The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

Why do I have to demonstrate it? I have my beliefs and you have yours. I'm fine with that, though your baiting tactics are quite amusing.

Not baiting.

But you did say this was debate.

Who debates without supporting their views?

You???

 

[Cearbhall]

And what is that reality, that there is no ultimate meaning, but meaning exists according to the one who makes it i.e each person.

Ok, here's the thing. I don't believe there's a greater meaning to life. I can't make myself belief that there is (I would very much like there to be a greater meaning), and I've chosen not to lie to myself about that lack of belief because I see no point in committing an act of self-deception like the one that you just described.

Not baiting.

But you did say this was debate.

Who debates without supporting their views?

You???

I'm agnostic, meaning I don't think there's sufficient proof to support either view.

 

[Elioenai26]

Ok, here's the thing. I don't believe there's a greater meaning to life. I can't make myself belief that there is (I would very much like there to be a greater meaning), and I've chosen not to lie to myself about that lack of belief because I see no point in committing an act of self-deception like the one that you just described.

Ok, so for you philosophical naturalism is true.

There actually is no ultimate meaning for your unbelief, you are neither better off, nor worse off than anyone else. Everyone is the same, animals who are beset with delusions of meaning in life, walking contradictions.

Even your spending time typing what you are is ultimately meaningless and futile. But yet you cannot shake the idea or feeling that what you are doing is important and has a purpose.

 

[Cearbhall]

Ok, so for you philosophical naturalism is true.

There actually is no ultimate meaning for your unbelief, you are neither better off, nor worse off than anyone else. Everyone is the same, animals who are beset with delusions of meaning in life, walking contradictions.

Even your spending time typing what you are is ultimately meaningless and futile. But yet you cannot shake the idea or feeling that what you are doing is important and has a purpose.

Basically. The chemicals in my body cause me to be made "happy" by certain things thanks to evolution, including this, so I may as well do those things.

 

[Gadarene]

And what is that reality, that there is no ultimate meaning, but meaning exists according to the one who makes it i.e each person.

So in the same way an atheist maintains that Christians should not criticize them for their unbelief, an atheist cannot criticize Christians for their belief.

For some, meaning is found in worshipping God.
For some, meaning is found in arguing against the existence of a God they do not believe exists.

Under naturalism, both are equally ultimately illusory.

Who says we criticise Christians for trying to derive meaning? It is their factual claims we criticise.

But then again, we are not the ones making factually incorrect claims as we are not claiming any objectively real meaning to life. And as ever, you are conflating "objectively meaningful" with non-illusory.

Those that are are the ones who think that "god said so" = objective, which is a complete non sequitur.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm agnostic, meaning I don't think there's sufficient proof to support either view.

Well now, this is interesting....

You are not a theist, and you are not an atheist. So you really do not believe that life is ultimately meaningless after all do you?

It may be meaningful, you just are not sure.

is that right?

 

[Cearbhall]

So in the same way an atheist maintains that Christians should not criticize them for their unbelief, an atheist cannot criticize Christians for their belief.

I don't criticize Christians for their beliefs. I criticize some for thinking that their beliefs should limit the actions of others.

 

[Gadarene]

Ok, so for you philosophical naturalism is true.

There actually is no ultimate meaning for your unbelief, you are neither better off, nor worse off than anyone else. Everyone is the same, animals who are beset with delusions of meaning in life, walking contradictions.

Er.......what?

I'm inordinately better off than someone not suffering from pain given that I am currently not suffering from pain.

I'm inordinately better off than someone not suffering from bereavement given that I am currently not suffering from bereavement.

Neither better off nor worse off? What a silly notion. Again, this would not happen if this tedious insistence on oversimplifying meaning to objective or non-objective were dispensed with. Subjective reactions can be held to things that are objectively real or true, so it is not so simple as to claim it is entirely one or entirely the other.

 

[Gadarene]

Well now, this is interesting....

You are not a theist, and you are not an atheist. So you really do not believe that life is ultimately meaningless after all do you?

It may be meaningful, you just are not sure.

is that right?

Agnosticism refers to knowledge of the existence of deities.

It has nothing necessarily to do with the meaning life.

Theism does not necessarily entail a god dictating meaning - and as ever, the notion that "what god says" = meaningful is still a wholly unsupported non-sequitur.

 

[Cearbhall]

Well now, this is interesting....

You are not a theist, and you are not an atheist.

I more specifically call myself an agnostic atheist, but yes.

So you really do not believe that life is ultimately meaningless after all do you?

It may be meaningful, you just are not sure.

is that right?

Yes. I don't believe that we're capable of knowing whether or not there is an objective meaning to life. That's kinda the whole point of agnosticism. I'm not sure why you're treating this like a new development.

 

[Elioenai26]

Who says we criticise Christians for trying to derive meaning? It is their factual claims we criticise.

Still an exercise in futility whatever it is you do.

But then again, we are not the ones making factually incorrect claims as we are not claiming any objectively real meaning to life. And as ever, you are conflating "objectively meaningful" with non-illusory.

