Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Ryft]

Well, in one sense it's an illusion ...

Under any sense it is an illusion, under your view (when held consistently). Your conception of meaning is simply an illusion of what under your view meaning actually is; that is, your act of conceiving, reflecting upon, and articulating meaning is in reality nothing more than electrical and chemical signaling throughout specific neural tissue and manifest physiologically.

I have no idea what "tautological meaning" is supposed to be. Given what those two words mean, that is a self-contradiction; tautologies merely state what is necessarily true (e.g., "A bachelor is an unmarried male."), repeating the same thing in different words, stating something about itself without stating new information.

Illusions are normally thought of as things that fool you. But once you're aware of them, are they still illusions?

No. Then they become delusions, a false belief persistently held despite invalidating evidence, and creating a cognitive dissonance if you try to maintain both views simultaneously. If you do not experience that cognitive dissonance, then it is still an illusion fooling you.

If objective reality exists independent of us, then it does.

That is a tautology, yes—and a tautological tautology, since "objective" and "independent of us" mean the same damn thing. So your tautology should be rewritten, "If objective reality exists, then it does." However, that is a logical statement that is definitional and therefore vacuous. And it does not provide any rescue for you since we are talking about meaning which, under your view, is nothing more than neurological activity (i.e., biochemical signaling in your mammalian brain is what 'meaning' refers to).

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

"Something"? I am talking about the fate of meaning and truth under your atheistic view, which cannot give a coherent account for such things as meaning and truth being real in themselves. You can claim whatever you like, but to suggest that your view supports the claims you make requires a bit of work on your part. Show me, using your own atheistic view, how things like meaning and truth have an objective referent (i.e., that they point to something apart from you).

My experience of meaning I really do experience ...

And what you are experiencing is illusory, under your own view (when held consistently). What you conceive, reflect upon, and articulate meaning to be is not at all what you claim meaning actually is. There is what your experience tells you meaning is on the one hand, and what your view tells you it is on the other—and they are not the same. If your view is correct, then your experience is an illusion. If your experience is correct, then your view is faulty.

You are just making a Use/Mention distinction error and confusing the concept of meaning and truth with meaning and truth itself.

Incorrect, since I am exploring your own view, under which committing a use-mention confusion is not possible; that is, the concepts of meaning and truth and what they are themselves both refer to the same thing: biochemical signaling of your mammalian brain. In this case the use-mention confusion is possible under my view but not yours.

[For gnostic theists] to actually know that God existed they would also have to be correct, since knowledge implies truth.

Correct. Let's avoid ambiguities here and speak specifically. I know God exists; as you correctly observe, that means what I believe to be true actually is true and there exists a proper line of justification between the two (i.e., justified true belief). I realize that under your agnostic views this is not possible, that under your view I simply believe that I know; not to put too fine a point on it, however, your agnostic views could not be any more irrelevant. It is not as if my views are required to satisfy the criteria of yours.

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

Whether or not you take some point seriously is just more autobiographical information, which continues to be irrelevant to my point. Have you not engaged me long enough in these forums over the last couple years to know that I'm not here to convert or convince anyone? Whether or not you are convinced, interested, amused, compelled or what have you is really quite beside the point. I am here to critically evaluate other arguments and to refine my own.

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

Dude, seriously? Yes it is. Are you not familiar with what agnosticism refers to, what that privative Greek alpha is negating? That's right, gnostos (the root of which is gnosis). It pertains to the category of knowledge; in the case of agnosticism, the absence thereof (agnosis, without knowledge; agnostos, unknown or unknowable). React less, think more.

---

---

Is it enough to lay all the blame on the institution of the Catholic Church?

Yes.

Well, concerning the molestation of children, the Church did not "allow it to happen." As an institution she does everything she can to stop the molestation of children.

Like hell she does.

The "cover ups" are not so bad as they sound. People cover up crimes like this for all sorts of reason, not all of which are evil.

You officially disgust me. Good bye.