How come there are never any hot, gorgeous looking atheists? Answer: because hot people have it much easier in life than ugly people and do not need to think much. I am sorry to report that mediocre looking people are often forced into atheism....however accurate it may be.
and btw, regarding those 2 comments I removed below, it's related to an issue i'm having with youtube... If you want to make something of it, then post them. I have to say that because I can see you are just using everything you can to try to derail substantive dialogue and pick on silly things, but you're welcome to and you lose on that too.
@jameshanley40 This what I posted in regards to your question. "Did I say it was impossible for some alien life form to have their behaviour rooted in reason? No. Why didn't I mention that? Because I don't care. I'm talking about humans, an emotional being." As you can see, I answered your question and as I said, I don't care was a response to my own question, .not yours
ok, so you want to avoid my questions and bring the subject to me.. my "dishonesty" apparently. You obviously think I LIED what is this LIE that I told.. Let's see if i'm lying or if you're lying and/or being a fool. In response to a question I asked about an alien case. Your response, quoting you "I said I didn't mention an alien whose behaviour is based on reason because I don't care.". So who does your "I don't care" respond to? you or me?
Anyhow, some of what I wrote was taking issue with the video itself, and you didn't make the video. Nor can you defend the same position that is in the video.
Anyhow, as I said, I think I see what you mean to say regarding the question. You think a human or alien can be fully rational, basing every action on reason and reason alone, not emotion.. this seems to be what you are trying to say. You didn't address the contradiction in that but anyhow.. I did spot something more problematic in your video, at 2:22 onwards as I mentioned.
From 2:20 onwards, you say that the statement that life is meaningful to the extent that we alleviate suffering, is not something you'll argue for,and is at least as plausible as the theistic argument.Then you say that all ***theistic*** attempts to show that atheism necessitates nihilism fail.And that's your final word in the video.That seems extremely dishonest to me. It looks like you only object to theistic attempts to show that atheism necessitates nihilism.And that's the argument u use
I just listened to you for one minute, and already I see i'm not interested in what you have to say. I wanted to see somebody refute that atheism necessitates nihlism. And you start with how christians are defining meaning theistically. The argument has or should have nothing to do with theism. It's a shame that you started there 'cos i'm not that interested in continuing to listen after that bad start you made.
@niinja2 "why is it important to alleviate human suffering?"
The fact that suffering causes physical and psychological trauma is enough for sufferring to be alleviated. I don't care if one doesn't want to alleviate suffering but normal people inately dispise suffering and opinions doesn't change the fact there is a traumatic experience going on. Who besides an abnormal or brainwashed person would sit aside and enjoy the suffering they impose or caused?
this traumatic experience is personal experience that only we humans perceive, and maybe some dog pets. You are saying we should alleviate suffering only because we , or most of normal persons want to alleviate it.
"Who besides an abnormal or brainwashed person would sit aside..."
people who treat war prisioners, nazi germany, 67 million people killed in communist regimes in 20 century.
why are we right and they wrong, because our emotions tells us so?
@niinja2 You people keep missing my point. I'm not talking about right or wrong, I'm talking about observable results and reactions to an experience and most people are altruistic at it's basic level, family.
And you missing my point, you are somehow deriving ought from an is. So what if some of us are altruistic? Some of us arent , why should we exhibit any of those two behaviors.
Are you saying that because most of America is religious , religiosity is normal and desirable and right and nonreligiosity is not.
Rocks exist, we should make buildings with rocks, that does not follow just as it does not follow we should bash peoples heads with rocks.
@niinja2 Most people are altruistic, how in the hell do you think humanity has survived? It damn sure wasn't because of egoism, egoism only gets you so far. If you bring up bullshit that has nothing to do with behaviours that causes traumatic experiences, this discussion is over. I'm sick of telling you people I'm talking about actions such as rape, murder, and etc. Not beliefs or sexual preferences.
Call it irrational but human behaviour is rooted in emotion, not reason. Reason can affect some of our behaviour, but it's largely emotional. The fact we see general desires and behaviour that are universal and innate, ie wanting to live, alturism, caring for children, and etc, makes it safe to say those desires are normal and going against them are abnormal. That's what make alleviating suffering important.
Are you suggesting that Spock's behavior too, is rooted in emotion? So the concept of an alien life form that is purely based on reason not emotion, is impossible? And if Spock was purely rational, would he just do nothing?
I'm asking about Spock. Would you say Spock's behavior too, is rooted in emotion? So the concept of an alien life form that is purely based on reason not emotion, is impossible? And if Spock was purely rational, would he just do nothing?
OK, i'm asking Would you say that Spock's behavior too, is rooted in emotion? So the concept of an alien life form that is purely based on reason not emotion, is impossible? And if Spock was purely rational, would he just do nothing?
@jameshanley40 Did I say it was impossible for some alien life form to have their behaviour rooted in reason? No. Why didn't I mention that? Because I don't care. I'm talking about humans, an emotional being. A possible, unknown, potential being who hasn't came to this planet yet or as far as we know it is useless to me. And what does this have to do with the discussion any way?
Saying you don't care, is avoiding the question. Suppose you decided to base your actions and beliefs, on reason, not emotion at all. What makes you happy or sad or content is irrelevant. What'd you do then? be still and silent? kill yourself? is it impossible to even life based on reason alone, in which case, Spock or any alien life form that allegedly does, is impossible.
@jameshanley40 It would be nice if humans are actually capable of pure, intelligent rationality seeing how ridiculous and danagerous are emotions are.
there is a more profound point here though, that ethics is based on the idea that it matters that people desire not to suffer. That is a concession to emotion. So the more profound point, which squirrelmonkey doesn't need to but hasn't addressed, is can a purely rational being exist and do anything?
@jameshanley40 I don't know if one can exist. But I guess it will depend on evolutionary factors or even social, cultural factors that preassures intellectual thinking more harder and crudely than what humans had normally gone through to put general. Even for social factors. Even if you seem to be purely rational, I doubt it in terms of a human. You just have to find it.
@jameshanley40 I'm not avoiding the question, I answered, no. It isn't not impossible. Thanks for showing how illerate you are. I said I didn't mention an alien whose behaviour is based on reason because I don't care.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y A human being basing actions purely on reason not emotion, has no reason to do anything, no reason to stand up no reason to sit down, no reason to live no reason to die. Why should that be any different for an alien life-form?
@jameshanley40 I'm not avoiding any questions, I answered you question already. You just fail to realize it and misunderstood what I meant when said "I don't care".
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Look, when I wrote one paragraph with a question mark, you took it as 2 different questions contradicting each other, hence you accused me of changing my mind. I only brought up the alien idea because you give no explanation so i'm probing your position. You seem to clutter your response with blabber about it isn't not impossible, and accusations of me changing my mind, and statements that you don't care.. so really by being pain in the ass you make yourself quite unclear.
There isn't really room on this medium to deal with more than one or two points at a time, you so i'd rather they be substantive points. and when you're writing "I don't care" and you think that you answered it, that is ambiguous and you make things take longer. So I ask more probing questions. And when you start further disagreements by taking pot-shots like "you changed your mind", it detracts further from any main points. This isn't the medium for that.
Now, if you now stop trying to be a bad-ass, and taking pot-shots at me and using unclear language, and starting non-substantive disagreements on a medium where multiple threads of disagreement aren't really possible. Forget(For now) the person/alien question, I think I see what you're trying to say with it. I brought up a point about 2:20/2:22 onwards in your video.
