Does Atheism Inherently Endorse Nihilism?

[Apostle13]

Based on what?

They and we were meant as referring to Christians... Sorry if this was confusing.
It is based on sound biblical principle/scriptures.

 

[1069]

They and we were meant as referring to Christians... Sorry if this was confusing.
It is based on sound biblical principle/scriptures.

Unless one happens to believe the Bible is a hoax; in which case, there is nothing "sound" about them.

 

[Apostle13]

It's similar to "The Golden Rule", a fundamental moral principle found in virtually all major religions and cultures, which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated."

Thanks...
I wonder... Is it moral because it is biblical, or biblical because it is moral...???

 

[Apostle13]

Unless one happens to believe the Bible is a hoax; in which case, there is nothing "sound" about them.

Even still it would be sound in the fact that it is contained therein at least in literal form. Yes?

 

[1069]

Thanks...
I wonder... Is it moral because it is biblical, or biblical because it is moral...???

It's inherent to all major religions, cultures, and civilizations because it's the only way that works or makes sense.
Religions, civilizations, and cultures which do not subscribe to it are not existent long enough to become "major" (or would not be, in theory). That's why we've never heard of them.

 

[Apostle13]

It's inherent to all major religions, cultures, and civilizations because it's the only way that works or makes sense.
Religions, civilizations, and cultures which do not subscribe to it are not existent long enough to become "major" (or would not be, in theory). That's why we've never heard of them.

Excluding of course... Satanism who in fact have their own golden rule... "Do what though will".

 

[Andy]

The Moral Code...as you call it, is more a product of Society, and human interaction, than a mandate from on high. For this Pagan/Atheist, My own understanding of Ethics revolves around a betterment of Myself, and a means to function in a large group of people. If someone else needs a God to tell them to be nice....go for it. But just because I do not, dont you dare relegate me to some imaginary brimstone eternity of suffering. I do not need the pity of weak minds.

Exactly, your moral code is largely a device you created to get through the day. It isn't a part of athiest philsophy. Assuming, as you do, there is no God, your moral code serves no other purpose then to establish a system of good behavior designed to ensure a relatively stable existence for yourself.

 

[1069]

Excluding of course... Satanism who in fact have their own golden rule... "Do what though will".

That's from "Magick in Theory and Practice", by Aleister Crowley (copyright 1929).
I've read it, and have seen no evidence that it was not a commercial work of fiction.
Nor have I ever seen evidence that "Satanism" is a religion.
I thought "Satanism" (and in fact the occult in general) was merely a game that overprivileged fourteen-year-old boys played after school while listening to heavy metal music.
Please show evidence that there is an organized religion whose followers adhere to any such principle.

 

[Andy]

Would then religious ppl have a real moral code?
It's all made up, except one attributes their code to the fear of going to hell where as the other simply does it because of rationalized thought.

You raise a valid point about religious moral codes. For many it serves the same purpose as the atheist moral code. It's simply a device used both as a coping mechanism and serves to generate some basis for a functioning society with the added benefit that if you don't follow it, then you're going to pay for it. It's not that a religious moral code is really any more legitimate then an atheistic one.

But, given the assumption that God or gods exist, then a moral code is ultimately legitimate because this God or gods creates meaning. Without God there is no greater meaning or purpose to any action except insofar as we as individuals or as a society assign moral value to it. However, without God this assignment is ultimately itself without meaning or purpose. The reason for this meaninglessness is simply because human beings cannot create universal moral values; we can only create moral values for ourselves. For some people, this is enough, but then you must realize that we are a part of this assumed atheist universe and are ourselves without greater meaning or purpose. Since we are ourselves therefore meaningless, our so called morals are themselves without worth. Outside of our minds, morals in a Godless universe are nonexistent. They exist merely to help you and I get to sleep at night.

Eg. If I kill a person in a godless world, you may find my act morally wrong and repugnant, but in the greater scheme of things in this hypothetical God- or gods-less universe my act is the moral equivalent to feeding the homeless. My act may be morally wrong to you, but to the empty universe, there is no difference. Each is equally without meaning.

