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

[HydrogenBond]

If you believe in God, you also believe in things that are beyond human. Since this implies beyond human, this means God can think many steps beyond human. Therefore if God establish laws and rules, these are from a thought process that is beyond what a human can do for themselves.

 

The atheist does not recognize anything higher than human (beyond the UFO), so he does not set the bar as high, and therefore things appear more relative to loop holes and legal arguments of humans. 

 

Say hypothetically, visitors came from another galaxy, with technology millennia ahead of us. As they communicate with us we learn that their early history followed a learning curve similar to where we are today. If they came up with laws and insights to help us avoid future pitfalls, this would come from a position of superior experience. it may not seem right for those who learn better from mistakes or those who wish to exploit the present.

Edited August 19, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Moontanman]

If you believe in God, you also believe in things that are beyond human. Since this implies beyond human, this means God can think many steps beyond human. Therefore if God establish laws and rules, these are from a thought process that is beyond what a human can do for themselves.

I'm not sure what to say about this HB, the concept of a god implies lots of things none of which have any evidence to back them up. Beyond human needs to be elaborated on, what does that mean?

 

The atheist does not recognize anything higher than human (beyond the UFO), so he does not set the bar as high, and therefore things appear more relative to loop holes and legal arguments of humans.

This simply makes no sense as written "UFO" what does Unidentified Flying Objects have to do with this?

 

Say hypothetically, visitors came from another galaxy, with technology millennia ahead of us. As they communicate with us we learn that their early history followed a learning curve similar to where we are today. If they came up with laws and insights to help us avoid future pitfalls, this would come from a position of superior experience. it may not seem right for those who learn better from mistakes or those who wish to exploit the present.

This need to be explained as well, visitors from another galaxy? Superior experiences? Different possibly but superior?

 

I know Motherengine and I seem to have a problem communicating but I have no idea where you are coming from on this...

[motherengine]

#1 No

#2 Conceptual

#3 No

1- why not?

2- why?

3- why not?

[motherengine]

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...

I did not command you to leave this thread alone. I suggested that you spend your time elsewhere if you have nothing to say about the actual thread topic. You are repeatedly sidestepped the central question in order to challenge my understanding of words (without supplying any actual evidence of this being the case) and I have grown bored with what I see as a fruitless diversion.

 

I don’t need a blog; I need to know whether you are capable of rationally discussing this subject. It seems that you are being somehow purposefully obtuse.

Edited August 20, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

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.

From Merriam-Webster online:

 

meaning:

 

1

a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport

b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import

2

: something meant or intended : aim <a mischievous meaning was apparent>

3

: significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance <a glance full of meaning>

 

I was making reference to the question of whether human existence was intended or if it has special/universal significance (objective to our own desire for this to be the case).

Edited August 20, 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- why not?

2- why?

3- why not?

#1- Right and wrong are subjective concepts open to interpretation by thinking beings.

 

#2- Human values are human concepts and change over time and space.

 

#3- Existence is a different experience for every human being.

 

You edited out part of your reply but I will answer anyway. Atheism is not a denial of anything but evidence. Using the example of bigfoot I can't deny the existence of bigfoot but i can say I don't believe based on current evidential support.

 

I am not trying to be obtuse, you cannot simply assign a specific definition to a label like atheism to try and draw your own conclusions. Lacking belief doesn't mean I deny the possibility of a god. I simply do not believe due to lack of evidence.

 

This is growing tedious, We seem to have a basic misunderstanding, to me you are being obtuse by asserting that which is not evidently true.

[layman]

From Merriam-Webster online:

 

meaning:

 

1

a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport

b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import

2

: something meant or intended : aim <a mischievous meaning was apparent>

3

: significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance <a glance full of meaning>

 

I was making reference to the question of whether human existence was intended or if it has special/universal significance (objective to our own desire for this to be the case).

 

My statement speaks for itself. I've read those definitions and I don't see a conflict. It's covered at the least by #3. "meaning" is a word meant to convey........a particle has a special significance, in that if you remove it from the universe, the tapestry that is reality falls apart.

 

it's not extraneous, it has meaning to the system. 

[motherengine]

a particle has a special significance, in that if you remove it from the universe, the tapestry that is reality falls apart.

 

it's not extraneous, it has meaning to the system.

1- What? How could you possibly know such a thing?

 

2- How is my subjective belief concerning the meaning of my existence intrinsic to existence? It seems to be merely a comforting fantasy that dies with me, leaving the "tapestry that is reality" quite intact.