@jameshanley40 You posted a lot to say very little. I told you already, I answered your question. You were too dishonest to acknowledge it and said I avoided the question and you took "I don't care" and ran with it. Do even remember what you asked?
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y If you READ what I wrote, you will see that since you said "I don't care" was an answer, I know what you meant by it. So yes you were answering it , not very well, but you gave your answer. Are you afraid of what I wrote about from 2:20 onwards?
@jameshanley40 I'm not afraid about what you wrote because I'm not interested in it. I'm interested in correcting your dishonesty. Your wrong. I never said "I don't care" was an answer, I said I don't care in response to my own question, not yours.
Human behavior is irrational agreed, but you assume what is moral based on the majority opinion, this is normal, is abortion normal? is homosexuality normal? is euthanasia normal? Altruism is not "normal" , some people will say that if you are altruistic you are basically an idiot. What makes us right and them wrong? Because there is more of us?
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y I agree with you, and this is my point, without a higher authority ( god, supercomputer 42, allknowing potato ) we are the highest authority on what is right and what is wrong, to be more exact , the emotions of majority of people are this authority. What if majority of people would say homosexuality is not ok, would that make it not ok? Or if we would said that abortion is not ok would it be not ok?
@niinja2 Why are you still bringing up homosexuals? I told you I'm talking about events that causes traumatic expriences. Serial killers are a minority who ironically have abnormal brains. Don't believe me, look it up. Some people are more likely to be on than some.
"I told you I'm talking about events that causes traumatic expriences"
my question was why was it important to be altruistic and you tried to answer to it.
you just gave me an example of why we are altruistic, but why is this important , this is a video about nihilism and about prescriptive facts not about descriptive.
I dont care right now about the fact that we are altruistic or what are traumatic experiences because it has nothing to do with prescriptive facts.
@niinja2 Why is altruism important? It's innate in most humans(locally first and as we become more socially aware, it expands to strangers) and leads to many great benefits most of the time.
@niinja2 I know what nihilism is, do you even know what you're debating? I'm giving reasons as to why it is important. You don't have to value it. If you bothered reading any of my recent comments, you would've figured it out by now.
@niinja2 Did I say they have intrinsic value? Regardless, you can't deny the factualy benefits of civilization when compared to a hunter gatherer society or something similar. I told you before, I wasn't arguing from oughts rather what is and what isn't.
@niinja2 It seems when talking to people on nihilist related videos, I have to dumb down things to a very simple level. So by doing that, let me go over this one more time. Why is altruism important? Because it carries a lot of benefits, some negatives but more positives nonetheless. Someone doesn't have to value it. I believe it is important. You asked why was, I answered. I used what is as my justification. Sadly, someone didn't pick up on that from the first few comments I left.
So i dont care about you, or anyone you know or anyone i know, i wouldnt do anything for you or to you, and unless something affects me, then i'll act, i have no proof of god or gods nor has any been presented to me, but if something i've done hits me negativly, what does that make me ?. I'm being sincere, i just want to hear see your perception.
Why is the elimination suffering a noble goal? We need to delve into ethics for that. Why is discovering how the universe works a noble goal? We need to have the ability of progress and ultimate goals for that to provide meaning.
I would argue against these God-based theist arguments, but still speak for the nihilism of a finite lifespan or finite universe. Within a finite life or finite universe, no possible progress can ever be permanently achieved., therefore all action towards any goal is futile. Indirectly, this is why the presence of a god/force/other which provides for either or both eternal life or eternal universe, would remedy this issue and negate nihilism.
Theists argue that only God can provide "meaning," and presuppose nihilism in his absence. Thus, nihilism truly originates from a vulnerable theistic world view, rather than from atheism.
I argue that "meaning," as with many things, is defined in terms of the individual perspective. This is indeed true for *all* words and ideas, and there is no exception made here. One needn't fret about the existence of a supernatural third party to justify it.
If purpose for a theist is that the purpose is given to by a higher authority(God) then what is that God's purpose? Doesn't it follow that in order to have purpose you must have a higher authority meaning that God would need someone to give him purpose? Since God has no one to give him purpose then he has none. This makes the theist meaning worth nothing. If the theist counters saying that God doesn't need a higher power to have a purpose then it should follow that the atheist does not need one?
KT45, the theist might argue that since God is all-powerful and can create such things as objective morality and purpose, then naturally God can create his own purpose.
What I have said regarding nihilism is that if I was to become an atheist I would be a nihilist as I see this as being the most consistent philosophical position under the rubric of atheism.
You would be correct. Its not an automatic in an "atheist world view" but they get their meaning and purpose and morals the same place anyone else gets theirs....from their ass.
@UcanbeGOD As if arguing agasint a God or a supernatural force is generally trivial... We may as well throw logical think down the toilet, especially when you see a logical flaw in it because in the end objectively we can't or of yet know what this God is or we're just dreading over the unknown so much. There's nothing wrong with thinking about something that make no logical sense at all. Because there's no reason to believe in a God these days in my opinion.
@eMarRsixSixSIX You could have a point in general, seeing as how many "weak atheists," let alone fake atheists are out there in comparison to a true atheist. And if you are going to say they are nihilists without balls, explain a female nihilist. lol
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y By a weak atheist, it's just a out of context, venacular way of describing a person who thinks they're atheistic, but they are actually not if you look at their doctrine of it a little more objectively, or that they lack knowledge of a religion that they are atheistic towards. It doesn't have nothing to do with nihilism, but they can relate to each other, in terms of human emotion and how they feel about things for the most part.
You can not believe in a God, but that's not going to stop the possible event that you may feel a ting of emotion that can be characterized to be pessimistic, angry or apathetic, seeing those to be typical general traits I see in a nihilist, in my perspective. In fact, some would think of it that way without a God because nothing is stopping them supernaturally from what their doing.
@Tetzukai I can name three religions that endores hatred, despair, suffering, and anger. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. All three preach that one is useless from birth and worthy of "saving", mostly Christianity. Like I said, thank religion for those feelings you think atheists have, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
As I have streessed before with others here - you still have emotions to consider to when talking about doctrination - especially to that of a so-called weak atheist who can deal (perhaps) without or have doubt for a God, but can't bare the possible fact that life can be meaningless. After all, the term God is used frequently when describing purpose, let alone the emotional traits that spawn from it. If one has a disbelief in a God, then prepare yourself into a likely world of nihilism.
Because if you mix a disblief with strong human emotions of deranged belonging, purpose, and love, or anything life-worthy then one might end up their quickly than atheist who don't have deranged emotions mixed with thier disbilef; or atleast close to nihilism-like doctrine. I honestly don't know how to clarify more on it, but I was just trying to look at both doctrinations a little more objectively and expressing the connections with them in terms of typical human emotions.
To put plainly, we can't stop an atheist feeling sad or such about non-existance of God when they claim there isn't any and got very depressed or alienatingly apathetic about life. And I am sure personally their were atheist that gone through that process when realizing their isn't a God, especially ones that were indoctrinated with God for years. Even though nihilism has nothing to do with emotion, it's still can be a fact that humans still can go through a lot of emotions when it happens.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y OK, an idea then. Either way it's going to be taken for a belief or a disblief despite it's going to have a lack of evidence. And if their isn't evidence? As far as I am aware their isn't and I am pretty sure there are a lot of atheist who "realize" there isn't based on that. There is really no reason why anyone should believe in a God as I can see. What reason would we, despite a lack of evidence?
