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

[layman]

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?

 

 

if one removed the higgs boson for example, reality as it stands would no longer stand.

 

i really had to say that.

[Moontanman]

1- I do.

And that is an opinion, everyone has one but they are meaningless in the context of knowledge

 

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.

Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1]

I agree, none of these things have an objective source

 

3- Then you don't think these things actually exist; they are merely the comfort food fantasies of philosophical primates.

They are subjective, this does not mean they do not exist but that we decide on their values instead of some objective source

 

4- And I am a zilosophiticus.

What is the definition of that assertion?

 

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.

And I disagree, I think that a rational/logical methodology is how we create those things but further on these things are evolutionary in their ultimate expression, natural selection is the basis for these beliefs.

 

Apistivist :

 

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/14064/Apistevist

 

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/apistevist.pl

Edited August 26, 2015 by Moontanman

[motherengine]

And that is an opinion, everyone has one but they are meaningless in the context of knowledge

 

They are subjective, this does not mean they do not exist but that we decide on their values instead of some objective source

 

What is the definition of that assertion?

 

And I disagree, I think that a rational/logical methodology is how we create those things but further on these things are evolutionary in their ultimate expression, natural selection is the basis for these beliefs.

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)?

[motherengine]

if one removed the higgs boson for example, reality as it stands would no longer stand.

 

i really had to say that.

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.

[motherengine]

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

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.

[HydrogenBond]

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?

 

 

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

 

 

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...

 

The concept of God implies a higher power, than human, at least to those who believe. A higher power than human means smarter and wiser than human and therefore better able to anticipate the future better than human. The atheist does not assume a higher power than man, and therefore things appear more relative and less absolute due to human nature. 

 

As an analogy, say a child is close to his dad and looks up to him because he is experienced, wise, smart and accomplished. Although the child can make their own decisions, or he can let the group decide by running with the herd, he might put that aside in favor of their dad's wise advice. This is how a relationship with God works. GOD is the good father, whom the child trusts to anticipate things he can't see. The child can act but prefers his sage advice.  

 

Atheism is more like a child from a broken home who has no father, present. Their father is alive, but lives away from him. There is a  lot of resentment such that his dad can have no further influence him, no matter how wise he had been, when he was a child. The child learns to go it on his own, looking for surrogate fathers, in the street, who have their own agendas. This child can't get close. Relative is connected to his need to wander for emotional protection, less they also leave him. 

Edited August 26, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[motherengine]

Atheism is more like a child from a broken home who has no father, present. Their father is alive, but lives away from him. There is a  lot of resentment such that his dad can have no further influence him, no matter how wise he had been. The child learns to go it on his own, looking for surrogate fathers, in the street, who have their own agendas. This child can't get close. Relative is connected to his need to wander for emotional protection, less they also leave him.

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.

Edited August 26, 2015 by motherengine

[pgrmdave]

Atheism is more like a child from a broken home who has no father, present. Their father is alive, but lives away from him. There is a  lot of resentment such that his dad can have no further influence him, no matter how wise he had been, when he was a child. The child learns to go it on his own, looking for surrogate fathers, in the street, who have their own agendas. This child can't get close. Relative is connected to his need to wander for emotional protection, less they also leave him. 

This may be the worst understanding of atheism that I've ever heard.

[motherengine]

This may be the worst understanding of atheism that I've ever heard.

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.

Edited August 30, 2015 by motherengine

[HydrogenBond]

Let me continue with this ignorant and offensive analogy. Why did dad go away and leave his child? God or dad did not change but remains the same. What changed was the mother and wife; culture. The mother of the child drove away his father, and she then poisoned the well, so they can't reunite. The child continues to resent his dad; angry at religion and God, because he continues to think about his dad, but can't like him, due to his mom. The opposite of love is indifference, not anger. Atheist children in the analogy are never indifferent to God, because that still have forbidden love. Being around Dad and spitting on him is still better than never seeing him again. 

