The Assertion That Atheism Logically Requires The Philosophical Acceptance Of Nihilism And The Rejection Of Moral Absolutism

[Moontanman]

Nihilists have morals too, speaking as an atheistic nihilist :-P

I didn't mean to suggest they didn't...

[motherengine]

Possibly we both have somewhat slanted views of each other, from your post I would assume you are pompous and arrogant. who only wants to obfusticate the issues rather than actually discussing them. You seem to be of the opinion that you are correct and everyone else is incorrect and yet you display little to no understanding of evolution, and you keep building an atheist strawman. An atheist simply does not believe there is a god, it's the null hypothesis, in the face of total lack of evidence what ever you are proposing does not exist, if evidence shows up them my stance would be changed.

1- I can understand how I could be perceived as arrogant, but I do believe that I am capable of regulating my ignorance when it comes to discussing things of a philosophical nature.

 

2- Where is the straw man. Quote me using a straw man argument. I am not suggesting that I haven't, but where is it?

 

3- I don't think that your definition of what atheism is has anything significant to do with my initial assertion. If you don’t believe in a god force which made us with meaning and morality then tell me how the meanings, morals and values that humans believe in are anything beyond subjective conceptual fantasy. Explain to me how your existence has objective meaning and value without bringing a cosmic moral aspect into the equation. Until evidence is acquired to prove or disprove the existence of a personal moral god force do you just stop thinking about these issues and believe that anyone who does think about and discuss them is somehow a fool? I am simply following one point to another, philosophically.

 

Atheism is not nihilism and atheists have morals, mine are based on harm to others.

Nihilism does not presuppose amorality. I consider myself a “moral nihilist” yet I am also a moral person. I simply try to temper my emotions when it comes to philosophical thinking, or at least acknowledge the non-rational root to a position discussed rationally. I have communicated multiple times on this site that I believe emotions dilute and distort ones ability to reason.

 

Also, political nihilism is often based on a moral position concerning human behavior and society. Mikhail Bakunin is a real world example of what I am referring to. A 'mainstream' example would be the character of Tyler Durden in the book/film Fight Club.

 

Again, evolution is not a random process, it is driven by various factors one of which is natural selection, you also have genetic drift and sexual selection as well.

When have I used the word 'random'? Quote me having used it.

 

Mutation and migration are also considered essential aspects of evolutionary processes. I do not pretend to have a evolutionary biologist’s understanding of such processes though I do not believe that I need to have such knowledge in order to rationally discuss philosophical ideas concerning the nature of morality and our species (it has been over twenty years since I have extensively researched facts and theories concerning evolution and yet I believe that I have a sound enough grasp of the subject when it comes to such areas of discourse).

 

Again, please give me an example of how I have displayed “ignorance” concerning the process of evolution. Otherwise I will suggest that you are simply attacking what I am communicating from ignorance.

 

We are a social species, we evolved as a social species and much like other species were are pre programmed with certain behaviors, as you would expect from evolution not all people will agree on morals but we as a group do decide what is moral behavior.

 

Look at the way wolfs organise themselves, they live relatively peaceful lives compared to their non social relatives.

1- Do we? Or do processes beyond our control “decide” such things. There are collective conditioned morals and a subsequent ‘norm’ of behavior which seems to blanket our species, but there are also constant reminders around us that these things are not unified rationally by our species at all. I think that we follow patterns unconsciously even as we think about the nature of them. We did not, as a whole species, sit down for a board meeting (before we were prescribed emotions) and decide on how we should live as a group. Personally I believe that North America is a social and moral mess and only superficially functional.

 

2- Why should anything live a peaceful life? How is a peaceful life the kind of life we ‘should’ aspire towards. Nature does not seem to care about peace or morality at all; only certain animals care about such things, and they are products of evolution, not the gods of what is and what should never be. We can’t even agree to be moral in any fixed manner without the constant threat of punishment in some form. There can be a separation of intellect and emotion which allows a moral person to question the validity of all moral belief (including one's own beliefs). This is what I am referring to here.

