Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is Elio back to telling us what we believe?
You want me to justify a position I do not take. Therefore I will not.
I have stated that on an atheistic view of reality, there is no ultimate meaning.
Oh not at all.
In fact, I actually have no way of knowing what you believe unless you tell me, and even then you could be lying. You could be a Christian pretending to be an atheist for all I know.
What I am telling you is not what you believe but what you MUST believe if you are a naturalist. I.e. what is entailed in adopting a purely naturalistic view of the universe.
...while actually you meant to call it "The Achilles Heel of NATURALISM"?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".
You better decide which it is that you wish to tackle.I assumed most atheists here were naturalists. This is what the topic and thread was about.
No, why would I?Now will you address what I actually said?
...while actually you meant to call it "The Achilles Heel of NATURALISM"?
You better decide which it is that you wish to tackle.
No, why would I?
Firstly, it was (like usual) not a response to my argument.
Secondly, the position you are tackling contains so many views that I myself don´t hold that I prefer to leave it to those who actually hold these views.
All I can say at this point: "If...., then there is no ultimate meaning" is an argument from consequence.
If there is no METAsupernatural realm and if God is uncreated God has no "ultimate meaning", either. In the end, someone has to take that position of a meaning giver who himself has no "ultimate meaning". Could as well be us - no skin off my nose.
Unless you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as "ultimate meaning" I don´t even know what I might be missing in its absence.
Another shortcoming of a metaphysical argument from consequence:
No matter whether I believe in it or not - if it exists it exists.
No matter whether you believe in it or not - if it doesn´t exist it doesn´t exist.
So just start doing something about the Achilles Heel of your own position (which is: it´s an unsupported assumption altogether) to demonstrate that there is such a thing as "ultimate meaning" before you start telling us how the Achilles heel of our convictions is that they do not contain that which you haven´t even demonstrated to exist.
In other words, you are telling me what I believe while pretending not to.
This was never an argument as you seem to think it was.
I was just explaining why on a naturalistic view of reality, which is the way that every atheist here who has spoken with me on the matter views reality, everything is sheerly accidental and coincidental, some random stroke of luck that somehow the universe owes its existence to some random chance event and that somehow everything turned out just right so that we could be here. There is no purpose, no plan, no reason why things exist the way they do.
That is all. It is not a debate or an argument at all.
Well, I didn´t think it was until you told me it was right on topic of this thread (Achilles heel, yada yada).This was never an argument as you seem to think it was.
I don´t know where else you meet atheists; however here on this board this is one of your favourite strawmen (particular in the loaded language you use) which most of the times atheists here tell you is not their position.I was just explaining why on a naturalistic view of reality, which is the way that every atheist here who has spoken with me on the matter views reality, everything is sheerly accidental and coincidental, some random stroke of luck that somehow the universe owes its existence to some random chance event and that somehow everything turned out just right so that we could be here.
Yes, I guess pretty much every atheist and pretty much every naturalist will agree with this. So?There is no purpose, no plan, no reason why things exist the way they do.
Now, what has it to do with this Achilles heel thing (as you reminded me in your last post was the context of this part of the discussion)?That is all. It is not a debate or an argument at all.
I am explaining to you what metaphysical naturalism entails.
That is all.
No, you are explaining what nihilism entails. Therein lies the strawman.
If I live my life using metaphysical naturalism, I find meaning throughout. What happens "ultimately" is a separate point. I don't live my life "ultimately", I experience it day-by-day, planning ahead as I can.
Well, I didn´t think it was until you told me it was right on topic of this thread (Achilles heel, yada yada).
I don´t know where else you meet atheists; however here on this board this is one of your favourite strawmen (particular in the loaded language you use) which most of the times atheists here tell you is not their position.
Now, what has it to do with this Achilles heel thing (as you reminded me in your last post was the context of this part of the discussion)?
And we have explained to you, on several occasions, why your explanation is a strawman. What you are trying to do here, in your "explaining", is to tell people what they think, even after they have corrected your misconceptions on countless occasions in the past. There is no triumph in defeating strawmen.
The weakness of a naturalistic view of society is that everybody is their own god, determining meaning, and determining what is right and wrong for themselves and therefore no one is ultimately right or wrong, better off or worse off....ultimately that is...
Because all leads to death...
Ahh Nietzsche!!!!
He understood the implications of naturalism so very well....
It is a shame that others cannot see it for what it really is.
Saying that naturalism entails that there is no ultimate meaning is not a strawman.
It is what naturalists themselves say.
So you need to check what you are saying and read carefully what you are reading before speaking.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, since this too is yet another strawman. You would know this if you read my previous post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?