 

[Felicity]

And you are telling ppl to excel in reading comprehension?
Here're the two questions
I asked:
Would it change your world so much to accept that there may not be a heaven?
You answered with question - far from answering.
I also asked
Would you become an "evil" person if you knew that god would not punish you by disallowing you entrance through the gates of heaven?
To which I followed up by stating it was nothing about atheism which you wrongfully comprehended.

uh...no....and, ....ummm....hmmmmmm...lemme think....ahh--yeah...that would be no.

Is that a better answer for you?

 

[Felicity]

No, I don't think I will, because it's entirely possible none exists.
This is pretty much my own belief; I'm not sure if anyone else ("reputable source" or not) shares it.
You're welcome to look yourself, if you'd care to refute it.

Well...the dictionary agrees with what I said. And as long as you're admiting you "made up" this idea--I guess there's not "refuting" anything.

As much as we "choose" to relieve ourselves in privacy, in a toilet, rather than in the middle of a busy intersection or on the floor as we wait in line at the bank.

Some societies are not so concerned with bodily functions and actions...and yet they still have that inward pull toward the good.

It is something we are taught from infancy, something that the entire structure of our society is set up to support.

Yeah...my question is why? Is it as you say, a mechanism for personal survival--or is it something else?

I believe it is something else because man can consciously choose to sacrifice his own personal survival for the benefit of another. This self-sacrifice is not a function of evolution because it runs counter to the survival of the species--and it is not a function of personal reciprocity, because once your dead--no one is going to die so that you could live.

It's ACTUAL altruism--and every human being has the capacity for that. WHY do you think we can do that--what is that thing in us as mankind that makes that **specifically sacrificing self** a RATIONAL choice?

 

[Felicity]

But, given the assumption that God or gods exist, then a moral code is ultimately legitimate because this God or gods creates meaning. Without God there is no greater meaning or purpose to any action except insofar as we as individuals or as a society assign moral value to it. However, without God this assignment is ultimately itself without meaning or purpose. The reason for this meaninglessness is simply because human beings cannot create universal moral values; we can only create moral values for ourselves. For some people, this is enough, but then you must realize that we are a part of this assumed atheist universe and are ourselves without greater meaning or purpose. Since we are ourselves therefore meaningless, our so called morals are themselves without worth. Outside of our minds, morals in a Godless universe are nonexistent. They exist merely to help you and I get to sleep at night.

Eg. If I kill a person in a godless world, you may find my act morally wrong and repugnant, but in the greater scheme of things in this hypothetical God- or gods-less universe my act is the moral equivalent to feeding the homeless. My act may be morally wrong to you, but to the empty universe, there is no difference. Each is equally without meaning.

Great post! Very concise and to the point!:cheers:

That's why I say there are no true Atheists. It's counter to the human experience.

 

[Apostle13]

That's from "Magick in Theory and Practice", by Aleister Crowley (copyright 1929).
I've read it, and have seen no evidence that it was not a commercial work of fiction.
Nor have I ever seen evidence that "Satanism" is a religion.
I thought "Satanism" (and in fact the occult in general) was merely a game that overprivileged fourteen-year-old boys played after school while listening to heavy metal music.
Please show evidence that there is an organized religion whose followers adhere to any such principle.

Satanism is and of itself a religion. It is factioned, as are all other religions. Organized is a word you have only/conveniently inserted now. As it is not found in the post I was responding to.

It's inherent to all major religions, cultures, and civilizations because it's the only way that works or makes sense.
Religions, civilizations, and cultures which do not subscribe to it are not existent long enough to become "major" (or would not be, in theory). That's why we've never heard of them.

Many Christians regard Crowley as the father of modern day satanism which holds deceptive keys... Wicca, eastern philosophies, and even some philosophies in a more western/general sense. However, this is not up for debate... Again... Understanding.
"Do what thou wilt" is contrary to "Do unto others" in larger scheme as it is rooted in greed/self will with no moral boundary. Whereas the later suggests compassion... Ultimately humanity.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I know the conversation moved on without me, but what the heck. I still think it's an important point.

I do not see a distinction there. Faith is accepting an explanation without proof--your "distinction" that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has is no different than accepting that that will be true without absolute proof.