Edited August 2, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

BTW I am ignorant of many things, doesn't make me stupid just uninformed, ignorance is something we all share about some things.

Of course, we are all ignorant of many things. I did not intend to suggest that you were "stupid". I only suggested that insecurity may have subverted your ability to reason (and understand that this is coming from a very insecure individual; i.e., myself). And, of course, that does not make it so.

Edited August 2, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

I would add an observation that using reason as basis for moral guidance is possible; one just has to recognize that it doesn't necessarily give you the right answers.

I agree in the sense that one can base actions on rational expectations. But I think that the basis itself, in the case of morality, is always non-rational.

[Moontanman]

I agree in the sense that one can base actions on rational expectations. But I think that the basis itself, in the case of morality, is always non-rational.

I am curious, how can you support the assertion that morality is non rational?

[Moontanman]

1- I can understand how I could be perceived as arrogant, but I do believe that I am capable of regulating my ignorance when it comes to discussing things of a philosophical nature.

Noted

 

2- Where is the straw man. Quote me using a straw man argument. I am not suggesting that I haven't, but where is it?

You keep asserting that evolution is accidental, it is not, it is quite deterministic and plastic to outside forces.

 

3- I don't think that your definition of what atheism is has anything significant to do with my initial assertion. If you don’t believe in a god force which made us with meaning and morality then tell me how the meanings, morals and values that humans believe in are anything beyond subjective conceptual fantasy. Explain to me how your existence has objective meaning and value without bringing a cosmic moral aspect into the equation. Until evidence is acquired to prove or disprove the existence of a personal moral god force do you just stop thinking about these issues and believe that anyone who does think about and discuss them is somehow a fool? I am simply following one point to another, philosophically.

Again morals have evolved they are not handed down by some cosmic sky daddy.

 

 

Nihilism does not presuppose amorality. I consider myself a “moral nihilist” yet I am also a moral person. I simply try to temper my emotions when it comes to philosophical thinking, or at least acknowledge the non-rational root to a position discussed rationally. I have communicated multiple times on this site that I believe emotions dilute and distort ones ability to reason.

I did not say that nihilists did not have morals, I said atheist did.

 

Also, political nihilism is often based on a moral position concerning human behavior and society. Mikhail Bakunin is a real world example of what I am referring to. A 'mainstream' example would be the character of Tyler Durden in the book/film Fight Club.

Noted

 

 

When have I used the word 'random'? Quote me having used it.

You have used the word accidental to describe evolution several times, random can mean the same thing.

 

Mutation and migration are also considered essential aspects of evolutionary processes. I do not pretend to have a evolutionary biologist’s understanding of such processes though I do not believe that I need to have such knowledge in order to rationally discuss philosophical ideas concerning the nature of morality and our species (it has been over twenty years since I have extensively researched facts and theories concerning evolution and yet I believe that I have a sound enough grasp of the subject when it comes to such areas of discourse).

I am quite well versed in the modern concept of evolution and up to date not 20 years behind.

 

Again, please give me an example of how I have displayed “ignorance” concerning the process of evolution. Otherwise I will suggest that you are simply attacking what I am communicating from ignorance.

You continue to stress that evolution is accidental, it is not...

 

 

1- Do we? Or do processes beyond our control “decide” such things. There are collective conditioned morals and a subsequent ‘norm’ of behavior which seems to blanket our species, but there are also constant reminders around us that these things are not unified rationally by our species at all. I think that we follow patterns unconsciously even as we think about the nature of them. We did not, as a whole species, sit down for a board meeting (before we were prescribed emotions) and decide on how we should live as a group. Personally I believe that North America is a social and moral mess and only superficially functional.

Another strawman, I never suggested that morals are the same or have ever been the same species wide...

