I've always thought this a strange argument. Knowing how we feel the most positive of emotions means they're not real? Very odd. Does this mean that a beautiful vista stops being beautiful if we know our eyes work?https://twitter.com/ctlansdown/status/1004328190180020224 …
I don't know what you mean. The combination of feelings experienced inside an individual in relation to the thing being experienced is what we all experience when we feel, eg love. We might also give this an extra layer of meaning - religious, philosophical, poetic etc.
-
-
An alternative possibility is that (e.g.) your love for your child reflected a reality external to yourself that your child was good, and your feeling was merely a recognition of this objectively true reality.
-
Objectively to what? The universe doesn't care about human babies. If a god exists, it could be positive, negative or indifferent to human babies but whichever it was, it would necessarily be subjective to that god. My love exists regardless & matters more.
-
That's some impressive narcissism there. Anyway, I don't think I'll be able to explain what I mean to you.
-
Narcissism because I'll love my child because its my child and not because she and I are important to the almighty creator of the universe? Hmmm. I'll keep it simple.
-
Because your feelings matter more than reality.
-
My feelings are the subject under discussion, remember? My love for my child is the reality of my feelings. You posit that a god also exists which is a meaning you have added to those feelings. Other people add other gods or philosophical or poetic meaning.
-
Your argument essentially comes down to 'I give my feelings this additional religious meaning and no-one else can possibly have any meaning unless its the same as my meaning.' This is just an assertion of your own rightness.
-
But it's silly to say you feel sorry for atheists because they must realise their own feelings are meaningless because they'd only think so if they attributed meaning in the same way as you do and then they wouldn't be atheists. They'd be Catholics.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.