Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Autumnlicious]

In Warhammer 40,000 they are called the Eldar and know far too well the horrors of the warp! They are gnostic theists who loathe the deities of chaos! They fight against Khorne, Tzeench, Nurgle, and Slaanesh, well most of them do.

Or they embrace pleasure in all of it's excesses and sacrifice other beings to keep from being devoured by Slaanesh.

[Rhizomorph13]

Hence the, "...well most of them do"

[Ryft]

I'm correcting the spelling in your quotes ... Please let me know if the corrections in any way changed the meaning of the statements.

(blinks)

Correcting his spelling cannot change the meaning of the statements. Grammar and punctuation, sure, but not spelling. Yet I digress. (And incidentally, I have corrected YOURS in this here, my response—including grammar and punctuation—but I am confident your meaning was preserved. You will let me know, I'm sure.)

You can't come into an atheist forum and essentially tell them they live meaningless lives devoid of feeling simply because they do not hold the belief that these things spring from some divine source. You can't imply that we have no wonder at the universe ... Just because we can explain HOW these things work in our brains and bodies doesn't negate the fact that, in our way of thinking, they are there.

It would seem that you misunderstood his point (however badly he argued it). It is not that atheists are devoid of meaning and such in their lives. On the Christian view, to which he purportedly adheres, it not only makes sense that atheists find meaning and value in life but it is even predicted that they should, for on the Christian view mankind is specially created as "imago Dei" (in the image of God). Thus there should be a vast number of things that we all share in common regardless of the beliefs we have. The point is that atheists, on THEIR own view, should not find meaning and value in life. They do, of course, as I think most of us realize and acknowledge, but it is only by stealing intellectual currency from without, in some cases committing the stolen concept fallacy. Nothing within atheism—in whatever form it gets expressed—either predicts or produces things like meaning and value in the sense that most people intend when they speak ethically. It is coming from somewhere other than their atheism, which rational self-examination will show. I was an atheist until I was 25 years old; I went through that process myself. It is a very deep and complex issue to explore, and one that I find fascinating, but that is what he meant; i.e., that atheists are inconsistent because things like objective values and deep meaning (e.g., "Why are we here?") are unintelligible under atheism.

Well there is no evidence for there not being a God.

Erm, what real evidence do you have for there being one? Now you're crossing from faith to science, which is a mistake.

No, not science. Logic and reason. There are many atheists, even here in these forums, who blissfully commit the basic logical mistake of reasoning, "There is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, God does not exist." The point is that there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, either, underscoring the point that it is fallacious to reason this way (argumentum ad ignorantiam). And incidentally, it is not necessarily a mistake to cross from faith into science. I do it all the time, moving from faith to science to logic to prose and so on, depending on the context or circumstances.

Nazis and Communists aren't evil in and of themselves.

That is a moral judgment, which obviously follows from your view. His view may be entirely different. It frustrates you when people like him come here assuming the truth of their view and pontificating to others; try to realize those moments when you are guilty of doing the very same thing, like the morality that your statement above assumes.

Indeed. In fact, Ryft believes the Invisible Pink Unicorn has it in for his 'thing'.

:P

If I'm made in God's image, I wish God had a smaller ass ...

I'm glad he doesn't—because woman, that ass is fine!

Someone please tell me if that truly is the most important question in philosophy. I highly doubt it.

No, it is not. The most important question in philosophy is, "What is truth?" All further philosophical questions and pursuits are predicated on whatever that answer turns out to be. Even questions about fundamental logic are predicated on truth (specifically 'necessary truth'). I am deeply wounded, though, that my name was not one you petitioned your question to, I'll have you know.

Atheists and theists get along quite well here in a civilized manner.

Well... most of them.

[thesummerqueen]

I am exhausted and I'll get to you later...however...

I am deeply wounded, though, that my name was not one you petitioned your question to, I'll have you know.

[levels a look over top of glasses] Did I not say your name enough last night?

[Ryft]

[levels a look over top of glasses] Did I not say your name enough last night?

Bwahahahaha! (wipes tear from laughing)

[thesummerqueen]

Bwahahahaha! (wipes tear from laughing)

That's what I thought.

Summer: 1; Ryft: 1

Your turn.

[Edwardo Piet]

Anger is virtuous at times.

Since when? Besides, I thought it was supposed to be one of the seven vices and not one of the seven virtues?

---

The point is that atheists, on THEIR own view, should not find meaning and value in life.

Absolute nonsense. Meaning is not an illusion at all, it completely makes sense from my atheistic viewpoint that meaning exists because subjective meaning is still meaning and still exists.... in the brain. Subjective meaning has a physical existence for fuck's sake. (Objective meaning also exists as tautology (a rock is still a rock whether we're around to appreciate that fact or not): And why should any other objective meaning be necessary?)).

