So here again I clarify, as have other posters, the logically significant difference between disbelieving a claim, and making a contrary claim. Here we see another use of his earlier false equivalence fallacy, where @Sid shifts the goal posts closer to a different claim, from his original claim that it is “the biggest lie” that the universe has no meaning, to people seeking subjective purpose or meaning in their lives.:
Please note, I also offered some objective evidence against his shifting position, that human life has some overarching meaning, you will observe that @Sid offers no acknowledgment of this, simply ignores it and repeats his original false equivalence. Though now he has shifted almost completely from his original claim; that “it is the biggest lie the universe has no meaning”, (note this differs from my continuing assertion that I don’t believe the universe has meaning, not that it doesn’t contain meaning, which is where he is heading, by shifting the argument), to “we know” that (subjective) meaning is sought and exists in people’s lives. Who ever denied this?
So since no one has denied this it is another straw man fallacy, and of course the now complete transition from @Sid’s original claim, demonstrates the original false equivalence he was making. I shan’t labour this point anymore, but several posters myself included, explained the significant difference between the universe having meaning, and the universe containing a species that subjectively adds meaning to their own lives. Anyone who read beyond this point will witness the handwaving that has been a common tactic of @Sid’s posts.
Here @Sid is asked again for clarification from a poster, since as explained above he’s gone from the universe “having meaning” to humans seeking or creating their own subjective meaning for their lives. Note this would include religious beliefs, since they are entirely subjective, as @Sid has tacitly accepted himself of course by rejecting even the idea that his superstitious beliefs in the supernatural need or could have any objective evidence to support them.
Note the false equivalence is now complete, and we arrive at the straw man fallacy that replaces his original claim, since no one has denied that humans attach a subjective meaning to their own lives. Note also he twisting this to “life asking you what is the meaning” and again nothing in the way of evidence or rational argument to support this supposition he makes. It could as easily be claimed to be an emergent property of the evolved human brain, who would deny that life is more bearable with some subjective purpose than with none, a survival benefit if ever there as one, quod erat demonstrandum.
That was response, even in retrospect of the shifting goal posts it seems unequivocal.
One of the many times I repost evidence that @Sid has asked for, and then goes on to entirely ignore. Worth noting here, since @Sid uses this throughout, he is using what is called an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy also known as an appeal to stone fallacy.
"Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence."
This of course has been true of almost all, if not all, of @Sid’s posts and responses to objective evidence. Handwaving is the usual response, note he dismissed @Calilasseia’s peer reviewed evidence demonstrating emotional attachments in other species with precisely this fallacy, I urge anyone interested in understanding the fallacy to go look at the response.
Here is ample evidence that @Sid thinks calling a claim a lie is not in fact a contrary claim it is true, as absurd as the notion seems, that is his position here:
Note also a reiteration of the original false equivalence, and the none too subtle dropping of the word universe to just the word life, which as we have seen he shifted to from his original claim, it is quoted at the start of the previous post for anyone to see. Again if he meant what he finally went on to claim, that humans attach a subjective meaning to their lives, then the why was the word universe in there, and why not simply just say that, and avoid the merry-go-round of shifting goal posts from his original claim, indeed why not have the integrity to acknowledge he alone was culpable for using this fallacy?