Right. Consistency is unimportant. So be inconsistent. Admit rationality and meaning. And since consistency is unimportant it's unimportant to be consistent with the statement "Any thing inconsistent with my pretense is unimportant" so you can be inconsistent with that statement and have rationality apply.
I can pretend all those things, yes. So what's the problem again?
Again, yet again, the OP wasn't about the Noble Lie - it's about the inconsistency of meaning and purpose on atheism. My use of the NL was just an example.
So far the only argument you've presented to support your claim that atheism is inconsistent with meaning or morality is an argument from authority. Putatively, prominent atheists make this claim, so it is likely to be true. I'm showing that the prominent atheists you mention didn't make this claim, and to do so I'm showing that your examples of prominent atheists doing so are incorrect or not representative. One of your examples was proponents of the Noble Lie--by pointing out that there aren't any prominent atheist proponents of the Noble Lie, I show that your argument from authority fails.
Quote:
It isn't a question of intrinsic but of meaning greater than my own limited existence. There is meaning in a rock. So what? And if our fate is no more than that of a rock, then so what about us. If you are satisfied with the fact that you have no significance beyond your own lifespan, fine. I find that depressing. So do many thinkers in the last 200 years. And I find the existentialist solution a cry in the dark - it solves nothing. If it makes you happy then I guess I have nothing to communicate.
Okay, fine, then what's issue here? No doubt some people are depressed when they find out that Christianity (or whatever other religion they used to believe in) is false. So what? Why should the fact that this makes you and other thinkers depressed lead to the conclusion that atheism is inconsistent with meaning and morality? I thought your point was that we can't be happy and consistent atheists.
Also, our own meaning is different from that of a rock--we are conscious beings and rocks aren't. Rocks don't care about things--people do.
Right. Consistency is unimportant. So be inconsistent. Admit rationality and meaning. And since consistency is unimportant it's unimportant to be consistent with the statement "Any thing inconsistent with my pretense is unimportant" so you can be inconsistent with that statement and have rationality apply.
No. You can prove that "you can be inconsistent with that statement and have rationality apply" is always false in his system.
So far the only argument you've presented to support your claim that atheism is inconsistent with meaning or morality is an argument from authority. Putatively, prominent atheists make this claim, so it is likely to be true. I'm showing that the prominent atheists you mention didn't make this claim, and to do so I'm showing that your examples of prominent atheists doing so are incorrect or not representative. One of your examples was proponents of the Noble Lie--by pointing out that there aren't any prominent atheist proponents of the Noble Lie, I show that your argument from authority fails.
The argument begins with the fact that some atheists, like McCarthy (if he is an atheist, hard to tell), like Sartre, like Nietzsche, like Russell, like Camus - some of which I've quoted and others which I can quote - say there is no purpose or meaning beyond what the individual makes for himself. Quoting them isn't an appeal to authority. Are you saying no prominent atheists make this claim? Let's start here - just answer that question.
The argument begins with the fact that some atheists, like McCarthy (if he is an atheist, hard to tell), like Sartre, like Nietzsche, like Russell, like Camus - some of which I've quoted and others which I can quote - say there is no purpose or meaning beyond what the individual makes for himself. Quoting them isn't an appeal to authority. Are you saying no prominent atheists make this claim? Let's start here - just answer that question.
No, the argument began when you claimed that atheism is inconsistent with viewing your own life as meaningful. If you want to change your claim to: atheism is inconsistent with viewing your own life as meaningful "beyond what the individual makes for himself," then we have a different discussion. I'm much more amenable to that claim (although I'm still doubtful). But now I want to know what interesting results are supposed to follow from it. Why should it bother me so much to find out that I, rather than God, am the author of my own significance? Isn't the important point here that I am meaningful, significant, valuable, etc.?
As for your bring up famous atheists, uh, yeah, it clearly is an appeal to authority. Why else would you bring it up? Note that I think some appeals to authority are good arguments.
No, the argument began when you claimed that atheism is inconsistent with viewing your own life as meaningful. If you want to change your claim to: atheism is inconsistent with viewing your own life as meaningful "beyond what the individual makes for himself," then we have a different discussion. I'm much more amenable to that claim (although I'm still doubtful). But now I want to know what interesting results are supposed to follow from it. Why should it bother me so much to find out that I, rather than God, am the author of my own significance? Isn't the important point here that I am meaningful, significant, valuable, etc.?
As for your bring up famous atheists, uh, yeah, it clearly is an appeal to authority. Why else would you bring it up? Note that I think some appeals to authority are good arguments.
No, my OP began with
Quote:
The great pretension, "The Noble Lie", that the cold, vast, dark universe, meaningless under all reasonable definitions of meaning, without purpose and void
We can't even get past first base here. I'm going back to the very basis of the argument. The argument depends on the fact that some prominent atheists say there is no meaning beyond your own life. And I quoted some of them to show that. Which IS NOT an appeal to authority - it just isn't. It's a quotation of prominent atheists to show what they think. An appeal to authority would be quoting them to show that the universe is meaningless. But I don't think the universe is meaningless. So I would not quote prominent atheists who say the universe is meaningless to show the universe is meaningless. I quote them to show they say the universe is meaningless. So it IS NOT an appeal to authority.
is the atheist. For if God doesn't exist it is the atheist that runs the con and spins the fraud. The great pretension, "The Noble Lie", that the cold, vast, dark universe, meaningless under all reasonable definitions of meaning, without purpose and void, can yet produce anything of beauty, goodness, truth, value, joy or wonder - that is the true child abuser. To look into the eyes of a child whose mother is painfully wasting away under the ravages of the big c and tell him ... what? The truth? Lie about it? Does it matter? It is morally monstrous to pretend there is anything but the redness of tooth and claw, the utter narcissistic egoism of a blind and selfish gene, a fragile and ludicrous clinging to the ghost of a thought of reason that is actually the bastard child of chance and necessity and the impotent slave of ironclad fatalism.