 

2- Why should anything live a peaceful life? How is a peaceful life the kind of life we ‘should’ aspire towards. Nature does not seem to care about peace or morality at all; only certain animals care about such things, and they are products of evolution, not the gods of what is and what should never be. We can’t even agree to be moral in any fixed manner without the constant threat of punishment in some form. There can be a separation of intellect and emotion which allows a moral person to question the validity of all moral belief (including one's own beliefs). This is what I am referring to here.

This to is a strawman no one has suggested that anyone or anything has the right to live in any particular way

[motherengine]

I am curious, how can you support the assertion that morality is non rational?

How is morality rational?

[motherengine]

You keep asserting that evolution is accidental, it is not, it is quite deterministic and plastic to outside forces.

 

You have used the word accidental to describe evolution several times, random can mean the same thing.

 

I am quite well versed in the modern concept of evolution and up to date not 20 years behind.

 

You continue to stress that evolution is accidental, it is not...

How many times can I stress that I am using the word accidental to describe processes which seem to have no intention behind them. That IS a sound definition of accidental.

 

You are making a straw man out of my use of the word ‘accidental’ as I have clearly differentiated it from the word ‘random’. And though mutation and genetic drift are considered to be random, I honestly do not care. 'Homo sapiens sapiens' (and our subsequent beliefs concerning meaning and morality) seem to be the result of processes which have no intentional basis, therefore I am using the word ‘accidental’ as in “not on purpose”.

 

If the term bothers you because you can only associate it with events that occur after intention (such as a car crash) then ignore it. Otherwise you are sidetracking the initial post based solely on semantics, while ignoring the assertion made concerning a lack of belief in intentional design being connected to a lack of belief in inherent value.

 

Again morals have evolved they are not handed down by some cosmic sky daddy.

 

I did not say that nihilists did not have morals, I said atheist did.

1- I did not imply that “some cosmic sky daddy” handed down our morals; I believe they have essentially evolved without purpose (i.e., accidentally). Are you fully reading what I am posting?

 

2- Why “say” that unless to imply that nihilistic thinkers do not have morals? What was the intended point of the statement?

 

Another strawman, I never suggested that morals are the same or have ever been the same species wide...

 

This to is a strawman no one has suggested that anyone or anything has the right to live in any particular way

1- You keep referring to “society” as if there is some kind of unified whole as opposed to various groupings of our species with varied collective and individually conflicting mores and moral beliefs.

 

2- I am not using a straw man argument at all. I am asking you questions related to your assertions which you are not answering.

Edited August 5, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

How is morality rational?

 

 

Answering a question with a question? 

[Moontanman]

How many times can I stress that I am using the word accidental to describe processes which seem to have no intention behind them. That IS a sound definition of accidental.

 

You are making a straw man out of my use of the word ‘accidental’ as I have clearly differentiated it from the word ‘random’. And though mutation and genetic drift are considered to be random, I honestly do not care. 'Homo sapiens sapiens' (and our subsequent beliefs concerning meaning and morality) seem to be the result of processes which have no intentional basis, therefore I am using the word ‘accidental’ as in “not on purpose”.

 

If the term bothers you because you can only associate it with events that occur after intention (such as a car crash) then ignore it. Otherwise you are sidetracking the initial post based solely on semantics, while ignoring the assertion made concerning a lack of belief in intentional design being connected to a lack of belief in inherent value.

 

 

1- I did not imply that “some cosmic sky daddy” handed down our morals; I believe they have essentially evolved without purpose (i.e., accidentally). Are you fully reading what I am posting?

 

2- Why “say” that unless to imply that nihilistic thinkers do not have morals? What was the intended point of the statement?

 

 

1- You keep referring to “society” as if there is some kind of unified whole as opposed to various groupings of our species with varied collective and individually conflicting mores and moral beliefs.

 

2- I am not using a straw man argument at all. I am asking you questions related to your assertions which you are not answering.

