Does Atheism Inherently Endorse Nihilism?

[Felicity]

Funny, thats my issue too. If the universe is controlled by the laws of physics, I can learn them and act accordingly. But if such a god exists, he could crush me at any moment for my blaspheming. I go on the former assumption, but should the latter be true, he knows where to find me.

Such a God Has infinite Mercy too..

(Note: Felicity gets cool points for referencing the Hitchhikers guide.)

Wouldn't leave home without it....or my towel!

 

[jfuh]

"knowing" something will happen does not "cause" it to happen.

I didn't say that knowing was the cause. Do try to keep up.

 

[nkgupta80]

Jfuh's issue is with an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent God and His relationship to the "predestination" of the human "soul."

The problem with "cause and effect" chains is that although we humans are bound by a temporal existence--that is not so for such a God. Hence, God could "know" without "causing" or "effecting" since in the Eternal Now of God's being--cause and effect would exist simultaneously.

i have no problem with that. Im sure an all powerful, omniscient being can have free will.


However, do us humans have it? God gives us free will is something that realy doesn't make sense if we are bound by temporal existence. If we examine our own thoughts, they are all a product of cause and effect. What does it really mean to have something in OUR control?

The reason this is important is that at a purely objective level (from gods eyes), we are all just parts of an extremely complicated system set in motion by god. Our goal is survival, and all our thoughts and actions are chains of cause and effects thta derive from this central tenet. We may feel we have some control over our actions, but infact we dont. At any given point of time in the universe, we will choose one action and only that action. Only hindsight and foresight gives the illusion of free will.

 

[jfuh]

Jfuh's issue is with an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent God and His relationship to the "predestination" of the human "soul."

That and your claim of "knowing" the absolute truths, as well as your ignorant generalizations by way of superstition.

The problem with "cause and effect" chains is that although we humans are bound by a temporal existence--that is not so for such a God. Hence, God could "know" without "causing" or "effecting" since in the Eternal Now of God's being--cause and effect would exist simultaneously.

Hence then there is no probability of what a person would do because there is only one outcome. In otherwords that person regardless of any other choices he may make from the day s/he was born god knew that s/he would either go to heaven or go to hell. So why bother with the so called "test" of life. Do not pass go, just go straight to hell.

 

[jfuh]

i have no problem with that. Im sure an all powerful, omniscient being can have free will.


However, do us humans have it? God gives us free will is something that realy doesn't make sense if we are bound by temporal existence. If we examine our own thoughts, they are all a product of cause and effect. What does it really mean to have something in OUR control?

The reason this is important is that at a purely objective level (from gods eyes), we are all just parts of an extremely complicated system set in motion by god. Our goal is survival, and all our thoughts and actions are chains of cause and effects thta derive from this central tenet. We may feel we have some control over our actions, but infact we dont. At any given point of time in the universe, we will choose one action and only that action. Only hindsight and foresight gives the illusion of free will.

Bingo arty:

 

[nkgupta80]

Bingo arty:

kinda depressing thing is that god or not, we really dont have free will anyways...

 

[jfuh]

kinda depressing thing is that god or not, we really dont have free will anyways...

Not so much as that we don't but that there's no certainty in it. Just as there's no certainty in anything other than the simple fact of existence of ourselves - or should I say myself.
In other words there are no absolutes.
It may be depressing, but in the end, what does it really matter to our daily lives? So what it doesn't change the realities of day to day events, but then, coming to terms with the "reality" of the matter is in itself gratifying.

 

[tecoyah]

To me....Quantum Theory, and experiments that define it ie: double slat

Coupled with Schroedingers theory, make free will a definate possibility, if not a given. The simple act of Observing something, will create a reality....based on what is expected, thus we are in effect, making reality our own.

 

[jfuh]

To me....Quantum Theory, and experiments that define it ie: double slat

Coupled with Schroedingers theory, make free will a definate possibility, if not a given. The simple act of Observing something, will create a reality....based on what is expected, thus we are in effect, making reality our own.

Quantum theory, god I hated those tests.
But with quantum theory there definitely is no telling where those electrons might tunnel to. At least not yet anyway.

 

[nkgupta80]

Quantum theory, god I hated those tests.
But with quantum theory there definitely is no telling where those electrons might tunnel to. At least not yet anyway.

yeah, at the lowest levels the universe can be indeterministic, but thta doesnt mean that we as humans exercise a free will.