You don't see the distinction in what you just wrote? Faith is accepting as true without proof; a rational belief (non-faith) is believing without absolute proof. Another word would be "evidence:" faith accepts without objective evidence; rational belief does not. So I believe the sun will rise; I have no faith.

I accept that God is true without absolute proof.
You accept the sun will rise without absolute proof.

You accept that god is true without ANY objective proof, and despite some evidence to the contrary. I accept the sunrise with quite a bit of very valid proof, and nothing that would contradict my belief. That's the difference.

Furthermore--the "we are not sure" is also not inconsistant with religious "faith"--we assent to the unknowable just as you assent to the unknown rising of the sun tomorrow.

Not true, in my experience. Nobody is more sure, with less reason, than a person of true faith.

What is the distinction you make?--or are you assuming that religeious faith is something more than accepting as true that which we cannot prove. Do you think that Believers are saying that their faith is something more "tangible" than that which non-believers have?

Yes. They are positing objective truth based on nothing but subjective evidence, i.e., I feel god in my heart, therefore there is an all-powerful being that created and controls the universe, the Bible is absolutely true, and science is wrong. Quite a different claim from, say, things fall down when you drop them.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I believe it is something else because man can consciously choose to sacrifice his own personal survival for the benefit of another. This self-sacrifice is not a function of evolution because it runs counter to the survival of the species--and it is not a function of personal reciprocity, because once your dead--no one is going to die so that you could live.

It's ACTUAL altruism--and every human being has the capacity for that. WHY do you think we can do that--what is that thing in us as mankind that makes that **specifically sacrificing self** a RATIONAL choice?

It is a cultural artifact. We have been taught that giving one's life for another is a positive thing, and so (occasionally) we do it. There is also an instinctive aspect, in that parents may instinctively sacrifice their lives for those of their children; this better ensures the survival of the gene, since it is more likely that the child will live longer and propagate the parents' genes with greater success than the parents will. Many species have the same instinct; mother birds that pretend broken wings to lure predators away from nests, for instance. She puts herself at risk because her multiple children have a greater chance to spread her genes than a single parent does. This instinct has led to the cultural idea that self-sacrifice for another -- especially one that is younger -- is an honorable thing.

 

[1069]

I know the conversation moved on without me, but what the heck. I still think it's an important point.


You don't see the distinction in what you just wrote? Faith is accepting as true without proof; a rational belief (non-faith) is believing without absolute proof. Another word would be "evidence:" faith accepts without objective evidence; rational belief does not. So I believe the sun will rise; I have no faith.


You accept that god is true without ANY objective proof, and despite some evidence to the contrary. I accept the sunrise with quite a bit of very valid proof, and nothing that would contradict my belief. That's the difference.


Not true, in my experience. Nobody is more sure, with less reason, than a person of true faith.



Yes. They are positing objective truth based on nothing but subjective evidence, i.e., I feel god in my heart, therefore there is an all-powerful being that created and controls the universe, the Bible is absolutely true, and science is wrong. Quite a different claim from, say, things fall down when you drop them.

Another valid point is that non-theists generally have no particular emotional investment in what they believe.
If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, or the next day, or the next day... then by Tuesday, I won't have any particular faith that the sun will rise. After all, it wouldn't have risen for the past three days. Instead of believing with all my might that the sun will rise on Tuesday, I'd probably be looking for answers as to why it hasn't.
On the other hand, what would it take to convince a theist that there is no god? What evidence would be enough?
Their belief in god is not based on evidence in the first place.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

You raise a valid point about religious moral codes. For many it serves the same purpose as the atheist moral code. It's simply a device used both as a coping mechanism and serves to generate some basis for a functioning society with the added benefit that if you don't follow it, then you're going to pay for it. It's not that a religious moral code is really any more legitimate then an atheistic one.

