Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[theVOID]

That's irrelevant to the fact that imaginary meaning is still meaning.

No, imaginary meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all. That which exists in the imagination and in dreams is real on a different level than you or I are real. To bring dreams, imagination, meaning to this world which we live in requires that we reach for that other level and try to connect with it in some way. If the truth is that these things do not exist on some level separate from ourselves, then we cannot bring them to fruition on any level. Therefore, the meaning is an invalid; it does not exist.

Basically, meaning must be objective for it to actually be meaning. Otherwise we are left with a void concept.

Right, just like your cosmic meaning, it doesn't exist.

However, this imaginary meaning can still be normative, make you act and think differently, it will change your subjective meaning and your values - In that sense it's just as real as a subjective purpose influenced by true beliefs, the only difference is in the justification for the beliefs that shape the subjective purpose.

Your point that if meaning is not objective it does not exist is complete and utter bullshit - The experience of subjective meaning and objective meaning (if it exists at all) are indistinguishable from each other, we have absolutely no mechanism or method by which we can make the distinction. Thus, even if your are experiencing objective meaning (which you aren't) the experience of such would be no more distinguished and apparent than someone's subjective values and meaning.

You can't change the rules up like that. Either the fact that it 'feels' meaningful and is comforting in that way is not a valid argument, or it is. As I have stated above, imaginary meaning or a 'feeling' of meaningfulness without actual objective meaning is equivalent to no meaning at all. Just like you would argue that my feelings of God's existence hold no weight without an actual God who exists separate of those feelings.

You've only asserted it. Guitar has meaning to me and it's meaning in exactly the same way anyone else experiences it. Is there an objective fact about the world that drives me to play guitar? Of course not.

And we wouldn't argue that your experience of god holds no weight, it might not hold any value epistemically but in terms of pragmatism or normativity it is likely just as legitimate as any other experience. The cosmic meaning you think you receive from God does not exist, but the meaning you take from the concept does in a personal sense - If you convince yourself that God has tasked you to be a missionary or clergy you wouldn't have meaning in an objective sense because God does not exist, but the meaning you take from your beliefs exists all the same.

Meaning, by its nature, is something that exists both within and without a person. Subjective and objective. The person meant to do something, and the something which they are meant to do.

Have you any argument or evidence for the existence of objective meaning? At this point your just spurting out bare assertions left, right and centre.

I agree, but my position is that it depends on how you subjectively react to that belief. A belief in an objective meaning would push someone to fulfill that meaning...whereas a belief in a purely subjective meaning, if not followed to its logical conclusion of 'meaning does not truly exist', would not be a 'rational' goal to work towards or believe in/follow.

More bare assertions.

What argument or evidence do you have for subjective meaning having no normativity? My subjective values drive me to do all kinds of things, my subjective desires supply every single reason for action that I have.

Also, how do you propose objective meaning reaching through the cosmos and giving us reason for action? Where is the normativity in non-contingent facts?

And you really have to stop making your dumb-as-shit dichotomy between objective meaning and no meaning, it's complete bullshit - Subjective meaning exists no matter how much of a winge and moan you'd like to have about it.

And there's no reason to believe in something or follow something if it doesn't exist, amirite?

Again, bullshit.

To hold a belief is to act as if the proposition in question is true, to act on that belief requires some desire. If I believe that there is a fire-breathing dragon on the roof who burns passers-by I have a belief that informs my actions, and I have a set of desires, namely the desire not to be burned, that drives me to not leave the house.

As far as my beliefs and desires are concerned I have reasons for action and this is in no way contingent upon the truth of my beliefs (the existence of the dragon).

Our own sense of meaning defines who we are, and affects how we impact the world. Imagine that someone, somewhere out there is meant to make a huge difference in the world by doing something incredible.

Imagine a frog with 16 legs and a massive vagina on it's forehead... Who gives a shit what we can imagine, what matters is what actually exists.