 

[nkgupta80]

To me....Quantum Theory, and experiments that define it ie: double slat

Coupled with Schroedingers theory, make free will a definate possibility, if not a given. The simple act of Observing something, will create a reality....based on what is expected, thus we are in effect, making reality our own.

not necessarily, we are not choosing to observe. If we are to use this philosophy, our senses are required for existence and reality. We can say we are making our own reality, but there is definately not a free will that plays into it. Our brain is just wired to take in the observations and create a reality out of it. We are a product of the system we live in.

 

[liberal1]

We are forced to make an observation and to some extent, color it with our bias (dependent on social/economic climate, morals, religion, values, etc). However, how we choose react to these observations which define "our" reality is what composes our free will. We ar enot the products of our own system, what we do is the product, we are the manufacturers.

 

[nkgupta80]

We are forced to make an observation and to some extent, color it with our bias (dependent on social/economic climate, morals, religion, values, etc). However, how we choose react to these observations which define "our" reality is what composes our free will. We ar enot the products of our own system, what we do is the product, we are the manufacturers.

Perhaps we are not the product of our own system. Perhaps reality is defined by our observations. But either way, our thought process, that which defines this reality, is still conformed to cause and effect. Cause and effect means there is no free will. The fact that we choose one choice over another means that there was some factor at that exact point in time that pushed us into choosing that choice. we did that action, but it is false to think that we had free will in choosing that choice.

Just take any thought process in your head and go backwards with it. The fact that you are thinking about this topic is because you are reading this post, and you are on this site because of certain factors which themselves were caused by a greater set of factors.

 

[Apostle13]

You propose understanding, however arguments are not meant for understanding but for validation.

And you propose arguing... Which of us is will be left the wiser?

Hence providing the bible as proof or the opinion of another poster does not serve purposeful on this or any other debate site.

It is the proof of our (Christians) understanding. Plenty enough.

If my post contains inaccuracies then feel free and by all means to correct those inaccuracies - that is as long as they are the premise of what I'm arguing on. Everything else is quite moot.

You are riddled by inaccuracies. My level of understanding has far surpassed your own. While you reason from the mind... I mind what I reason.

No issue with the first part, but as for the second part, according to whom? If I told you today that god chose me to post what I post on this site and your arguments against it are blasphamous what would be your response? Most likely you'd call me bullshit and disrespectful of your beliefs. So then what if I wrote what I write 2000 years ago would you have a varied concept of it then and take it as literal truth of god?

Question#1. God; 2 Timothy 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;
2. :2rofll:
3. Nope.

You would tell me he is not because why?

Numbers 23:19God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?
Romans 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

Hostility does not rise within me

I told you "you must deny it" couldn't prevent yourself... ... ... Liar.
Just for the record... God told me you would.

 

[jfuh]

And you propose arguing... Which of us is will be left the wiser?

Wiser? So now it's about wiser? If you were indeed the wiser you'd be asking the same questions I am here of your faith, yet instead no only do you not ask said questions and follow blindly, but you insist that the rest of us are not "seeing the light"

It is the proof of our (Christians) understanding. Plenty enough.

No it's only proof of your blind faith and means absolutely nothing to validate the premise you have presented.

You are riddled by inaccuracies. My level of understanding has far surpassed your own. While you reason from the mind... I mind what I reason.

Again, this statement and you bring up nothing to support it. You're reasonings are merely what you've been spoon fed from the bible. This even admist the fact that the bible in itself is riddled with contradictions.
You're sitting there typing on a keyboard made from a variety of materials other than simply one - you wear clothing that is made from more than one material - according to Leviticus you should be stoned to death. Yes, the bible is really a great source for fact and "god's" word.

Question#1. God; 2 Timothy 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;

And yet, there you go again, you cite the bible to state that the bible was written by inspiration from god. If that were so, why was the bible edited? Why did councils convine to edit the inspirational writings of god? Perhaps the original writers were wrongly inspired and a council was held again through inspiration from god to edit out what god said before? So much for your all perfect god.

2.

Yet here you do not address the issue. only further proving of your bias and irrationality

3. Nope.

Why not?

Numbers 23:19God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?

Again, citation of the bible to prove that the bible is correct? You just don't get it do you?

Romans 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

More citation of the bible to prove that the bible is the work of god, wow, just wonderful. This tells me that you are completely incapable of logic.

I told you "you must deny it" couldn't prevent yourself... ... ... Liar.
Just for the record... God told me you would.

And god tells you what else?
You do realize that had god never said what you have said "for the record" that it is then you who are lieing? Furthermore you are using god for your lie which in itself is blasphemous? See you in hell then.

 

[Apostle13]

Wiser? So now it's about wiser? If you were indeed the wiser you'd be asking the same questions I am here of your faith, yet instead no only do you not ask said questions and follow blindly, but you insist that the rest of us are not "seeing the light"
No it's only proof of your blind faith and means absolutely nothing to validate the premise you have presented.

