Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Spectrum]

Why is this thread continuing? The OP obviously possesses no genuine knowledge of atheism and its possible, respective philosophies (such as existentialism, studies of nihilism, etc.). He obviously had not read any of the other threads or even the most basic information concerning this topic. Invoking an emotional reaction without conducting efficient conversation is his aim, no matter if he is doing so directly or indirectly:

[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.

[tackattack]

@Spectrum, it continues because threads are based on the conversation that the OP creates, which usually diverges, quite often.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Invoking an emotional reaction without conducting efficient conversation is his aim, no matter if he is doing so directly or indirectly:

That's a pretty good definition of a troll.

[everythingafter]

The point of all this rambling is to arrive at a Cross roads between meaningfulness and meaninglessness. Why would anyone choose to accept a reality void of meaning? Christianity, especially Catholicism, is not irrational. In fact, Reason is strongest when it flows from the Ultimate Reason; reason is stronger within Catholicism than it is in any other worldview, especially atheism.

So why choose to believe that there is no meaning, when there is such a BEAUTIFUL system given to us by the God-man Christ, which is so meaningful?
In Christ

Well, first, DQualk, you begged the question when you stated that there is such a "beautiful system given to us by" Christ. How could you possibly know that? Because the Bible says it's so? That's not good enough. Find some evidence outside of the canon for the meaningfulness of Jesus' claims. The beautiful system you see in place today is the result of millions of years of evolution and change within the cosmos. There is no doubt that it is beautiful. But it is beautiful without a god to make it so.

[dqualk]

Well, first, DQualk, you begged the question when you stated that there is such a "beautiful system given to us by" Christ. How could you possibly know that? Because the Bible says it's so? That's not good enough. Find some evidence outside of the canon for the meaningfulness of Jesus' claims. The beautiful system you see in place today is the result of millions of years of evolution and change within the cosmos. There is no doubt that it is beautiful. But it is beautiful without a god to make it so.

I just feel that it is beautiful, and I believe that everyone knows beauty when they see it at such a level. Loving your neighbor as yourself, sacrificial love, heroic love, intrinsic value, objective right and wrong, I believe everyone recognizes these as beautiful. Even if they believe that they are illusions.

My point is not to argue for the truth of Christianity. It is just to say that when one is presented with two valid and trustworthy systems, that is atheistic materialism, and Christian theism, why would one choose the system that is void of obejective value. Why not choose to have faith that there is intrinsic value and therefore a God? Faith is necesary to the human condition, as an infant we have faith that our mother means to do us good, therefore we latch on to the nipple rather than play the skeptic. We must accept certain properly basic beliefs to believe anything all. I think the first a priori belief that we accept as true is that there is Truth. After this we accept that we exist. Then I think we accept that there is intrinsic value, real love which flows from our free and rational soul, true purpose, objective right and wrong and non-illusory meaning.

[Watson]

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?!

Because it isn't real. Following a meaning to its end, despite the fact that it is illusory, means that you will end with no meaning at all. So 'illusory meaning' is the same as 'no meaning.'

[Ashendant]

I just feel that it is beautiful, and I believe that everyone knows beauty when they see it at such a level. Loving your neighbor as yourself, sacrificial love, heroic love, intrinsic value, objective right and wrong, I believe everyone recognizes these as beautiful. Even if they believe that they are illusions.

Loving your neighbor as yourself

Empathy

sacrificial love

Faith(not religious faith) in a cause is independent of a Christian God, and love is chemical reaction

heroic love

Heroism is independent of a Christian god, and love is chemical reaction

intrinsic value

We are of the same species

objective right and wrong

There's no such thing, that's subjective

All that can be explained by both Biological and Social Evolution

My point is not to argue for the truth of Christianity. It is just to say that when one is presented with two valid and trustworthy systems, that is atheistic materialism, and Christian theism, why would one choose the system that is void of obejective value. Why not choose to have faith that there is intrinsic value and therefore a God? Faith is necesary to the human condition, as an infant we have faith that our mother means to do us good, therefore we latch on to the nipple rather than play the skeptic. We must accept certain properly basic beliefs to believe anything all. I think the first a priori belief that we accept as true is that there is Truth. After this we accept that we exist. Then I think we accept that there is intrinsic value, real love which flows from our free and rational soul, true purpose, objective right and wrong and non-illusory meaning.

