You might be desperate to not believe in god if you were living through the horrors of religion run amok, wouldnt you? If the idea of, in the words of Hitchens, a celestial dictatorship is horrifying to you then I could see a certain desperation there.
Other than that, I think I agree with the sentiment that it would be odd to be desperate to not believe in god, especially a very benign version. I suppose it depends on how a person comes to such beliefs in the first place.

Depends on what we mean by human dignity. Ill confess I do not have a clear idea of what I myself meant by it. Concerning morals and ethics, I think of human dignity in terms of something like honour, a principal or set of principals that we sort of cherish for their own sake or for our own sake but this has its own problems, it is an inherantly selfish act to maintain principalsor set of principals.

Are thoughts the function of a brain or is the brain just a device for conveying them? — TWI

I would say the former, a function of the brain.

My brain doesnt always feed me the truth. Its functions can be quite deceptive, and quite easily deceived, so as I said I think objective corroboration is the tool used.

How do you differentiate anything at all from delusion? — Jeremiah

Objective corroboration.

I can't differentiate with language only within myself. — TWI

And how do you do that? Thats the exact thing Im asking you about, and wonder how you differentiate between that feeling you have and delusion.

If everyone is God, as myself and millions of people believe, then all of 'us' are very familiar with God and even talk to Him/Her/It on a regular basis. — TWI

How would you differentiate that from delusion?

Good. Some aggressive Atheists, but not you, like to loudly and continually assert that that they know others' beliefs, and that those other beliefs are less justified than their own. — Michael Ossipoff

You quoted me and then responded to the quote by addressing “aggressive atheists”. Was it not your intention to attach the behaviour you describe to me? Obviously you have retracted the labeling if that is the case, but note how that was a fairly confusing way to make your point.

...and there is a door-to-door-promotion denomination that has asserted that God exists physically. But, if your objections only apply to religions that assert that God exists physically, then maybe you should clarify that when expressing your objection. When you do, specify the denomination. — Michael Ossipoff

Irrelevant sidestepping. I did not make a nonsensical statement, thats what I was addressing. Your suggestion that I should have clarified isnt even valid, you presumed I was using your own definition and took issue based on that. This is your mistake, not mine sir.

No, it's common knowledge — Michael Ossipoff

Lol, so you felt the need to specify it because...?

Who cares what anyone, ever, writes about God? — StreetlightX

You do, as evidenced by your response here.

I mean tool in a general sense. Something useful or enabling of any given task.
Ethics/morality are tools for us to get along with each other, to create well functioning societies/interactions and I would say in some sense to service our ownnhuman dignity, although I admit the last one is rather nebulous and perhaps idiosyncratic.

There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't share someone else's worldview. But to say that everyone must share your Science-Worship world view, or else they're wrong, that's presumptuous. — Michael Ossipoff

I do not worship science, this is a purely ignorant statement on your part. I also said nothing about everyone having to share my world view. Presumptious of me?! You sir, are the one being presumptious here. If you would like to know what I think, you are free to ask although now I might be hesitant to do so. Its not hard to tell which of us is the crusader here, you have shown yourself only too eager to operate from your own presumptions in service of your views on “science worship”.

A nonsensical statement on the face of it. — Michael Ossipoff

No its not, as someone pointed out if god is said to exist physically then science would have a role to play.

...the phyisical world. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, science deals with physical world. Do I really need to specify that?

Hawking makes a scientific case for there not being a god, which he is perfectly qualified to do so. Now, either you go with that or you posit god as magic that science cannot measure. If you do the latter then Hawking or anyone else is equally qualified to answer the question and whatever their answer happens to be, one (who posits god as something notknowable/measurable) has no valid way of rejecting the answer given.
There are no credentials or “background” knowledge that helps determine if there is a god at all in the latter case, so it shouldnt bother anyone for Hawking to say yay or nay.

I didnt say rules are bad, I just meant that ethical rules are like any other rules.
I dont understand “this place is like one”...?
I dont think we take rules to be “true”, I think we agree to follow them or not. They are a tool.

Ah, I see. Yea, like any set of rules.

I guess it depends on what you mean by idealised...to me that seems like an unnecessary layer you are adding there...