[...]atheists are inconsistent because things like objective values and deep meaning (e.g., "Why are we here?") are unintelligible under atheism.

Nonsense once again. (In that it's no different with theism). "Why are we here?" makes the assumption that there is a reason, a cause. Theists don't know that God exists they just speculate, so they don't really know the cause of existence. I, as an atheist, likewise, don't ultimately know the cause of the universe and ultimately why we are here, but I don't need to know as they don't need to know. I speculate just like they, as theists, do. I just don't make the assumption of God's existence, I instead accept the fact that either the universe has a cause or it doesn't, and if it does I don't know what it is. If it does have a cause why the fuck would it be God?

If the cause of the universe is to be labelled as a "creator", why does it have to have a mind or be at all God-like? Why call it God?

There are many atheists, even here in these forums, who blissfully commit the basic logical mistake of reasoning, "There is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, God does not exist."

I've posted here more than anyone else, and I'm yet to have seen any atheist say that either explicitly or implicitly. There are the gnostic atheists who think they 'know', but I am yet to see them say that they 'know' God doesn't exist because there is a lack of evidence. From what I've seen, the gnostic atheists here actually think they have positive reasons to believe God is impossible, they are not making the Argument From Ignorance they just have invalid reasons to believe God is impossible.

And as for the agnostic atheists here (which I think outnumber the gnostic atheists): They openly admit that God is a possibility. I, for instance, as an agnostic atheist will openly say that there is a lack of evidence for God but he is nevertheless a possibility, or, I will give my opinion that God doesn't exist and assert it "God doesn't exist" (like a lot of us, just for simplicity, will assert our opinions on other matters, such as aesthetics, as if they're fact when we know they're not really) but I of course don't actually believe God is impossible.

When has an agnostic atheist on this forum actually implied that because there is an absence of evidence for God, that God therefore doesn't exist? Accusations of the Argument of Ignorance should be used sparingly, since even when people seem to be using it, they are so often simply being bold. So unless they explicitly declare such a fallacy, you're almost certainly wasting your time and muddying the waters.

(One type of Argument from Ignorance however, the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" is much more common and easier to spot, I think).

[Ryft]

Absolute nonsense. Meaning is not an illusion at all. It completely makes sense from my atheistic viewpoint that meaning exists, because subjective meaning is still meaning and still exists—in the brain.

Interestingly, you just refuted yourself. If meaning is really just various biochemical brain states, then it actually IS an illusion, a private fiction we use to console or empower ourselves that in reality is just electrical and chemical signaling throughout specific neural tissue. Your very act of articulating yourself here is likewise just neurological and physiological activity. The reality turns out to be that you are simply a complex organism functioning on adaptation and evolutionary advantage, not these illusions of meaning and truth.

And yet you speak of meaning and truth as if they are real in themselves, like most everyone does. And I think you are right, but the point is that your atheistic views cannot account for this. On your atheistic view, meaning and truth are NOT real in themselves; they are actually just physiological manifestations of your brain's neurological activity. So when you speak of meaning and truth as if they are real in themselves (i.e., not an illusion) that is intellectual currency the origins of which is somewhere other than your atheistic view. If you were forced to remain consistent with your atheistic view, then we should never hear you speaking this way.

"Why are we here?" makes the assumption that there is a reason, a cause.

True. And yet that is nevertheless a very real and authentic question unique to the human experience and as old as mankind's ability to self-reflect. But under atheism (in whatever form it happens to be expressed), and especially atheistic biological evolution, that sort of thing is unintelligible; it cannot give a coherent account for that question and its underlying assumption of existential purpose. (This is why I say that Nihilism is the only internally consistent atheism.)

Theists don't know that God exists. They just speculate.

Incorrect. Agnostic theists don't know that God exists, whereas gnostic theists do.

As an atheist I likewise don't ultimately know the cause of the universe and ultimately why we are here, but I don't need to know, as they don't need to know. I speculate, just like they do as theists. I just don't make the assumption of God's existence.

Then you are an agnostic atheist, inasmuch as they are agnostic theists. But I fail to see how this autobiographical information about you is relevant to my point.

I've posted here more than anyone else, and I've yet to see any atheist say that either explicitly or implicitly.

I think that says more about your reading diet than anything else because it does indeed get said, most recently by downbeatplum and Paul the Human (in the "Belief" thread of the Atheism section).

There are the gnostic atheists who think they 'know', but I have yet to see them say they 'know' God doesn't exist because there is a lack of evidence.

