Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
I think I’m a flying eagle therefore I am a flying eagle.
Nigeria's national team image has undergone much evolution throughout its history. Prior to independence, they were called the Red Devils due to their red topped kits.[16] The name was changed to the Green Eagles after independence in reference to the Nigerian state flag as well as the eagle which adorns the country's coat of arms. There had been deliberations for a while heading to the 1988 Africa Cup of Nations, where they were still called the Green Eagles, but at a reception after the tournament, the team's name was officially changed to the "Super Eagles".[17][18] Today, only the senior men's national team uses the nickname. The women's national team is called the "Super Falcons", and Nigeria's underage male teams are nicknamed the "Flying Eagles" & the "Golden Eaglets". [**]
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
He would have to imagine either way I suppose. 

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Shouldn't I sacrifice my own eternal happiness to bring eternal happiness to as many people as I possibly can?
What difference does it make? Your mind seems pretty made up to me.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't find punishment or reward meaningfull at all. 
It’s not up to you to decide what is and isn’t meaningful.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
our internal reality
Elaborate please.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
I don't find punishment or reward meaningfull at all. 
It’s not up to you to decide what is and isn’t meaningful.
Please tell me what is meaningful.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
It’s not up to you to decide what is and isn’t meaningful.
I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it to with this whole "I'm not trying to say there is a god but how do you find meaning without one" schtick that you have going on here. I think you are trying to get at the point that there HAS TO BE some god without actually making the claim because you know you can't demonstrate that claim.

I could just as easily ask how you justify believing in meaning if you can't demonstrate any god(s) and don't know the specific criteria some god(s) would judge you based on and you don't have a more satisfactory answer than I do. At least you haven't shared it.

Not making the claim that your preferred god exists EXPLICITLY does not absolve you of the burden of proof IMPLICIT in demanding I justify not believing in one. Especially when I have explained why I do not believe repeatedly. 

IF you think there is meaning (as you define it) and IF you believe that meaning is contingent upon some god(s) THEN you have to demonstrate some god before your belief in meaning is justified. 

Also I would like to share a possible alternative definition of meaning just between us and just for the purposes of this conversation. 

ALTERNATIVE TO THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION OF MEANING a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Purpose. Direction. The baseline reason not to just give up.

I believe that this encompasses your definition in your case and I put it forward as therefore being more acceptable to us both. I think it could have great utility furthering any conversation regarding some justification for living. If you need a reason beyond I want to keep living whatever living is.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I could just as easily ask how you justify believing in meaning
No you can’t because I didn’t argue in favor of it I just argued what it requires.

Not making the claim that your preferred god exists EXPLICITLY does not absolve you of the burden of proof IMPLICIT in demanding I justify not believing in one.
EXPLICITLY > IMPLICITLY

The baseline reason not to just give up.
Which is?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
our internal reality
Elaborate please.
The thought picture your brain makes of the world so that you can "know" what is "true".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
"I'm not trying to say there is a god but how do you find meaning without one"
It's called "affirming the consequent" or "motivated reasoning" or "poisoning the well".

(IFF) NIHILISM = NOT-THEISM (AND)
(IFF) NIHILISM = UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS (THEN) THEISM = TRUE

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA).

Unfortunately, even if we accept this without any scrutiny whatsoever, we're still completely lost.

WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT ME TO DO?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
No you can’t because I didn’t argue in favor of it I just argued what it requires.
Ok so let's assume there is no meaning. If that's the case then you don't have meaning either and are also therefore a nihilist. Unless there is meaning then your question becomes silly because if there is no meaning as you define it then you are just doing things for reasons of your own and it doesn't matter what you imagine those reasons are and I'm not questioning your right to believe what you believe I'm asking why.

You by contrast seem profoundly disinterested in my explanation of why I believe those things I do in favor of questioning my right to even believe as I do without measuring it against a system whose rules I don't know enforced in some unspecified way by a deity you are not even willing to argue exists. 
Not making the claim that your preferred god exists EXPLICITLY does not absolve you of the burden of proof IMPLICIT in demanding I justify not believing in one.
EXPLICITLY > IMPLICITLY
Yes but you don't get to suggest that only a god can offer meaning and act as though you then don't have a burden of proof for both or you cannot justify having any meaning either. You have painted yourself into a corner where you must demonstrate god BEFORE you can justify that your life has meaning.

