the other party has a functional moral agency and is a nominally rational person)

[Acrobat]

Your eyes provide you with empirical, or “natural” facts.

---

As a sideline for people who actually give a shit, lol - the non natural realists explanation for moral disagreement is that the other party ( presumed to be the party in error) simply does not see what you see.  If they did, they would be expected to agree.

( there are generous assumptions at play here.  That the other party has a functional moral agency and is a nominally rational person)

I'm using eyes metaphorically  for that which allows us to see a non-natural moral reality.

[LadyForCamus]

Acrobat

First of all, comparing physical facts about harm to living beings to physical facts about a cheese pizza is a terrible analogy. Let’s try this another way:

Group A “just knows” torturing babies is good, and group B “just knows” torturing babies is bad. Both groups cannot be right, and both groups have a confidence level in their knowledge of 100%. How do we determine who is objectively right?

By using my own eyes. When using my own eyes I can see the torturing babies is bad, regardless of whatever group A or B say. But in this situation I'm in agreement with B. And group A is just delusional, worse than holocaust deniers, the sort of people you wouldn't want to water your plants, let alone watch your children.

Lol, okay. This is fun. So, I’ll place you in group B then. Everyone in group B, when asked how they know torturing babies is wrong, says: “by using my own eyes.”  Concomitantly, when group A is asked the same question, their answer also is: “by using my own eyes.”

How do these two groups make an objective moral determination about which one is right? They have to, otherwise we are stuck with two groups using the exact same reasoning to arrive at mutually exclusive conclusions. How do we objectively solve this conflict?

An honest person would see the "badness" in torturing babies, dishonesty, delusions, lies, etc.. are required to see it as good, like can be said of the Nazis, with their scapegoating delusions, and all the lies the holocaust was built upon.

What, exactly, are they being honest with themselves about with regard to the torture of babies, Acro? Is it that thing you still don’t wanna say? Keep in mind, if your answer is, “they’re honest with themselves that torturing babies is bad” then you’ve just argued yourself into a circle.

[The Grand Nudger]

Acro is “metaphorically” misrepresenting himself rather than answering the question, at this point.

I don’t know what you’re expecting to get out of him Camus. He has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about, and can’t (or won’t) even describe his own thoughts on the matter accurately.

- because accuracy is devastating to his position.

[LadyForCamus]

Acro is “metaphorically” misrepresenting himself rather than answering the question, at this point.

I don’t know what you’re expecting to get out of him Camus.  He has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about, and can’t (or won’t) even describe his own thoughts on the matter accurately.

*Shrugs* Daddy has the five year old at Toy Story 4, and the little one is sleeping. I’m bored. 😉

[Acrobat]

By using my own eyes. When using my own eyes I can see the torturing babies is bad, regardless of whatever group A or B say. But in this situation I'm in agreement with B. And group A is just delusional, worse than holocaust deniers, the sort of people you wouldn't want to water your plants, let alone watch your children.

Lol, okay. This is fun. So, I’ll place you in group B then. Everyone in group B, when asked how they know torturing babies is wrong, says: “by using my own eyes.”  Concomitantly, when group A is asked the same question, their answer also is: “by using my own eyes.

Let's make it even funner, by including you in a group C. Group C subscribes to some convoluted moral philosophy, with a list of criteria for what it takes for something to constitute as wrong.

Group B recognizes that torturing innocent babies is wrong, quicker than we recognize your dress is yellow. Group C on the other hand is lagging behind, they didn't recognize it was immediately wrong like group B, but instead had to take it, and submit it into the moral calculators they made, confirm that it meets their particular criteria and measurements, and only then was able to confirm that it was wrong.

Group C is total bullshit of course. Group C is actually a part of Group B. They just attach their standard and criteria after the fact. And then try and fool themselves into thinking that their recognition of wrong is the result of their special criteria.

How can group B know that Group A is wrong? They can just peer a little closer to group A, and realize that they're blind, that they're living in the dark. They're sick, deformed, and mad. Group C is also delusional, but it's more benign.

What, exactly, are they being honest with themselves about with regard to the torture of babies, Acro? Is it that thing you don’t wanna say?

That it's dark, that it's a privation of the light. The wrongness is something seen, more so than said.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dark and light are natural facts. Are you “metaphorically” misrepresenting yourself with your “metaphoric” eyes and their “metaphoric” sight, again?

Two groups. One sees a “privation of the light”, the other does not. How will you resolve this disagreement? To what do you or can you refer to establish the objectivity of your POV? What standard, set apart from any individual or their subjective or accidental states are you referring to? How do you establish that something dies or doesn’t conform to it, is or isn’t a privation of it?

Let’s see just one fact. One single solitary fact of the matter. Absent those facts, of that matter, what you’re describing cannot be realism, by definition.

[GrandizerII]

Group C is such a strawman, lol