I said a healthy balance, I didn't say it was guaranteed to sit well with the lightweights.

I didn't say throw up your hands, I just said the world isn't going to get it's shit together to avoid the disastrous future that optimists tried to steer us from gently for the last 75 years. Everyone would need to cut most of their fossil fuel usage and plastics about 40 years ago. Since then it's been an exceleration with capitalists on the side dumping money in to 'optimism' for the masses so they can keep profiting. It's just like anytime someone tries to remind everyone we don't have free energy and carbon capture isn't going to save us in time, they get shouted down for being a buzzkill. Like the the global warming episode of always sunny- I don't want just one shot, I want seven! I don't wanna stop! I don't wanna slow down! The world is programmed by consumption and there are too many people. Look up the difference between a million seconds and a billion.

>while not self-contradictory on its face, you yourself have not developed any reason to think this is true in any possible world.

Some more grasping at straws and more evidence that you're being far more generous if it comes to how you hold on tight to your own views to such an extent that it makes you unable to adopt the views of others, be it even just as a hypothetical.

>It's certainly not a given and neither is your statement.

Doesn't have to be a given it just has to be hypothetically possible and if it hasn't been falsified or if it is unfalsifiable or contradictory it's logically possible. Anything else again is purely distraction.

>since there is no reason given here to think it's actually possible in a given world and compatible with reality.

It doesn't have to be actually possible. I think your God in actuality is (at least very close to if not completely) impossible but theism still allows for objective meaning based on their statement that a personal God exists and gives people objective meaning. Logical possibility is all that matters for this to hold truth value. (which I already explained when I said "In the first statement it does not matter whether God truly exists, or why God exists, or why he has given us objective meaning, or how God has given us objective meaning." but which you ignored.

and as such:

>You seem to take it that it's a foregone conclusion and compatible with reality, while I've expressed there seems to be good reasons to think that's not clear.

No, this is a strawman fallacy and this is not about what we think is compatible with reality or not. This is about whether naturalism can include objective meaning or not, not about whether you (or I for that matter) accept objective meaning under naturalism. Your beliefs on the possibility of such an objective meaning being able to exist under naturalism in any way are irrelevant, again.

I could potentially reject objective meaning under naturalism in the same manner that I reject your God belief and the supernatural but this does not change that naturalism is not antithetical toward objective meaning (as long as it's natural) just as it doesn't change that theism isn't antithetical toward (God given) objective meaning.

"Harry Potter fought a dragon using magic and won"

Is Harry Potter real? Probably not we know he's fictional and therefore doesn't exist beyond the imaginary. Can he then in actuality have fought a dragon and won? Probably not as again he's imaginary. Is there any logical contradiction in the statement that Harry Potter fought a dragon and won? No! Then the Harry Potter Universe allows for wizards to fight dragons and win. Doesn't matter if the Harry Potter Universe exists or can in actuality exist, or if Harry Potter exists, or if dragons are real, or if magic is real, or how whether you can or if you are willing to explain how magic works or how it can defeat a dragon. As long as you can't falsify that statement the Harry Potter Universe allows for it, just as naturalism allows for objective purpose (as long as it's natural and unfalsified).

You already admitted that there's no logical contradiction so even if it was complete fictional hogwash and impossible in any world apart from the imaginary world inside our heads (which it could be) that still wouldn't save you (as long as you can't falsify it). Again, the logical consistency is not something you can get around.

But you keep straw-manning and desperately keep trying to force me into a position I do not necessarily hold, as you know very well that if I would take that position some of your arguments would be valid. That's not my argument however and metaphysical possibility holds no relevance here.

​

>since your last statement is completely incompatible with naturalism, as naturalism doesn't allow for the actual independent existence of non-physical abstract objects like numbers.

lol. If anything illustrates the whole point of the matter it's this. I'm not locked into naturalism so I can look at other people's views and see whether they are contradictory. Locked into your self-imposed theistic prison you can do nothing but accept (even as hypothetical) only the views which align with theism.

>but at least the theist is developing an argument.

So did I, I gave and alluded to several even. You ignoring it because it's not convenient to your existing beliefs or because it doesn't go in the direction you want it to go doesn't make it not an argument.

>The problem is that you're conflating the boat discussion with the objective purpose discussion- they are distinct.

lol sure if this acrobatic jugglery you performed here wasn't merely mental you'd be all wrapped up in a knot right now.

>Except that you are insistent on attacking the veracity of theism

No, YOU are attacking the veracity of your own theism if you're using arguments against naturalistic propositions which would be just as relevant if it comes to your own God belief. It could be so easy to just stop and think for a second before you utter your critiques and see if it doesn't also apply to something you already believe in (or even more so apply lol). But then luckily for you those arguments are pretty bad and don't falsify anything but it still makes way for a strong case of cognitive dissonance.