 

 

Accidental  ac·ci·den·tal

ˌaksəˈden(t)l/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.

   "a verdict of accidental death"

   synonyms: fortuitous, chance, adventitious, fluky, coincidental, casual,serendipitous, random; More

    

    

      
2. 2.

   incidental; subsidiary.

   "the location is accidental and contributes nothing to the tension between the characters in the poem"

   synonyms: incidental, unimportant, by the way, by the by, supplementary,subsidiary, subordinate, secondary, accessory, peripheral, tangential,extraneous, extrinsic, irrelevant, nonessential, inessential

   "the location is accidental and contributes nothing to the poem"

You keep defining words to mean what you want them to mean!

 

Natural selection is not accidental (genetic drift could be termed that way but it is not the main form of natural selection) Sexual selection is definitely not accidental and the gene pool being plastic to the environment is determined by the environment not accident... 

 

Morals evolved as part of us being social animals, they are not accidental but are determined by what actions lead to better reproductive success.

 

Society does not refer to all humans, humanity is made up of many different societies...

 

I am not strawmanning you, I am answering questions, just because you don't like the answers does make the answers invalid...

 

Differing moral beliefs among different societies is exactly what would be expected if morals are evolved...

Edited August 5, 2015 by Moontanman

[motherengine]

You keep defining words to mean what you want them to mean!

 

Natural selection is not accidental (genetic drift could be termed that way but it is not the main form of natural selection) Sexual selection is definitely not accidental and the gene pool being plastic to the environment is determined by the environment not accident... 

 

Morals evolved as part of us being social animals, they are not accidental but are determined by what actions lead to better reproductive success.

 

Society does not refer to all humans, humanity is made up of many different societies...

 

I am not strawmanning you, I am answering questions, just because you don't like the answers does make the answers invalid...

 

Differing moral beliefs among different societies is exactly what would be expected if morals are evolved...

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

 

accidental: happening in a way that is not planned or intended

 

Do you believe that the process of evolution was planned or intended (and I am not referring to singular aspects, but the process as a whole)?

 

Nothing I have communicated or suggested conflicts with the Merriam-Webster definition of the word. Many words have more than one meaning; I am using one of the meanings related to the word accidental. It may be a usage that you find personally inappropriate when referring to evolution. It may be a usage that few biologists use when referring to evolution.

 

I don’t care.

 

I use the word (appropriately, whether anyone likes it or not) in reference to my belief that evolutionary processes are not the result of intention. I do not have to change or distort the meaning of the word to suit my personal preference for it.

 

I believe that all rational/intentional aspects of existence are born from and spurned on by non-rational/unintentional processes:

 

Sexual selection is a result of processes that occurred unintentionally and, therefore, accidentally. Morality is a social phenomenon resulting from speculation of emotions which have evolved as a result of unintentional/accidental processes. The process of reproduction is not goal-oriented (as with the intention of individuals to reproduce) but rather is an aspect of the process of evolution, which seems to have no ultimate goal, and so produces phenomenon which can be labeled accidental.

 

If you prefer the word ‘unintentional’ to ‘accidental’ then just imagine that I am using that word. You know what I am communicating (or attempting to communicate, if that ‘better’ fits your perspective) and so you are just arguing for your semantic preference over my own. Why not start a thread about how you think that the word ‘accidental’ is inappropriate when used in reference to the process of evolution and we can debate this there.

 

And you are “strawmanning” me in the sense that you keep referring to things which I never actually communicated as examples of my ignorance.

 

How about we forget about evolution and the definition of ‘accidental’ and address the initial assertion of a philosophical connectivity between atheism and nihilism. Or must we go on and on concerning the proper definition of the words ‘atheism’ and ‘nihilism’?

Edited August 9, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

 

accidental: happening in a way that is not planned or intended

 

Do you believe that the process of evolution was planned or intended (and I am not referring to singular aspects, but the process as a whole)?