Regardless of what you call it, your efforts are ultimately useless. Your criticisms are ultimately useless. Who cares what is factually correct if there is no ultimate meaning, no ultimate purpose or destiny? You may care and that is meaningful to you, but others may not. If people want to choose to believe in something you do not think exists then so be it. It is meaningful to them.

Those that are are the ones who think that "god said so" = objective, which is a complete non sequitur.

That statement is meaningful to you. Some people would find their meaning in life by believing in God.

So what?

 

[Elioenai26]

Er.......what?

I'm inordinately better off than someone not suffering from pain given that I am currently not suffering from pain.

I'm inordinately better off than someone not suffering from bereavement given that I am currently not suffering from bereavement.

Neither better off nor worse off? What a silly notion. Again, this would not happen if this tedious insistence on oversimplifying meaning to objective or non-objective were dispensed with. Subjective reactions can be held to things that are objectively real or true, so it is not so simple as to claim it is entirely one or entirely the other.

You keep forgetting the word "ultimate" here.

You are no better off in the end than the maggot that dies on a dead dog's carcass.

 

[Cearbhall]

Agnosticism refers to knowledge of the existence of deities.

It has nothing necessarily to do with the meaning life.

Not necessarily, no, but I'd say that most people consider objective meaning to be connected to whether or not the universe was intelligently designed.

 

[Gadarene]

Still an exercise in futility whatever it is you do.

According to whom? According to the opinions of those weak-minded enough to think that "what god says" = objectively meaningful.

Regardless of what you call it, your efforts are ultimately useless. Your criticisms are ultimately useless. Who cares what is factually correct if there is no ultimate meaning, no ultimate purpose or destiny? You may care and that is meaningful to you, but others may not. If people want to choose to believe in something you do not think exists then so be it. It is meaningful to them.

And if they want to do that, fine. But then we have someone like you going around claiming falsely that "what god says" is objectively meaningful.

This is not a debate over meaning, but over accuracy.

That statement is meaningful to you. Some people would find their meaning in life by believing in God.

So what?

Again, we are talking about meaning, not correctness. This is evasion, pure and simple.

 

[Gadarene]

Not necessarily, no, but I'd say that most people consider objective meaning to be connected to whether or not the universe was intelligently designed.

Only if the god/s in question are intelligent designers as well as meaning makers

 

[Cearbhall]

Still an exercise in futility whatever it is you do.

Evolution is a you-know-what in that way. Making us want to survive and enjoy life when it's all ultimately pointless...

You keep forgetting the word "ultimate" here.

You are no better off in the end than the maggot that dies on a dead dog's carcass.

And worse off than the maggots that will eat my body.

 

[Gadarene]

You keep forgetting the word "ultimate" here.

You are no better off in the end than the maggot that dies on a dead dog's carcass.

Which does not mean life is not meaningful.

For the n-th time, to reiterate the point you are steadfastly evading addressing, this is only significant to those people who (a) think objective meaning is needed for life to be meaningful (b) think "what god says" is equivalent to objective meaning.

Neither (a) nor (b) have been justified by you. You may want to start instead of engaging in your usual casuistry.

 

[Cearbhall]

Only if the god/s in question are intelligent designers as well as meaning makers

I see your point. I suppose the presumed connection between the two is more of a cultural tenet.

And I'm still wondering how Elioenai can think that the lack of ability to reproduce naturally with each other means that a couple's sex is immoral.

 

[Gadarene]

Evolution is a you-know-what in that way. Making us want to survive and enjoy life when it's all ultimately pointless...

Or arguably it helped us to enjoy life that doesn't have an objective meaning?

Then again, it probably gave us theists. Evolution is a you-know-what in that regard.

And worse off than the maggots that will eat my body.

That sounds like objective meaning if I didn't know better

 

[Elioenai26]

According to whom? According to the opinions of those weak-minded enough to think that "what god says" = objectively meaningful.

According to the reality of an indifferent cosmos.

And if they want to do that, fine. But then we have someone like you going around claiming falsely that "what god says" is objectively meaningful.

So what? It is meaningful to me. Surely you will not reserve the right to determine what is meaningful for yourself, yet deny me the same right now will you?

This is not a debate over meaning, but over accuracy.

Some might find meaning in believing in an inaccurate position. That is their meaning, it makes them feel good, kind of like the anal sex homosexuals have.

Who are you to criticize?

Again, we are talking about meaning, not correctness. This is evasion, pure and simple.

Who cares?

Some people may find meaning in posting on internet forums and being evasive?

Who are you to judge????????







******************************************

You see my point right?

On one hand you want everything you say to be true and meaningful, and yet if someone disagrees with you, you do not allow them the same freedom and tolerance you demand.

As long as what you say is accepted you are all happy and cheerful and peachy, but let someone else come along who disagrees and now they are wrong, or inaccurate.

But according to you, there is no ultimate meaning anyway. So do not have any legs to stand on whatsoever.

So what is your point?