What about Islamic Theism or Hindu Theism or Jewish Theism or Buddhism or Greek Theism or Nordic Theism or the other millions of theism that were born, died, returned and died again, and still live to this day

You can believe in other things than deities you can believe in humanity, nature or science, i have faith in those 3 things, but it's not religious faith, we as a whole are a species humanity however we evolved past Specie-ism, we are sapient being capable of rationality and mental evolution, we can move past the beliefs of those held by the past.

There is Truth, that truth is we and the Universe exist, and Intrinsic value is granted by consensus of the society, Love is just chemical reactions in our brain, there isn't a soul, just our minds, our purpose was given to us by evolution, Survive and we survive better as a society, again right and wrong is subjective, and reality might just be a illusion of a feeble mind.

[Watson]

and love is chemical reaction

I wonder how bad that tastes?

[dqualk]

Faith(not religious faith) in a cause is independent of a Christian God, and love is chemical reaction

I disagree I believe love is real. Just like I beleive that truth actually exists, and I actually exist. I believe both of those assumptions without evidence, indeed both of them are suprarational. Likewise I believe love is real. It is more real than my physical body, or any other physical quality.

All that can be explained by both Biological and Social Evolution

The fact that it can be explained in a limited sense by biological and social evoltution does not mean its true. For example, it can also be explained by use of the idea of God.

What about Islamic Theism or Hindu Theism or Jewish Theism or Buddhism or Greek Theism or Nordic Theism or the other millions of theism that were born, died, returned and died again, and still live to this day

You can believe in other things than deities you can believe in humanity, nature or science, i have faith in those 3 things, but it's not religious faith, we as a whole are a species humanity however we evolved past Specie-ism, we are sapient being capable of rationality and mental evolution, we can move past the beliefs of those held by the past.

There is Truth, that truth is we and the Universe exist, and Intrinsic value is granted by consensus of the society, Love is just chemical reactions in our brain, there isn't a soul, just our minds, our purpose was given to us by evolution, Survive and we survive better as a society, again right and wrong is subjective, and reality might just be a illusion of a feeble mind.

What about them?

You can believe in those things, but at the end of the day you are choosing to belive in something, and I think that a better arguement can be made for believing in God. I understand it is a difficult thing to wrestle with so I am not surprised when people end up on the other side of the decision. However, I think that we should all have a healthy respect for legitimate worldviews. If anything theism does make sense, and it is certainly plausible even if you or someone else cannot quite accept it for whatever reasons, perhaps a disdain for authority or the problem of evil is to big a problem to be explained away with the current explanations available.

You accept that there is a truth, but you cannot prove that there is a truth. It is something you believe with faith becuase it makes everything else make sense, and because there is something deep within you that screams that there is truth. In the same way, perhaps more complex, I believe in God, becuase He makes everything make sense, Truth, love, meaning, right and wrong, intrinsic value, and because there is something deep within me that screams God is real, love is real, Truth is real, there is a right and there is a wrong and so on.

Also, I like the way you boil it down to what I beleive is the biggest problem with materialist atheism and that is " reality might just be a illusion of a feeble mind" I believe this is what atheism ultimately leads to, and that is why we are suffering in this "post modern" mentality where nothing is real and truth is an illusion. For this reason I calim that Theism is actually more rational than atheism, becuase within Theism reason is real. In materialistic atheism even laws of nature change. I chuckeled one time when a few weeks ago when I read a BBC news article that said some scientist has found evidence that the universe has been expanding and compressing forever. He said if this is true this means that laws change. And therefore Truth changes, there is no constant by which we can make absolute observations, that is apart from, everything is always changing, which itself makes no sense when everythign is always changing.