 

Nothing I have communicated or suggested conflicts with the Merriam-Webster definition of the word. Many words have more than one meaning; I am using one of the meanings related to the word accidental. It may be a usage that you find personally inappropriate when referring to evolution. It may be a usage that few biologists use when referring to evolution.

 

I don’t care.

 

I use the word (appropriately, whether anyone likes it or not) in reference to my belief that evolutionary processes are not the result of intention. I do not have to change or distort the meaning of the word to suit my personal preference for it.

 

I believe that all rational/intentional aspects of existence are born from and spurned on by non-rational/unintentional processes:

 

Sexual selection is a result of processes that occurred unintentionally and, therefore, accidentally. Morality is a social phenomenon resulting from speculation of emotions which have evolved as a result of unintentional/accidental processes. The process of reproduction is not goal-oriented (as with the intention of individuals to reproduce) but rather is an aspect of the process of evolution, which seems to have no ultimate goal, and so produces phenomenon which can be labeled accidental.

 

If you prefer the word ‘unintentional’ to ‘accidental’ then just imagine that I am using that word. You know what I am communicating (or attempting to communicate, if that ‘better’ fits your perspective) and so you are just arguing for your semantic preference over my own. Why not start a thread about how you think that the word ‘accidental’ is inappropriate when used in reference to the process of evolution and we can debate this there.

 

And you are “strawmanning” me in the sense that you keep referring to things which I never actually communicated as examples of my ignorance.

 

How about we forget about evolution and the definition of ‘accidental’ and address the initial assertion of a philosophical connectivity between atheism and nihilism. Or must we go on and on concerning the proper definition of the words ‘atheism’ and ‘nihilism’?

 

 

If we do not have the proper definition of the words we are speculating on then any speculation is meaningless, the one I am most concerned about is atheism, you lack the proper definition of atheism and then you draw analogies that are incorrect.

 

Atheism is nothing but a rejection of the idea of god due to lack of evidence, no other conclusion can be drawn from that word.

[motherengine]

If we do not have the proper definition of the words we are speculating on then any speculation is meaningless, the one I am most concerned about is atheism, you lack the proper definition of atheism and then you draw analogies that are incorrect.

 

Atheism is nothing but a rejection of the idea of god due to lack of evidence, no other conclusion can be drawn from that word.

 

Quote me drawing an incorrect analogy concerning an improper definition of the word 'atheism'.

 

I think that you are narrowing the word to suit your own position.

 

From what I understand 'atheism' has at least three possible meaning variants in contemporary usage:

 

1- a lack of belief in a god or gods: “God…huh, what?” (though I am unsure if the etymology of the word actually allows for this usage)

 

2 - a rejection of the belief in a god or gods: “I think that God is merely a concept”

 

3 - the outright denial of the existence of a god or gods: “There is no God, g*****n it!”

 

For the sake of argument I am using the word in reference to the second of these three.

 

And “lack of evidence” is not always a criterion for atheism.

 

 

It also seems that you are ignoring the implications of the meaning to suit your own argument.

 

As an atheistic thinker do you simply reject the idea of a god force and think no further on the implications of this concerning morality, meaning and value/values (this is the second time I am asking you this)?

 

If you refuse to acknowledge that there are philosophical/moral implications relating to a lack of belief in or a denial of the existence of a god force, then why are you even posting on this thread?

 

note: I am suggesting that atheism logically leads to some form of nihilism, not that an atheistic thinker is always going to consider him/herself nihilistic.

Edited August 12, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

Quote me drawing an incorrect analogy concerning an improper definition of the word 'atheism'.

 

I think that you are narrowing the word to suit your own position.

 

From what I understand 'atheism' has at least three possible meaning variants in contemporary usage:

 

1- a lack of belief in a god or gods: “God…huh, what?” (though I am unsure if the etymology of the word actually allows for this usage)

 

2 - a rejection of the belief in a god or gods: “I think that God is merely a concept”

 

3 - the outright denial of the existence of a god or gods: “There is no God, g*****n it!”

