Do you wish there's a god?

[Acrobat]

 People can and do think that life truly signifies something without thinking that a god exists.  This alone demonstrates that the two are not equivalent, that accepting one proposition does not lead to your state of of belief.

You mean people can and do think that some concepts of god do not exist, while believing in my definition of God. They believe in my God without calling this God.

In reality I never met such atheist, pretty much all them I ever met think meaning at best is subjective, are existential nihilist, or lack a belief one way or the other. They sound to me like those 8% of self identifying atheists, who indicate they believe in God, on the Pew Survey.

I don't think that this is actually why you believe at all.

No it is actually the only reason I believe.

Theism is the belief in a personal and intervening god.  Not the belief that life has meaning.  Atheists are not people who don't believe that their lives have meaning...they are people who don't believe in gods.

Theism isn't a belief in a personal and intervening god, dummy, lol. Hence why deism, pantheism etc.... are all forms of theism.

Now, if some atheist thought that belief in God is a belief in a personal or intervening god, then you might have bunch of confused deist or pantheist out there identifying incorrectly as atheist.

[LadyForCamus]

Try harder. In my view you haven’t really thought through your belief in morality as subjective, and that you’re going to stumble your way into inconsistencies and contradictions. Trying to work through those, would probably help you get a better grasp on what’s true here. 

You clearly take issues with suggesting your moral beliefs, are akin to taste, like your likes and dislikes. In my view thats because like me you recognize it as objective, even if some other part of you wants to deny this, or finds it problematic for your other beliefs, like your atheism.

I think Robvalue and other atheists who think morality is subjective are laboring under a false dichotomy.  Absolute objectivity or subjectivity are not the only choices.  Objectivity can be relative too.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to be an atheist who supports objective morality rather than moral nihilism if one acknowledges that morality is relative to human concerns rather than merely subjective.  We do, after all, possess common objective characteristics, our human nature, upon which we can build our moral considerations.

Exactly this. It absolutely is a false dichotomy. Setting goals for the common well being of a society, and then arriculating a moral code that governs society with those objectives in mind is not anything so whimsical or simplistic as whether or not a person likes pizza. If you start with agreed upon objectives (well-being, minimizing harm, etc), actions can then be deemed objectively right or wrong within the framework of those foundational goals.

[The Grand Nudger]

the·ism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
   

Deism isn't a form of theism, pantheism is. The clue is in...wait for it...theism.

The term atheism was coined in direct response to theistic claims, but has come to include anyone who doesn't believe in gods, including deists gods - though deists and pantheists actually have been called and considered atheists, historically.

[Acrobat]

Nihilism isn't a position on whether we live in a world with or without desire. 



To be blunt....it explicitly asserts that human beings desire meaning and create that meaning as a direct response to a lack of inherent meaning.  

No nihilism, only requires the rejection of objective meaning, it doesn't require you to take a position on any other forms of meaning, subjective meaning, or whether or not human being can create meaning, etc.... Just like atheism doesn't require you to believe that God beliefs are imaginary, or delusional. Human being also don't create meaning, they find things meaningful, they don't make things meaningful. A nihilist could agree that even subjective meaning isn't created, just as I indicated.

That we desire meaning is true regardless of what kind of world we live in, the existence of that desire, itself, makes no more or less sense regardless of either.  This is before we get into the inanity of insisting that desire makes sense in the first place...in any kind of world.

The desire for meaning makes more sense in a reality in which meaning exists. Absent of the existence of such meaning, it would have to be explained away, you need an excuse, sort like I would need an excuse to explain to my wife how I got lipstick on my shirt accidentally, and not because I was cheating on her.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just as a fun sideline, for people not quite as interested in things like this, lol....as far as we can tell..a flowchart of human belief through time went something like-

non-cog
animism
ancestor worship
polytheism
henotheism
monotheism
deism
pantheism/panentheism

regional variations apply, lol.

---

Nihilism isn't a position on whether we live in a world with or without desire. 



To be blunt....it explicitly asserts that human beings desire meaning and create that meaning as a direct response to a lack of inherent meaning.  

