Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

[Esquilax]

Not to you because you live in the self-constructed fantasy. You say you don't have free will, but live as if you do.

If my not having a thing is indistinguishable, in my day to day lived experience, from having it, then I see no particular issue with this.

Incidentally, as I've said before, you "if you reduce the mind to materialism then all you are is neurons!" guys are missing something, and that's that consciousness, free will, all of that, could be an emergent process that arises in sufficiently complex meat brains. There's nothing specifically about naturalism or materialism that precludes free will, despite you presumptuous theists feeling like you can just claim ownership of the whole shebang by fiat, and given that the whole area of consciousness isn't fully understood yet I'm more than happy to simply say I don't know and not worry about the lofty huffing of folks like you who feel that the mind simply belongs to them because they say so.

You claim that human intelligence is an evolved biological feature but live as if your reasoning has independent veracity.

Have we met? If not, how on earth can you claim this?

Oh, and just saying, I'm well aware that my reasoning, senses and so on can be fooled or wrong, because I'm aware of the circumstances under which my brain evolved. I acknowledge fully the cognitive biases, heuristics and blunders in reasoning common to humanity and try my hardest to avoid them; are you saying here that you don't even accept that those even exist, because you think your brain was specially created?

You live as if your life has meaning then turn around and say that people are biological robots.

Still an awful lot of assumptions about me, here. Are you willing to come on record and state categorically that a robot can never have consciousness or free will? How do you intend to demonstrate that? Because so far, all I've seen you do is make a bunch of intuitive leaps based on magic presuppositions that you haven't even attempted to support. "I believe I have a soul that does X, Y and Z, and therefore if you think you don't have a soul then you're not allowed to think you have X, Y and Z," isn't a compelling argument until you can demonstrate the existence of a soul and a method for how it generates X, Y and Z, but you're content with not even defining what this special quality is.

If you are an ontological naturalist and believe all that that entails then you are living a lie. That's the hard truth, Esquilax. Sorry to hear that you cannot accept it.

Sorry to hear that you think your presuppositions count as binding objective truth for everyone else. Please do come back when you're willing to accept that not everyone is required to live in your fantasy land just because you want them to.

Oh, and also? This is exactly what I was talking about earlier: it's really unsettling seeing how much effort a certain stripe of theist puts into trying to make the lives of his fellow human beings worse. Because even if we accept what you're arguing here, you're not providing any positive proof of your alternative, you're just tossing an appeal to consequences fallacy at us, meaning that we'd have no reason to accept your creation nonsense even if you did convince us of the uselessness of a materialist life, so all your current "argument" would do, even if it's successful, is trap us in nihilistic fatalism. Why is that appealing to you? Are you truly that mean spirited?