The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

Well it's news to me, and I was raised in Christian theology my entire life.

We learn something new everyday.

 

[Cearbhall]

Well it's news to me, and I was raised in Christian theology my entire life.

I had a Catholic education and we were taught according to the Nostra Aetate of Vatican II, which states that people of other religions can achieve salvation.

 

[Elioenai26]

I had a Catholic education and we were taught according to the Nostra Aetate of Vatican II, which states that people of other religions can achieve salvation.

They can if they have heard the gospel and accept Christ as their Savior.

This is not controversial.

 

[Cearbhall]

They can if they have heard the gospel and accept Christ as their Savior.

This is not controversial.

I only stated what the Catholic Church believes. If you feel differently, that's great for you, but you don't have a monopoly on Christianity.

 

[Elioenai26]

I only stated what the Catholic Church believes. If you feel differently, that's great for you, but you don't have a monopoly on Christianity.

Christ is the One who Christianity is founded upon.

If anyone had a monopoly on it it would be Him. He is the One who said that He was The Way The Truth and The Life and that no one came to the Father except through Him.

 

[bhsmte]

Christ is the One who Christianity is founded upon.

If anyone had a monopoly on it it would be Him. He is the One who said that He was The Way The Truth and The Life and that no one came to the Father except through Him.

Well, there is significant debate as to what Jesus said or didn't say, but thats a whole other issue.

 

[Cearbhall]

Christ is the One who Christianity is founded upon.

If anyone had a monopoly on it it would be Him. He is the One who said that He was The Way The Truth and The Life and that no one came to the Father except through Him.

Great. You and the Catholic Church disagree about what Jesus meant. My point exactly.

 

[Elioenai26]

Point taken.

 

[lupusFati]

Great. You and the Catholic Church disagree about what Jesus meant. My point exactly.

I don't really consider Catholicism to be a reliable source for such knowledge, so that's probably why it escaped my notice. I mean when it has such things as the Indulgences and orgies in its past, I kind of stop taking it seriously.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

They can if they have heard the gospel and accept Christ as their Savior.

This is not controversial.

Millions of Muslims believe all Christians will burn in hell for eternity.

Salvation will only be afforded to them when they accept Islam as the one and only true faith.

Is this controversial to you?

 

[quatona]

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

No problem so far. That´s why subjectivism doesn´t require any support. It´s observable and you just conceded that much.

The problem arises when they claim objectivity for their "meaning". The idea that beyond demonstrably existing subjective meaning there also exists some objective/ultimate/absolute meaning is presented by you. You need to support it, unless you are fine with everyone filing it under "Eli´s subjective meaning".

 

[Elioenai26]

No problem so far. That´s why subjectivism doesn´t require any support. It´s observable and you just conceded that much.

The problem arises when they claim objectivity for their "meaning". The idea that beyond demonstrably existing subjective meaning there also exists some objective/ultimate/absolute meaning is presented by you. You need to support it, unless you are fine with everyone filing it under "Eli´s subjective meaning".

You can file it under whatever you wish.

If, under a naturalistic view of reality, meaning is a concept that is wholly subjective, then a person could find meaning in life by going around claiming that there in fact is an objective absolute reality beyond the subjective conceptualizations of humans without supporting their position.

And on the contrary, people like you could find meaning by spending their time telling people that they need to support their views if they want people to take them serious.

All of the above , under naturalism, is true.

Which brings me to my point:

UNDER A NATURALISTIC VIEW OF reality, the one who supports his views and the one who does not both end up with the SAME FATE. Ultimately neither person is better or worse off than the other. So ultimately it is unimportant whether one supported their views of reality or not, because reality itself is uncaring and indifferent. We all die, we all have the same fate as the maggot on a dead dog's carcass. Ultimately, Adolph Hitler was no better or no worse off than Mother Teresa for his systematic plan for destroying an entire race of people. She was ultimately no better or worse off than he for her live devoted to the poor and outcast in Calcutta.

None of it really matters.

And so for this reason, I think that one, even if they are convinced that naturalism were true, would have to develop some sort of sense of meaning in their lives to enable them to live as fruitful citizens of the world. Of course this "sense of meaning" would ultimately be "illusory", but it would serve to give such a one some sense of purpose.

Philosophical naturalism, then, can lead many of its adherents to living what philosophers call the "noble lie".

 

[quatona]

You can file it under whatever you wish.

...and I don´t even need your permission to do so.

If, under a naturalistic view of reality, meaning is a concept that is wholly subjective,

For starters, how come you immediately add "naturalism" when "subjective and/or objective/ultimate/absolute/whatnot meaning" was the subject of discussion?
In desperate need of a strawman?

 

[Elioenai26]

...and I don´t even need your permission to do so.

For starters, how come you immediately add "naturalism" when "subjective and/or objective/ultimate/absolute/whatnot meaning" was the subject of discussion?
In desperate need of a strawman?

the discussion has been on why philosophical naturalism ultimately leads to the conclusion that life as we know it is ultimately meaningless.

In fact this thread was entitled: "The Achilles Heel of ATHEISM".

Barring some atheistic spiritualistic interpretation of reality i.e. buddhist interpretation of reality, ATHEISM ENTAILS SOME SORT OF PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM.

I assumed most atheists here were naturalists. This is what the topic and thread was about.

So to say that it is a strawman is incorrect.

Now will you address what I actually said?

 

[KCfromNC]

This thread is nearing 500 posts and 50 pages and has been off topic long ago.

The threads in which I asked that people stay on topic still have a chance of being salvaged.