We can see the evidence debunking a God through life - misery, pain, insanity, and all of this real-life horror we put up with, contradictions of the Bible that I wish I know right now, and heretics that can't follow what they believe in. We don't even need to read the Bible to have a general understanding of it of how it's garbage. They only thing that's negociatable about a God is an "Objective God," not a Christian God or anything fabricated out of people. That's the point.
Well, I don't know how I can explain it to you, all I can say about that is look at the patterns of it - everyone is going to have an emotional reaction to things either way and we can't always say its always a good reaction. And since when do you need religion to have an emotion? That's silly. All I did was made general examples of emotions even if they were spawned by religion - it's still an emotion and no one can't run away from them.
And I wasn't just talking about things like circumcision, I was specifically talking about how religion builds up hope and such in people and tragically falls apart; or for some who are a bit more secular begin to realize that they are nothing but fleshlings full of piss and shit because they are either thinking or they realize their beliefs are worth nothing no more.
Who says that I am being an advocate for atheism - I haven't said atheists in general are intelligent (even though it's suggestive), nor did I dismiss the fact that even atheists were conditioned into religious morals that would determine ethical behaviour. As I have implied before, no one is immune to emotions, not even an average atheist. For some, one thing leads to another and it happens.
@Tetzukai I don't believe in God and agree with most of what you said LMAO, I just don't agree that atheism is related to nihilism. Logic can make the Christian impossible but not a god in general. I don't believe in one for the most of the reasons you don't. No evidence. Disbelief in something that hasn't be supported is justification.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Then don't agree if it isn't, but that's not going to change the fact that a disblief or a doubt in God can be depressing for some people to the point of apathy is what I am saying. Atleast I think about the topic rather than simply claiming I'm an atheist while trying to understand human behaviour as a deeper understanding of it and how it can relate to people and other things in life. It's scrutinizing a pattern.
And don't tell me the general examples I have said cannot account as evidence, especially to a Christian God. Either that or He's an evil being. Justifying a thing can be lead to a belief - the truth is not going to simply pop out of no where and tell me this is this or that.
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y I wasn't saying it is to blame this whole time. I was saying that if you have atheistic behaviour you are either going to become nihilistic-like depending on other factors like depressing emotions or it's not going to effect you psychologically at all, though it is not going to stop anyone to question it.
@Tetzukai If religion didn't mentally circumsize children, they wouldn't have that feeling after leaving religion. Atheists don't "realive" there is no God, they realize there is no evidence for any.
@Tetzukai Pretty odd when atheists have shown more religious knowledge than believers but you still haven't explained the connection between atheism and nihilism. Just emotional baggage created by religion.
I'm not sure how you define nihilism. Wiki characterizes this as "a philosophical position which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value." It would seem that theism offers a world with meaning that is objective with respect to people, given by a higher authority. Atheists I talk to discount an arbiter of meaning higher than people, and the examples you provide at the end seems to confirm that.
Every action, no matter how small, has repercussions throughout time to infinity. This does not constitute belief in anything. Just understanding of causality.
Nihilism as understood by Nietzsche, is a crisis within man and his relationship to his values. Atheism is part of this crisis, because a) the Christian religion is found false and is false. b) the church as the arbiter of morals is now and has been for some time found to be a fraud. c) man cannot live (according to the Greeks) without the meaning of justice. Nihilism is not necessarily a bad thing;it just means that it is a 'crossing over' to the new. In a way we are living in a nihilist epoch.
Yeah, this is another way godites use to put atheists down, put them in the gutter, no morals, blah, blah, blah. It really bugs them that atheists can be kind, loving, generous, thoughtful, helpful, moral and useful all without joining their god club.
that's a misunderstanding of both theistic arguments, and if I understand what he's saying, Bitbutter's argument here. They're not saying that Christians live more meaningfully or not, they're disputing the basis of meaning as being relative to us, or to a designer.
Interaction/cause and effect are core. Meaning is influence, capacity, continuance, power. There's a meaning for you. To increase in influence and capacity and for continuance to extend indefinitely.
I hate how Christians who are new to debating get upset when they are asked as to how they define a word. They get all smart aleck about it going "you can look it up" or "I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it".
This is only going through my experiences mostly. The first is pretty rare, considering that a person who KNOWS what a word REALLY means, and has redefined it to exist, isn't going to try to lie to me about what he and I both know to be.
Morality is an emotion, not a set of natural laws. How come when you tell people that love is subjective they're fine but if you tell them morality or meaning itself is subjective they crap themselves?
Excellent. I wonder if any of these Xians have picked up Sartre. I doubt it. I wonder what they mean by meaning anyhow: If the good works you describe are not included in a "meaning", that would mean that all earthly actions are meaningless.
The only source one can derive meaning from is God. From God? Because of God? bah.
Yeah, i'm really enjoying it. I do have trouble with some of the positive claims that he makes, but his analysis of the problems with the theistic claims is excellent.
@mikecampochiaro But here's the thing though, we don't have proof of reincarnation unless you know something suggestive or can actually show how I am wrong. Since atheism generally doesn't believe or lack of in a supernatural force and reincarnation is since of a lack of proof, I don't know how that would make any sense. I am not a buddhist so...
Great video. I really like how you pointed out that objective and intrinsic values that hinge on the existence of a divine legislator are exactly what are at issue, and that appeals couched in the language of Theism are circular and get us nowhere.
One question though: If nihilism is defined as the view that "existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value," then it appears to me that atheism DOES indeed necessitates nihilism.
If values and meaning are dependent on desires, then in the absence of a divine desire or will I fail to see how belief in an objective meaning or value can still be epistemically justified.
1. nihilism is defined as the view that "existence is without ANY meaning, purpose, or value". so of couse they don't believe in "objective purpose" or "intrinsic value". atheism doesn't necessitate the belief that relative meaning, purpose, and value are meaningless because they can't be epistemically justified.
you can't epistemically justify the meaning of language. by your criteria, language is meaningless, thus your argument is self refuting.
Let me clarify that, just because something is meaningless to you doesn't mean it's meaningless to everyone. You can't actually prove that anything is meaningless.
if you can't prove that anything is meaningless, then essentially everything is meaningless in the same way no one loves you if only jesus does. jesus loves everyone.
if you can prove that something is only subjectively meaningful, and has no connection with reality, then you have proven it to be practically meaningless.
@ReligionIsACrutch Subjective meaning can be meaningless also, even though the benefits of the values are there. In fact, subjective meaning is obviously more meaningless than objective meaning. What else do you have in the real world besides a dumb emotional, human psychology conditioned by evolution which are often void in logic and a sense of reality? Obviously the purpose in life makes it utterly pointless - you're not going to find any more valueable meaning in the brain of a stupid human.
"One question though: If nihilism is defined as the view that "existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value," then it appears to me that atheism DOES indeed necessitates nihilism."
Atheism does not preclude the existence of intrinsic value.
"Atheism does not preclude the existence of intrinsic value."
I don't see how this could be the case. In the absence of a divine will that intentionally built intrinsic values into the fabric of the cosmos at its inception, I fail to see how intrinsic values can exist.
I'll post a response video to this one which has some arguments for "Objective Moral Anti-Realism" that has a link to a paper I recently wrote on this exact topic.