[motherengine]

I am not trying to be obtuse, you cannot simply assign a specific definition to a label like atheism to try and draw your own conclusions.

 

This is growing tedious, We seem to have a basic misunderstanding, to me you are being obtuse by asserting that which is not evidently true.

1- This is exactly what you are doing: Atheism is a lack of/rejection of theistic belief. Yet you are defining atheism personally by insisting that it has to do with evidence, which it DOES NOT.

 

2- If this is so, it is most probably because you have consistently ignored my attempts to redirect the ’discussion’ toward the initial thread subject in favor of flogging a horse that never was alive to begin with (e.g., your utterly unsupported claims concerning my ignorance of the definitions of certain words and the nature of evolution).

Edited August 25, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

#1- Right and wrong are subjective concepts open to interpretation by thinking beings.

 

#2- Human values are human concepts and change over time and space.

 

#3- Existence is a different experience for every human being.

1- What is the basis of your claim?

 

2- Basis?

 

3- What does experience have to do with meaning?

[Moontanman]

1- What is the basis of your claim?

You asked me for my opinion, I think that human societies pretty much show this to be true since societies in both space and time have differing morals.

 

2- Basis?

See above answer

 

3- What does experience have to do with meaning?

 

Experiences in life is how you assign meaning, a newborn with no experiences has no meaning for life, many people seem to think that life has some intrinsic meaning but most people have different opinions as to the meaning of life, personal experience is the only explanation for so little agreement on the meaning of life.

 

I will have to admit that from a purely biological stand point the meaning of life is to reproduce and leave progeny, but human add quite a bit to this due to our social nature and varying experiences. We humans tend to assign meaning to life via our own biases, needs, wants, personal experiences...

 

Atheism is

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

Atheism is not nihilism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

 

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is aphilosophical doctrine that suggests the negation^[clarify] of one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. The Greek philosopher and Sophist,Gorgias (ca. 485 BCE–380 BCE), is perhaps the first to consider the Nihilistic belief. 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. Nihilism can also takeepistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist

 

 

 

Nihilism and atheism are not the same thing, a nihilist can be an atheist and an atheist can be a nihilist can be an atheist but the two things do mean the same thing.  

[layman]

1- What? How could you possibly know such a thing?

 

2- How is my subjective belief concerning the meaning of my existence intrinsic to existence? It seems to be merely a comforting fantasy that dies with me, leaving the "tapestry that is reality" quite intact.

 

 

you may as well say "prove anything exists".  if anytime someone says something and you only reply with some form of "how do you know that?' then it seems like you're not even trying.

 

i can just take the same tact and say nothing you say is correct because you don't even exist. but there's no point to it.

[motherengine]

Atheism is not nihilism

 

Nihilism and atheism are not the same thing, a nihilist can be an atheist and an atheist can be a nihilist can be an atheist but the two things do mean the same thing.

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.

Edited August 26, 2015 by motherengine

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

Wikipedia is a good place to start in your quest for knowledge:

 

Atheists do not say that life is without meaning or worth, all you have to be to be an atheist is lack a belief in gods, nothing else is proscribed by the label atheist. An atheist can be a nihilist, and a nihilist can be an atheist but the rest of the definition is in addition to not required by atheism.

 

I do think life has meaning, I do think life has a purpose, I do think morality exists, I do think live has value, I do think life has purpose, I do think knowledge is possible,  I do not think reality doesn't exist, I simply think these things are subjective and not objective. 

 

I am an apistevist, I require evidence for belief, I do not have faith in ideas that have no evidence to back them up nor do i reject ideas outright without some evidence for their veracity.

 

Atheism does not require the acceptance of nihilism, in fact a theist could still be a nihilist. 

[motherengine]

you may as well say "prove anything exists".  if anytime someone says something and you only reply with some form of "how do you know that?' then it seems like you're not even trying.

 

i can just take the same tact and say nothing you say is correct because you don't even exist. but there's no point to it.

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?

[motherengine]

Wikipedia is a good place to start in your quest for knowledge:

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

[motherengine]

Atheists do not say that life is without meaning or worth

 

all you have to be to be an atheist is lack a belief in gods, nothing else is proscribed by the label atheist. An atheist can be a nihilist, and a nihilist can be an atheist but the rest of the definition is in addition to not required by atheism.

 

I do think life has meaning, I do think life has a purpose, I do think morality exists, I do think live has value, I do think life has purpose...I simply think these things are subjective and not objective. 

 

I am an apistevist

 

Atheism does not require the acceptance of nihilism, in fact a theist could still be a nihilist.

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.

Edited August 26, 2015 by motherengine