This presumes the original topic is of more value than the off topic tangents. That's far from obvious.

 

[KCfromNC]

In fact, the atheist who seeks to create meaning in his/her life is only participating in an exercise of self-deception and wishful thinking.

So says the guy who is telling us he gets his purpose in life from a magical invisible friend. What do they say about glass houses?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Why not? The lack of meaning given to us by god(s) doesn't imply that we are unable to determine that some beliefs contradict reality.

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.

Is this meant to be an exhaustive list?

 

[KCfromNC]

If, under a naturalistic view of reality, meaning is a concept that is wholly subjective

Is it? I'd have thought that a naturalistic view of the nature of reality would require evidence one way or the other. Are you telling us the evidence points to meaning being subjective? If so, why do you believe otherwise?

Ultimately, Adolph Hitler was no better or no worse off than Mother Teresa for his systematic plan for destroying an entire race of people. She was ultimately no better or worse off than he for her live devoted to the poor and outcast in Calcutta.

None of it really matters.

So this ultimate meaning thing is just an offshoot of some sort of eternal revenge fantasy - of wanting bad people to get theirs in the end? Sounds like an argument from consequences to me - it doesn't lead to what I wish were true so it must be false. Luckily not everyone thinks reality is subjective to their own beliefs and wishes.

And so for this reason, I think that one, even if they are convinced that naturalism were true, would have to develop some sort of sense of meaning in their lives to enable them to live as fruitful citizens of the world. Of course this "sense of meaning" would ultimately be "illusory", but it would serve to give such a one some sense of purpose.

There's nothing illusory about this meaning unless someone tricks themselves into confusing it with some sort of objective fact. Like you're attempting to do here to paint non-believers as liars. And after this dishonesty you wonder why people don't want to discuss things with you...

Philosophical naturalism, then, can lead many of its adherents to living what philosophers call the "noble lie".

Just like any other approach to life. People aren't perfect.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why not? The lack of meaning given to us by god(s) doesn't imply that we are unable to determine that some beliefs contradict reality.

You miss the point sir.

Follow me closely here:

According to reality as you must see it if you are a naturalist (which is what I assume you are, correct me if I am wrong) then you must accept as true that reality is simply natural forces acting upon matter. That is it. That is all. That is philosophical naturalism.

Now, understanding that, we ask:

What does that mean?

Well it simply means that reality is matter being acted upon by natural forces. You are no different intrinsically than a maggot or a worm, or a pig. You are a cousin to primates, evolved on this little speck of dust, that is floating in a hostile, uncaring, indifferent cosmos. Soon the sun will lose its heat and life on earth will die. This means you die, the maggots die, and after that there is nothing. No ultimate life after death, no eternal existence, just the cessation of life. No ultimate meaning. Nothing.

You must agree with that if you believe in philosophical naturalism. It is non-negotiable.

Moving on from there:

What follows?

Well you say that despite all of the above, you can still determine that some beliefs contradict reality.

And I say, well......so what?

That may be meaningful for you and that is all well and good.

For some, they may find meaning in believing in God even though you think it is silly.

But if there is no ultimate meaning and the atheist when he dies goes to the same place that the Christian does (remember, we are assuming for the sake of argument that naturalism is true here), then ultimately, it does not matter what anyone believes!!!!!!

The problem I have noticed that naturalists encounter, is that they want to say that meaning is determined by each individual, but when a person determines that meaning in their life is gleaned from believing in God, they do not allow that person the same freedom they reserve for themselves. They want to argue and fight and deride and accost the religious for finding meaning in their life by believing in God, yet when it comes to their rights to determine meaning, they are indignant when someone challenges them!!!!

The challenger (the naturalist who wants to challenge the religious) does not want to be challenged and yet it is the challenger's position that nothing ultimately matters!!!!!!

But surely the naturalist would reply:

Well religion causes unnecessary suffering and turmoil and should be eradicated!

To this I would reply with:

"Well, according to you naturalists, these religious are simply making life meaningful to them. I mean it is you guys who say that meaning is subjective, so if some wish to live according to a set of religious traditions, then that is meaningful to them. Why do you criticize?"

To this the naturalist would reply:

"Well, it is ok to do whatever you want to have meaning in your life as long as you do not harm anyone else! The religious are harming people, therefore they should stop!"

To this I would reply:

"Well surely to live a life without harming others is meaningful to you. But what if other people find meaning in life by avenging the god they worship by slandering and accosting infidels? I mean, surely you do not want to maintain that your view is actually more meaningful than theirs, after all, meaning is subjective! And if we all face the same fate, then your views are ultimately no better, or worse than theirs."

To this the naturalist would reply:

"Well, evolution teaches us we have to survive and religious people are not helping the race to survive! They should stop!"

To this I would reply:

"You might find meaning in life by seeking to live a life that is conducive to the survival of the species, some might not. Since we all have the same fate, and the cosmos is indifferent, your view is ultimately no better or worse than my view. We all are no better or no worse than the maggot on a dead dog's carcass."

To this the naturalist would reply:

"I guess your right, even this conversation we are having is ultimately meaningless!"

Is this meant to be an exhaustive list?

No.


One thing must be said here. The naturalist could reply:

"Well I find meaning in life by expressing my subjective opinions about other people and their views."

To this I would reply:

"So do the religious."

Philosophical naturalism leads to stalemate. Always has, always will. It does so because it is not based on an unchanging reality "out there", but rather a fluid, constantly shifting and changing reality within the fickle nature and desires of humans.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is Elio back to telling us what we believe?