A problem I have with such discussions is that I believe the basis for our morality is largely a matter of biological engineering. (With "natural selection" playing the part of the "blind engineer").
Such a basis isn't independent of humans. Asexual creatures (say) would have a different nature, and presumably different morals. It appears to be intermediate between, or in a different dimension from, "subjective" and "objective".
I'm not sure about that. I think there's a strong case that can be made that morality is a terrain in 'design space' that all sufficiently complex social animals will gravitate towards, a 'mountain pass' if you will, or a 'good trick', like the eye.
Perhaps like the eye, morality, can be legitimately viewed as having a real existence as 'place' in the topography of evolutionary design space.
"... morality, can be legitimately viewed as having a real existence as 'place' in the topography of evolutionary design space."
OK, perhaps I understand our disagreement.
"Having a morality" may be a "good trick". But the details of a morality will be dependent on the species' nature.
Consider the details of moralities for: asexual species; species with massive regenerative powers; species that reproduce by spawning instead of in vivo; species with multiple stages (like insects).
"Consider the details of moralities for: asexual species; species with massive regenerative powers; species that reproduce by spawning instead of in vivo; species with multiple stages (like insects)."
Yes the details might be different, but i think its plausible that some kind of core morality could be constant (something golden rule-ish). This is just speculation, not an idea i'm committed to.
ps: I've just downloaded the Journal. It says "The fact that through the blind process of natural selection ... is not sufficient to conclude that such behaviors are objectively morally "good."
This (and the rest) may serve as your response to my recent comment. But I believe it misses an important point.
We can't fully replace our evolution position according to "... gives humanity the possibility of choice". Partly - but only within natural constraints. We are not a blank slate.
Interesting point, thanks for reading the paper. :-)
I guess the "choice" I mentioned at the end is somewhat limited by our evolutionary heritage and our entrained "moral sense," but I think that has little to no bearing on the existence (or non-existence) of intrinsically motivating moral values.
"I don't see how this could be the case. In the absence of a divine will that intentionally built intrinsic values into the fabric of the cosmos at its inception, I fail to see how intrinsic values can exist."
Based on the arguments you put in your vid, isn't it the case that you just think its _very unlikely_ that such values exist? (because they would represent a unique kind of thing in the universe).
There are two main schools of thought concerning moral nihilism. One is advocated by J.L. Mackie and is sometimes referred to as "Global Falsity." The other is advocated by Richard Joyce and is sometimes referred to as "Presupposition Failure." (There are brief descriptions of these positions on the Wikipedia page for "Moral Nihilism.")
I'm an advocate of Mackie's "Global Falsity" because of the arguments already mentioned, as well as arguments (not yet mentioned) against "Motivational Internalism." Yet, some Objective Moral Realists (such as David Brink) have objected to this approach, claiming that Objective Moral Realism is not committed to Motivational Internalism and can stand without it.
In short, I advocate the stronger position that no intrinsic moral values or knowledge exist, rather than the weaker position that thinks it is "very unlikely" that they do.
That's why we need to start with a clear description of how meaning is obtained. Once the theist provides this, their argument practically undoes itself, because their (theocentric) definition can simply be rejected by any atheist.
No matter how it's twisted, "meaning" is extrinsic, even with a deity creating said meaning. It is good for human psychology, and it is useful as such, but it is not to be taken as an absolute truth. To wonder why we are here seems to be a needless extension of the question of how we are here.
Isn't it irrelevant to worry about "meaning"? Isn't it a philosophical distraction?
Isn't it more important to ask "does life has value?" Would we give up our lives for no good reason? Would we terminate someone else's life for no good reason?
Wouldn't we expend resources to increase the value of our lives, or the lives of others? In other words, wouldn't we try to make it less rational to terminate those lives for no good reason?
I have to agree with you. I thought this whole, "What does atheism offer?" thing was really "What does atheism offer - in terms of Christianity?" in disguise.
How come there are never any hot, gorgeous looking atheists? Answer: because hot people have it much easier in life than ugly people and do not need to think much. I am sorry to report that mediocre looking people are often forced into atheism....however accurate it may be.
Jeffersonwazright 6 months ago
@Jeffersonwazright There are LOTS of hot, gorgeous atheists.
MrMZaccone 1 month ago
and btw, regarding those 2 comments I removed below, it's related to an issue i'm having with youtube... If you want to make something of it, then post them. I have to say that because I can see you are just using everything you can to try to derail substantive dialogue and pick on silly things, but you're welcome to and you lose on that too.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jameshanley40 This what I posted in regards to your question. "Did I say it was impossible for some alien life form to have their behaviour rooted in reason? No. Why didn't I mention that? Because I don't care. I'm talking about humans, an emotional being." As you can see, I answered your question and as I said, I don't care was a response to my own question, .not yours
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
ok, so you want to avoid my questions and bring the subject to me.. my "dishonesty" apparently. You obviously think I LIED what is this LIE that I told.. Let's see if i'm lying or if you're lying and/or being a fool. In response to a question I asked about an alien case. Your response, quoting you "I said I didn't mention an alien whose behaviour is based on reason because I don't care.". So who does your "I don't care" respond to? you or me?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
Anyhow, i've had it with you. You want to argue that you said you don't care to your own question, so be it. Run along squirrel, run along.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 Yep, to dishonesty and probably stupid to admit when you're wrong.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
Anyhow, some of what I wrote was taking issue with the video itself, and you didn't make the video. Nor can you defend the same position that is in the video.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 So why mention the video to me at all? Cut it with the red herrings.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Comment removed
jameshanley40 1 year ago
Comment removed
jameshanley40 1 year ago
Anyhow, as I said, I think I see what you mean to say regarding the question. You think a human or alien can be fully rational, basing every action on reason and reason alone, not emotion.. this seems to be what you are trying to say. You didn't address the contradiction in that but anyhow.. I did spot something more problematic in your video, at 2:22 onwards as I mentioned.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
I'll put the human / alien thing, 2 questions or 2 parts of one question, aside. I think I have some idea what your answer would be.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
It also looks like you are not saying atheism does not necessitate nihilism, is that right?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
From 2:20 onwards, you say that the statement that life is meaningful to the extent that we alleviate suffering, is not something you'll argue for,and is at least as plausible as the theistic argument.Then you say that all ***theistic*** attempts to show that atheism necessitates nihilism fail.And that's your final word in the video.That seems extremely dishonest to me. It looks like you only object to theistic attempts to show that atheism necessitates nihilism.And that's the argument u use
jameshanley40 1 year ago
I just listened to you for one minute, and already I see i'm not interested in what you have to say. I wanted to see somebody refute that atheism necessitates nihlism. And you start with how christians are defining meaning theistically. The argument has or should have nothing to do with theism. It's a shame that you started there 'cos i'm not that interested in continuing to listen after that bad start you made.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 "I wanted to see somebody refute that atheism necessitates nihlism"
I create my own purpose based of my desires and quantified results, ie reality. There you go.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
yes but why is this important? why is it important to alleviate human suffering?
why is it important to understand ourselfs and the universe? and why does this gives us meaning?
does this mean that if someone does nto do these things his life is meaningfull?
the basic problem with this is that "rational" atheist uses non rational motivation or reasons to provide meaning to his life?
my argument is that atheist are equally non rational ( i dont mean stupid) as theists in this respect.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 "why is it important to alleviate human suffering?"