Again, that is irrelevant autobiographical information. What you have or have not seen is simply irrelevant to my point. And all this talk about who "knows" what and who doesn't is quite beside the point at any rate, as I have been talking about atheism, which pertains to the category of belief and is distinct from the category of knowledge. In other words, you are at risk of committing the red herring fallacy.

[Edwardo Piet]

Interestingly, you just refuted yourself. If meaning is really just various biochemical brain states, then it actually IS an illusion, a private fiction we use to console or empower ourselves that in reality is just electrical and chemical signaling throughout specific neural tissue.

Well, in one sense it's an illusion in the sense that our subjective experience of meaning (as opposed to tautological meaning) doesn't exist separate from our imagination. But it is not an illusion in the sense of it being unintelligible, it makes sense to me for meaning to be like this. Illusions are normally thought of as things that fool you, but once you're aware of them, are they still illusions?

Your very act of articulating yourself here is likewise just neurological and physiological activity. The reality turns out to be that you are simply a complex organism functioning on adaptation and evolutionary advantage, not these illusions of meaning and truth.

Tautological meaning exists.

And yet you speak of meaning and truth as if they are real in themselves

They are real in themselves in a tautological sense. If objective reality exists independent of us then it does. If it doesn't it doesn't. Let us not make the Use/Mention distinction error. Absolute logic is separate to the conceptualization of logic.

And I think you are right, but the point is that your atheistic views cannot account for this.

They can easily. My experience of meaning I really do experience, so in that sense the meaning is real. In another sense it isn't real because it is "imaginary", but that is irrelevant to the fact that I experience meaning.

On your atheistic view, meaning and truth are NOT real in themselves

Not true. Either something exists independently to us or it doesn't.

they are actually just physiological manifestations of your brain's neurological activity.

Use/mention error. That's the concept of meaning/truth you are now talking of, and yes, our conceptualization of them takes place in the brain. But truth/meaning does actually exist (if you were to call it a type of existence) in the sense that something either exists independently to us or it doesn't. Logic is absolute as well as conceptual. The concept of logic is separate to logic itself.

So when you speak of meaning and truth as if they are real in themselves (i.e., not an illusion) that is intellectual currency the origins of which is somewhere other than your atheistic view.

No, you are just making a Use/Mention distinction error and confusing the concept of meaning and truth with meaning and truth itself.

True. And yet that is nevertheless a very real and authentic question unique to the human experience and as old as mankind's ability to self-reflect.

So what is your point there?

But under atheism (in whatever form it happens to be expressed), and especially atheistic biological evolution, that sort of thing is unintelligible; it cannot give a coherent account for that question and its underlying assumption of existential purpose. (This is why I say that Nihilism is the only internally consistent atheism.)

It isn't unintelligible. My conceptualization of meaning and truth and how I personally experience something as "meaningful" or "meaningless" is separate to the fact that something must either exist independently of us or not. Logic must be absolute in that sense. It is also conceptual in the sense that we have conceptualized it, but its conceptualization is different to logic itself.

The "Why are we here?" Question can be answered in a teleological way, but why should it be? Why can't we just use to word "why" in the other sense so as to mean "What caused us to be here"? Why make the assumption of any additional purpose when we need not do so?

Incorrect. Agnostic theists don't know that God exists, whereas gnostic theists do.

No.

Yes, agnostic theists don't believe that they know that God exists (they just believe that they believe that God exists) so they also can't know that God exists because knowledge implies belief.

But, despite that gnostic theists also believe that they know that God exists (rather than merely believing that God exists) that does not at all mean that they actually know that God exists, it just means that they believe that they know. For them to actually know that God existed they'd also have to be correct since knowledge implies truth.

Then you are an agnostic atheist, inasmuch as they are agnostic theists. But I fail to see how this autobiographical information about you is relevant to my point.

My point is that unless you can back up your point I don't see why I should take your point seriously.

What you have or have not seen is simply irrelevant to my point.

My response to your point was weak but I considered your point baseless, so, I wasn't particularly worried.

And all this talk about who "knows" what and who doesn't is quite beside the point at any rate, as I have been talking about atheism, which pertains to the category of belief and is distinct from the category of knowledge. In other words, you are at risk of committing the red herring fallacy.

What on earth are you talking about? Agnostic atheism isn't related to knowledge but gnostic atheism is.

[thesummerqueen]

Correcting his spelling cannot change the meaning of the statements.

I could have picked the wrong word. One letter difference, you know. Thank you for YOUR corrections, Mr. Grammar Gestapo.

It would seem that you misunderstood his point (however badly he argued it).

Perhaps I did misunderstand – but if I did so apparently did others, and the way in which his argument was taken had to be pointed out to explain the rising hostility. Maybe I didn’t point that out effectively either.