Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Let's review:

Nihilism...
noun: nihilism
1.
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, supporting the belief that life is meaningless.

Atheism
noun: atheism
1.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Gentlemen,
As we discuss "right and wrong" in alignment with observable morality - lets stop confusing Atheism with Nihilism - because they aren't the same things

and to be clear: I am neither of these things
however I do have some existentialist issues to work through

You know this is going to ruin JSO's entire day.....

houndawg wrote:You know this is going to ruin JSO's entire day.....

Gosh I hope so...

John argues that any form of empathy
as well as the observation of suffering are inextricably tied to god - because - Atheism cannot care about these things without God making them "matter"

But that ^ is Nihilism... and is valid in an argument about Nihilism
Atheism simply says: There is no God (or more accurately, there is no reliable evidence of God)
Simultaneously Atheism one can still examine the evidence of suffering in ones self and others
and eventually "connect the dots"

Chizzang wrote:

houndawg wrote:You know this is going to ruin JSO's entire day.....

Gosh I hope so...

John argues that any form of empathy
as well as the observation of suffering are inextricably tied to god - because - Atheism cannot care about these things without God making them "matter"

But that ^ is Nihilism... and is valid in an argument about Nihilism
Atheism simply says: There is no God (or more accurately, there is no reliable evidence of God)
Simultaneously Atheism one can still examine the evidence of suffering in ones self and others
and eventually "connect the dots"

I think Joltin Joe makes the same argument.

Don't tell them that things like democracy, empathy, collectivism occur in nature and among other animals. The question is how put that there? YOU don't have an answer for that!

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Gosh I hope so...

John argues that any form of empathy
as well as the observation of suffering are inextricably tied to god - because - Atheism cannot care about these things without God making them "matter"

But that ^ is Nihilism... and is valid in an argument about Nihilism
Atheism simply says: There is no God (or more accurately, there is no reliable evidence of God)
Simultaneously Atheism one can still examine the evidence of suffering in ones self and others
and eventually "connect the dots"

I think Joltin Joe makes the same argument.

Don't tell them that things like democracy, empathy, collectivism occur in nature and among other animals. The question is how put that there? YOU don't have an answer for that!

No, I've never made that argument.

I have always said an atheist can have sound morals. What I have said is that there is nothing in the atheist's belief system which objectively compels them to have sound morals.

All nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists.

Chizzang wrote: and to be clear: I am neither of these things
however I do have some existentialist issues to work through

Yes, for years now.

I find it ironic that you would rely (properly) on your sense of intuition to accept the concept of God, but then you do not thereafter rely on that same intuition to come to some understanding of the nature and purposes of God.

JoltinJoe wrote:

kalm wrote:
I think Joltin Joe makes the same argument.

Don't tell them that things like democracy, empathy, collectivism occur in nature and among other animals. The question is how put that there? YOU don't have an answer for that!

No, I've never made that argument.

I have always said an atheist can have sound morals. What I have said is that there is nothing in the atheist's belief system which objectively compels them to have sound morals.

All nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists.

Are sure about that? One can reject religion, and therefore religion-based morals, but still acknowledge the possibility of a supreme being/creator/omniscient entity that has no interest in human life and does not involve itself in our lives.

CitadelGrad wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
No, I've never made that argument.

I have always said an atheist can have sound morals. What I have said is that there is nothing in the atheist's belief system which objectively compels them to have sound morals.

All nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists.

Are sure about that? One can reject religion, and therefore religion-based morals, but still acknowledge the possibility of a supreme being/creator/omniscient entity that has no interest in human life and does not involve itself in our lives.

I guess that a very confused person could think that. But nihilism is also, properly understood, a rejection of all order as "natural", and that would include any order caused or created by an indifferent god.

A person who would call himself a "nihilist" but believes in an indifferent god is not really a nihilist. He is a deist, who would be guided by a sense of the observable laws of nature. A nihilist would argue that any moral civil law is a man-made construct intended to maintain order.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote: and to be clear: I am neither of these things
however I do have some existentialist issues to work through

Yes, for years now.

I find it ironic that you would rely (properly) on your sense of intuition to accept the concept of God, but then you do not thereafter rely on that same intuition to come to some understanding of the nature and purposes of God.

