An instant classic!one of atheism’s many consoling delusions in the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existenceSo because the statement "broccoli tastes good" has no objective truth value, believing that "broccoli tastes good to me" would be delusional? Try criticizing subjective meaning in a way that doesn't just boil down to you saying "subjective meaning is worthless because it is subjective". And while you're at it, try doing the same for subjective morality.The only joy in an atheist’s life is that which they derive from whatever they find appealing: be it food, travel, money, sex, family, etc.Man, that DOES sound terrible.Y'know, Mariano, I get the sense that as a kid you never built sandcastles because they would just get washed away. You live for a future that will never come and belittle the joys of this life. But I guess that is the logical conclusion of your worldview. When you will live for an infinite period of time in bliss, the marginal value of this life is exactly zero. It makes no difference if this life lasts 80 years or 80 seconds, it would still last 0% of your overall time.Unlike you, I have actually wasted some portion of my life on this post, so I'm going to go back to enjoying this life and all the subjective meaning I assign it while I can.Best,Anon
So true ! how much of Richard Dawkins life is wasted on churchianity. Ooops what am I doing here I had better get back to surfing
"Y'know Mariano, I get the sense that as a kid you never built sandcastles because they would just get washed away."Well, we could follow the internet atheist method - which is to lie in the sand and do nothing (they seem to prefer to do this in front of a computer), and denying the whole time that the beach even exists. And enjoying their life all the while - until someone decides by their own subjective standards to bury them in the sand.
Anon, having subjective meaning isn't delusional. It's that many atheists pretend that this subjective meaning is really objective. As an example, an atheist has no objective reason not to eat babies. Before you pounce, I know that you almost certainly (I don't know who I'm talking to) have NO desire to eat babies. You simply have no objective reason not to. Of course there are a number of elements that go into your non-desire to eat babies like the rest of us, but these reasons (e.g. evolution, natural selection, herd mentality) just are. You can't pretend that a law against eating babies - we'll just call it cannibalism - has any objective basis in reality. You and most of your society just happen to find it repugnant and have the power to enforce compliance. However, some atheists would say "I just know it's wrong" or something similar, but that was "decided" by forces in a universe that's just here. At the subatomic level all matter in the universe is exactly the same - protons, neutrons, and electrons - and everything is governed by laws that are just here. Your enjoyment of broccoli is not delusional. The idea that broccoli is objectively good and that those who think otherwise are wrong is delusional, but I think Mariano worded that rather poorly. Sorry for the long post.
This website is hysterical! PhD philosphers come here for good laughs and examples of logical failures.