If there is the slightest shred of a possibility that God exists, that Christianity is true, that there is purpose, meaning, system, freedom, that it's actually worthwhile to think, learn, observe and hope, then I consign atheism to the dungheap of thought - for why even bother to think unless God exists?
I gotta stop reading Cormac McCarthy.
Edit: Guess I should say the spoiler is about the end of The Road.
Spoiler:
I finished The Road. Father dies, child gets taken in by some good people. This about one of the women:
Quote:
She would talk to him sometimes about God. He tried to talk to God but the best thing was to talk to his father and he did talk to him and he didnt forget. The woman said that was all right. She said that the breath of God was his breath yet though it pass from man to man through all of time.
The reason this is significant to me is that after reading BM and seeing NCFOM and reading half of the Road I never saw any positive treatment of God at all from CM, just doom and gloom persistently. I recently read an interview of him and he is captivated by his youngest son which he had in old age, and based much of The Road on his relationship with him. So maybe he's wavering on atheism.
Quote:
The great pretension, "The Noble Lie", that the cold, vast, dark universe, meaningless under all reasonable definitions of meaning, without purpose and void
We can't even get past first base here.
Impressively, you manage to even misquote yourself here. After your initial claim that atheists are moral monsters, your OP actually starts by saying:
Quote:
NotReady's OP: For if God doesn't exist it is the atheist that runs the con and spins the fraud. The great pretension, "The Noble Lie", that the cold, vast, dark universe, meaningless under all reasonable definitions of meaning, without purpose and void, can yet produce anything of beauty, goodness, truth, value, joy or wonder - that is the true child abuser.
You are clearly here either assuming or arguing for the claim that if God doesn't exist, then it is false to say that the universe can produce anything of beauty, goodness, truth, etc.
Quote:
I'm going back to the very basis of the argument. The argument depends on the fact that some prominent atheists say there is no meaning beyond your own life.
What argument? That atheists are moral monsters because they tell people the truth (that there is beauty, goodness, and truth in the universe)? You earlier backed away from the claim that these atheists are being dishonest, so what is left? Only that they are being inconsistent (you even told me to substitute this term in for dishonesty). So then your argument is that atheists are being inconsistent in believing that the universe is without meaning except for what they give it and also believing that the universe has the meaning that they give it (Wait..what?)
So, what is the relevance of the claims of prominent atheists to the claim that these are inconsistent?
Quote:
And I quoted some of them to show that.
No you didn't. You quoted from a florid early article of Russell's where he said that the universe is going to end someday and from an article of Dawkins where he says we don't observe morality.
Quote:
Which IS NOT an appeal to authority - it just isn't. It's a quotation of prominent atheists to show what they think. An appeal to authority would be quoting them to show that the universe is meaningless. But I don't think the universe is meaningless. So I would not quote prominent atheists who say the universe is meaningless to show the universe is meaningless. I quote them to show they say the universe is meaningless. So it IS NOT an appeal to authority.
If your claim is, some prominent atheists claim that life is meaningless, if that is all you wish to argue for, then I'm just not interested. I find exegesis to be fairly useless on this forum, so I won't bother. If, on the other hand, you wish to argue that it somehow is an implication of atheism that life is meaningless, then I'll respond. If you are making the latter claim, then the only reason to bring up the claims of prominent atheists is as authorities on the implications of atheism.
Impressively, you manage to even misquote yourself here. After your initial claim that atheists are moral monsters, your OP actually starts by saying:
I didn't misquote. You can claim I misidentified what is the absolute beginning. But the quote I gave is accurate, not a misquote, and is in the beginning. Your post, however, is a silly quibble, probably because you had to go look up what appeal to authority means and found out you misused it. And no, if you addressed this in the rest of your post I haven't read it.
Is he actually an atheist--a very quick google didn't turn anything up and it's been several years since I read anything by him.
I found this on a forum:
Quote:
Is Cormac McCarthy an atheist?
Oprah asked him that, and his reply was, it depends on what day you ask me.
I guess he's an atheist when he writes BM, sometimes an atheist and sometimes not in NCFOM and the Road. My point isn't what someone actually believes but what he represents. CM represents existentialist nihilistic atheism very well. Mostly.
I didn't misquote. You can claim I misidentified what is the absolute beginning. But the quote I gave is accurate, not a misquote, and is in the beginning.
Whatever. You left out an essential part of your OP's thesis--the part to which I was responding. If you are going to claim that I wasn't responding to your original argument, then you should include the relevant bits and show how I misinterpreted them.
Quote:
Your post, however, is a silly quibble, probably because you had to go look up what appeal to authority means and found out you misused it. And no, if you addressed this in the rest of your post I haven't read it.
Do you often find it necessary to belittle those who disagree with you? Suffice to say that I'm already familiar with the appeal to inappropriate authority, and I didn't misuse it, and my post is not a "silly quibble," but an attempt to figure out what you are trying to say.
So I am willing to grant that some prominent atheists claim that there is no meaning in the universe beyond what sentient beings give it. This is basically my own view. Do with this as you will.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