As you've repeatedly shown yourself to be unable to show honesty to yourself, your own views as well as showing honesty to others further debate seems futile. I unfortunately don't possess enough faith to believe you're not purposefully being obtuse at this point. Good luck to you and hopefully you'll make it out of your prison some day.

Sorry this comes off as someone who’s never stepped foot in a kitchen. You can most certainly over season with pepper. Especially if the person can’t handle spice, example: the fine people of Great Britain.

We always have our heritage, but we wake up as mentally blind, getting senses of awareness, conscious. When we have enough in the system, it’s self feeding, but we are very aware of it. But how we interpret it, that’s a whole different story and outcome.

I read the color argument, I think they also tryed to advocate like the emotions we have attached with like blue. If you are a oceanic culture and such. Small scale it’s nothing, but wide scale it could be interesting. Especially in a fragmented perspective on “reality”. But we also see it in the development of Latin. I just hope we learn to respect language and emotions more, it seems out of touch with a proper reality resonance.

No, I don’t believe that naturalism must be true. My argument is about hope based on comfort alone and how it’s ridiculous to push that onto naturalists as if you know better when you don’t understand what they believe. This argument has shifted in so many directions from the basis of the OP. I’ll be bold and say it seems clear that you aren’t arguing to find a truth or to understand others

“Why would moving on with life matter when you will die and lose everything?” I already addressed this. If you think it’s a waste, then you are once again operating on blind hope and comfort and ignoring what others find value and beauty in

“These are not life or death” I take strong issue with someone hoping for years despite all contrary evidence that an ex will take them back, that an abuser will stop abusing, that a job will magically appear when I need it. That is all needless pain or passivity all in the service of hope. Tell this to the guys who still hope an ex will come back even after they’ve married someone else. You do not argue temporary coping, you argue for a perpetual mechanism to go through life and for everyone else to take it into consideration

If you still wonder those questions, then I don’t think you understand my point, so I’ll spell it out. Do I want an afterlife? Yes. Do I want to never again feel physical or emotional pain in my entire life? Yes. Do I want to end all suffering in the world? Yes. Do I want the ability to time travel and change things in my life? Yes. Were there many things I wanted for myself and for others as a kid that I later learned could not happen bc life doesn’t work that way? Yes. What do any of those wants get me? Nothing. We operate in reality, not fantasy. We grow up from being naive children because maturity is an admirable trait. This is the world, regardless of what we hope for in our heads, regardless of what we find comfortable

If you want to ask a direct answer to understand my view, go ahead. If we are just going to keep arguing Pascal and returning to points already addressed, then I’m gonna bid farewell. It’s been a pleasure

Of course. But there’s no circumstance that could make striving to make tomorrow better than today not worthwhile. Regardless of what’s ahead, throwing up our hands benefits no one.

This is so sad. No, I'm just experienced.

Get your head out of your ass and grow up, do some things with your life before you latch on to some weird ideology. You're just being a weird fanatic at this point.

Not meant to be an insult, just concerned advice.

We're gonna keep burning, thx.

• the world

And lol that you think wasting time deciphering Amazon reviews makes you special.

You asked a question that doesn't really have an answer. Like a believer saying well you don't know what caused the big bang so despite the evidence I believe the (insert specific God claim here) did it!

Tens of millions in the face of billions and a century of pollution. Are you aware of us being the cause of the 6th mass extinction on earth currently?

You want bad faith argumentation, you didn't even really answer me.

Just as I said, full-on pessimism just leads to an excess of political activist/dismissive dunderhead types.

If you can't even tell the difference between real and fake reviews, you've got a lot of learning to do before you've earned the right to be pessimistic.

Goodbye.

Your comment is the first of any on this discussion that even scratches the surface of the ‘best’ attitude that is needed to move forward on the crises of climate change, political neo-fascism, the cult like thinking that leads to religious bigotry and the influence it has on morality, etc. I think we’re about at the stage of ‘what is needed is a 2x4 to the back of the head’ of our current capitalist/consumer society. The hedonistic me-me-me path we have followed for to long has brought us to a time in which we must decide if, as a species, we intend to go on. We have the resources and knowledge to turn things around, but we also can use these tools to continue on the path of crashing and burning as we have for far to long the past century or so.

>Sure! When I've failed at something and then done some preparation to raise my chances at success, I feel optimistic that it'll work when I try again!

We haven't even begun to try to change the system, and we have been told for a century that the world is going to choke to death if we keep doing what we're doing. The optimism of the world is just kicking the can down the road.

>So you just don't consult any reviews on the internet? That's pretty pessimistic.