Again, this statement and you bring up nothing to support it. You're reasonings are merely what you've been spoon fed from the bible. This even admist the fact that the bible in itself is riddled with contradictions.
You're sitting there typing on a keyboard made from a variety of materials other than simply one - you wear clothing that is made from more than one material - according to Leviticus you should be stoned to death. Yes, the bible is really a great source for fact and "god's" word.

And yet, there you go again, you cite the bible to state that the bible was written by inspiration from god. If that were so, why was the bible edited? Why did councils convine to edit the inspirational writings of god? Perhaps the original writers were wrongly inspired and a council was held again through inspiration from god to edit out what god said before? So much for your all perfect god.

[/COLOR] Yet here you do not address the issue. only further proving of your bias and irrationality
Why not?

Again, citation of the bible to prove that the bible is correct? You just don't get it do you?

More citation of the bible to prove that the bible is the work of god, wow, just wonderful. This tells me that you are completely incapable of logic.


And god tells you what else?
You do realize that had god never said what you have said "for the record" that it is then you who are lieing? Furthermore you are using god for your lie which in itself is blasphemous? See you in hell then.

Here it is once and again; It's mathematical; If one cannot equate spiritually as an elemental part to sum the whole... The answer escapes them.
You my friend are clueless... You have blinded yourself by science. My wisdom comes from above, while you stir yours about in a pot comprised with logic, the reasonings of man, even your own feeble-mindedness. Truth cannot be defeated. Though battles are lost the war is won. Better I to be "Bias" in that what I know... Truth.
Then a faulted fool.
"Hell" is no place for me... Neither you.

 

[ngdawg]

It is only your truth, just like the Koran is the truth for Islam. Your God is not the same God of others, as some may swear to. What you see as divine in Christ, others don't. Please don't think others are mistaken just because they don't choose your path.. Afterall, there are neonazis who would swear they are the only true followers as well..which would mean then, that someone's wrong in their line of thinking that they're right.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Perhaps we are not the product of our own system. Perhaps reality is defined by our observations. But either way, our thought process, that which defines this reality, is still conformed to cause and effect. Cause and effect means there is no free will. The fact that we choose one choice over another means that there was some factor at that exact point in time that pushed us into choosing that choice. we did that action, but it is false to think that we had free will in choosing that choice.

Just take any thought process in your head and go backwards with it. The fact that you are thinking about this topic is because you are reading this post, and you are on this site because of certain factors which themselves were caused by a greater set of factors.

I think this idea, of cause and effect precluding free will, fails due to complexity. By the time someone has lived for a few decades, and stored up any number of experiences and sensations, the chains of cause and effect become so numerous and so complicated that I cannot believe our minds can sift through them all and choose one to follow at any given moment -- or rather, recognize that one is more imperative than another. We also gain experiences that contradict each other, and thus have conflicting chains of cause and effect; one chain pushes us to do this, another pushes us not to. So which do we do? More to the point, which do we do at any given moment? And all of the ones that pile up in the queue as we deal with the most immediate chain of causality; how do we set them in order? At what point does the queue become so long, so full of delayed effects of old causes, that we lose our minds?

I think that our minds are capable of choosing which chain of causality to follow. It may be a mechanism as simple as a sort of emotional barometer, which determines that this cause has more effect on our happiness/satisfaction/survival than this other, older cause, but even so, that is choosing. We follow some causes to their effects, and we ignore others, and therein lies free will.

 

[jfuh]

Here it is once and again; It's mathematical; If one cannot equate spiritually as an elemental part to sum the whole... The answer escapes them.

Mathematical? Show me the proof then. For if it is mathematical you should be able to provide the equation proof.

You my friend are clueless... You have blinded yourself by science.

Blinded by science? Now that's a first.:lol:

My wisdom comes from above, while you stir yours about in a pot comprised with logic, the reasonings of man, even your own feeble-mindedness.

The bombers of 9/11 also said the same thing, as did those of the spanish inquisition and those trying the witches of the Salem witch trials.

Truth cannot be defeated. Though battles are lost the war is won. Better I to be "Bias" in that what I know... Truth.
Then a faulted fool.

Again a truth that was written and edited by man a few thousand years ago that is only true because you believe it to be true and not true through logic or fact.
The only fact of your bible is that man wrote it and then re-edited it and today interpret it for self-justifications.
By the rationality you've placed on what truth is, then you must then also accept that that god is the flying spaghetti monster. Why? Because the book of the spaghetti monster says so.

