How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Belacqua]

It's a bit misleading though, because organs haven't evolved in order to do anything specific. They have evolved as a result of being advantageous (or being associated with advantageous traits) within a certain environment, thus favored by natural selection.

It's true that organs evolved because they were advantageous, with no intelligent design behind them. That doesn't mean that there is no teleology. 

I think that maybe people assume that teleology, final causes, etc., always demand some kind of advanced planning, but that's not the way the term works, I don't think.

---------

Edited to add:

Maybe I shouldn't start this argument up again, as it might take us off topic.

The point I wanted to make earlier was just: little kids ask "what's it FOR?" without being indoctrinated.

[Acrobat]

It's a bit misleading though, because organs haven't evolved in order to do anything specific. They have evolved as a result of being advantageous (or being associated with advantageous traits) within a certain environment, thus favored by natural selection.

It's true that organs evolved because they were advantageous, with no intelligent design behind them. That doesn't mean that there is no teleology.

The use of teleological language when it comes to evolution, is controversial to say the least. We borrow the language of design, when speaking of biological parts, and their history, primarily because it’s difficult to avoid. We can speak of biological elements as we do engineered machines, apply a bit of reverse engineering to trace their history.

But teleology here is more like symbols and metaphors, but not to be taken literally.

---

“Ethics is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate...the way our biology enforces it’s ends is by making us think there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.” -EO Wilson

Good job you found a quote

A confessional.

[The Grand Nudger]

The use of teleological semantics is controversial only in its capacity for equivocation.

If we wanted to say that, functionally, evolutionary biology satisfies those same criteria that a purpose driven agent -might-.....

......then there’s no issue, no controversy.

This isn’t how you, personally, would leverage teleological language, being a supernatural subjectivist, and all.

-shrugs-

[Amarok]

It's true that organs evolved because they were advantageous, with no intelligent design behind them. That doesn't mean that there is no teleology.

The use of teleological language when it comes to evolution, is controversial to say the least. We borrow the language of design, when speaking of biological parts, and their history, primarily because it’s difficult to avoid. We can speak of biological elements as we do engineered machines, apply a bit of reverse engineering to trace their history.

But teleology here is more like symbols and metaphors, but not to be taken literally.

---

Good job you found a quote

A confessional.

Not really

[downbeatplumb]

How about when claiming the holocaust is immoral/bad. Is this just based based on the social norms of your society, but not wrong for German society at the time?

That's right. These germans saw jews existence as the greater evil and killing them on mass as the moral thing. 

Judging that your had different social norms than them, does this means there's nothing objectively wrong about the holocaust, just like there's nothing objectively wrong about having a tattoo? [/quote[

Now you're getting it.

[quote='Acrobat' pid='1929275' dateline='1566927832']
Should i interpret your moral statesmen about right or wrong, as your iterating the actions behaviors that achieve social approval and esteem in your particular society?

Yep.

If you’re honest, you'd probably say no it's not like this. That good and bad mean something different than straying from the norm, and try and jump to some other basis as a justification.

Well wasn't your prediction off.

[Acrobat]

How about when claiming the holocaust is immoral/bad. Is this just based based on the social norms of your society, but not wrong for German society at the time?

That's right. These germans saw jews existence as the greater evil and killing them on mass as the moral thing. 

Judging that your had different social norms than them, does this means there's nothing objectively wrong about the holocaust, just like there's nothing objectively wrong about having a tattoo? [/quote[

Now you're getting it.

Should i interpret your moral statesmen about right or wrong, as your iterating the actions behaviors that achieve social approval and esteem in your particular society?

Yep.

If you’re honest, you'd probably say no it's not like this. That good and bad mean something different than straying from the norm, and try and jump to some other basis as a justification.

Well wasn't your prediction off.

No you’re being dishonest, let’s quote your own words:

“
The Nazis saw the Jews as a greater evil so in their twisted morality getting rid of the jews was the moral thing.


Homosexuality was considered immoral but is now accepted (and so it should be) 

If right and wrong are just social norms, why would you call the Nazis morality twisted? 

You earlier indicated that it’s like the social norms concerning tattoos and man buns? 

Yet it would be silly to say Indian women are twisted because they like to wear saris to work. 

And in regards to homosexuality why do you say homosexuality should be accepted, unlike in earlier times? If people who find homosexuality immoral are no different than people who don’t like man buns, or tattoos. That’s like saying I should like olives because you do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or, lol, it’s an honest appraisal of a persons moral agency under the profound effects of cultural relativism.

Yours is no different. Whatever your metaphysical view of moral propositions may be......the boundaries of your moral schema have been strongly influenced by the circumstance of your birth.

Societal conditioning is crucial to understanding and accurately describing human agency.

[Acrobat]

Or, lol, it’s an honest appraisal of a persons moral agency under the profound effects of cultural relativism.

Yours is no different.  Whatever your metaphysical view of moral propositions may be......the boundaries of your moral schema have been strongly influenced by the circumstance of your birth.

Societal conditioning is crucial to understanding and accurately describing human agency.

Except I don't see myself as having any unique moral schema, but rather see myself as looking at morality through the same lens, in which all of us, people across cultures, etc... share a universal core morality. 

If anything I'm just an explorer, trying explore the nature of that core morality, the objectiveness we all see.

I'm not of the opinion that you operate on a particular moral schema, that your brain uses to interpret whats right and wrong, than others who don't share that schema. These schema people often appeal to, seem to be a product of dumbfounding, post hoc rationalizations.

[The Grand Nudger]

Consider the phenomena of hippys that kill.

Vietnam. Support for the war trended steeply downward with age. While not all the draftable population were protesters (not even close), it’s safe to assume they had fundamentally similar views of war. More than a few people rationalized their participation as onerous duty. After returning home, the anti-war tide had become so overwhelming that many of those people found it difficult to cope with their recent past, having lost the support of their society. Heroes or baby killers.

Relativism gets us coming and going, it overwhelms our subjective apparatus and subverts our observational conclusions. At all points in this, they felt the same way you do. Even as the content of their moral schema changed.

A schema is just an internal model of the moral field. OFC they’re subject to all of our cognitive weaknesses, as a species. However, if they can be inaccurate, wrong, or false....then we’re discussing truth-alike content. Some must be more accurate, less wrong, or not demonstrably false.

This is the strongest case or defense for a realist moral order.

[Tom Fearnley]

Thanks for all the responses I'll try to reply to as many as possible.