Do you wish there's a god?

[The Grand Nudger]

You seeing meaning in life is what created the flowers? Dude, just cut the shit, lol.

[Acrobat]

It's not, but I don't expect you to know that, because these sorts of things don't interest you and you don't actually like talking about them. 

If you want to appeal to those terms as a criticism of anything I’ve said it’s your responsibly to define and explain them not mine. If you don’t want to do that, then don’t expect anyone not just me, to understand whatever point you’re trying to raise by these terms, other than just sounding pretentious

[The Grand Nudger]

Already have, multiple times and at length..... but I shouldn't have to, since you argue against yourself.  

Neither of us thinks that moral property making and moral compulsion are the same thing. We both agree that moral compulsion is inherently and inexorably subjective. If you are interested in these sorts of things, take the time to learn the terms.

-or, tell me more about airpanes and their thingamabobbers that make them go zippy!

This, directly after you called your own bullshit about your definition for god. God isn't the belief that life has meaning...you think that god is the source of that meaning, and flowers too..apparently... and that this is somehow inconsistent with atheism. It's looking like you believe in exactly the sort of thing that atheists are thinking of, that they don;t believe in, even though they can just as easily believe that life has meaning.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't see a problem with the definition, everyone gets to have their own version of the God they believe in. Is your version the creator and designer of the universe, or just a signifier?

Sure, what ever the meaning of life is, it’s what ultimately make sense of everything my, and the source of everything.

Like Plato would say, of the Good, that once seen one recognizes it as the source of everything else.

Thanks, so if I'm understanding you correctly, God is the creator and designer, and also the signifier of the universe. From other of your posts, I infer that the God you believe in, intentionally 'set the universe up' in a way that would result in the natural formation and evolution of life. And since you describe yourself as a theist instead of a deist, the God you believe in does intervene in the course of events at least on occasion, and prayers are something that God perceives and may or may not act upon. I am also taking it that you wouldn't think the Bible should be taken too literally if you're a Christian.

Please correct me on any points I'm mistaken about. Frankly, this version of God is less problematic than Drich's (or may dad's, for that matter), since it doesn't sound like the kind of God to give you explicit marching orders or political goals.

[Succubus]

So what point is Acrobat attempting to make? I'd ask him myself, but he keeps ignoring me.

With all the contortions he's going through to avoid making a point I'm surprised he hasn't slipped a disk.

---

Christians have also been called atheists, because they rejected pagan gods.

[citation needed]

[Acrobat]

Thanks, so if I'm understanding you correctly, God is the creator and designer, and also the signifier of the universe. From other of your posts, I infer that the God you believe in, intentionally 'set the universe up' in a way that would result in the natural formation and evolution of life.

In order to best understand what I mean by God, it’s best to leave the term God out of it. Atheists bring a lot baggage when it comes to to term God. So it’s best to use terms like the Good, or meaning so that you don’t make the mistake of thinking that I’m speaking of multiple different things, rather than just one thing. I believe meaning brought the world into existence.

And since you describe yourself as a theist instead of a deist, the God you believe in does intervene in the course of events at least on occasion, and prayers are something that God perceives and may or may not act upon. I am also taking it that you wouldn't think the Bible should be taken too literally if you're a Christian.

No I’m a determinist, that our story has already been written, both past and present, that the will of God is foreordained, that god need no more to intervene than an author need to intervene in the novels he’s already composed.

And the Bible ought to be read like any other book, with the intentions of its writings, context, audience all in mind. If some portions of the writing were composed to be read and understand literally than we should understand it as such, if they were written to be allegories and metaphors than that’s the way they should be understood.

---

So what point is Acrobat attempting to make? I'd ask him myself, but he keeps ignoring me.

With all the contortions he's going through to avoid making a point I'm surprised he hasn't slipped a disk.

---

Christians have also been called atheists, because they rejected pagan gods.

[citation needed]

https://chalcedon.edu/store/39865-the-at...rly-church

[Succubus]

Sure, what ever the meaning of life is, it’s what ultimately make sense of everything, and the source of everything.

Like Plato would say, of the Good, that once seen one recognizes it as the source of everything else.

This is the sort of bollocks you'd expect from a French post modernist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look at this, god turns out to be a being with a will, foreordained, no less  

Why did you bullshit us before, Acro?  Looks like you were trying to hide your own baggage.

[Acrobat]

Neither of us thinks that moral property making and moral compulsion are the same thing. We both agree that moral compulsion is inherently and inexorably subjective. If you are interested in these sorts of things, take the time to learn the terms.

Since I’m not sure what you mean by moral property making or moral compulsion, I’m not sold that we agree.

You seem to conflate oughts, moral obligation with moral compulsion. You claim ought are subjective agreements among people, where as I hold that moral obligations, are a product of external reality that possess moral aims, a transcendent moral order.

I also indicated it is moral “oughts” moral obligations, that make a statement a moral statement, and not harm. Absent of an ought harm is harm, not good or bad.

God isn't the belief that life has meaning...you think that god is the source of that meaning,

Yet how often do fundies and other theists argue against atheism, because atheism to them implies a universe absent of intrinsic meaning, while their belief is theism is seen as belief in such meaning.

So yes, to many theist god is a belief that life possess intrinsic meaning, the idea of any sort of atheism that believes in such a thing, would be incoherent to them.

You continue to tell theist what god isn’t, yet refuse to provide your definition of what you think god is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your baggage.  Your inconsistencies.

You don't define god as "the belief that life has meaning": That was bullshit, and you knew it when you said, and have been elaborating on it in these past few posts.

You also don't think that moral property making and moral compulsion are equivalent. You've acknowledged that people might not have any compulsion to avoid some thing that really is bad.

The only way that meaning in life would be inconsistent with atheism is if meaning in life required some god. It doesn't. You think that nihilism must be the consistent and default position of atheism, but..more accurately, it;s nihilism that causes you to posit that without god meaning life has none...even though god and god meaning can't supply the sort of meaning required to overcome nihilism any more than a human being could.

You are a nihilist, and a subjectivist, lying to people about what you believe...with no understanding whatsoever of what atheism is, or the many ways in which realism, whether it's moral realism or value realism, is proposed.

Many people have tried to improve your understanding on these various issues, but you are not interested in this.