No I did not mean what I posted, it was entirely hypothetical.
Impossible, I did not insult your intelligence at all. I overestimated it by a wide margin.
And yet in the post before this, you insulted it again.
And you base your morality on your imaginary friend. 
Bullshit. No one is buying your “oh little o’ mee?” act.
Well maybe shodan. 
One has to be reasonably intelligent to have their intelligence insulted.
Lobohan I don’t just get my morality from my imaginary friend, I get everything including the matter that makes up my body from him too. ;p
Look, you made no hypothetical ‘argument’ in your OP. You created a hypothetical situation in which you became an atheist who was batshit crazy. Go you.
There is no argument. Could a person conceivably believe all as stated in your OP? Yes. So what? The problem is that the only answer to your OP’s question “Explain to me why I have any obligation not to rob, cheat, defraud, rape or murder you if I can get away with it,” has fuck all to do with atheism.
Your premises are flawed from the start. This hypothetical atheist honestly believes that people only follow leaders because they believe the leaders are given a mandate to lead by god? Please! Emotions don’t exist because they’re biologically based (and yes, I get your weak attempt at drawing a god belief/love belief analogy, and it doesn’t work)?
You have not adequately explained why an atheist would believe that he had a right to rape and murder that was in any way based on his being an atheist. Without that, your OP is little more than, yes, trolling in GD.
What’s next? An OP in which after you decide to become a (hypothetical) Heinlein fan and then become a serial killer, you challenge the SDMB to argue you out of it?
Whatever, if you’re that stupid, what else can be done? Luckily **Pochacco ** isn’t as stupid as you are. I enjoyed debating with him.
Why is the concept of first principles so fucking difficult for you people to comprehend?
Dibble’s turds make more sense than you.
Man, they should give the classic “Reefer Madness” yet another shot at a re-make. Starring you this time of course. I mean, it’s crazy shit already to read some of your stuff, but I can’t imagine what it’d be like on film.
Instant cult classic? Sorta like “Clerks” but with a strong religious twist to it? Or more like “Dogma” with lotsa weed?
The dope has become more troll infested than the place I left.
It’s just hand waving, IQ measuring, I-know-something-that-makes-me-feel-smart/worthy/validated/moral flaunting idiocy. I paid for adult discourse.
Instead I find that there are few people on both sides of certain issues - Der Trihs, lekatt, and mswas that can’t help themselves.
Sigh… I go online to enjoy myself. The dope isn’t proving to be an enjoyable, educational, or adult experience.
It’s not my fault you’re stupid. At least a dozen other posters did not share in your difficulty. If no one understood what I was getting at, I’d re-examine my position, but since a significant number of atheists and non-atheists understood me, I’m going to lay the fault at your ability to reason, or if not that, to get beyond your own hangups. Don’t worry though, I couldn’t understand a word of what you said in the other thread either.
Dogma had lots of weed in it.
Cite some evidence. Oh wait. You believe what you do with no evidence. You’re a fucking moron. Do you give equal credence to unicorns? I hear dragon belly futures are the way to invest.
You base your useless existence on a fucking child’s story and think you’re the smart one.
LOL.
Oh I’m sure your smarter than me. A perfectly educated child tugging at a 2nd rate Babylonian god’s apron strings.
You’re a child. Grow up coward.
Are you now asserting that you do not believe Society and morality has a central religious base? Because that was rather central to your hypothetical.
Maybe you’re following the wrong threads. The Drama Llama is off and running in this and the associated GD thread, but they’re not the only ones on the forums.
So even though many people thought that my post warranted consideration and responded with intelligent thought out posts, you still find it to be trolling eh? I’m sorry to hear that. None of the actual discussion on the topic made an impression upon you?
Why don’t you ever explicitly say what it is you wish us to get, instead of bitching about it when we don’t ‘get’ it?
I think my objection to your OP is pretty clear. Why not address my questions? Was this:
. . . a bad analogy? If so, why?
When I said:
. . . was I wrong? Do you believe you did adequately explain it? Do you believe that making that connection is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make?
Instead of obtusely whining about how stupid we are because we have forgotten our Philosophy I coursework, why not answer some questions, eh?
I do think it does that does not mean that outliers cannot benefit from it.
Clearly, you’re projecting your shortcoming unto me. Re-read your post if you have any doubts.
Dunno, I normally don’t count the doobies used in any particular film. But unlike you, Kevin Smith manages to make sense. Lots of it actually.