Another demonstration of your bad faith argumentation. I said Amazon, cause reviews are bought and merchandise is fraudulent often. I don't buy anything of consequence from Amazon.

This is the best optimism has to offer? Deceit for the sake of feeling good for another short while until reality calls you back to the fact the world is dying?

I hope we're not expecting thousands of up votes for this post, but somehow I suspect you didn't.😉

If the circumstance were less dire, there might be conceivable temporary tradeoffs to accepting less favorable beliefs e.g. self preservation with the murder example. But given the life-or-death stakes of perma-death and the permanency of perma-death, avoiding the loss of literally everything seems like as good a reason as any to motivate the naturalist to try and disprove naturalism.

"It’s not that anyone is hoping there isn’t an afterlife in any form whatsoever, it is that is completely pointless to hope for something that will not happen."

You say this as if you are certain. Do you really think it's a certainty that naturalism is true? That there's not even an infinitesimal chance it's false? I don't think most naturalists I've interacted with would defend that.

"Blind hope based on subjective comfort keeps people from moving on with their lives and can be directly harmful to life."

On naturalism, why would moving on with life matter? You will die and lose everything. And temporary living doesn't seem to satisfy- I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wipes of its contents.

"Hoping that an ex partner will take me back will prevent me from moving on and finding the relationship I am meant to be in. Hoping that I will be fine by walking into traffic blind will not make me live longer."

Such examples don't match up, since these are not matters of life and death, and serve some benefit (albeit temporary) to believe as mentioned above.

I'm still left wondering:

1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?

2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?

This attitude is why pessimism leads nowhere but the grave. Every day, tens of millions of people are working to apply existing solutions to mitigate climate change or to develop new ones. You’re even hyperfocusing on certain elements of society to paint covid as a loss, and not as the tremendous achievement of medical science it was to develop safe, effective, and mass produceable vaccines with ground breaking technology.

To say that there is no hope is a self-fulfilling prophecy and does not match the evidence we have.

Is there really a difference between hopeful pessimism and what I'd call realistic optimism?

If not, then I think we've been going over it already.

If you want to operate off that hope, okay, but I take issue with you saying that others should operate off your blind hope and pursuit of comfort over life. Is there a good reason to hope that no one will ever murder ever again? To hope that an abusive relative will stop hurting me if I just love them even harder? I’m not saying acceptance of naturalism is a mark of maturity, I am saying that arguing based entirely on hope and comfort is antithetical to children learning about life and maturing

It’s not that anyone is hoping there isn’t an afterlife in any form whatsoever, it is that is completely pointless to hope for something that will not happen. Blind hope based on nothing but comfort keeps people from moving on with their lives. It can waste emotional energy, it can encourage unhealthy passivity, and it can be directly harmful to life. Hoping for years that an ex partner will take me back will prevent me from moving on and finding the relationship I am meant to be in. Hoping that every driver will swerve away as I’m walking into traffic blind will not be conducive to a goal of long life. The whole point of maturing is learning that life and existence do not operate on hope, no matter how much any of us want it to be

Your use of the analogy to say that it is either inaction or action is flawed by you are assuming that there must be a stage for action, a place of loss and gain. That isn’t a good argument for hope bc you are already supposing too much and has the exact same flaws as Pascal’s Wager

>Demonstrate a reason for optimism and we can talk

Sure! When I've failed at something and then done some preparation to raise my chances at success, I feel optimistic that it'll work when I try again!

And it's a realistic optimism, tempered by the lessons of my failure! So it is a thing.

​

>I do not consult Amazon reviews at all, theyre not verifiable.

So you just don't consult any reviews on the internet? That's pretty pessimistic.

But it's not denial, since I'm not saying anyone should deny naturalism on this basis. If they find it to be most rational, they're rational to hold that view. But I think there's no reason to be satisfied with it, however. There's good reason to hope it's not true and no reason to hope it is. If "maturity" is sitting on the boat waiting for death, then I'll take fighting to live every time. I don't see naturalism as a certainty, and therefore I see life as a possibility.

1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?

2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?

They were convicted of breaking the law, although they might not have. One alternative term is incarcerated children.

Until someone shows a metric that is grounds for optimism, we've drained that well. No one has done shit with the hopeful messages of working for a brighter tomorrow! that have been pushed for decades. It's just hijacked to sell you more shit. We're not gonna even slow global warming and you think optimism still has merit or that people will change if you talk nicer to them? There are 8 billion people now, and to have to babystep any percentage of that to motivate them positively is an impossible task. We saw exactly how the world is going to react to collective action with COVID. There's not a single drop of hope for anything changing even if it's going to only mildly inconvenience the average person. Always look on the bright side, but it's hard to have a bright side with an ever dimming bulb.