"Hell" is no place for me... Neither you.

SO tell me what the consequences for your faith for lieing with god's name?
BTW hell only exists if you believe it to exist.

 

[Roberdorus]

"The bombers of 9/11 also said the same thing, as did those of the spanish inquisition and those trying the witches of the Salem witch trials."
If you ever read the Qu'ran, I think you'll understand how someone might interpret Muhammad's messages to be violent and hateful.

Also, if you ever read it, I think you'll understand how very injust it is to attribute the attrocities comitted in the name of Christianity to the Bible.

I won't hold my breath though.
"Again a truth that was written and edited by man a few thousand years ago that is only true because you believe it to be true and not true through logic or fact."

I don't quite understand your argument. Are you saying that the Bible is a piece of crap because parts of it are scientifically flawed?
In his Histories, Herodotus thorizes that warm weather turns to cold because the wind blows the sun miles away. And yet everything we know about the conflicts between the Greeks and Persians comes from Herodotus.
So, by your logic, should we discard of the Histories because of Herodotus' misrepresentations concerning meteorology?

 

[nkgupta80]

I think this idea, of cause and effect precluding free will, fails due to complexity. By the time someone has lived for a few decades, and stored up any number of experiences and sensations, the chains of cause and effect become so numerous and so complicated that I cannot believe our minds can sift through them all and choose one to follow at any given moment -- or rather, recognize that one is more imperative than another. We also gain experiences that contradict each other, and thus have conflicting chains of cause and effect; one chain pushes us to do this, another pushes us not to. So which do we do? More to the point, which do we do at any given moment? And all of the ones that pile up in the queue as we deal with the most immediate chain of causality; how do we set them in order? At what point does the queue become so long, so full of delayed effects of old causes, that we lose our minds?

I think that our minds are capable of choosing which chain of causality to follow. It may be a mechanism as simple as a sort of emotional barometer, which determines that this cause has more effect on our happiness/satisfaction/survival than this other, older cause, but even so, that is choosing. We follow some causes to their effects, and we ignore others, and therein lies free will.

i dont think our mind sifts through all the causes and effects since our birth. When i asked to analyze the causes and effects, i was pointing out that all the actions we have performed are results of these causes and effects. Our mind doesnt necessarily sift through all of them.

what i am saying is that at a certain moment in time, there is a series of causes that pushes us towards one path whether our mind is conscious of it or not. Of course these chains of causes and effects are very complex, and thus we feel that it is unpredictable. This is what creates the illusion of free will. But at a purely objective level, i doubt free will exists.

Again i ask you to analyze what happens when you think of something. Try to pinpoint the point in time where you choose. Whatever choice you will make, you were pushed into by a cause.

 

[nkgupta80]

"The bombers of 9/11 also said the same thing, as did those of the spanish inquisition and those trying the witches of the Salem witch trials."
If you ever read the Qu'ran, I think you'll understand how someone might interpret Muhammad's messages to be violent and hateful.

Also, if you ever read it, I think you'll understand how very injust it is to attribute the attrocities comitted in the name of Christianity to the Bible.

I won't hold my breath though.
"Again a truth that was written and edited by man a few thousand years ago that is only true because you believe it to be true and not true through logic or fact."

I don't quite understand your argument. Are you saying that the Bible is a piece of crap because parts of it are scientifically flawed?
In his Histories, Herodotus thorizes that warm weather turns to cold because the wind blows the sun miles away. And yet everything we know about the conflicts between the Greeks and Persians comes from Herodotus.
So, by your logic, should we discard of the Histories because of Herodotus' misrepresentations concerning meteorology?

so you are saying that the bible shoudl be treated like a fallible manmade book, just like any other book (say herodotus). We can learn a lot about history and civilization from studying the bible. I just don't think you could leanr much from taking its stories of genesis or perhaps the miracles of jesus literally.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

i dont think our mind sifts through all the causes and effects since our birth. When i asked to analyze the causes and effects, i was pointing out that all the actions we have performed are results of these causes and effects. Our mind doesnt necessarily sift through all of them.

what i am saying is that at a certain moment in time, there is a series of causes that pushes us towards one path whether our mind is conscious of it or not. Of course these chains of causes and effects are very complex, and thus we feel that it is unpredictable. This is what creates the illusion of free will. But at a purely objective level, i doubt free will exists.

Again i ask you to analyze what happens when you think of something. Try to pinpoint the point in time where you choose. Whatever choice you will make, you were pushed into by a cause.