But, given the assumption that God or gods exist, then a moral code is ultimately legitimate because this God or gods creates meaning. Without God there is no greater meaning or purpose to any action except insofar as we as individuals or as a society assign moral value to it. However, without God this assignment is ultimately itself without meaning or purpose. The reason for this meaninglessness is simply because human beings cannot create universal moral values; we can only create moral values for ourselves. For some people, this is enough, but then you must realize that we are a part of this assumed atheist universe and are ourselves without greater meaning or purpose. Since we are ourselves therefore meaningless, our so called morals are themselves without worth. Outside of our minds, morals in a Godless universe are nonexistent. They exist merely to help you and I get to sleep at night.

Eg. If I kill a person in a godless world, you may find my act morally wrong and repugnant, but in the greater scheme of things in this hypothetical God- or gods-less universe my act is the moral equivalent to feeding the homeless. My act may be morally wrong to you, but to the empty universe, there is no difference. Each is equally without meaning.

I would agree that our lives have no objective meaning, but I think that a subjective meaning is just as valid -- and I fail to see how a god would make the meaning of our lives objective. If my life has meaning to me, how is that any less real than if my life had meaning to god? In either case, the meaning is imparted by an observer; in the atheist's case, that observer is either himself or society, depending on how you look at it. If I consider my life meaningful, then isn't it? On the other hand, if god considers my life meaningful, is that any less subjective? Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but an objective, impartial morality could not come from a conscious, thinking, and therefore partisan observer; if god watches my life and judges me in terms of his morality, then he is hardly an impartial observer, and his morality is thus as subjective as is mine -- and inherently as meaningless. Isn't it? Or is it objectively true because god is the maker of truth, and thus his subjective judgements are objective within his creation?

As to the universe itself being indifferent, I agree wholeheartedly. But why should I care what the universe thinks of me? What's it done for me lately?:mrgreen:

 

[Apostle13]

On the other hand, what would it take to convince a theist that there is no god? What evidence would be enough?
Their belief in god is not based on evidence in the first place.

How can you be so sure? What is evident to one is not necessarily that to another. If I say I have heard His voice... Even today... Yet you have never heard His voice in all of your days. Therefore, I am regarded by you likely as a sort of lunatic. While yet a like minded person/believer may inquire, even enthusiastically, "What did He say?"

Jesus answered,"I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

If one has never purposed/sought Him they are in fact in error by manner of premature conclusion.

 

[1069]

How can you be so sure? What is evident to one is not necessarily that to another. If I say I have heard His voice... Even today... Yet you have never heard His voice in all of your days. Therefore, I am regarded by you likely as a sort of lunatic. While yet a like minded person/believer may inquire, even enthusiastically, "What did He say?"

Voices that nobody else can hear are not quantifiable evidence, however; if I told you that Mahatma Ghandi, King Louis the VIII, or Barney the Purple Dinosaur spoke to me today and said there is no god, I doubt you'd take that as evidence that there is no god.
I doubt I'd take it as evidence there is no god, either.
Rather, I'd probably take it as evidence that:
1. I've been covertly drugged with hallucinogens
or 2. I'm exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia or some other psychological illness.

Either way, I'd seek medical help.

 

[Andy]

Great post! Very concise and to the point!:cheers:

That's why I say there are no true Atheists. It's counter to the human experience.

Thanks for the comments! :mrgreen:

That being said, I draw a different conclusion then you. I believe that it is possible to be an athiest. The problem most athiest face is living with the ramifications of atheism as belief system. The idea of atheism leads irrevercably to a confrontation with nihilism. The problem with this confrontation is that mind, at least in my own personal experience, can't accept the idea that its life is without worth. Instead, to get around this detail, most athiests construct a psychological barrier that allows them to simultaneously accept the idea of a atheist universe but still endure daily existence. Of course this barrier is merely a coping mechanism and doesn't create any meaning outside of their own thoughts, but it lets the athiest live.

In short, one can be an atheist, but most atheists have to shield themselves from the philisophical implications of atheism in order to live. It's almost like doublethink.

 

[Apostle13]

Voices that nobody else can hear are not quantifiable evidence

Nevertheless, it would be evident to me... And evident enough* to others who share in this experiance.

however ; if I told you that Mahatma Ghandi, King Louis the VIII, or Barney the Purple Dinosaur spoke to me today and said there is no god, I doubt you'd take that as evidence that there is no god.
I doubt I'd take it as evidence there is no god, either.
Rather, I'd probably take it as evidence that:
1. I've been covertly drugged with hallucinogens
or 2. I'm exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia or some other psychological illness.