How do I justify my life without a god? How do you justify your life with one? You keep saying there is no reason to have this conversation if no god(s) exists and I just care about what I care about anyway by extension there is also no reason to have this conversation and you just care about what you care about anyway and that includes caring about what is possibly just a gentle fiction concerning some ultimate caretaker of human morality. Can you demonstrate that your half of the conversation has had meaning? If not then why expect anyone else too?

May I ask if you looked into the matter logically without being primarily concerned with your personal confusion or comfort and come to the uncomfortable and confusing conclusion that you cannot in fact demonstrate any god even to yourself, do you think you would stop living life and trying to be kind rather than cruel in as much as you can even identify the two?
The baseline reason not to just give up.
Which is?
Which is subjective to each person. 
It’s not up to you to decide what is and isn’t meaningful.
On the contrary. ONLY you can decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I can decide what is meaningful to me. At least when MEANING=REASON TO LIVE/OBSERVE SELF ACCOUNTABILITY/TRY TO BE KIND RATHER THAN CRUEL IN AS MUCH AS WE CAN EVEN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
It's called "affirming the consequent" or "motivated reasoning" or "poisoning the well".

(IFF) NIHILISM = NOT-THEISM (AND)
(IFF) NIHILISM = UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS (THEN) THEISM = TRUE

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA).

Unfortunately, even if we accept this without any scrutiny whatsoever, we're still completely lost.

WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT ME TO DO?
Well stated. 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,977
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Nihilism exists in contrast with the concept of god(s).
Maybe try to think outside the box.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
Nihilism exists in contrast with the concept of god(s).
Maybe try to think outside the box.
Please explain how the concept of god(s) in any way contradict "nihilism".
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Reece101
Nihilism exists in contrast with the concept of god(s).
Maybe try to think outside the box.
I'm afraid that any problem with soft nihilism (the idea that one cannot prove any intrinsic message or value) you think I must grapple with are not really resolved in any way by appeals to some god and also that even if we definitionally equate nihilism with religiosity theism and nihilism are not the only possible positions (atheist Buddhists for example) nor are they mutually exclusive (a deists for example might believe in a god but not in intrinsic meaning and value) so this is in all ways a false dichotomy.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Yay... false equivalences. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yay... false equivalences. 
Please be slightly more specific.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
theism and nihilism are not the only possible positions (atheist Buddhists for example) nor are they mutually exclusive (a deists for example might believe in a god but not in intrinsic meaning and value) so this is in all ways a false dichotomy.
Great point.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
I think therefore I am refers to  instinctive knowledge.

Which is not to say that the actual phrase "I think therefore I am" does not require externally acquired data. 

Don't get hung up on the phrase and ignore the basic function.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Not you, but Tarik's, sorry I should have been more specific.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Please tell me what is meaningful.
You quoted the answer already.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Please tell me what is meaningful.
You quoted the answer already.
Are you suggesting that even if I have no idea if a specific action will be rewarded or punished, it is still meaningful?

Are you suggesting it's meaningful even if nobody knows what that meaning is (good or bad)?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
ONLY you can decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I can decide what is meaningful to me.
Prove it.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
Yay... false equivalences. 
If you’re not gonna demonstrate your assertion then your argument is null and void.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I think therefore I am refers to  instinctive knowledge.
So what did you mean when you mentioned this in regards to God?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that even if I have no idea if a specific action will be rewarded or punished, it is still meaningful?
Meaning isn’t predicated on one’s ignorance.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Are you suggesting that even if I have no idea if a specific action will be rewarded or punished, it is still meaningful?
Meaning isn’t predicated on one’s ignorance.
Is that a "YES"?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t know but it probably depends on the action.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
ONLY you can decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I can decide what is meaningful to me.
Prove it.
If you want to be pedantic and reach for 100 percent certainty I can't but what I can do is dismiss any higher meaning that has not been demonstrated and for the purposes of forming sound and reasonable arguments that is sufficient to meet your challenge.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know but it probably depends on the action.
Well can you at least give us an example of a meaningful act and a meaningless act with a rigorous review of what makes each meaningful or not?