I can explain that very simply Joe
Just because I "want" God to exist and I feel it (God) in so many things I experience - does not mean anything at all on a universal scale - It is simply my personal experience and ultimately meaningless

As Citadelgrad explains
There is no evidence that suggests God cares about our lives as played out on a universal scale

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Yes, for years now.

I find it ironic that you would rely (properly) on your sense of intuition to accept the concept of God, but then you do not thereafter rely on that same intuition to come to some understanding of the nature and purposes of God.

I can explain that very simply Joe
Just because I "want" God to exist and I feel it (God) in so many things I experience - does not mean anything at all on a universal scale - It is simply my personal experience and ultimately meaningless

As Citadelgrad explains
There is no evidence that suggests God cares about our lives as played out on a universal scale

But, strictly speaking, there is no evidence of God either, so if you are accepting the concept of God based on intuition, what does your intuition tell you about the nature of God?

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I can explain that very simply Joe
Just because I "want" God to exist and I feel it (God) in so many things I experience - does not mean anything at all on a universal scale - It is simply my personal experience and ultimately meaningless

As Citadelgrad explains
There is no evidence that suggests God cares about our lives as played out on a universal scale

But, strictly speaking, there is no evidence of God either, so if you are accepting the concept of God based on intuition, what does your intuition tell you about the nature of God?

Its all an excuse to do withever you want. Without religion, we would not have any laws. But some of you would like that.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I can explain that very simply Joe
Just because I "want" God to exist and I feel it (God) in so many things I experience - does not mean anything at all on a universal scale - It is simply my personal experience and ultimately meaningless

As Citadelgrad explains
There is no evidence that suggests God cares about our lives as played out on a universal scale

But, strictly speaking, there is no evidence of God either, so if you are accepting the concept of God based on intuition, what does your intuition tell you about the nature of God?

? I'm not entirely sure Joe..?
I know that I am human so - by default - I feel like the universe revolves around me
I accept that my feelings of God are likely a common delusion experienced by most humans

mrklean wrote:Its all an excuse to do withever you want. Without religion, we would not have any laws. But some of you would like that.

mrklean wrote:Its all an excuse to do withever you want. Without religion, we would not have any laws. But some of you would like that.

Sweet Jesus.

Chizzang wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
But, strictly speaking, there is no evidence of God either, so if you are accepting the concept of God based on intuition, what does your intuition tell you about the nature of God?

? I'm not entirely sure Joe..?
I know that I am human so - by default - I feel like the universe revolves around me
I accept that my feelings of God are likely a common delusion experienced by most humans

Really? That sounds so foreign to me. You feel like the "universe revolves around" you? I don't think that is a common feeling in people at all. I think most people feel that they are often subject to forces they cannot control, not the other way around.

And if you think your feelings about God which you intuit are "delusions," shouldn't you reject the concept of God altogether?

I wasn't really a person of faith until I reached college. During the course of one philosophy class, I began to grasp that I had been given gifts of life, of friends, of family ... and that I should be grateful to that which gave me those things. And then I began to realize that another gift I could have would be to be in a relationship with that which gave me those things. Faith flows from an appreciation of the gift of being. You (especially you) have been given so much by something. So be grateful to that something -- which is a normal human reaction to having received a gift -- and, if you do that, it is nearly inescapable that you'd believe there is a personal God.

I don't think atheists have a problem with nihilism. I do think that many of them do have a certain level of cynicism and misanthropy that comes from having a strictly physicalist view of human nature and the universe. IMO it affects the worldview of atheists more than many of them want to believe. It's what Raymond Tallis (neuroscientist and philosopher) calls "Darwinitis".

See James Watson's (Nobel Prize winner) comments about sub-Saharan Africans not being as intelligent as whites due to evolution. There are atheists who do believe evolution is the be-all and end-all of who we are today and that leads to the logical conclusion of unequal abilities across races. There are probably a lot of atheists who think like that but won't dare let any of it show in public.

I look at it this way...I'm fine going through life with a certain level of religiosity. Even if I'm wrong odds are (according to research) I'll be happier and healthier for it in my life that's a split second on the grand time scale of the universe. If I'm wrong, atheists can gloat when we are all space dust after the universe has reached a heat death or is collapsing back into a singularity.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
? I'm not entirely sure Joe..?
I know that I am human so - by default - I feel like the universe revolves around me
I accept that my feelings of God are likely a common delusion experienced by most humans

Really? That sounds so foreign to me. You feel like the "universe revolves around" you? I don't think that is a common feeling in people at all. I think most people feel that they are often subject to forces they cannot control, not the other way around.