 

For the sake of argument I am using the word in reference to the second of these three.

 

And “lack of evidence” is not always a criterion for atheism.

 

 

It also seems that you are ignoring the implications of the meaning to suit your own argument.

 

As an atheistic thinker do you simply reject the idea of a god force and think no further on the implications of this concerning morality, meaning and value/values (this is the second time I am asking you this)?

 

If you refuse to acknowledge that there are philosophical/moral implications relating to a lack of belief in or a denial of the existence of a god force, then why are you even posting on this thread?

 

note: I am suggesting that atheism logically leads to some form of nihilism, not that an atheistic thinker is always going to consider him/herself nihilistic.

 

 

All I can say is that atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, I don't know how to put it anymore simply or precise, it has nothing to say about morals or lack there of, atheism logically leads to nothing but a lack of belief in gods, why is it so important to stamp your own definition on atheism ? 

[motherengine]

All I can say is that atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, I don't know how to put it anymore simply or precise, it has nothing to say about morals or lack there of, atheism logically leads to nothing but a lack of belief in gods, why is it so important to stamp your own definition on atheism ?

Good God, man.

 

I have specifically defined atheism as a lack/rejection/denial of a god or gods. YOU are insisting that I am attempting to redefine the word to suit an argument. I am only referring to the implications of atheism, not redefining the word.

 

Answer me these questions:

 

Do you believe in an absolute universal right and/or wrong?

 

Do you think that human values are conceptual or actual?

 

Do you believe that there is an intrinsic meaning to existence?

 

If you cannot/will not answer these questions then you should probably leave this thread alone.

Edited August 18, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

Good God, man.

 

I have specifically defined atheism as a lack/rejection/denial of a god or gods. YOU are insisting that I am attempting to redefine the word to suit an argument. I am only referring to the implications of atheism, not redefining the word.

 

Answer me these questions:

 

Do you believe in an absolute universal right and/or wrong?

 

Do you think that human values are conceptual or actual?

 

Do you believe that there is an intrinsic meaning to existence?

 

If you cannot/will not answer these questions then you should probably leave this thread alone.

 

 

#1 No

#2 Conceptual

#3 No

 

 

You need to understand that atheism is not denying god, it's I'm not buying what theists are selling. I do not reject god i reject the evidence that has thus far been given. 

 

Do I have to say I deny the existence of bigfoot to be skeptical? 

 

I do not know if there is a god, I do not have sufficient evidence to make that determination just like I do not know if there is a bigfoot or alien space craft visiting the earth. The only honest position is " I do not know" If you say you do know there is not a god or that there is a a god then you must give evidentiary support for that assertion, no honest person can do so and not be able to show their work. Just like I cannot say there is or is not a bigfoot, I am an abigfootist, I am simply not in possession of the information necessary to make that conclusion... 

 

You seem to be saying that atheist deny there is a god, not if the atheist is honest, all that can honestly be said is that we have no evidence of a god or gods. Hence the term atheist, in other words not theist, not there is not god and not that there is a god, I simply do not know and so far have not been given enough evidence to make that conclusion... 

 

And BTY, I do not have to leave this thread alone, I am a member of this forum, you keep making assertions you cannot support and your only response if I don't agree with you then i should not post in this thread, you need a blog...

Edited August 18, 2015 by Moontanman

[layman]

drive by comment.

 

anything that exists has intrisic meaning. it is self evident. it's intrinsic propeties give rise to it's meaning.

 

example: gravity exists, that means bodies can orbit one another.

 

that's not somantics. when something exists it displaces non esistence, it occupies a place in spacetime, it has an effect on the whole. it has it's meaning in relation to the reality it is part of.

 

 even when we say "there is no meaning" that in itself is a meaning.