Sociopath Community

What you're doing is basically, pointing at a rock and saying "What is the inherent meaning of this rock" except you're applying that question to people. 

Yes I said "Your entire being was prepared to take on assignments for whatever environment you'd spawn into, and that includes adopting all of what has assigned meanings, like language."

You're dismissing the important part of that quote which is "You're entire being was prepared to take on assignments". The fact you can even think and learn in the first place are inherent traits, but the reason why you won't see any meaning in it is because you're an atheist with faith in atheism. You think science will eventually find out why or how we can be conscious so in advance you'd argue there's no creator without evidence of that. 

Here's my claim which cannot be compatible with an atheist perspective. 

- Inherent meaning refers to significance and purpose. 

The atheist ( That being you ) doesn't believe we have significance or purpose. Some suggest this due to the amount of space there is in the universe and how small we are compared to worlds and other shit out there. We're all a part of that though, hence us being here and what we're made out of. 

The atheist will argue "What does it mean ? But what does it mean inherently though ?!" Forget purpose and meaning, what about inherent meaning !" All while ignoring inherent traits about us.

Applying the word and concept of "inherent" where they cannot even begin to agree or believe any of it in the first place, then bring it to arguments. Like why ask about something when you do not and cannot believe it ?

.

.

.

I don't believe this is all an accident. You do. I'm fine leaving it at that, cause if you ever find your way, it cannot be from me, plus it really doesn't keep me up at night.  

You're still conflating inherent properties with inherent meaning.

Inherent properties ≠ inherent meaning.

Yes, humans inherently have consciousness, biological functions, instincts, and the capacity to learn. None of that proves existence has a built-in purpose or significance.

"Prepared to take on assignments" only shows that organisms can adapt and learn assigned meanings. It does not show that those meanings were inherent beforehand.

You're also smuggling design into the word "prepared." If you mean a creator intentionally prepared us for a purpose, then you first have to establish that creator and purpose. You cannot assume design and then use that assumption as proof of design.

My atheism is irrelevant. "You have not demonstrated objective purpose" is not the same claim as "I have proven there is no creator."

And I never argued humans are meaningless because we're small compared to the universe. That's your argument, not mine.

So yes, I have inherent traits and biological functions. What you still haven't shown is how any of that becomes inherent meaning.

Inherent properties are a part of us, just as inherent meaning is. You're just dismissing the very function as something else. 

When you think it means you are thinking and you're inherently doing it. 

Atheism is relevant cause the argument in itself is a common question in atheism and that is "What is inherent meaning".

You won't get the answer even if it was handed to you on a gold platter. cause you don't believe in God to begin with. 

Gemini said:

The concept of inherent meaning is closely linked to the belief in a creator, though it is not strictly exclusive to a personal, traditional God.

 As stated, you cannot see things the way I see it. In my personal opinion it's all part of your refusal. So no I do not conflate inherent properties with inherent meaning, as those attributes are in place for the meaning itself.

The answer is also so simple, even I had a hard time accepting it at first, but it can only be true. 

Gemini said:

The Connection to a Creator

• The Theistic View: In many religious and theistic traditions, meaning is considered inherent or predetermined because an intentional creator or conscious agent designed the universe with a specific purpose in mind. In this framework, human life has built-in value and an objective "why" granted from above.

• Impersonal vs. Personal Origins: Some philosophical or deistic views entertain an origin point or a first cause (such as an impersonal force or prime mover), yet an inherent, intentional purpose typically requires a conscious mind

 

The View Without a Creator

• Atheism and Naturalism: Naturalists and many secular philosophers generally argue that the universe is indifferent and lacks a pre-written script or inherent design.

• Constructed Meaning: In the absence of an inherent or God-given meaning (a central theme in existentialism), thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre or Friedrich Nietzsche proposed that humans are not handed an objective purpose; instead, people must actively build, assign, or discover meaning through their own actions, values, and relationships.

 So once again. No I'm not conflating the meaning. Inherent meaning exists because we were created by a consciousness and not some random accident. 

What I'm pointing out is how I already know you don't believe in Inherent Meaning in the first place, yet you choose to bring it up anyway for argument sake. 

You got your answer though. 

You're still assuming the part I'm asking you to prove.

Having inherent properties like consciousness does not automatically mean we have inherent meaning. Saying those traits exist "for the meaning" just assumes a purpose behind them.

And saying we were created by a consciousness also needs to be established first. Even then, a creator assigning a purpose would show assigned purpose, not necessarily inherent meaning.

My atheism is irrelevant to whether your argument is valid. You still need to show the logical connection between inherent traits and inherent meaning.

Dragoonback said: 

You're still assuming the part I'm asking you to prove.

What your asking for is a change of your perspective, that which I cannot do for you. 

Having inherent properties like consciousness does not automatically mean we have inherent meaning.

Yes it does.

Saying those traits exist "for the meaning" just assumes a purpose behind them.

And they do have purpose. Every part. 

Must be frustrating seeing how well your body functions, seeing each part's purpose, but then having to ignore they are by design while assuming it's all a big accident on such a grand scale, not even we who are conscious can do better.

And saying we were created by a consciousness also needs to be established first.

Seems like you've forgotten who you're talking to.  That plus you don't particularly bring this shit up with others. My stance on consciousness behind creation is nothing new. 

Even then, a creator assigning a purpose would show assigned purpose, not necessarily inherent meaning.

You wouldn't actually know that for sure. 

My atheism is irrelevant to whether your argument is valid. You still need to show the logical connection between inherent traits and inherent meaning.

 Actually I don't need to. I already gave you your answer. 

You want me to force you to believe something you don't believe in. You're asking ME of all people to do that. I already told you i'm the last person who can help you with that. 

What's true is you don't believe in "inherent meaning" and while that's the case you're suggesting I have to prove it to you. I really don't have to though. 

The issue is we have different core beliefs. I recognize this, and you still don't.

.

.

.

In the end. I don't care about your nihilism. Don't care if you're close to God, many aren't. Don't care if you think I'm dangerous or if you'd go as far as to suck Leggasuck's anus just to have a swing at me. I still think I'm your favorite one here though. 

You keep describing your conclusion instead of establishing it.

Humans have biological functions. What does not follow is that those functions constitute inherent existential meaning.

Saying “every part has a purpose” is ambiguous. If you mean biological function, that does not establish intentional design. If you mean a purpose intentionally assigned by a creator, then you're already assuming the creator and the assigned purpose that I'm asking you to establish.

My willingness to believe it is irrelevant. An argument does not become valid or invalid depending on whether the person hearing it is an atheist.

And I'm not asking you to change my perspective. I'm asking for the missing premise:

Why does “humans inherently possess consciousness and biological functions” logically entail “human existence has an objective, inherent meaning”?

So far your answer is simply “because it does,” followed by the additional assertion that a consciousness created us. Those are your conclusions, not demonstrations of them.

Dragoonback said: 

You keep describing your conclusion instead of establishing it.

I'll put it another way.

I don't see any value in trying to change your perspective on the matter, nor do I think it's even possible to do that. 

Still dodging how I debunked your false conflations and assumptions. 

That's your end of the story,

I seriously can't change your mind, especially with rigged topics such as inherent meaning lol. 

exhibit #100.000 of tony’s inherent narcissism 

fuck him in the ass