And if you think your feelings about God which you intuit are "delusions," shouldn't you reject the concept of God altogether?

I wasn't really a person of faith until I reached college. During the course of one philosophy class, I began to grasp that I had been given gifts of life, of friends, of family ... and that I should be grateful to that which gave me those things. And then I began to realize that another gift I could have would be to be in a relationship with that which gave me those things. Faith flows from an appreciation of the gift of being. You (especially you) have been given so much by something. So be grateful to that something -- which is a normal human reaction to having received a gift -- and, if you do that, it is nearly inescapable that you'd believe there is a personal God.

Firstly Joe - Humans are insanely egocentric and self absorbed (I ain't much but I'm all I think about) is the common condition of Humanity - we see the world from OUR ONE POINT perspective... Very few humans and typically only after years of examination discover deeper feelings. The world is like a stage performance (a play) acted out in front of each of us - where we are the main character always and this reality limits our view of the bigger picture - it makes us think "we are significant" (you could argue perhaps by design)

THAT, is the human condition and I think "Sonder" captures that perfectly (see youtube clip below)

And I do consider my vast collection of blessings so hugely lopsided in my favor
and as I've said I think God is the most exciting idea placed in front of Humanity - because such a huge percentage of us feel the presence of god in our experience - I'm no exception there. I do not deny that feeling like so many Atheists do, in fact I like the feeling, but I'm also aware that it might be just a feeling and ultimately meaningless.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0xIXghxyUk[/youtube]

JoltinJoe wrote:

kalm wrote:
I think Joltin Joe makes the same argument.

Don't tell them that things like democracy, empathy, collectivism occur in nature and among other animals. The question is how put that there? YOU don't have an answer for that!

No, I've never made that argument.

I have always said an atheist can have sound morals. What I have said is that there is nothing in the atheist's belief system which objectively compels them to have sound morals.

All nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists.

A sense of morals is not a religious construct, either

In fact I think it could be argued that the development of the idea of unwritten rules governing how we treat each other predates religion- or perhaps even gave rise to organized religion

it is easier to get others to conform to your own morality if the instruction came down from god instead of just you

CitadelGrad wrote:
Are sure about that? One can reject religion, and therefore religion-based morals, but still acknowledge the possibility of a supreme being/creator/omniscient entity that has no interest in human life and does not involve itself in our lives.

This post ^ is still blowing my mind...
I've heard this idea said a hundred ways - but - never quite like this


Love it

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Are sure about that? One can reject religion, and therefore religion-based morals, but still acknowledge the possibility of a supreme being/creator/omniscient entity that has no interest in human life and does not involve itself in our lives.

This post ^ is still blowing my mind...
I've heard this idea said a hundred ways - but - never quite like this


Love it

But such a person is to my understanding neither an atheist nor a nihilist. This person would be a Deist.

CID1990 wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
No, I've never made that argument.

I have always said an atheist can have sound morals. What I have said is that there is nothing in the atheist's belief system which objectively compels them to have sound morals.

All nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists.

A sense of morals is not a religious construct, either

In fact I think it could be argued that the development of the idea of unwritten rules governing how we treat each other predates religion- or perhaps even gave rise to organized religion

it is easier to get others to conform to your own morality if the instruction came down from god instead of just you

I didn't say all human morality is a religious construct. However, all genuinely religious people have a moral construct which they understand is objective and informed by religion.

We're a contamination in an enormous petri dish and if we're discovered steps will be taken to remove the contamination.

CID1990 wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
No, I've never made that argument.

I have always said an atheist can have sound morals. What I have said is that there is nothing in the atheist's belief system which objectively compels them to have sound morals.

All nihilists are atheists, but not all atheists are nihilists.

A sense of morals is not a religious construct, either

In fact I think it could be argued that the development of the idea of unwritten rules governing how we treat each other predates religion- or perhaps even gave rise to organized religion

it is easier to get others to conform to your own morality if the instruction came down from god instead of just you

Boom.