Do you wish there's a god?

[Belacqua]

It doesn't matter.

Are you claiming that people can’t simply lack belief in something?

With all due respect: Jesus Fucking Christ. I have been over this a thousand times.

Maybe you are multi-tasking or otherwise distracted? I've attempted to answer your questions, and you turn around and accuse me of ignoring them. Then you try to address me on something I've never mentioned. 

I was grateful that yesterday you didn't use mockery when you didn't understand me, as you sometimes do.

But let's just stop, since we apparently approach things so differently that I'm not getting through.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Acro
If I believed that moral good and aesthetic good were the same thing it wouldn't change my beliefs with regards to gods in the slightest.  

Why would it?

@Belaqua
You could get through, if you'd just stop with all this silly bullshitting and get to the moneyshot. It's unlikely that I'll suddenly shout hosanna (cant speak for cam), but at least you'll have presented -something- to consider as a challenge, or as sophisticated theology.

Or you could stick with the Lackist folderol. : shrugs :

[Acrobat]

While you're looking for your next way to bullshit the both of us - let's explore.

You don't need to know why I think some thing is good or bad to know that I think that good things can be ugly, pretty, or neither.

You don't need to know why I think something is pretty or ugly to know that I can find the beauty in immoral things, the ugliness in moral things, or neither.  

I need to know the basis for why it’s good or bad to confirm whether it’s objectively good or bad.

Since you believe in objective morality, I have to understand what makes your statement objectively good, the basis for why killing your enemies is good. And on that basis we can demonstrate whether it possess aesthetic elements or not.

The reason you don’t want to disclose that, is only because you know it justifies my argument more so than support yours. Your dishonesty prevents you from doing so.

---

I'm teasing him.

The other day he asserted that words don't have meanings. So I'm taking him at his word, so to speak. 

To his credit, he came back later and added the essential qualifier, "intrinsic." It's true that the sounds we make and write down don't have an essential connection to their meanings. But that's not what he said at first. And of course he didn't say, "oops I was wrong to leave off the qualifier." But then, "sorry" is just a word. 

I think it's clear that he doesn't want a reasonable conversation with me. He's an insulter. So I'm just playing.

But isn't that Kyary Pamyu Pamyu video amazing? Andre Breton, you should be living at this hour!

Nope. You are trolling. Once again your bait fails. Let me know when you grow out of it.

No that’s not trolling, he’s demonstrating why an earlier argument was faulty, and inconsistent, because a good opportunity to do so arose in this thread.

I’ve had atheists argue in some threads that truth is subjective, or that the meaning of words and sentences are subjective, while later on appealing to objective truth, in other arguments all of which lend themselves as examples of their contradictory suggestions.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Acro, you really don't..it's just that you'd rather move on to that after the failure of the last thing.  There's a name for it.  Gish Gallup.

You asserted that moral and aesthetic content were equivalent.  I demonstrated in six different ways why that was not necessarily the case.  I could have split them up into 12 individual parts....but it seems excessive, since it only takes a single counterexample to demonstrate the vacuity of such a claim.

If I gave you my reason..I'd just repeat the same examples again. Your non-argument for not-gods is entirely composed of equivocation. If this is the reason for your belief, but you'd rather see som challenging discussion of sophisticated theology, then step aside and let someone who possesses either take the wheel.

[Acrobat]

No, Acro, you really don't..it's just that you'd rather move on to that after the failure of the last thing.  There's a name for it.  Gish Gallup.

Lol that’s not a Gish Gallop. You claim that killing your enemies is objectively good.

I asked you explicitly why is it “objectively good”, and shown a variety of examples where it wouldn’t be objectively good.

It’s one pretty straightforward question, in which the only reason you don’t seem to want to answer, is because the answer better serves my argument than yours. Lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Acro, you really don't..it's just that you'd rather move on to that after the failure of the last thing.  There's a name for it.  Gish Gallup.

Lol that’s not a Gish Gallop. You claim that killing your enemies is objectively good.

-and simultaneously ugly.  That's the part that argues against your assertion.  The simple fact that I can distinguish between a moral good and a pretty thing.  If the two are content equivalent, then any statement of the one is equal to the other. That is demonstrably not the case. I gave you examples from both ends, showing you that, how and why any such assertion reduces to self contradiction.

This is why it's not a good* idea to equivocate between the two.

I asked you explicitly why is it “objectively good”, and shown a variety of examples where it wouldn’t be objectively good.

It’s one pretty straightforward question, in which the only reason you don’t seem to want to answer, is because the answer better serves my argument than yours. Lol.

It's a moral imperative because it's my duty.  Doing my duty can be beautiful, ugly, or neutral.

It's my duty to remain faithful to my wife, and beautiful.  Its my duty to kill the enemy, and ugly.  It's my duty to change a diaper..and meh.

*(wanna equivocate on that use of the word good, too..while you're at it - do you think I'm talking about a moral good or a pretty thing when I say it....or can you tell the difference this time?)

[Alan V]

I’ve had atheists argue in some threads that truth is subjective, or that the meaning of words and sentences are subjective, while later on appealing to objective truth, in other arguments  all of which lend themselves as examples of their contradictory suggestions.

That has bothered me as well, even as an atheist. I think atheists should stop calling such things "subjective" and start calling them "relative."

When you realize that moral truths can be both relative and objective, then you will understand better where atheists stand on moral issues. That being the case, there is no need to trot out examples.

[The Grand Nudger]

Subjective, relative, and objective.  

The subjective refers to some fact of the person considering...say...what they find aesthetically pleasing..........

The relative refers to the norms of their society....say...how butt stuff is sinful.

The objective refers to some fact of the matter in consideration...say... what a bullet does to a person.

[Alan V]

We are biological creatures, all our reactions are biological. Saying you suspect your emotional reactions is not much different than saying you suspect your biological reactions, a state of perpetual doubt, and uncertainty.

So is your desire for utility, for useful things, and not truth? If believing a lie is more useful than believing a truth, why would you desire truth?

If you doubt that truth has intrinsic aesthetic quality about it, then you should also doubt that truth is intrinsic useful. Your desire are for what conscience to and useful, not necessarily truthful.

You also haven’t mentioned anything about moral truths.

Care to provide a moral truth, and indicate why it’s absent of any aesthetic property, yet can be called moral?

The real world is complex enough that we should employ doubt and uncertainty to address it effectively. That is a truth better represented in atheistic perspectives than in theistic perspectives. Since truth is relative, it is also continually changing. So you have to be on your toes and pay attention.

I do not believe that lies are more utilitarian than truths, to individuals or societies. They are only "useful" within societies which have lost their way morally, and even in such societies an honest person can find plenty of ways to get by honestly. So why lie at all, unless you are lying to yourself about the utility of lies?

Often lies are aesthetically pleasing to less-than-honest individuals. They make things seem nicer than they really are.

For moral truths, see my post above.

I agree with Gae Bolga that you are equivocating the word "good" as you apply it between moral and aesthetic judgments, so your last question is faulty IMO.

[The Grand Nudger]

Could you, Acro, maintain your god beliefs if you could be made to understand that the line of argumentation you pursued is faulty?  That;s the real question™ you had in mind earlier, right?

If so..then it isn't actually the reason for your own god beliefs. If not...your god beliefs are in trouble.