But that's just it: what cause pushed me into this choice, right at this moment? Why am I replying to you, rather than smoking a cigarette or going to another forum, two things I also wish to do at this moment? Why have I not gotten up to go to the bathroom, or gotten myself something else to drink? Why aren't I wearing my slippers? Why aren't I playing Grand Theft Auto, or kissing my wife?

All of these are things I want to do right now. I'm sure I could follow out the chains of cause and effect that led me to want these things, to enjoy these things. But there are many things that I enjoy, and many things that I don't, and at any given moment, I have to choose between thousands of them. Assuming that all of my preferences were built on similar chains of cause and effect, things that have occurred in my life since I was born, there may very well be millions of causes clamoring through me for their effects, right now, at this moment.

I don't disagree that our preferences are built on past experiences and sensations, and thus our actions are the effects of certain causes, but we have too many experiences, too many wants and needs and fears, for them all to be satisfied at the same time. There is a mechanism by which we choose which need to satisfy, which chain of cause and effect to follow, at any given moment -- and that is our free will. I do not believe that this mechanism, too, is the simple result of cause and effect; I don't think that there can be a set of experiences I have had that could set all of my other preferences into a specific order, an order which changes from moment to moment. As complex as the human mind is, I just don't believe it could be that complex: to add an order of magnitude to the millions of moments that have influenced my life to this present state? That there is a chain of cause and effect that can sort through billions of wants, needs, and fears and organize them instantly, flawlessly, endlessly -- and never randomly? I don't believe that. I think it much more likely that my past experiences have created a gestalt, an overmind of sorts; a conscious personality which can analyze the various signals coming from the senses and then sift through the millions of possible urges that would serve as the best response to those signals. A free will.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to satisfy my other needs -- though I haven't decided in which order, yet.

 

[Andy]

That would only be if the moral codes themselves were set for the soul purpose of self righteousness. Which moral codes are not by far. Moral codes themselves are for social functionality and that of individuals dealing with society and other individuals based on the fundamental premise of not bringing any harm to others through either action or inaction by ones self.
Said premise need not function on the existence/authority of a omnipotent deity; or else it would seem that the moral society of today was simply the winner of a coin toss where we decided to worship a god that pronounced good as opposed to a god that pronounced evil - yet any logical thought experiment would show the improbability of this standpoint. Society came from the realization of the benefits of co-existence for the better good rather than individualistic greed. In other words, we would all benefit if we cooperated and did good onto each other in the long run rather than the opposite of self gratification. The simplest example would be sex - sure you can climax and be done with that there and then, but only through care for your partner can you achieve great sex and the relationship build even more - otherwise be prepared to have your sorry *** handed back to you with your partner seeking another to satisfy their sexual needs.

Your statement is correct, and I would like to direct you to one thing I said earlier:

View Post
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.

A moral code does help form a bedrock for the formation of society, but, I ask, does that give your or my life meaning, does it create significance? Purpose? Sure, morals might help run society, but that doesn't validate our existence, as I've said, it only serves to help you and I fall asleep at night.

 

[jfuh]

"The bombers of 9/11 also said the same thing, as did those of the spanish inquisition and those trying the witches of the Salem witch trials."
If you ever read the Qu'ran, I think you'll understand how someone might interpret Muhammad's messages to be violent and hateful.

Leviticus - quite violent as well.

Also, if you ever read it, I think you'll understand how very injust it is to attribute the attrocities comitted in the name of Christianity to the Bible.

Yes, I have read it, so explain how it would be unjust in one method of religious fanaticism by islam, and the other in christianity.

I won't hold my breath though.

On what?

"Again a truth that was written and edited by man a few thousand years ago that is only true because you believe it to be true and not true through logic or fact."

I don't quite understand your argument. Are you saying that the Bible is a piece of crap because parts of it are scientifically flawed?

No, I'm saying it's rediculous to claim you know the truth simply because the bible says so. It's rediculous to claim that the bible is the work of god when it was man who wrote the bible and also man whom later edited the bible.

In his Histories, Herodotus thorizes that warm weather turns to cold because the wind blows the sun miles away. And yet everything we know about the conflicts between the Greeks and Persians comes from Herodotus.
So, by your logic, should we discard of the Histories because of Herodotus' misrepresentations concerning meteorology?

No, that's completely untrue. We know far more about the greek and persian conflict other than through Histories. Archaeological digs for one. What I am saying is to separate the mythicisms from the archaeological facts.
In the case specific to the bible it's the mythicism of the few honored and revered men that gets in the way. In otherwords, the majority of christians today take more to the deity of Jesus rather then what it was that Jesus represented - today the only ppl whom I see whom practice what Jesus represented are the Amish.