It includes lands that Russia doesn’t even currently control. Kremlin “peace talks” have always been fundamentally deranged.

>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.

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.

OP cannot seem to comprehend a meaningful life or sense of morality without divine inspiration. This is highly reminiscent of Christian theology which argues all “good” comes from God. Their premises all require this fundamentally unfounded assumption, in a rather telling display of preconception and bias.

OP disregards the plethora of historical and modern examples of theocratic governments and religious figures who have actively acted in “negative utility” towards humanity’s wellbeing. Their idea that theism can “potentially” inspire infinite good is arbitrarily decided, artificially restricting such potential from non-theist sources with no actual reasoning as to why.

The fact that OP considers caring about future generations and one’s own legacy postmortem as a purely theist idea is laughable. This is a clear example of beginning at a conclusion and vomiting words, hoping the audience isn’t actually paying attention.

OP is naive at best, though I personally find such rhetoric more likely to be intentionally deceptive.

The entire chessboard gets worse the more you look at it.