Before I get started I think I should remind people that you might have a viewpoint where there are various beliefs that are all equal. To judge my statements you need to be able to remove yourself from that framework and analyze my conclusions working from within both a materialist (Nothing, but physical reality exists) and my own Christian framework.
Remember I am working from an exclusive framework that views reality in a particular way and the view I'm examining is also exclusive and does not allow for any other viewpoints.
Therefore, my criticisms of that viewpoint has nothing to do with how I think the world actually is and how people should actually behave.
If you don't understand this and cannot do this then please don't ever use the term open minded to describe yourself. If you can't shift between viewpoints for the sake of analysis and can't understand when other people are doing that then you are not open minded.
As a reminder this is what I originally wrote:
The existence of God is the ONLY way ANY "fantasy" like significance, love, meaning etc. can be grounded in reality. It's illogical and inconsistent to reject God and then think that it's somehow superior to only pretend that life has significance and not that life is governed by God.
If there is no God then they're both fantasies and there's really only one way to reject ALL fantasy...
Thank God most people just choose to be inconsistent, especially since their premise is wrong.
To be fair, if someone disagrees with your view of reality, it comes across more like this:
This makes me think that you don't understand what tolerance means.
Tolerance isn't refusing to disagree with people. It's putting up with them to a certain extent despite your disagreement.
So your depiction of me as coercive is just an attack based on modern society's misunderstanding of tolerance and has no basis in reality.
You also erroneously have an "all or nothing" view of the universe. Just because something might not have universal significance across the board for everyone does not mean that it doesn't have personal significance to me in my particular corner of the universe; and that's actually acceptable.
If I'm working within and analyzing a materialistic framework I'm going to start from a mile high view outside of social conventions. You say personal significance is acceptable and my question is: by what authority? The highest authority in a materialistic framework is social convention? And ultimately what is social convention? Just shit people make up.
Do you think an individual's pain, or a small community's pain, doesn't matter at all to those people if God does not exist? It affects their quality of life regardless. Or that people can't invest in something with integrity just because it might not have eternal religious significance? For that period in time, for those people, in that place, it does matter and it does impact the quality of their existence.
Sure, nothing I wrote negates that. Also, in a materialist system none of what you wrote changes the fact that it's still fantasy no matter what the impact. It's not just a matter of religious significance. It's a matter of being connected to a metaphysical reality. So, unless it hasn't been clear already my critique only works with a system that denies metaphysical reality. It doesn't work for pantheists, spiritually minded agnostics, deists etc. By the way, my critique is part of the reason why deists are deists and not atheists.
You seem to have such a binary view: If you're not agreeing with your particular view of the universe, then you might as well end your life now.
That's not what I said at all. Remember I'm a Christian and I think suicide is a sin (NOT a mortal sin).
There is no implied ought in my statement above it's merely a logical conclusion.
Black and white simplifies decision-making but doesn't really do the topic justice.
I think my statements are perfectly logical. That doesn't mean that within many contexts they would be inappropriate, damaging, etc.
There's a lot people say about brutalization that occurs with the loss of universal meaning, but there's quite a bit of brutalization that has occurred in the name of universal meaning since people can now be labeled as enemies opposed to one side's view of truth.
I mean... your problem is that without God you don't have a universal standard to even judge what happened in the past as brutal. It's just stuff that happened that you personally would have preferred not happened.
Save us, God, bring back the Middle Ages!
Now who's being absolutist?
Remember we're only speaking in terms of fantasy and reality. While you might prefer modern secular "realistic" views of beliefs over the fantastic beliefs of the middle ages the practices seem to be quite the opposite. People in the middle ages embraced reality as they kept their old in the home and the dead close at hand in church graveyards in the west and shrines in the east. In modern times we keep the old and dying away from the rest of society in rest homes and we utilize every means possible to distract us from reality whether it's tv, video games, or online forums.
I doubt very much that that's Beorn's actual view of the world. He just wants to win the argument, whether it's by obfuscating, deflecting, using fallacies, putting words into people's mouths...
Do you care to come down from your well entrenched spot in the peanut gallery and prove to me that your claims aren't baseless?
Anyone who has read my posts knows I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong about something that can be proven.
If you are currently operating within the paradigm that your/the God is the only truth, then yes, this holds true. Similarly, people who are not within your paradigm cannot understand how you feel so strongly. Our understandings of life outside our paradigms are limited by our paradigms.
This made me think that you actually understood what I was saying.
Alas...
However, once we leave that paradigm... well, significance, love, meaning, beauty, truth... they are all still present, even if you can't see or believe it. Fortunately, those who leave your paradigm discover this.
This remains true even if you end up being right in the end. Those on the outside still have found significance, love, meaning, and so on. Perhaps they lack something... like an understanding of the world through your eyes.
Yes, people find personal significance. I never said they didn't. I merely noted that if there is no metaphysical reality than it's all in their heads.
Moreover, suicide, in the vast majority of cases, has nothing to do with taking a religious stance.
I never said it did.
Typically, it is a devastating and irreversible consequence of people suffering in solitude and feeling trapped, hopeless, and like there is no other way out.
Trust me. I know.
To me it is highly distasteful bordering on potentially harmful to imply it, however indirectly, as the "only" option for those who are not in agreement with your beliefs to fully live a meaningful life.
The perceived implication is not only unfair it doesn't even make sense. As I said above there was no implied "ought" in what I wrote. It was merely a logical conclusion based on an if/then scenario. If there is no God (and only material reality) then any notion of significance beyond material reality is fantasy. Therefore there is only one way to reject all fantasy.
I made pretty clear that's not the outcome I desire and I'm glad material atheist pick and choose what fantasies they believe in rather than being consistent.