Also, what is really more admirable, that someone was cosmically determined to do action x that benefits population y or that person x came to their own conclusions about doing x to benefit y? Action for the good is all the more admirable without cosmic coaxing.

I see what you're saying here, but if the objective meaning itself is not real, then from what source does his meaning come? Is it just a fallacy, an invalid idea that exists solely within him as a subjective entity? Then to what end should he follow it, and why?

Fallacy? WHAT FALLACY?

His meaning comes from his beliefs and desires. His desires are the only reasons for action that exist, if he is going to do anything what-so-ever it will be because he desires to do so.

Answer me this, how do you propose that the objective facts about the universe regarding what we as sentient apes are supposed to do gets into our mind and influences our action? Do you even have a mechanism for this or is it just more of this *poof magic* bullshit?

As I've stated above, imaginary or purely subjective meaning = no meaning at all. We're discussing objective meaning here. Whether or not it actually exists, and if not, how anything can have any sort of meaning at all.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?

Seriously, you've done no more that assert that subjective meaning doesn't exist while ignoring all of the facts about our reasons for action - These reasons for action provide us with all of the meaning we could ever want or need.

And do you have an argument for the existence of Objective meaning? As in, can you demonstrate that there are facts about what we should do that are independent of our beliefs and desires?

Chill out, dude, it's just a conversation on the internet.

You're taking straight past his responses without taking any of his examples on board, do you expect him not to get sick of repeating himself?

DvF has really made it obvious that 1) Subjective meaning does exist and 2) The experience of subjective meaning and objective meaning (if it exists) is indistinguishable from each other.

Anyway, as you can see above, I've essentially answered this already. We are discussing objective meaning and whether it exists or not.

If that was the case then why have you spent so much time whining about subjective meaning?

To say that something is subjectively funny is to say the same thing as something is not funny at all.

NO - To say something is subjectively funny is to say that the thing in question entices a response in the person in question that we would describe as 'laughing' or some internal equivalent of it. To say that something isn't funny at all is to say that the thing in question failed to entice that response from anybody.

Our subjective feelings on it hold no value here, as they do not impact whether or not something is funny. Only if it is objectively funny, and we subjectively recognize it as such, do our feelings on the matter hold any weight.

Woah, what a newb - You need some philosophy of aesthetics, Pronto!

1. What is an example of something being objectively funny?
2. How did you determine that it was objectively funny?
3. How does the objective fact about the funniness of something impact our experience of it?
4. How does an objective fact about the funniness of something exist?
5. How is the experience of something that is objectively funny different to something that is subjectively funny?

[quote]
And as you, and many other atheists have stated in the past, there is no reason to find something 'funny' where there is truly nothing 'funny' at all.

DvF is a fairly standard subjectivist in regards to most experiential things, so this statement too is complete bullshit.

---

To me, there is no purpose or meaning. We are without purpose. We don't matter. We are nothing but tiny meaningless biological specks that was never 'meant' to come into existence. We never mattered.
We are also ignorant and arrogant to assume that we are important or have some kind of special purpose.
We seem to forget just how small we really are.
Ants are specks to us, we are specks to this planet, this planet is a speck to the solar system, the solar system is a speck to the galaxy, the galaxy is a speck to the universe. We are fucking small and very much without a purpose.

Your're making the same false dichotomy as Watson, that there is either only objective meaning or no meaning - You also seem to be using a rather narrow definition of the word "meaning" by restricting it to objective facts about what we ought to do - This isn't necessary or useful, we can still legitimately talk about what things mean to us or for what purpose we are acting without the need for any kind of cosmic mandate or relevance beyond our own experience.

Examples:
1. For what purpose do you use the Internet?
2. What does food mean to you?
3. What would you like to achieve and why?

All of these questions have real world relevance and no contingency upon cosmic mandate or how big we are relative to anything else. All you need for purpose is desires.