No nihilism, only requires the rejection of objective meaning, it doesn't require you to take a position on any other forms of meaning, subjective meaning, or whether or not human being can create meaning, etc.... Just like atheism doesn't require you to believe that God beliefs are imaginary, or delusional. Human being also don't create meaning, they find things meaningful, they don't make things meaningful. A nihilist could agree that even subjective meaning isn't created, just as I indicated.

You say "no" - then argue with yourself.  Is my participation required?  

I'll wait for you to get something right by accident.

That we desire meaning is true regardless of what kind of world we live in, the existence of that desire, itself, makes no more or less sense regardless of either.  This is before we get into the inanity of insisting that desire makes sense in the first place...in any kind of world.

The desire for meaning makes more sense in a reality in which meaning exists. Absent of the existence of such meaning, it would have to be explained away, you need an excuse, sort like I would need an excuse to explain to my wife how I got lipstick on my shirt accidentally, and not because I was cheating on her.

It makes no more or less sense in either world, and desire doesn't have to make sense in the first place. Absent any external or inherent meaning, human beings would still desire it. Human desire needs no explanation beyond the fact that humans are creatures that desire. It doesn't depend on our desires being sensible or referent..even if we live in a world in which desire -can be- referent to external or inherent value it's still very often the case that it is not.

These cases are exactly the sorts of things that a nihilist can refer to, and after having done so, pose the question of what about some other case shows that it's not an example of the same.

What you're expressing is that nihilism is threatening to your silly beliefs, not that we or this world make more or less sense in light of your beliefs or nihilism. You seek to avoid a negatively valued conclusion. That is one of your desires. You desire this even if the world is as nihilists propose. The manner in which you've attempted to reject nihilism makes you a wonderful example.

Not that it matters, since atheists don't have to be nihilists.

[Acrobat]

the·ism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
   

Deism isn't a form of theism, pantheism is.  The clue is in...wait for it...theism.

The term atheism was coined in direct response to theistic claims, but has come to include anyone who doesn't believe in gods, including deists gods - though deists and pantheists actually have been called and considered atheists, historically.

Ah, so deist are atheist? 

Here dummy, a wikipedia article going over the types of Theism (notice deism listed under the types):

[/url]Types of Theism: 

Main article: Monotheism
Monotheism (from Greek μόνος) is the belief in theology that only one deity exists.[10] Some modern day monotheistic religions include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Eckankar and some forms of Hinduism. There have been many proofs of Monotheism postulated by a multitude of philosophers and academics throughout history. However, many of these proofs are either unknown or have been misinterpreted.[citation needed]

Main article: Polytheism
Polytheism is the belief that there is more than one god.[11] In practice, polytheism is not just the belief that there are multiple gods; it usually includes belief in the existence of a specific pantheon of distinct deities.
Within polytheism there are hard and soft varieties[citation needed]:

• Hard polytheism views the gods as being distinct and separate beings; an example of this would be certain schools of Hinduism as well as Hellenismos.
  
  
• Soft polytheism views the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole. Some other forms of Hinduism such as Smartism/Advaita Vedanta serve as examples of soft polytheism.
  

Polytheism is also divided according to how the individual deities are regarded:

• Henotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there may be more than one deity, but only one of them is worshiped.
  
  
• Kathenotheism: The viewpoint/belief that there is more than one deity, but only one deity is worshiped at a time or ever, and another may be worthy of worship at another time or place. If they are worshiped one at a time, then each is supreme in turn.
  
  
• Monolatrism: The belief that there may be more than one deity, but that only one is worthy of being worshiped. Most of the modern monotheistic religions may have begun as monolatric ones, although this is disputed.
  

Main articles: Pantheism and Panentheism

• Pantheism: The belief that the physical universe is equivalent to god, and that there is no division between a Creator and the substance of its creation.[12]
  
  
• Panentheism: Like Pantheism, the belief that the physical universe is joined to a god or gods. However, it also believes that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. Examples include most forms of Vaishnavism and the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza.
  