The fact that suffering causes physical and psychological trauma is enough for sufferring to be alleviated. I don't care if one doesn't want to alleviate suffering but normal people inately dispise suffering and opinions doesn't change the fact there is a traumatic experience going on. Who besides an abnormal or brainwashed person would sit aside and enjoy the suffering they impose or caused?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
this traumatic experience is personal experience that only we humans perceive, and maybe some dog pets. You are saying we should alleviate suffering only because we , or most of normal persons want to alleviate it.
"Who besides an abnormal or brainwashed person would sit aside..."
people who treat war prisioners, nazi germany, 67 million people killed in communist regimes in 20 century.
why are we right and they wrong, because our emotions tells us so?
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 You people keep missing my point. I'm not talking about right or wrong, I'm talking about observable results and reactions to an experience and most people are altruistic at it's basic level, family.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Comment removed
niinja2 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
And you missing my point, you are somehow deriving ought from an is. So what if some of us are altruistic? Some of us arent , why should we exhibit any of those two behaviors.
Are you saying that because most of America is religious , religiosity is normal and desirable and right and nonreligiosity is not.
Rocks exist, we should make buildings with rocks, that does not follow just as it does not follow we should bash peoples heads with rocks.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 Most people are altruistic, how in the hell do you think humanity has survived? It damn sure wasn't because of egoism, egoism only gets you so far. If you bring up bullshit that has nothing to do with behaviours that causes traumatic experiences, this discussion is over. I'm sick of telling you people I'm talking about actions such as rape, murder, and etc. Not beliefs or sexual preferences.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@niinja2 Cont.
Call it irrational but human behaviour is rooted in emotion, not reason. Reason can affect some of our behaviour, but it's largely emotional. The fact we see general desires and behaviour that are universal and innate, ie wanting to live, alturism, caring for children, and etc, makes it safe to say those desires are normal and going against them are abnormal. That's what make alleviating suffering important.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
Are you suggesting that Spock's behavior too, is rooted in emotion? So the concept of an alien life form that is purely based on reason not emotion, is impossible? And if Spock was purely rational, would he just do nothing?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 *Sigh, I must use caplocks* What part of HUMAN behaviour did you not get? The HUMAN part?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
I'm asking about Spock. Would you say Spock's behavior too, is rooted in emotion? So the concept of an alien life form that is purely based on reason not emotion, is impossible? And if Spock was purely rational, would he just do nothing?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
OK, i'm asking Would you say that Spock's behavior too, is rooted in emotion? So the concept of an alien life form that is purely based on reason not emotion, is impossible? And if Spock was purely rational, would he just do nothing?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 Did I say it was impossible for some alien life form to have their behaviour rooted in reason? No. Why didn't I mention that? Because I don't care. I'm talking about humans, an emotional being. A possible, unknown, potential being who hasn't came to this planet yet or as far as we know it is useless to me. And what does this have to do with the discussion any way?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
Saying you don't care, is avoiding the question. Suppose you decided to base your actions and beliefs, on reason, not emotion at all. What makes you happy or sad or content is irrelevant. What'd you do then? be still and silent? kill yourself? is it impossible to even life based on reason alone, in which case, Spock or any alien life form that allegedly does, is impossible.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 It would be nice if humans are actually capable of pure, intelligent rationality seeing how ridiculous and danagerous are emotions are.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai
there is a more profound point here though, that ethics is based on the idea that it matters that people desire not to suffer. That is a concession to emotion. So the more profound point, which squirrelmonkey doesn't need to but hasn't addressed, is can a purely rational being exist and do anything?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 I don't know if one can exist. But I guess it will depend on evolutionary factors or even social, cultural factors that preassures intellectual thinking more harder and crudely than what humans had normally gone through to put general. Even for social factors. Even if you seem to be purely rational, I doubt it in terms of a human. You just have to find it.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 I'm not avoiding the question, I answered, no. It isn't not impossible. Thanks for showing how illerate you are. I said I didn't mention an alien whose behaviour is based on reason because I don't care.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 *is not*
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y A human being basing actions purely on reason not emotion, has no reason to do anything, no reason to stand up no reason to sit down, no reason to live no reason to die. Why should that be any different for an alien life-form?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 You mentioned an alien first now you're changing it to a human? Make up your mind.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Comment removed
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 I'm not avoiding any questions, I answered you question already. You just fail to realize it and misunderstood what I meant when said "I don't care".
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Look, when I wrote one paragraph with a question mark, you took it as 2 different questions contradicting each other, hence you accused me of changing my mind. I only brought up the alien idea because you give no explanation so i'm probing your position. You seem to clutter your response with blabber about it isn't not impossible, and accusations of me changing my mind, and statements that you don't care.. so really by being pain in the ass you make yourself quite unclear.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
There isn't really room on this medium to deal with more than one or two points at a time, you so i'd rather they be substantive points. and when you're writing "I don't care" and you think that you answered it, that is ambiguous and you make things take longer. So I ask more probing questions. And when you start further disagreements by taking pot-shots like "you changed your mind", it detracts further from any main points. This isn't the medium for that.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
Now, if you now stop trying to be a bad-ass, and taking pot-shots at me and using unclear language, and starting non-substantive disagreements on a medium where multiple threads of disagreement aren't really possible. Forget(For now) the person/alien question, I think I see what you're trying to say with it. I brought up a point about 2:20/2:22 onwards in your video.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 You posted a lot to say very little. I told you already, I answered your question. You were too dishonest to acknowledge it and said I avoided the question and you took "I don't care" and ran with it. Do even remember what you asked?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y If you READ what I wrote, you will see that since you said "I don't care" was an answer, I know what you meant by it. So yes you were answering it , not very well, but you gave your answer. Are you afraid of what I wrote about from 2:20 onwards?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 I'm not afraid about what you wrote because I'm not interested in it. I'm interested in correcting your dishonesty. Your wrong. I never said "I don't care" was an answer, I said I don't care in response to my own question, not yours.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
Human behavior is irrational agreed, but you assume what is moral based on the majority opinion, this is normal, is abortion normal? is homosexuality normal? is euthanasia normal? Altruism is not "normal" , some people will say that if you are altruistic you are basically an idiot. What makes us right and them wrong? Because there is more of us?
niinja2 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y I agree with you, and this is my point, without a higher authority ( god, supercomputer 42, allknowing potato ) we are the highest authority on what is right and what is wrong, to be more exact , the emotions of majority of people are this authority. What if majority of people would say homosexuality is not ok, would that make it not ok? Or if we would said that abortion is not ok would it be not ok?
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 What does homosexuality have to do with traumatic experiences?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
It does have nothing with traumatic expiriences but there is a fact that some people are homosexuals right?
So based on what do you derive that homosexuality is right or wrong?
there are people who are serial killers , does that make serial killing ok?
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 Why are you still bringing up homosexuals? I told you I'm talking about events that causes traumatic expriences. Serial killers are a minority who ironically have abnormal brains. Don't believe me, look it up. Some people are more likely to be on than some.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
"I told you I'm talking about events that causes traumatic expriences"
my question was why was it important to be altruistic and you tried to answer to it.
you just gave me an example of why we are altruistic, but why is this important , this is a video about nihilism and about prescriptive facts not about descriptive.
I dont care right now about the fact that we are altruistic or what are traumatic experiences because it has nothing to do with prescriptive facts.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 Why is altruism important? It's innate in most humans(locally first and as we become more socially aware, it expands to strangers) and leads to many great benefits most of the time.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
"and leads to many great benefits most of the time."
and this is important why?
