Do you wish there's a god?

[Succubus]

I'm sure that you do, but for clarity, nothing that your'e offering is or is meant to be anything to do with gods, correct?

It has nothing to do with whatever you have in mind by the word god/s.

Since we don’t have an agreed upon definition of the term god, I prefer to avoid using the term when possible.

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

So here's the question you ignored four days ago.

But you claim to know God exists so it naturally follows that you have a full understanding of every aspect of this God. So why not enlighten those of us who are destined to burn as to the real characteristics of God. I mean isn't it your duty as a Christian to give us the good news?

[robvalue]

I mean, he didn’t like my answers so much that he asked me the exact same questions again right away. It’s like Brexit all over again.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Alan V]

1) You mean relative to those who hold the goal/ought to do what's best for human thriving?

2) If I don't hold such a goal, then would you say I have no such moral oughts here? That the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun might be true for you, but not for me. 

3) Or in other words for your objective morality to work, it relies on people to subscribe to a subjective goal like doing what's best for human thriving?

Okay, then here are my answers to your questions:

I am defining morality as doing what is best for humans.

1) I meant something similar to your first question, but a bit more specific. Our built-in human nature is such that we pursue certain goals consistently, across human populations. Objective moral systems can be built on the facts about what is good for humanity, based on our common human nature. This is relative to humans compared with other species. We don't construct moral systems based on what is good for ants unless that's also good for humans.

2) You can't base moral systems on merely subjective preferences and irrational thinking. Moral considerations have to have some factual basis to be objective.

3) People can and do disagree about what the objective facts are surrounding the question of what is good for humans, but we are making solid progress on those questions over time. It takes time, thought, and efforts to overcome the human subjectivities which have distorted moral thinking historically. The more progress we make, the more our moral considerations are built into our laws and systems. It's an on-going challenge to improve our understanding. Any contentions are referred to our legal system for resolution.

So no, I am not relying "on people to subscribe to a subjective goal like doing what's best for human thriving," because the impulse comes from human nature, not from subscribing, and that goal is relative and not subjective. In other words, we are already doing it anyway, and have always done it.

This is secular rather than atheistic thinking about moral issues. Atheists don't have to invent something new.

[Acrobat]

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. Man's knowledge of God is no more than his revelation to man. Like the knowledge of an author by nothing more than his novel, or the meaning of that novel. Nothing more, nothing less can ever be said or argued.

So here's the question you ignored four days ago.
But you claim to know God exists so it naturally follows that you have a full understanding of every aspect of this God.

No, it doesn't follow from knowing that God exists, that one possess a full understanding of every aspect of this God. I know that the sun exists, but I don't know all the scientific properties of the sun.

[The Grand Nudger]

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. Man's knowledge of God is no more than his revelation to man. Like the knowledge of an author by nothing more than his novel, or the meaning of that novel. Nothing more, nothing less can ever be said or argued.

As has already been explained to you, and...frankly...as you know....that's not even remotely what the terms god or atheism refer to.  That is, more properly, a belief held and rejected by atheists and theists alike.

You've wasted your own time and everyone else's for no reason other than the fact that you are bad at words.

When I implored you to shit or get off the pot..I didn't mean that literally, but boy what a pile.

[Alan V]

Just as religious people have their myth about how God created the universe, so they also have their myth about how God created morality. However, both the universe and morality evolved over time. If God was involved with either, he most certainly didn't know what he wanted and kept changing his mind as time passed -- which doesn't sound like the God of the theists at all.

[Acrobat]

1) You mean relative to those who hold the goal/ought to do what's best for human thriving?

2) If I don't hold such a goal, then would you say I have no such moral oughts here? That the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun might be true for you, but not for me. 

3) Or in other words for your objective morality to work, it relies on people to subscribe to a subjective goal like doing what's best for human thriving?

Okay, then here are my answers to your questions:

I am defining morality as doing what is best for humans.

1) I meant something similar to your first question, but a bit more specific.  Our built-in human nature is such that we pursue certain goals consistently, across human populations.  Objective moral systems can be built on the facts about what is good for humanity, based on our common human nature.  This is relative to humans compared with other species.  We don't construct moral systems based on what is good for ants unless that's also good for humans.

2) You can't base moral systems on merely subjective preferences and irrational thinking.  Moral considerations have to have some factual basis to be objective.

3) People can and do disagree about what the objective facts are surrounding the question of what is good for humans, but we are making solid progress on those questions over time.  It takes time, thought, and efforts to overcome the human subjectivities which have distorted moral thinking historically.  The more progress we make, the more our moral considerations are built into our laws and systems.  It's an on-going challenge to improve our understanding.  Any contentions are referred to our legal system for resolution.

So no, I am not relying "on people to subscribe to a subjective goal like doing what's best for human thriving," because the impulse comes from human nature, not from subscribing, and that goal is relative and not subjective.  In other words, we are already doing it anyway, and have always done it.

This is secular rather than atheistic thinking about moral issues.  Atheists don't have to invent something new.

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

You lacking moral agency or compulsion is no different than some thing being wrong and you wanting to do it anyway. If that leaves moral authority in some tight spot, it's unclear how that's different between one moral authority or another.

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

[Acrobat]

Sure, God is the view that life is about something rather than nothing. Man's knowledge of God is no more than his revelation to man. Like the knowledge of an author by nothing more than his novel, or the meaning of that novel. Nothing more, nothing less can ever be said or argued.

As has already been explained to you, and...frankly...as you know....that's not even remotely what the terms god or atheism refer to.  That is, more properly, a belief held and rejected by atheists and theists alike.

You've wasted your own time and everyone else's for no reason other than the fact that you are bad at words.

When I implored you to shit or get off the pot..I didn't mean that literally, but boy what a pile.

Most theists I know will take no issues with the definition of God I provided. Just because you as atheists don't, because you don't understand theism all that well is besides the point. 

Far as am i concerned I don't care what atheists thinks is the meaning to the term God. I provided my definition, which many theist would agree with.