Either way, I'd seek medical help.

Your answer here only serves to validate my point:

How can you be so sure? What is evident to one is not necessarily that to another. If I say I have heard His voice... Even today... Yet you have never heard His voice in all of your days. Therefore, I am regarded by you likely as a sort of lunatic. While yet a like minded person/believer may inquire, even enthusiastically, "What did He say?"

Yet I concede not all Christians, and in fact few, have come to this level of recognition with God... And not all Christians are that what they claim... Christians. In any respect I conclude I am not crazy as much as you are ignorant.
Sorry if that seemed harsh.

 

[Andy]

I would agree that our lives have no objective meaning, but I think that a subjective meaning is just as valid -- and I fail to see how a god would make the meaning of our lives objective. If my life has meaning to me, how is that any less real than if my life had meaning to god? In either case, the meaning is imparted by an observer; in the atheist's case, that observer is either himself or society, depending on how you look at it. If I consider my life meaningful, then isn't it? On the other hand, if god considers my life meaningful, is that any less subjective? Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but an objective, impartial morality could not come from a conscious, thinking, and therefore partisan observer; if god watches my life and judges me in terms of his morality, then he is hardly an impartial observer, and his morality is thus as subjective as is mine -- and inherently as meaningless. Isn't it? Or is it objectively true because god is the maker of truth, and thus his subjective judgements are objective within his creation?

My impression from your post leads me to conclude that the primary difference between our opinions is our veiw of God. I always imagined God more as a sort of omnipotent, etheral force above what you or I could call consciousness, and not the traditional "conscious, thinking, and therefore partisan observer." Correct?

 

[tecoyah]

So, then technically, it's not "altruistic"...right? It's self-preserving and therefore selfishly motivated?

Isn't everything....in the end?

The Golden Rule is merely a means to access Heaven, and secure a nice seat for the soul....is it not?

-Or-

Is it a way to pay Homage to God, as he requests. Glorifying his existance through submission to his request for worship....what a selfish man he is.

Either way...its all far from altruistic if we delve deep enough.

 

[tecoyah]

In short, one can be an atheist, but most atheists have to shield themselves from the philisophical implications of atheism in order to live. It's almost like doublethink.

In a Nutshell....this statement holds true for all humans everywhere. What is religion, if not a psycological means to cope with reality as we know it?

 

[Felicity]

You don't see the distinction in what you just wrote? Faith is accepting as true without proof; a rational belief (non-faith) is believing without absolute proof. Another word would be "evidence:" faith accepts without objective evidence; rational belief does not. So I believe the sun will rise; I have no faith.
You accept that god is true without ANY objective proof, and despite some evidence to the contrary. I accept the sunrise with quite a bit of very valid proof, and nothing that would contradict my belief. That's the difference.

See here...I don't agree at all with that. I believe there is rational evidence of the existance of God. First--as evidenced in that very yearning of mankind toward the unknown. That, coupled with our human capacity to reason--and to demonstrate true altruism--is evidence...not "proof" ...but evidence. Look at the world. Look ot the carbon atom...in the creation of the universe so much had to be "just right" for any life at all to come into existance--let alone develop into this rational creature that is man.

Which requires "more faith" a reality of innumerable universes that began and failed, until this balanced and functioning universe came into being and evolved perfectly for the existance and maintinence of life all by chance or does it require more faith to believe it was not all by chance and it was Willed into being?

Not true, in my experience. Nobody is more sure, with less reason, than a person of true faith.

In your experience...??? okay. And what is a "person of true faith?" You seem to use it here as a derogatory term for a Believer in God/s...Do you have a specific believer type in mind?

Yes. They are positing objective truth based on nothing but subjective evidence, i.e., I feel god in my heart, therefore there is an all-powerful being that created and controls the universe, the Bible is absolutely true, and science is wrong. Quite a different claim from, say, things fall down when you drop them.

Who is "they"? I'm sure you are not referring to me or if you are...please quote for me anywhere I said such a thing as you suggest.