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 Ever heard of civilization?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
ever heard of nihilism, do you even know what you are debating?
and that is important why? why is civilization important?
and before you answer that ask this question again and again untill you come up with an answer or out of it.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 I know what nihilism is, do you even know what you're debating? I'm giving reasons as to why it is important. You don't have to value it. If you bothered reading any of my recent comments, you would've figured it out by now.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
and if you bothered reading my comments you would come to this conclusion:
things in this world have value because we say they do, things in this world have meaning or are important because we say they are.
there is no intrinsic value or importance to it.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 Did I say they have intrinsic value? Regardless, you can't deny the factualy benefits of civilization when compared to a hunter gatherer society or something similar. I told you before, I wasn't arguing from oughts rather what is and what isn't.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y
i think there is a confusion between us on what we are actually talking about.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 There is.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@niinja2 It seems when talking to people on nihilist related videos, I have to dumb down things to a very simple level. So by doing that, let me go over this one more time. Why is altruism important? Because it carries a lot of benefits, some negatives but more positives nonetheless. Someone doesn't have to value it. I believe it is important. You asked why was, I answered. I used what is as my justification. Sadly, someone didn't pick up on that from the first few comments I left.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
So i dont care about you, or anyone you know or anyone i know, i wouldnt do anything for you or to you, and unless something affects me, then i'll act, i have no proof of god or gods nor has any been presented to me, but if something i've done hits me negativly, what does that make me ?. I'm being sincere, i just want to hear see your perception.
speccwolf 1 year ago
Why is the elimination suffering a noble goal? We need to delve into ethics for that. Why is discovering how the universe works a noble goal? We need to have the ability of progress and ultimate goals for that to provide meaning.
college12003 1 year ago
I would argue against these God-based theist arguments, but still speak for the nihilism of a finite lifespan or finite universe. Within a finite life or finite universe, no possible progress can ever be permanently achieved., therefore all action towards any goal is futile. Indirectly, this is why the presence of a god/force/other which provides for either or both eternal life or eternal universe, would remedy this issue and negate nihilism.
college12003 1 year ago
the logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism. so go to 4chan
flangecake2000 1 year ago
Theists argue that only God can provide "meaning," and presuppose nihilism in his absence. Thus, nihilism truly originates from a vulnerable theistic world view, rather than from atheism.
I argue that "meaning," as with many things, is defined in terms of the individual perspective. This is indeed true for *all* words and ideas, and there is no exception made here. One needn't fret about the existence of a supernatural third party to justify it.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago
If purpose for a theist is that the purpose is given to by a higher authority(God) then what is that God's purpose? Doesn't it follow that in order to have purpose you must have a higher authority meaning that God would need someone to give him purpose? Since God has no one to give him purpose then he has none. This makes the theist meaning worth nothing. If the theist counters saying that God doesn't need a higher power to have a purpose then it should follow that the atheist does not need one?
KT45 3 years ago
KT45, the theist might argue that since God is all-powerful and can create such things as objective morality and purpose, then naturally God can create his own purpose.
minisiets 2 years ago
What I have said regarding nihilism is that if I was to become an atheist I would be a nihilist as I see this as being the most consistent philosophical position under the rubric of atheism.
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
You would be correct. Its not an automatic in an "atheist world view" but they get their meaning and purpose and morals the same place anyone else gets theirs....from their ass.
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
@UcanbeGOD Yes, but which is more better off? The atheist or a theist.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai Pascals wager? lol
UcanbeGOD 1 year ago
@UcanbeGOD As if arguing agasint a God or a supernatural force is generally trivial... We may as well throw logical think down the toilet, especially when you see a logical flaw in it because in the end objectively we can't or of yet know what this God is or we're just dreading over the unknown so much. There's nothing wrong with thinking about something that make no logical sense at all. Because there's no reason to believe in a God these days in my opinion.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@UcanbeGOD Especially when it comes to the stupid view of the "Christian God."
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai Atheists are nihilists without balls.
eMarRsixSixSIX 1 year ago
@eMarRsixSixSIX You could have a point in general, seeing as how many "weak atheists," let alone fake atheists are out there in comparison to a true atheist. And if you are going to say they are nihilists without balls, explain a female nihilist. lol
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai What is a 'weak atheist'? Atheism is simply a disbelief in gods. Has nothing do to with nihilism.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y By a weak atheist, it's just a out of context, venacular way of describing a person who thinks they're atheistic, but they are actually not if you look at their doctrine of it a little more objectively, or that they lack knowledge of a religion that they are atheistic towards. It doesn't have nothing to do with nihilism, but they can relate to each other, in terms of human emotion and how they feel about things for the most part.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
You can not believe in a God, but that's not going to stop the possible event that you may feel a ting of emotion that can be characterized to be pessimistic, angry or apathetic, seeing those to be typical general traits I see in a nihilist, in my perspective. In fact, some would think of it that way without a God because nothing is stopping them supernaturally from what their doing.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai I can name three religions that endores hatred, despair, suffering, and anger. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. All three preach that one is useless from birth and worthy of "saving", mostly Christianity. Like I said, thank religion for those feelings you think atheists have, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
As I have streessed before with others here - you still have emotions to consider to when talking about doctrination - especially to that of a so-called weak atheist who can deal (perhaps) without or have doubt for a God, but can't bare the possible fact that life can be meaningless. After all, the term God is used frequently when describing purpose, let alone the emotional traits that spawn from it. If one has a disbelief in a God, then prepare yourself into a likely world of nihilism.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
Because if you mix a disblief with strong human emotions of deranged belonging, purpose, and love, or anything life-worthy then one might end up their quickly than atheist who don't have deranged emotions mixed with thier disbilef; or atleast close to nihilism-like doctrine. I honestly don't know how to clarify more on it, but I was just trying to look at both doctrinations a little more objectively and expressing the connections with them in terms of typical human emotions.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
To put plainly, we can't stop an atheist feeling sad or such about non-existance of God when they claim there isn't any and got very depressed or alienatingly apathetic about life. And I am sure personally their were atheist that gone through that process when realizing their isn't a God, especially ones that were indoctrinated with God for years. Even though nihilism has nothing to do with emotion, it's still can be a fact that humans still can go through a lot of emotions when it happens.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
All that I am saying is that we have to look at the human pattern and the process between these two indoctrines.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai Atheism isn't a doctrine.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y OK, an idea then. Either way it's going to be taken for a belief or a disblief despite it's going to have a lack of evidence. And if their isn't evidence? As far as I am aware their isn't and I am pretty sure there are a lot of atheist who "realize" there isn't based on that. There is really no reason why anyone should believe in a God as I can see. What reason would we, despite a lack of evidence?
