(April 9, 2019 at 2:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 2:17 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

---

No it's not a moot point. No, that describes my views in relationship to your moral beliefs. But I just indicated my beliefs, and didn't say anything  about my actions. 

I also don't see myself as unique, but as much an everyman, with nothing particular about my environment or moral development distinct from most people in the world, so if I constitute as a shitty person, it's unlikely to be a unique judgement, but one that can be leveled at humanity as a whole, as a result of shared environments and biological histories.

You might imagine that everyone else is just as shitty as you are..but that's more a way of making yourself feel better than an accurate representation of humanity, and presents no cogent criticism of any moral system.  

I don't even get the point of this new diversion.  You failed to make the case for god belief.   Explicitly describing yourself as a complete douche, as though this had anything to say on moral authority...when you had previously argued to the contrary yourself...was superfluous.

For all this meaningless and irrelevant shit about inconsistency in others and some non-existent contradiction between atheism and realism, you've expressed meaningful and relevant inconsistencies in your own beliefs, beliefs which you are cagey and duplicitous about.  Yours has been a running example in how not to offer a challenging or sophisticated theology.

---

(April 9, 2019 at 2:37 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Lol how are you an atheists going to tell me what the term god refers to? Or that my definition isn’t a description of a god belief?

What percentage of theists, let say Christians would disagree that all men can know of God, is what God reveals to them? That man can know nothing more of God than his revelation?

I’m pointing out that hardly any Christian, fundie, or otherwise would disagree with this, it’s just that you fail to understand basic theistic beliefs like this.

Someone clearly has to point it out to you...because you don't have the first clue wtf you're talking about, lol?

You believe that life has meaning.  Well..welcome to the club?  That doesn't make you a theist, and that's not the thing that atheism refers to.

What is the ‘thing’ that atheism refers to? How does atheism define ‘god’? There are some individuals like buckyball who label themselves ignostic, because the term god is vague and ambiguous, lacks any singular meaning, but it seems your operating on a very specific meaning.

Please provide that definition, and also is atheism dependent on subscribing to this definition your outlining?

---

(April 9, 2019 at 2:38 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You might imagine that everyone else is just as shitty as you are..but that's more a way of making yourself feel better than an accurate representation of humanity, and presents no cogent criticism of any moral system.  .

lol, I don't even know how I'm suppose to be anymore shitty than you or anyone else here is, or how your supposedly morally superior to people like myself?

You seem to have based this judgement solely on our differences in beliefs, my rejection of your dewey eyed moral views, and not on any of my actions.

What differences in beliefs?  We're both..ostensibly, realists.  We both believe that life has meaning.  We both accept that people will be dirtbags regardless of whether or not there are true moral statements.

None of this has anything to do with gods, an atheist and a theist can both accept and reject any of these statements on either side.

(April 9, 2019 at 3:13 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What differences in beliefs?  We're both..ostensibly, realists.  We both believe that life has meaning.  We both accept that people will be dirtbags regardless of whether or not there are true moral statements.

None of this has anything to do with gods, an atheist and a theist can both accept and reject any of these statements on either side.

Please define “god” according to atheists, and whether or not atheism is dependent on agreeing with the definition you provide.

(April 9, 2019 at 3:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 3:13 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What differences in beliefs?  We're both..ostensibly, realists.  We both believe that life has meaning.  We both accept that people will be dirtbags regardless of whether or not there are true moral statements.

None of this has anything to do with gods, an atheist and a theist can both accept and reject any of these statements on either side.

Please define “god” according to atheists, and whether or not atheism is dependent on agreeing with the definition you provide.

There's no need for me to define a god to show all of the amusing ways youv'e been fucking a chicken in this thread.  

You demonstrated that with your own.

(April 9, 2019 at 3:20 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 3:18 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Please define “god” according to atheists, and whether or not atheism is dependent on agreeing with the definition you provide.

There's no need for me to define a god to show all of the amusing ways youv'e been fucking a chicken in this thread.  

You demonstrated that with your own.

So is the reason you refuse to provide such a definition, because you don’t actually have a real definition of god? Or that you do, but that you prefer not to share it with me.

It doesn't matter what I would define a god as.  You offered up a definition, that definition is ludicrously silly on it's own merits.  That you and I both believe that life has meaning does not make us both theists, that's not what theism or atheism refer to.

You could do this same silly shit with anything you like.  Define god as a cat, and then insist that any atheist who believes in cats is being inconsistent. Or, conversely, that any thiest who does believe in god.... but doesn't believe that god is a cat... is being inconsistent.

(April 9, 2019 at 3:13 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What differences in beliefs?  We're both..ostensibly, realists.  We both believe that life has meaning.  We both accept that people will be dirtbags regardless of whether or not there are true moral statements.

None of this has anything to do with gods, an atheist and a theist can both accept and reject any of these statements on either side.

You don't believe in a transcendent moral order, you don't subscribe to a teleological views regarding morality or meaning. You don't believe reality possess moral aims, but rather moral aims are the agreed upon subjective goals of some people. You don't believe that reality possess intrinsic meaning, as far as I know either. 

So no we don't believe the same things here. 

When i speak of morality or meaning, I mean it the way I outlined, not in the way you do.

(April 9, 2019 at 3:57 pm)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 3:13 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What differences in beliefs?  We're both..ostensibly, realists.  We both believe that life has meaning.  We both accept that people will be dirtbags regardless of whether or not there are true moral statements.

None of this has anything to do with gods, an atheist and a theist can both accept and reject any of these statements on either side.

You don't believe in a transcendent moral order,

Moral realism is exactly this.  What I don't believe in, are gods.

Quote:you don't subscribe to a teleological views regarding morality or meaning.

I don't actually have a problem with teleological views regarding morality and meaning.  What I don't believe in, are gods.

Quote:You don't believe reality possess moral aims, but rather moral aims are the agreed upon subjective goals of some people.

I assume that you're conflating moral aims with moral compulsion, here.  Acknowledging that people have subjective compulsions towards moral aims is just a statement of a demonstrable truth.  What I don't believe in, are gods.  

Quote:You don't believe that reality possess intrinsic meaning, as far as I know either. 

You don't know much, but here's something you can know.  What I don't believe in.....are gods.

Quote:So no we don't believe the same things here. 

You say that you believe in gods.  I don't believe in gods.  Nothing you've expressed so far has anything to do with gods.  We are both, ostensibly, realists. We both think that life has meaning. We both think that dicks gotta dick regardless of the existence of moral truth.

Quote:When i speak of morality or meaning, I mean it the way I outlined, not in the way you do.

You mean gods..or, if you don't.,..then you're bullshitting me and wasting your time.

Which I already knew. Rather than hoping to float some argument about how cats are gods...why don't you just establish the one thing that would have to be true for your claims regarding the inconsistency of atheism with realism to be accurate. That realism somehow depends on the existence of a god? That's it, that's the only thing that would do the trick. It's all that you have to establish, you have only that one job. No need to flitter about from this subject to that subject or make an endless list of batshit crazy and irrelevant claims. No need to step on your own dick at every turn, no need to tell us how much of an asshole you really are.

Atheism is just the one thing. I don't believe in gods.

At work.

So.... if 'Morals' and 'Goodness' are objective things. (Much as in the way, say, the Sun is an objective thing)

Then how might we test for such objective morals back in the Plestoscene, for instance?

How would you test for the existence of the sun in the pleistocene?  The answer a realist gives you will be a form of the same.