Do you wish there's a god?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're only telling us about the quality of the theists you know. Unsuprising to me, if they're of a similar quality as yourself.

Your definition remains what it always was. A poor attempt to frame a doomed argument. The belief you described can be held and rejected by atheists or theists alike, and is not what the term god refers to, nor is it what the term atheism refers to.

I define gods as amoral time traveling toasters. Amoral time traveling toasters don't exist, therefore gods aren't real and your beliefs are inconsistent with moral reality. QED...right?

[Alan V]

I don't have any innate impulse to do what's best for human thriving. If we're strictly speaking about evolution, then the only goal evolution has in mind is for me to have sex successfully. Any selected for feature, is terribly short sighted, developed in consideration of immediate ecological pressures, with very little to any changes in our biology, as the product of natural selection, since the beginnings of our species, in our more tribal predicament. 

So it shouldn't be surprising that the people I care about the most is my family, and my small community, and not so much humanity as a whole.    Whether or not you get killed, robbed, etc... is of far less of a concern for most people than the glass in their cupboard, or their iPhones.

Not only do I not possess such a goal, I also reject the moral authority, of your supposed group that subscribes to such a goal, and wants to impose such an obligation on to me. 

Based on this predicament, where does that leave your objective morality? It's true for you, but not for me?

I don't think you know very much about human evolution, if that is what you believe it implies.

Yes, our moral impulses are acted out in relationship to the people in our families and communities. And this is a problem how exactly? Those are the people we are in contact with.

I see no predicament. I think you are just making things up at this point.

[robvalue]

Why is always baby torture? That was Huggy's shtick.

[Acrobat]

You're only telling us that you're a shitty person.  Already knew that.

Do we judge a person as shitty, based on what they believe, or on their actions?

[The Grand Nudger]

Moot point, really, since you've bullshitted us for pages and can't muster up a single shred of credible honesty about your own beliefs.

Either you're the person you described in argumentation, and that would be a shitty person..or you're not..just a liar, and that would also be a shitty person. Take your pick.

[Acrobat]

I don't have any innate impulse to do what's best for human thriving. If we're strictly speaking about evolution, then the only goal evolution has in mind is for me to have sex successfully. Any selected for feature, is terribly short sighted, developed in consideration of immediate ecological pressures, with very little to any changes in our biology, as the product of natural selection, since the beginnings of our species, in our more tribal predicament. 

So it shouldn't be surprising that the people I care about the most is my family, and my small community, and not so much humanity as a whole.    Whether or not you get killed, robbed, etc... is of far less of a concern for most people than the glass in their cupboard, or their iPhones.

Not only do I not possess such a goal, I also reject the moral authority, of your supposed group that subscribes to such a goal, and wants to impose such an obligation on to me. 

Based on this predicament, where does that leave your objective morality? It's true for you, but not for me?

I don't think you know very much about human evolution, if that is what you believe it implies.

Yes, our moral impulses are acted out in relationship to the people in our families and communities.  And this is a problem how exactly?  Those are the people we are in contact with.

I see no predicament.  I think you are just making things up at this point.

You claimed we have an innate goal of doings what's best for human thriving. You didn't  limit it to the "thriving" of our small little tribes, but to humanity in general.

---

Moot point, really, since you've bullshitted us for pages and can't muster up a single shred of credible honesty about your own beliefs.

Either you're the person you described in argumentation, and that would be a shitty person..or you're not..just a liar, and that would also be a shitty person.  Take your pick.

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.

[Succubus]

But as a gnostic theist you know exactly what god is, so why not tell us.

Sure, God is the view that life is about something rather than nothing...

This is nothing more than a shallow deepity of your own design and explains nothing! Could you link to any other great thinkers who describe god in those terms and only those terms.

pseudo-profound bullshit.

[Acrobat]

You're only telling us about the quality of the theists you know.  Unsuprising to me, if they're of a similar quality as yourself.

Your definition remains what it always was.  A poor attempt to frame a doomed argument.  The belief you described can be held and rejected by atheists or theists alike, and is not what the term god refers to, nor is it what the term atheism refers to.

I define gods as amoral time traveling toasters.  Amoral time traveling toasters don't exist, therefore gods aren't real and your beliefs are inconsistent with moral reality.  QED...right?

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.

[Succubus]

Why is always baby torture? That was Huggy's shtick.

But not nearly as verbose.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Moot point, really, since you've bullshitted us for pages and can't muster up a single shred of credible honesty about your own beliefs.

Either you're the person you described in argumentation, and that would be a shitty person..or you're not..just a liar, and that would also be a shitty person.  Take your pick.

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.

---

You're only telling us about the quality of the theists you know.  Unsuprising to me, if they're of a similar quality as yourself.

Your definition remains what it always was.  A poor attempt to frame a doomed argument.  The belief you described can be held and rejected by atheists or theists alike, and is not what the term god refers to, nor is it what the term atheism refers to.

I define gods as amoral time traveling toasters.  Amoral time traveling toasters don't exist, therefore gods aren't real and your beliefs are inconsistent with moral reality.  QED...right?

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.