Tetzukai 1 year ago
We can see the evidence debunking a God through life - misery, pain, insanity, and all of this real-life horror we put up with, contradictions of the Bible that I wish I know right now, and heretics that can't follow what they believe in. We don't even need to read the Bible to have a general understanding of it of how it's garbage. They only thing that's negociatable about a God is an "Objective God," not a Christian God or anything fabricated out of people. That's the point.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
Well, I don't know how I can explain it to you, all I can say about that is look at the patterns of it - everyone is going to have an emotional reaction to things either way and we can't always say its always a good reaction. And since when do you need religion to have an emotion? That's silly. All I did was made general examples of emotions even if they were spawned by religion - it's still an emotion and no one can't run away from them.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
And I wasn't just talking about things like circumcision, I was specifically talking about how religion builds up hope and such in people and tragically falls apart; or for some who are a bit more secular begin to realize that they are nothing but fleshlings full of piss and shit because they are either thinking or they realize their beliefs are worth nothing no more.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
Who says that I am being an advocate for atheism - I haven't said atheists in general are intelligent (even though it's suggestive), nor did I dismiss the fact that even atheists were conditioned into religious morals that would determine ethical behaviour. As I have implied before, no one is immune to emotions, not even an average atheist. For some, one thing leads to another and it happens.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai I don't believe in God and agree with most of what you said LMAO, I just don't agree that atheism is related to nihilism. Logic can make the Christian impossible but not a god in general. I don't believe in one for the most of the reasons you don't. No evidence. Disbelief in something that hasn't be supported is justification.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y Then don't agree if it isn't, but that's not going to change the fact that a disblief or a doubt in God can be depressing for some people to the point of apathy is what I am saying. Atleast I think about the topic rather than simply claiming I'm an atheist while trying to understand human behaviour as a deeper understanding of it and how it can relate to people and other things in life. It's scrutinizing a pattern.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
And don't tell me the general examples I have said cannot account as evidence, especially to a Christian God. Either that or He's an evil being. Justifying a thing can be lead to a belief - the truth is not going to simply pop out of no where and tell me this is this or that.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai I never said it can't be depressing being atheist for some but atheism isn't the blame.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y I wasn't saying it is to blame this whole time. I was saying that if you have atheistic behaviour you are either going to become nihilistic-like depending on other factors like depressing emotions or it's not going to effect you psychologically at all, though it is not going to stop anyone to question it.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai What is atheistic behaviour? Atheists behave like any other person.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y No, what I mean't is the traits of an Atheist - a lack of or no belief in a God.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai That's a trait?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@SQuiRR3LM0nk3y That's refered to as an atheist. What are you talking about? O.o
Tetzukai 1 year ago
@Tetzukai If religion didn't mentally circumsize children, they wouldn't have that feeling after leaving religion. Atheists don't "realive" there is no God, they realize there is no evidence for any.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
@Tetzukai Pretty odd when atheists have shown more religious knowledge than believers but you still haven't explained the connection between atheism and nihilism. Just emotional baggage created by religion.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
I'm not sure how you define nihilism. Wiki characterizes this as "a philosophical position which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value." It would seem that theism offers a world with meaning that is objective with respect to people, given by a higher authority. Atheists I talk to discount an arbiter of meaning higher than people, and the examples you provide at the end seems to confirm that.
legodesi 3 years ago
Every action, no matter how small, has repercussions throughout time to infinity. This does not constitute belief in anything. Just understanding of causality.
slipcurve 3 years ago
Nihilism as understood by Nietzsche, is a crisis within man and his relationship to his values. Atheism is part of this crisis, because a) the Christian religion is found false and is false. b) the church as the arbiter of morals is now and has been for some time found to be a fraud. c) man cannot live (according to the Greeks) without the meaning of justice. Nihilism is not necessarily a bad thing;it just means that it is a 'crossing over' to the new. In a way we are living in a nihilist epoch.
martynblackburn1977 3 years ago
Yeah, this is another way godites use to put atheists down, put them in the gutter, no morals, blah, blah, blah. It really bugs them that atheists can be kind, loving, generous, thoughtful, helpful, moral and useful all without joining their god club.
sunyata999 3 years ago
that's a misunderstanding of both theistic arguments, and if I understand what he's saying, Bitbutter's argument here. They're not saying that Christians live more meaningfully or not, they're disputing the basis of meaning as being relative to us, or to a designer.
legodesi 3 years ago
Interaction/cause and effect are core. Meaning is influence, capacity, continuance, power. There's a meaning for you. To increase in influence and capacity and for continuance to extend indefinitely.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I'll mount a defense from here.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
What's wrong with nihilism?
Vanderburghen 3 years ago
Even if there's nothing wrong with nihilism, it's not true that atheism necessitates nihilism.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Nihilism is just so devoid of value
yes thats a joke
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
watch?v=aiJT3FXo0Ns
Vanderburghen 3 years ago
Lolcat
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
she writes the scripts
bitbutter 3 years ago
I can tell haha
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
I hate how Christians who are new to debating get upset when they are asked as to how they define a word. They get all smart aleck about it going "you can look it up" or "I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it".
This is only going through my experiences mostly. The first is pretty rare, considering that a person who KNOWS what a word REALLY means, and has redefined it to exist, isn't going to try to lie to me about what he and I both know to be.
sonic8005 3 years ago
If nothing means anything doesn't that mean something?
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
Morality is an emotion, not a set of natural laws. How come when you tell people that love is subjective they're fine but if you tell them morality or meaning itself is subjective they crap themselves?
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
Excellent. I wonder if any of these Xians have picked up Sartre. I doubt it. I wonder what they mean by meaning anyhow: If the good works you describe are not included in a "meaning", that would mean that all earthly actions are meaningless.
The only source one can derive meaning from is God. From God? Because of God? bah.
abandonship42 3 years ago
So glad you got the book! Isn't it great?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Yeah, i'm really enjoying it. I do have trouble with some of the positive claims that he makes, but his analysis of the problems with the theistic claims is excellent.
bitbutter 3 years ago
When you have a chance, I'd be interested in hearing which ones trouble you. I have some doubts about a few myself, but overall I think he's spot on.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Now i wish i'd bookmarked the pages with the weakest points too! ;)
I'll be on the lookout for them, if i spot some more iffy bits i'll let you know after i've finished reading it.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Good deal.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You could be an atheist and still be a buddhist. In that case, life has meaning because you don't want to be reincarnated as a cockroach.
mikecampochiaro 3 years ago
"In that case, life has meaning because you don't want to be reincarnated as a cockroach."
Can you tell me, as generally as you can, what conditions need to be in place in order for a life to have meaning?
bitbutter 3 years ago
@mikecampochiaro But here's the thing though, we don't have proof of reincarnation unless you know something suggestive or can actually show how I am wrong. Since atheism generally doesn't believe or lack of in a supernatural force and reincarnation is since of a lack of proof, I don't know how that would make any sense. I am not a buddhist so...
Tetzukai 1 year ago
Great video. I really like how you pointed out that objective and intrinsic values that hinge on the existence of a divine legislator are exactly what are at issue, and that appeals couched in the language of Theism are circular and get us nowhere.
LennyBound 3 years ago
One question though: If nihilism is defined as the view that "existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value," then it appears to me that atheism DOES indeed necessitates nihilism.
If values and meaning are dependent on desires, then in the absence of a divine desire or will I fail to see how belief in an objective meaning or value can still be epistemically justified.
LennyBound 3 years ago
1. nihilism is defined as the view that "existence is without ANY meaning, purpose, or value". so of couse they don't believe in "objective purpose" or "intrinsic value". atheism doesn't necessitate the belief that relative meaning, purpose, and value are meaningless because they can't be epistemically justified.
you can't epistemically justify the meaning of language. by your criteria, language is meaningless, thus your argument is self refuting.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
Epistemology has nothing to do with "meaning". Meaningless knowledge is still knowledge.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
Let me clarify that, just because something is meaningless to you doesn't mean it's meaningless to everyone. You can't actually prove that anything is meaningless.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
if you can't prove that anything is meaningless, then essentially everything is meaningless in the same way no one loves you if only jesus does. jesus loves everyone.
if you can prove that something is only subjectively meaningful, and has no connection with reality, then you have proven it to be practically meaningless.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
"practically meaningless"
That's not absolutely meaningless. Again, you can't prove anything is meaningless. That doesn't make it meaningless in and of itself.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
yeah, but who cares?
