Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

If all you mean by illusion though is the fact that all the meaning in my (and other atheists') life is merely down to our own imagination, our psychology, how we feel and nothing absolutely meaningful exists, then sure. But what is the problem? You use illusion in the sense of it having a negative connotation, and my point is: What's the problem?

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.

All I mean is that since logic is absolute (not the concept of logic but logic itself) it is therefore meaningful in the sense that logic isn't illusory, its meaning is independent of its application.

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.

But it has meaning once you understand that such tautology exists. It seems obvious but it's very possible to go through life getting confused and thinking that logic is not absolute but is merely a concept.

And it does not provide any rescue for you

Rescue from what?

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).

That is the only meaning we ever had. Sorry to break it to you but... just because you believe in meaning independent of biochemistry doesn't mean that meaning actually exists. Your so-called 'meaning' could easily just be a placebo. So what is your point, what is the problem, and what is this 'rescue' that you speak of?

"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.

And your view can?

1. What's the problem with not believing in any independent meaning?

2. What's the problem with me merely finding the absolute of logic meaningful and more meaningful than if I saw it as just a concept (when, of course, it is also absolute)?

3. What's wrong with subjective 'biochemical/neurological/'meaning?

4. What is wrong with illusory meaning? Illusions are exist even though they are imaginary, they exist in the brain, it may be all but placebo, but so what, I can't help the irrational feelings that pop into my head, I'm only human.

5. What am I supposed to be 'rescued' from exactly?

6. What have you got what I haven't got? Nothing I say.

7. I mean: Just because you believe in objective and absolute meaning doesn't mean such meaning EXISTS!! If it doesn't really exist - as I assume it doesn't - your meaning is just as illusory as mine the only difference is that you BELIEVE that your meaning is objective.

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).

All I want to know is whether you are equivocating or not. 'Illusion' and 'illusory' have a negative connotation, but this doesn't mean I actually experience them as negative. Illusion actually exists despite its unreality, just as imagination actually does exist in the brain. So what is the problem that it is 'illusory'? SO FUCKING WHAT?

You seem to be equivocating 'illusory meaning' with 'no meaning' and 'imaginary' with 'nonexistent' to me. Can you just get to your point and explain what the fuck is actually WRONG with illusory meaning, and how you can possibly have anything more than that whether you believe otherwise or not?!

And what you are experiencing is illusory, under your own view (when held consistently).

What is your point? Your meaning is unreal too the only difference is you believe it's real.

What you conceive, reflect upon, and articulate meaning to be is not at all what you claim meaning actually is.

Meaning is what something means. Whether that's objective or subjective. Whether that's what it means independent to me or whether that's just what it means 'to me'. And what the fuck is wrong with subjective meaning when it comes to morality, purpose, and whatnot? Nothing. You like to use to word 'illuson' with its negative connotation to equivocate 'illusory meaning' with 'no meaning' or 'meaningless' AS IF THAT'S A BAD THING.

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.

I experience my view. How can they be any different? My imagination is experienced, my reason is experienced, by rationality is experienced, my irrationality is experienced. When I am truly aware of something I experience it and not just an illusion of it. What's the difference? And what is your point?

If your view is correct, then your experience is an illusion.

Illusory or not.... my meaning feels meaningful so do I give a fuck? What's the difference? Do you have any more meaning? No. Do you believe you do? Yes.

So, since I know it's an illusion... it may be an illusion for me but at least I acknowledge my illusory, unlike you, so, I may have illusory meaning, but you have delusory meaning.

If your experience is correct, then your view is faulty.

If what I experience is correct, then what I am aware of is correct, meaning that I have knowledge, meaning my view can't be faulty.

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.

What the fuck? They are not the same thing dude.

Logic is absolute with or without a deity. What the fuck has a deity got to do with logic?

A rock either does or does not exist without any observers to observe such rock. That is logically the case with or without the existence of the CONCEPT of logic.

Conceptualization literally exists in our brains, but the concept of 'conceptualization' itself is entirely separate.

Fuck - THAT'S HILARIOUS. You genuinely think that a deity makes any difference to the Use/Mention distinction!! A deity is completely irrelevant!!!!

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).

Errm... you can claim it but how is that going to help if you don't prove it?

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.

Yes, but I was just telling you your definition was wrong. Whether you know that God exists or not, you're still a gnostic theist so long as you BELIEVE that you know.

Whether or not you take some point seriously is just more autobiographical information, which continues to be irrelevant to my point.

I was being non-serious parallel to you.

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?

It's a pity. So long as you're not preaching I wish you'd be a bit more pushy hehe. I dunno, I guess I want a challenge.

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.

It seems more like you're critically evaulating my arguments and not backing up your own points to me. What is your point? I was attacking your critical point that my meaning is an 'illusion' because you seemed to be equivocating that with 'meaninglessness'.

Sorry to break it to you but......illusory or otherwise, meaning is meaning.

Dude, seriously? Yes it is. Are you not familiar with what agnosticism refers to[...]

DUH I meant that it wasn't positively related unlike gnosticism. My actual point was the last half of that part you quoted, which you conveniently left out. Oh well. Let the pettiness continue.