Some[who?] find the distinction between these two beliefs ambiguous and unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division.[13] Pantheism may be understood a type of Nontheism, where the physical universe takes on some of the roles of a theistic God, and other roles of God viewed as unnecessary.[14]

Main article: Deism

• Classical Deism is the belief that one God exists and created the world, but that the Creator does/do not alter the original plan for the universe, but presides over it in the form of Providence; however, some classical Deists did believe in divine intervention.[15]
  

Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion. Instead, Deism holds that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of a supreme being as creator.[16]

• Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.
  
  
• Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods exist, but do not intervene in the universe.
  

Main article: Apotheosis
Autotheism is the viewpoint that, whether divinity is also external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one has the ability to achieve godhood. This can be in a selfless way, a way following the implications of statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders (such as Mahavira[citation needed]).
Autotheism can also refer to the belief that one's self is a deity, within the context of subjectivism. Hindus use the term, "aham Brahmāsmi" which means, "I am Brahman".[17]

• [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutheism]Eutheism is the belief that a deity is wholly benevolent.
  
  
• Dystheism is the belief that a deity is not wholly good, and is possibly evil.
  
  
• Maltheism is the belief that a deity exists, but is wholly malicious.
  
  
• Misotheism is active hatred for God or gods.
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

---

It makes no more or less sense in either world, and desire doesn't have to make sense in the first place.  Absent any external or inherent meaning, human beings would still desire it.  Human desire needs no explanation beyond the fact that humans are creatures that desire.  It doesn't depend on our desires being sensible or referent..even if we live in a world in which desire -can be- referent to external or inherent value it's still very often the case that it is not.

Okay, explain why biological creatures like ourselves desire meaning, in a world where such meaning does not exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

An argument from ignorance, yet again.  I don't have to be able to explain any other thing to explain why you are wrong about this thing.  If no one could answer that question, you would still be wrong.

aaaaand since your desire for meaning has nothing to do with belief in gods, as expressed by the fact that atheists also desire meaning..it still doesn't matter.

[Acrobat]

I think Robvalue and other atheists who think morality is subjective are laboring under a false dichotomy.  Absolute objectivity or subjectivity are not the only choices.  Objectivity can be relative too.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to be an atheist who supports objective morality rather than moral nihilism if one acknowledges that morality is relative to human concerns rather than merely subjective.  We do, after all, possess common objective characteristics, our human nature, upon which we can build our moral considerations.

Exactly this. It absolutely is a false dichotomy. Setting goals for the common well being of a society, and then arriculating a moral code that governs society with those objectives in mind is not anything so whimsical or simplistic as whether or not a person likes pizza. If you start with agreed upon objectives (well-being, minimizing harm, etc), actions can then be deemed objectively right or wrong within the framework of those foundational goals.

First of all our taste in food isn't simplistic of whimsical. You ever heard of the Michelin Guide? People pour countless thoughts, criteria, hours etc.. on what constitutes as great food, great dining experience. The rare few restaurants that receive three Michelin stars, are considered traveling all the way across the world, just to try it. In fact they seem to operate on a far more articulated, measurable standard of what constitutes as great here, then atheists articulations of their moral systems, and standards. 

So you might have to defend your argument a little better here, to explain why your attempt  to gather people who share these goals, to decide what's good and bad, isn't comparable to something like the Michelin Guide for morality.

---

An argument from ignorance, yet again.  I don't have to be able to explain any other thing to explain why you are wrong about this thing.  If no one could answer that question, you would still be wrong.

aaaaand since your desire for meaning has nothing to do with belief in gods, as expressed by the fact that atheists also desire meaning..it still doesn't matter.

I take your refusal to explain it, as an admission that you can't. That you can't make sense of it a nihilistic worldview.

[The Grand Nudger]

It wouldn't matter whether I could or couldn't explain it, as I've already explained, lol......nor would my ability or inability to explain the mechanics of desire mean that a nihilistic worldview could or couldn't be made sense of.

This is an argument from ignorance.

Get something right by accident, and..preferably..something...... anything....... to do with gods.

[Acrobat]

It wouldn't matter whether I could or couldn't explain it, as I've already explained, lol......nor would my ability or inability to explain the mechanics of desire mean that a nihilistic worldview could or couldn't be made sense of.

Get something right by accident.

Then I’m not sure why I should believe a nihilistic worldview makes sense of such a desire, when you nor I can make much sense of it in light of it.