motherengine

I don't see a team at all, only various groupings of animals with various beliefs and values.

Nothing is worthless if it has worth to someone. I am only asserting that one person's worth or values cannot rationally be placed 'above' another's.

1- I also agree that a person can be moral without religion. But I would argue that the belief in morality itself can be religious, especially when it is preached as being anything beyond the predetermined articulation of non-rational emotions. 2- One can adhere to anything. But the adherence of one does not necessarily demand the acceptance of another. 3- The title of the thread is from a line in the film/book Deliverance which is given in response to the assertion that an aspect of the situation which the characters have found themselves in is "a matter of the law".

Is it religious? If it is taken from the Torah then it may well be. Is it senseless? If its only support stems from an emotional basis, then I would say- yes.

Good God, with the definitions. from Merriam Webster: hypothesis- a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action If you must rely on Wikipedia for your definition then I am proposing that the phenomenon of human beings relying on terms such as ‘justice’ and ‘rule of law’ in order to validate the condemnation and subsequent ‘punishment’ of certain social behaviors stems, in part, from the desire to live in relative comfort (i.e., that social comfort is, at least in part, dependent upon the terms/ideals we utilize in order to rationalize aggressive actions against others).

Do you believe that you are actually choosing anything?

I don't call anything "the best". I see only evidence of natural and universal indifference to what human beings believe in, however fervently. To abstain from stealing is only to abstain from stealing. And if such abstinence were to have a social effect that was perceived as 'good' or "the best" this would merely mean that many people feel/think this way, not that it is so beyond our subjective and transient thoughts and feelings. If we can perceive and acknowledge moral/sociopolitical indifference from the rest of the natural process as well as the known universe, and if we can find no evidence of cosmic purpose or intention behind our existence, then what do we appeal to in order to assert that morality is something other than a mere concept open to individual interpretation (beyond critical fallacies, that is)? Or maybe I misunderstood what you were asserting.

from Encyclopedia Britannica: Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable. I am pretty sure that atheism can be 'legitimately' described as both a lack of, and a rejection of, belief in a god or gods.

?

Some smart-a** wrote about the God delusion. What of the delusions concerning freewill, morality and justice? Clarification: I am paraphrasing a line from the film 1408 (concerning Hannah Arendt and her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil), as opposed to simply insulting Dawkins.

No nerve hit. I initially started this thread to test a hypothesis and things went off the rails pretty quick (and due to my own insecurities, among other things, I encouraged this). I still think that atheism and nihilism are philosophically connected and I do not expect to find a rational objection that is not somehow perverting the assertion. That being said, I will recant my wish to stay focused and replace it with this: Post whatever you think/feel is relevant to the subject. PS: I would suggest that Moses was not atheistic as he is written to have known that only one god actually existed; lack of belief was not necessarily a factor (in the book at least).

Understand that I was not referring to your analogy as ignorant and offensive. I don't find it offensive at all; to me it is simply your perspective (though one I do not fully share). But due to the broad scope of the assertions you are making I can understand how someone would simply dismiss them as stemming from bias and ignorance. And however relevant such things may be to anyone, I do wish this thread could veer back to the central idea (whether or not that idea is itself perceived to be relevant). Oh well— opening up a Pandora's box, I suppose this is what I get.

Do you actually not believe this to be the case concerning theistic-minded people?

I can understand how it could be read as an ignorant and/or offensive statement. That being said- Concerning issues related to the human need to find something 'larger' than one's self to believe in (e.g., socio-political ideology, the scientific method, analysis systems such as logic and reason, philosophical principles, secular groups, etc.), I find it a relevant expression of atheism (especially as an atheistic person who has no heroes or belief in the social order). To each his/her own.

Thanks. Cheers and Godspeed.

I do like that analogy. What it brings to mind is the idea of an essential aimlessness (i.e., no cohesive goal or collective righteous path beyond species continuity; and even this is not shared by all of us) in humanity which few people wish to acknowledge. As an atheistic thinker I find secular humanism particularly inadequate when confronting the specter of nihilism. Even though I have no god to look to I am not going to pretend that the human kind is, in any way shape or form, fit to tell me what I 'should' be doing with my life. Cheers.

Speaking of a "good" place to look for knowledge: from Encyclopedia Britannica: Nihilism, (from Latin nihil, “nothing”), originally a philosophy of moral and epistemological skepticism that arose in 19th-century Russia during the early years of the reign of Tsar Alexander II. The term was famously used by Friedrich Nietzsche to describe the disintegration of traditional morality in Western society. In the 20th century, nihilism encompassed a variety of philosophical and aesthetic stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral truths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and asserted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the universe. — Fundamentally, 19th-century nihilism represented a philosophy of negation of all forms of aestheticism; it advocated utilitarianism and scientific rationalism. Classical philosophical systems were rejected entirely. Nihilism represented a crude form of positivism and materialism, a revolt against the established social order; it negated all authority exercised by the state, by the church, or by the family. It based its belief on nothing but scientific truth; science would be the solution of all social problems. All evils, nihilists believed, derived from a single source—ignorance—which science alone would overcome.

Evidence for such speculation? Theories? Educate me. Although I would request that you do it elsewhere and give me a link as this has little to do with the subject of this thread.

1- I was countering your assertion with a fact. You are not a spokesperson for all atheists. 2- How do they exist; in what form? 3- I was being sarcastic; I find no need for new terms (Is that an actual dictionary word? I ask because of your obsession with accuracy and specificity concerning definitions). Such things can make discussions/debates even more confusing then they already are. 4- So your idea of a basis for meaning and values is mindless evolutionary adaptation? Can you formulate an argument in defense of one value over another without an appeal to majority (i.e., society/social norms)?

1- I do. 2- You are leaning on conveniently specific definitions of both atheism and nihilism to argue against something I suspect you may actually agree with. There are at least two forms of atheism (simple lack of belief and outright rejection) and several forms of nihilism. In my initial post I expressed that I was using the term atheism as in 'a rejection of theism' and the "existential" (according to Wikipedia) form of nihilism. 3- Then you don't think these things actually exist; they are merely the comfort food fantasies of philosophical primates. 4- And I am a zilosophiticus. 5- Yes. But I believe that a person who rejects a god force has no rational/logical basis on which to form a belief in morality/values/meaning as anything beyond transitory concepts.

Wikipedia is a substandard place to look for information; I will stick with Encyclopaedia Britannica, thank you.

That is an evasive answer. I think that my question was valid concerning your extraordinary claim (that reality would fall apart if a particle were to somehow be removed from existence). But as your quote shows, I actually did give a more detailed reply to both of your previous posts. And I thought you were just driving by?

Wikipedia? Fine: "Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived Reread the initial post. I did not make the assertion that atheism and nihilism are the same thing. I asserted that a rejection of a god force logically leads to the rejection of absolute values, morality and intrinsic meaning to existence." You claim to be atheistic. You also claim to believe that existence has no intrinsic meaning, that values are subjective and that morality is not absolute. Are you nihilistic? Is the basis of your lack of belief in a god/gods and absolute morality/values/meaning completely disconnected? Do you really see no connection between these two words? I reject both the existence of a god and absolute morality/values/meaning due less to a lack of evidence then because of a multitude of evidence (some of it empirical) which suggests a godless and morally indifferent universe. I never asserted that atheism and nihilism are the same thing.

1- What is the basis of your claim? 2- Basis? 3- What does experience have to do with meaning?

As long as I carry over things such as "likes" and threads, please do.