Naturath t1_j2lvtfi wrote
Reply to comment by _Zirath_ in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
Ironically, my comment wasn’t even meant as a critique of theism. Rather, it was a critique of your plethora of arbitrary yet undeclared presumptions. For all your attempts at forming a logical presentation, your post is littered with unsupported claims and assumptions. Your argument showed undue bias before you even finished your list of premises.
By your replies, it seems your motivation lies within a perceived “hopelessness” in a life without divine motivation and the promise of an enduring afterlife. Such is more a reflection of your own discomfort and has nothing to do with the actual precepts of naturalism nor atheism. Your declaration of “dead-end worldview” is remarkably arrogant; the beliefs of others have no duty to align with your personal feelings.
You begin with far too many assumptions. Your proposal of an alternative seeks to solve an issue you are simultaneously introducing and asserting as unquestionable. No amount of discourse can be productive when you begin with such a flawed premise.
That your assumptions happen to overlap with common Christian rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant, if not also somewhat indicative of bad faith.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lx2fn wrote
"By your replies, it seems your motivation lies within a perceived hopelessness in a life without divine motivation and the promise of an enduring afterlife."
You are already off-base. I perceive hopelessness on naturalism on the basis of its own terms, completely independent of theism. Naturalism offers only infinite nothingness and that's a problem for naturalists, some of whom have said as much to me personally.
"Your declaration of “dead-end worldview” is remarkably arrogant; the beliefs of others have no duty to align with your personal feelings."
You left off an important word. I said it is an existentially dead-end worldview. Which it is, because it asserts as much. According to naturalism, you are here by accident, for no reason, and you will cease to exist forever just as meaninglessly as you began to exist.
"No amount of discourse can be productive when you begin with such a flawed premise."
If you've got a problem with a specific premise, then you have yet to make it clear which premise that is.
"That your assumptions happen to overlap with common Christian rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant, if not also somewhat indicative of bad faith."
I am unabashedly a Christian attempting to attack naturalism, and have made this clear in my post and comments. This does not exclude good faith discussion. This is how arguments are tested, which is what this post is here for. Meanwhile, your condescension, your repeated speculation on my motivations, and your irrelevant points on theism convince me that you are the one not here in good faith.
Naturath t1_j2pomn1 wrote
>A problem for naturalists, some of whom had said as much to me personally.
Ah yes, the famous appeal to vague, uncounted and unspecified, yet unquestionable persons. Famous among populists and grade schoolers. Again, you are the one making the claim that such an idea is both problematic and also single-handedly capable of subjecting an entire belief system to “infinite negative utility,” something you continue to poorly define and justify.
You continue to prescribe some kind of divine purpose as inherent to meaning. Whether you attach objective before that word is redundant; meaning inherently is a subjective conception and not something you can arbitrarily revoke from others.
>If you’ve got a problem with a specific premise…
I have a problem with practically all your premises and their foundation on unwritten yet unavoidable preconceptions. That you somehow have managed to read through multiple paragraphs without acknowledging this is astonishing.
>This is how arguments are tested.
Your replies to others as well as to me have constantly dodged the substance of their criticisms while continuing to assert the same dubious premises. You seem less inclined to test your claims rather than defend them as unquestionably true. I speculate publicly on your motivations because you display them nakedly through your replies.
As one raised in the church myself, your argument makes a mockery of both philosophical theology and general logical debate.
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2puoy3 wrote
"Ah yes, the famous appeal to vague, uncounted and unspecified, yet unquestionable persons."
I'm just relating my experience. Why you feel so sensitive as to interpret what I said here as an argument is beyond me.
"Again, you are the one making the claim that such an idea is both problematic and also single-handedly capable of subjecting an entire belief system to “infinite negative utility,” something you continue to poorly define and justify."
Actually I have a whole post explaining my reasoning. If you're still confused, feel free to ask for clarification like an honest commenter in good faith discussion would.
"You continue to prescribe some kind of divine purpose as inherent to meaning."
I literally said that nowhere. And my argument doesn't rely at all on my theism.
"Whether you attach objective before that word is redundant"
Wrong word and wrong statement. The word is "existentially." Naturalism is an existentially dead-end worldview.
"meaning inherently is a subjective conception and not something you can arbitrarily revoke from others."
I don't believe that's true, but it's not really relevant since I am trying to make the same point: on naturalism, meaning is not objective.
"I have a problem with practically all your premises and their foundation on unwritten yet unavoidable preconceptions."
That's the definition of a vague and unspecified rebuttal if I've ever heard one, folks.
"I speculate publicly on your motivations because you display them nakedly through your replies"
This is almost humorous at this point, since I made my motivations quite clear already: I am a Christian who is here to attack naturalism and see how the philosophy community on reddit responds to an argument I like to use. So far, I have found the experience invigorating and confirming of some thoughts of mine.
"As one raised in the church myself, your argument makes a mockery of both philosophical theology and general logical debate."
Ok, feel free to get specific and discuss something of substance whenever you'd like.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments