The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

Is Elio back to telling us what we believe?

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I don't know if there is such a thing as "ultimate" meaning, but even in the absence of that knowledge one can still live happily, compassionately, decently, and purposefully. Like many theists, you assume that without God (more specifically, without belief in God) that it is impossible to live meaningfully.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

In other words, you are telling me what I believe while pretending not to.

 

[Gadarene]

The hypothetical conversation with a straw-naturalist was a bit of a giveaway.

 

[quatona]

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".

...while actually you meant to call it "The Achilles Heel of NATURALISM"?

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

You better decide which it is that you wish to tackle.

Now will you address what I actually said?

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.

 

[Gadarene]

I suspect you're either in for a wild-goose chase or a debate invitation, quatona.

Anything but a straight answer, God forbid.

 

[Elioenai26]

...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.

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.

 

[Elioenai26]

In other words, you are telling me what I believe while pretending not to.

I am explaining to you what metaphysical naturalism entails.

That is all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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.

 

[quatona]

This was never an argument as you seem to think it was.

Well, I didn´t think it was until you told me it was right on topic of this thread (Achilles heel, yada yada).

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.

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.

There is no purpose, no plan, no reason why things exist the way they do.

Yes, I guess pretty much every atheist and pretty much every naturalist will agree with this. So?

That is all. It is not a debate or an argument at all.

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)?

 

[Davian]

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.

Quantum theory tells us that "ultimately", the material making up the floor beneath me is mostly empty space. This does not unsettle me because "ultimately", I do not experience things at the quantum level.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, you are explaining what nihilism entails. Therein lies the strawman.

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.

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.

But you said earlier you were not a naturalist, so tell me, what are you?

 

[Elioenai26]

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.

So now you are not a naturalist?

Hmmm...what are you then?

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)?

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...

 

[Elioenai26]

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.

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.

 

[Aeroflotte]

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...

Death = Weakness?

 

[Elioenai26]

Death = Weakness?

Did I say that?

 

[Aeroflotte]

I dunno, that's why there's a question mark at the end of my post.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

From what I've read, you don't understand Nietzsche at all, and I doubt you've read anything of his beyond the selected snippets you've seen on apologist websites. So when you say "Ahh Nietzsche!!!", as though you have some inkling of what Nietzsche was on about, I take it a with a grain of salt.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

 

[Elioenai26]

Perhaps you should take your own advice, since this too is yet another strawman. You would know this if you read my previous post.

So naturalists say that there is ultimate meaning?

That is news to me!

Even if they do say that, they are wrong, so what is the point?