High Ideologue

If you are not a metaphysical naturalist then why are you participating in a thread that asks a question of metaphysical naturalists?

You have made this demand for evidence before and I have already provided my answer: Our universe can be interpreted as evidence in support of a model of self and world that includes a divine eternal essence of finite self and infinite world.

Here you are using the prestige of past proponents rather than evidence and valid logical inference to draw your conclusions. Jefferson was also a slaver who had sex with some the females he owned. Are you also an advocate of a return to slavery? Are you also an advocate of extra marital affairs with slaves who have no choice but to submit to sex with their masters?

I don't care about your opinion of my ideas and my arguments. You have already more than demonstrated that you are unwilling and or unable to understand my ideas or analyze my arguments. Your responses to my posts are filled with abusive language, name calling, and prejudice of an intolerant closed mind or at the very least a mischievous mind. I am happy with the way that I have conducted myself in response. I am happy with the valid logical way that I have put forth my ideas and made my arguments. My point in responding to you is not to convert you or convince you. My point is responding to you is to enjoy the entertainment of demonstrating to those who already agree with me how easy it is to defeat an attack by you.

Good. This is a thread that asks a question of Metaphysical Naturalists. Your claim you are not a Metaphysical Naturalist. So your responses are not appropriate here.

High Ideologue

These questions address topics that are beyond the scope of this thread. If you post these in a new thread and invite me nicely then I might answer your questions elsewhere. Based on past dialogue with you, I doubt very much whether or not you would have the ability and or willingness to understand my ideas and analyze my arguments. So answering you would more than likely just be a waste of my limited energy and time.

I reiterate. This is a thread that asks a question of Metaphysical Naturalists. Your claim you are not a Metaphysical Naturalist. So your responses are not appropriate here.

Daggah

Because your OP was ridiculous, you're erecting straw men, and I do feel that the natural world is all there is?

Only using faulty inferences and bad logic can you do this.

This is a red herring. You implied that one can't be happy without belief in fictional gods and ridiculous supernatural beliefs. I demonstrated that you can, and that many naturalists have.

And the persecution complex so typical of theists rears its ugly head. As far as that goes, you seem unwilling/unable to understand the arguments from a naturalist's point of view. And I think most here can see through your appeals to emotion. This paragraph is merely an ad hominem.

I can post wherever I please, and these questions are QUITE relevant, because you seem to be concerning yourself with believing whatever makes you feel good. That is apparently your sole justification for belief in supernaturalistic myth and fantasy.

Daggah

I just wish to state my agreement with this post.

High Ideologue

What you gave in your post as the question I asked at the start of this thread is not the question I asked. I asked: If you are willing to recognize and acknowledge that Metaphysical Naturalists include a form of myth and fantasy {that the natural world is all that there is} in their non theistic worldview, then I have to wonder: Why choose to include this particular form of myth and fantasy based on mystery in your worldview over an extreme myth and fantasy based on mystery that produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable?

I will rephrase the question:

Why do Metaphysical Naturalists choose to include within their non-theistic worldview the myth and fantasy that the natural world is all there is rather than an extreme myth and fantasy based on mystery that produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable?

Are you a Metaphysical Naturalist? If so, then answer the question. If not, then your responses are not appropriate here.

I don't care about your opinion of my ideas and my arguments. You have already more than demonstrated that you are unwilling and or unable to understand my ideas or analyze my arguments. I am happy with the way that I have conducted myself in response. I am happy with the valid logical way that I have put forth my ideas and made my arguments. My point in responding to you is not to convert you or convince you. My point is responding to posts by Metaphysical Naturalists is to enjoy the entertainment of demonstrating to those who already agree with me how easy it is to defeat attacks by Metaphysical Naturalists.

How do you know that my extreme myth and fantasy is just a metaphorical sugar pill? Here is the flaw in your metaphor. A sugar pill can be known to be just a sugar pill. My extreme myth and fantasy can not be proven to be in conflict with truth and knowledge. As such it can not be known to be a metaphorical sugar pill. The best a metaphysical naturalist can say is that they have chosen to believe in their own myth and fantasy that the natural world is all that there is. I want to know: Why do Metaphysical Naturalists choose to include within their worldview the myth and fantasy that the natural world is all that there is rather than an extreme myth and fantasy that holds their is a divine eternal essence of finite self and infinite world in addition to the natural world?

High Ideologue

You are a heckler whose posts have no merit. You are dismissed.

Daggah

Good grief, this is like talking with a broken record.

Reason 1: there is insufficient (read: no IMHO) evidence to demonstrate that this 'extreme myth and fantasy' is true.

Reason 2: this extreme myth and fantasy does NOT produce the "most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imagineable."

Reason 3: faith is not a desireable trait.

BTW, I can't speak for others, but my beliefs are not dictated by choice. They're dictated by evidence and logic. It would be impossible for me to choose to include other ideas into my beliefs and worldviews unless there was sufficient evidence or convincing argument worthy enough to force me to do so.

Daggah

And why is that? Because I don't agree with your ridiculous assertions? Get over yourself.

Eudaimonist

I've already answered this question elsewhere. Metaphysical naturalism is the most logical, honest, and parsimonious interpretation of human experience. It is not a myth, but a best judgment about reality as it really is, not as how we might wish it to be.

That is my impression of you.

I am not.



Ah, so you admit to being a troll. Thank you for not wasting my time further. That ends our discussion.

Eudaimonist

Thanks, Daggah.