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
Your mother cares.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
and i care about your mother,
as does half the village. o^^) (^o^) (^^o
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
"nihilism is defined as the view that existence is without ANY meaning, purpose, or value"
This is a bogus definition. Nihilism is a rejection of OBJECTIVE meaning, not ALL meaning. There is still SUBJECTIVE meaning.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
nihilism |ˈnīəˌlizəm; ˈnē-|
noun
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
• Philosophy extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.
subjective meaning doesn't have any relevance outside the subject.
relative meaning is a much better alternative to objective meaning.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
@ReligionIsACrutch Subjective meaning can be meaningless also, even though the benefits of the values are there. In fact, subjective meaning is obviously more meaningless than objective meaning. What else do you have in the real world besides a dumb emotional, human psychology conditioned by evolution which are often void in logic and a sense of reality? Obviously the purpose in life makes it utterly pointless - you're not going to find any more valueable meaning in the brain of a stupid human.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
"One question though: If nihilism is defined as the view that "existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value," then it appears to me that atheism DOES indeed necessitates nihilism."
Atheism does not preclude the existence of intrinsic value.
"If values and meaning are dependent on desires,"
Atheism doesn't necessitate that they are.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Thanks Lenny. Glad you enjoyed it.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Thanks for the blunt and clear response. :-)
"Atheism does not preclude the existence of intrinsic value."
I don't see how this could be the case. In the absence of a divine will that intentionally built intrinsic values into the fabric of the cosmos at its inception, I fail to see how intrinsic values can exist.
I'll post a response video to this one which has some arguments for "Objective Moral Anti-Realism" that has a link to a paper I recently wrote on this exact topic.
LennyBound 3 years ago
If you get a chance to look at the video and/or paper I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks.
A Fellow Atheist,
LennyBound
LennyBound 3 years ago
Thanks for posting those responses. They were very interesting.
The argument from queerness seems pretty persuasive. (The argument against non-cognitivism less so).
I'm looking forward to reading your paper.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"I'll post a response video ..."
I've just viewed that.
A problem I have with such discussions is that I believe the basis for our morality is largely a matter of biological engineering. (With "natural selection" playing the part of the "blind engineer").
Such a basis isn't independent of humans. Asexual creatures (say) would have a different nature, and presumably different morals. It appears to be intermediate between, or in a different dimension from, "subjective" and "objective".
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"Such a basis isn't independent of humans."
I'm not sure about that. I think there's a strong case that can be made that morality is a terrain in 'design space' that all sufficiently complex social animals will gravitate towards, a 'mountain pass' if you will, or a 'good trick', like the eye.
Perhaps like the eye, morality, can be legitimately viewed as having a real existence as 'place' in the topography of evolutionary design space.
bitbutter 3 years ago
"... morality, can be legitimately viewed as having a real existence as 'place' in the topography of evolutionary design space."
OK, perhaps I understand our disagreement.
"Having a morality" may be a "good trick". But the details of a morality will be dependent on the species' nature.
Consider the details of moralities for: asexual species; species with massive regenerative powers; species that reproduce by spawning instead of in vivo; species with multiple stages (like insects).
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
"Consider the details of moralities for: asexual species; species with massive regenerative powers; species that reproduce by spawning instead of in vivo; species with multiple stages (like insects)."
Yes the details might be different, but i think its plausible that some kind of core morality could be constant (something golden rule-ish). This is just speculation, not an idea i'm committed to.
bitbutter 3 years ago
ps: I've just downloaded the Journal. It says "The fact that through the blind process of natural selection ... is not sufficient to conclude that such behaviors are objectively morally "good."
This (and the rest) may serve as your response to my recent comment. But I believe it misses an important point.
We can't fully replace our evolution position according to "... gives humanity the possibility of choice". Partly - but only within natural constraints. We are not a blank slate.
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
Interesting point, thanks for reading the paper. :-)
I guess the "choice" I mentioned at the end is somewhat limited by our evolutionary heritage and our entrained "moral sense," but I think that has little to no bearing on the existence (or non-existence) of intrinsically motivating moral values.
LennyBound 3 years ago
"I don't see how this could be the case. In the absence of a divine will that intentionally built intrinsic values into the fabric of the cosmos at its inception, I fail to see how intrinsic values can exist."
Based on the arguments you put in your vid, isn't it the case that you just think its _very unlikely_ that such values exist? (because they would represent a unique kind of thing in the universe).
bitbutter 3 years ago
There are two main schools of thought concerning moral nihilism. One is advocated by J.L. Mackie and is sometimes referred to as "Global Falsity." The other is advocated by Richard Joyce and is sometimes referred to as "Presupposition Failure." (There are brief descriptions of these positions on the Wikipedia page for "Moral Nihilism.")
LennyBound 3 years ago
I'm an advocate of Mackie's "Global Falsity" because of the arguments already mentioned, as well as arguments (not yet mentioned) against "Motivational Internalism." Yet, some Objective Moral Realists (such as David Brink) have objected to this approach, claiming that Objective Moral Realism is not committed to Motivational Internalism and can stand without it.
LennyBound 3 years ago
In short, I advocate the stronger position that no intrinsic moral values or knowledge exist, rather than the weaker position that thinks it is "very unlikely" that they do.
LennyBound 3 years ago
It's a useless argument because it is all subjective... What something means to somebody will mean something else to somebody else.
mjd9208 3 years ago
"If values and meaning are dependent on desires,"
That's why we need to start with a clear description of how meaning is obtained. Once the theist provides this, their argument practically undoes itself, because their (theocentric) definition can simply be rejected by any atheist.
bitbutter 3 years ago
What makes me laugh is the christians who say that god gives their lives meaning.
According to the bible you have one and only one purpose. To worship god. Your job is a robot slave giving praise to god, eternally.
In revalations, there is a scene where God is surrounded by angels repeating "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY" constantly. That would drive me mad.
Anyway, seems like a pretty shitty purpose to be proud of.
OccamKant 3 years ago
It certainly doesn't cut it for me.
bitbutter 3 years ago
@OccamKant We're all robots in the end.
Tetzukai 1 year ago
No matter how it's twisted, "meaning" is extrinsic, even with a deity creating said meaning. It is good for human psychology, and it is useful as such, but it is not to be taken as an absolute truth. To wonder why we are here seems to be a needless extension of the question of how we are here.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
Isn't it irrelevant to worry about "meaning"? Isn't it a philosophical distraction?
Isn't it more important to ask "does life has value?" Would we give up our lives for no good reason? Would we terminate someone else's life for no good reason?
Wouldn't we expend resources to increase the value of our lives, or the lives of others? In other words, wouldn't we try to make it less rational to terminate those lives for no good reason?
BarryCPearson 3 years ago
I take your point. I have to say i'm skeptical about the usefulness of words like meaning _and_ value.
bitbutter 3 years ago
I have to agree with you. I thought this whole, "What does atheism offer?" thing was really "What does atheism offer - in terms of Christianity?" in disguise.
urbanelf 3 years ago 3