I prefer to think of morals as inconsistent or consistent rather than true/false. Its not about what moral position someone has, but rather how they arrived there. True morality cannot exist without a basic principal of consistency, it must abhor hypocracy and the double standard or it has no validity, it is meaningless otherwise. Consistency is One of the traits from which we get an objective moral standard.

Unfortunately Im not sure what you are asking my opinion on here.
Do you intend those quoted portions as false moral axioms?
It doesnt seem odd to me for people to make attempts to come up with ways of thinking about morality or moral structures.
Im not sure any morality isnt intended to be idealized. Aren’t morals always intended as ideal?

Lol, ok well let me see if I get it here..
Sounds like you are saying any given conception of morality results in synthetic a posteriori conclusions about morality. I take it you are a moral relativist of some kind?
I dont see how you get to calling it “art”, am
I being to literal?

Well I imagine things that are very polarised like religion result in more of this poor behaviour we are talking about. It doesnt help that with religion, certain positions are necessarily insulting to the other side.
What do you mean by “art of morality”?

I think the burden should not be on the OP so much as the people responding. You should clarify what someone means before trying to counter-argue or engage with them.
I suppose its the responsibility for all parties, but I observe that people are more careful in their OP than people are to respond to them. They care less about what the person is trying to say and much more about picking out things they can use to bolster thier own pre-existing position or (one that particularly annoys me) to use what they can in the OP to twist the intended topic to one of thier own pet opinions.

There is more to this that just common vs stipulative definitions. Further confusing/adding difficulty to these online discussions is intellectually dishonest definitions, meant to purposely skew the available responses. That itself is further muddied by the fact that in certain context real, solid discussion actually requires the pirposeful skewing minus the intellectual dishonesty. Hard to see the difference sometimes, even for the person doing it.
There is also a semantic consideration as well. Ive observed that there is often a sloppy conflation of definition of words and semantics with the argument/concept being discussed or proffered.
Not trying to ride a high horse here, im guilty myself.
Its much more important to try and understand what a person means rather than focus on the specific words they use. This is a problem of the medium I believe. Most of communication is non verbal and so we trade much of our ability to convey our POV for a certain precision and the sweet sweet worldwide connectivity (how else do you get such a huge variety of perspectives so easily and enumerate?). Im not sure the tradeoff is worth it as far as productive discussion goes...shitty quality or none at all?

The capacity for freedom in slaves made them deserving of freedom. So, the android, capable of experiencing and enjoying liberty, should be freed. — TheMadFool

I really like that phrasing. The capacity for freedom is what makes the freedom something deserved.
Thats really the only reason you need. I would take it further and say that the capacity for freedom is an equal measure of how much freedom is deserved (owed?). This very nicely takes care of freedom as it exists in human relationships (the way we treat our kids for exemple, what freedoms a parent should restrict and ehen they must let go).
Another stepfurther and you answer many ethical questions as well from that simple sentiment, thanks for that.

The foreknowledge of what the person will choose doesn't effect the choice the person will make, unless the person with foreknowledge tells the person but even then not in every case.
Let me demonstrate:
You have a choice between your worst possible scenario or your best possible scenario.
I know which one you will choose, does that mean you no longer have a choice? Certainly not, you still have very good reasons for choosing your best possible scenario and very good reasons to not choose your worst possible scenario. Fate has nothing to do with it, foreknowledge of something isnt fate. It is simply an awareness of the factors that will lead to a certain decision.

I think he meant the specific characteristics he mentioned, the 3 “O”’s as it were.
I would take it a step further and suggest the traits themselves are nonsensical,

Why would a person have free will just becuase someone else has foreknowledge of the choice they will make?

A popular question. Why am I me? Why am I not the person next to me? When I die, will I be another person in the past or future? Was I another person before I was born? If so, why am I not everyone? — JohnLocke

You are you as a result of a dynamic combination of nature and nurture, a deterministic result.
You are not the person next to you because the person next to you has a different set of deterministic results than you do. When you die, you will not be anyone, past, future or present.
Before you were born, you were not a person (or if you prefer, pick your own cut off point during your mothers pregnancy).

I certainly do not agree to that. It isnt “like” a religion either.
You’ll have to forgive me, I didnt know I was wading into part of an overall agenda you are devoted to pushing. Referencing some of the other threads you posted in I see it now, Im content to move on from this and let those other discussions bear thier fruit.