 

Mother is connected to materialism, with relative morality much better for selling product, fad and prosthesis to clean up the mess often created. Simplicity does not favor materialism. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[pgrmdave]

Theists are people who had imaginary friends when they were naive children that they insisted were real and never grew up, and whose delusions are so severe that any attempts to show them reality can result in violent behavior. See - both sides can make offensive, ill-informed, and simply incorrect analogies.

[kowalskil]

"Atheism does not make the claim "there is no god" I'd like to know why you get to define something and then make assumptions from that definition, but even if it did and everything was accidental purpose has evolved. We are social animals and behaviors that support our social structure are what is defined as moral. Atheism has no connection to nihilism for that reason...  

 

Atheism is simply the doubt or disbelief in a deity, ie not enough evidence for the existence of a deity has been presented to convince me there is such a deity.  It is not a statement that no such deity exists, it is not a statement that everything is random nor is it statement that no gods exist.

 

You start out by creating a strawman then by fighting that strawman you also imply that accidental and random are the same thing when clearly they are not...."

 

Yes, claims are made by people who claim to be atheists. I used to be one of such people.

 

 

[motherengine]

Theists are people who had imaginary friends when they were naive children that they insisted were real and never grew up, and whose delusions are so severe that any attempts to show them reality can result in violent behavior. See - both sides can make offensive, ill-informed, and simply incorrect analogies.

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

[motherengine]

Let me continue with this ignorant and offensive analogy.

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.

Edited September 1, 2015 by motherengine

[HydrogenBond]

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.

 

 

I was playing along in the spirit of friendly debate, in case I hit a nerve, which I was not aiming for. 

 

The problem with defining atheism, is it is not clear what the definition of religion should be. Buddhism is a religion that does not believe in deities. This means that Deities are not a necessary condition to be called a religion. This is why I have often said atheism is a religion, in the looser sense of religion.

 

Being anti deity, itself may be considered a religion, since it fixates more on deity than does Buddhism. This does not differ much from one religion saying the gods of the competitive religion are not real gods. Even in the old testament; Moses, he tries to discount the gods of the Egyptians, saying these are not gods. Was Moses part atheist since it go rid of 99% of them. 

[motherengine]

I was playing along in the spirit of friendly debate, in case I hit a nerve, which I was not aiming for. 

 

The problem with defining atheism, is it is not clear what the definition of religion should be. Buddhism is a religion that does not believe in deities. This means that Deities are not a necessary condition to be called a religion. This is why I have often said atheism is a religion, in the looser sense of religion.

 

Being anti deity, itself may be considered a religion, since it fixates more on deity than does Buddhism. This does not differ much from one religion saying the gods of the competitive religion are not real gods. Even in the old testament; Moses, he tries to discount the gods of the Egyptians, saying these are not gods. Was Moses part atheist since it go rid of 99% of them.

 

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).

[pgrmdave]

I was playing along in the spirit of friendly debate, in case I hit a nerve, which I was not aiming for. 

 

The problem with defining atheism, is it is not clear what the definition of religion should be. Buddhism is a religion that does not believe in deities. This means that Deities are not a necessary condition to be called a religion. This is why I have often said atheism is a religion, in the looser sense of religion.

 

Being anti deity, itself may be considered a religion, since it fixates more on deity than does Buddhism. This does not differ much from one religion saying the gods of the competitive religion are not real gods. Even in the old testament; Moses, he tries to discount the gods of the Egyptians, saying these are not gods. Was Moses part atheist since it go rid of 99% of them. 

It's not too hard to define atheism so long as you stay within the framework of theism. Atheism is the lack of belief in any number of gods greater than 0 (not the belief that there are none, but the lack of belief that there are any).  Strictly speaking, you can have atheistic buddhists, atheistic religions, etc.  You could also have the more common understanding of atheism, which is basically a form of skepticism - it denies the existence of things for which there is an absence of evidence (which includes deities).