Now you are just backing further into the weeds sir. Anything you are committed to is a religion now? You are certainly free to dilute the word religion so that all human endeavours are religions, but its clear you are doing so only to prop up this false equivalency.
Further, your point about materialists and aggressive atheists has already been refuted. I repeat, you are talking about certain people, not Materialism. Your problem with certain individuals is not relevent to Materialism being or not being a religion. Its a conflation you are making in order to once again, prop up this false equivalency.
You reiterate this point twice more before the end of your post. It is irrelevant, but it does show a devotion of your own to this false equivalence of yours. Is it your religion? My guess is that you would be happy to call it religion if it meant that in so doing you get to continue treating Materialism (and atheism, which I suspect is what this is really about.) as a religion as well.
I get it, there is a cleverness, an amusing irony to calling someone who does not believe in religion a religious person but your claim is none the less quite fallacious.
Anyway, since your argument is clearly with certain people rather than Materialism or atheism I suggest you take it up with them. From what I can tell (Im new to the forum) you will be accommodated.
Thanks for the discussion :)

Materialism:

A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Religion:

Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Religious:

Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. — Michael Ossipoff

This is just a gross false equivalency. Live by the sword die by the sword, how about another definition showing your false equivalency:

de·vo·tion
dəˈvōSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person, activity, or cause.

Materialism does not include love, nor loyalty nor enthusiasm, any of those things that a materialist feels towards Materialism, is a trait about him and not Materialism. No where in your definition of Materialism does it mention any of those things. But of course there is more, the focus of the word must be a person, activity or cause. Materialism is also none of these things either.
Intentional or not, this a false equivalency. Materialism is not a religion.

You are just choosing to look at it generically, there is still a fact of the matter as to why the ball rolled. You say it “adds no real information”, but it certainly does. It would add the information of what was actually happening. This is not changed by your infinite other possible nudges. Sure, they were potential nudges, but not the ones that happened.
It is simply not accurate to say the ball has a propensity to fall, or that our view of things bottoms out at some generic level and we cant or could never be specific. You are just choosing to be less accurate, choosing to not get too specific.
So you want this discussion to be unmoored from logic, sense and causality. Thats fine, its some kind of thought experiment, but as you pointed out I am missing the point.
In what way is it useful? You mentioned something from nothing and unstables particles...but we have ways of determing those things, those are questions physicists answer with precisely things like quantum mechanics and mathmatics. Why is it that you think these tools are insufficient?
What is the advantage of operating from the basis you are suggesting?

Quantum mechanics — apokrisis

I have never heard that QM shows us the impossibility of eliminating all disturbances, I was under the impression that QM is still struggling to lock down exactly whats happening at the level it focuses in.
Ok, so it sounds like you already knew the answer to your question. At the QM level the ball doesnt get pushed, at the level we most interact with it does.

But that is the easy presumption that is under attack here. Most people probably do find no reason to even question the possibility of being able to eliminate every possible source of perturbation in some physical system. — apokrisis

It is certainly not a presumption on my part. I in fact cannot think of a reason why it would be impossible.
You seem like you want me to accept simething that you feel is possible as something that is true. It takes more than something to just be possible in order for me to accept that it is true. This doesnt seem like a particularly high or difficult standard.
Im open minded to all possibilities, but I need a good reason to accept the possibility is actually true and I told you that I cannot think of a good reason to accept that it is impossible to eliminate all disturbances. Do you have one?

I am guessing you would resist that alternative view strongly. The question becomes why? With what good justification? — apokrisis

You guessed wrong unfortunately. Sorry.
Until today I hadnt given it much thought. If it turns out to in fact be impossible, i cant imagine why I would strongly resist.

Could you imagine ceasing to care about the individual pushes and instead accepting that the generic impossibility of eliminating all disturbances is this deep truth? — apokrisis

I cant think of a reason that it would be impossible.

Its not necessarily either. Each are factors that could have had a part or whole in the displacement of the ball bearing. There are reason(s) why the ball bearing was displaced, and with enough sophistication in the instruments of measure (whatever they may be) these reasons can be revealed and your question answered.
It neednt be any more complicated than that, and I dont see a reason to have a presumption of an underlying universal explanation.