Atheism and nihilism

2PhiloVoid · Jul 1, 2020

Moral Orel said:
Aren't they all?

It sounds like you're describing God's goodness in an entirely different manner than any other kind of goodness. Are there two kinds of goodness that are wholly separate, or am I just missing the connection thus far?

In a way, yes. My understanding of what we find in the Bible would have me think that God's own goodness would be inherently a part of His own Eternal Being, a property of His Holiness and His Otherness that could be separate in some sense from anything He might create, His goodness being greater in quality to that "type" of goodness which derives from Him and inheres within His Creation.

So, if the universe, or Creation, has a goodness apart from God, then it is in quality more limited and "below" that of God's own inherent Goodness.

Moral Orel · Jul 1, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
In a way, yes. My understanding of what we find in the Bible would have me think that God's own goodness would be inherently a part of His own Eternal Being, a property of His Holiness and His Otherness that could be separate in some sense from anything He might create, His goodness being greater in quality to that "type" of goodness which derives from Him and inheres within His Creation.

So, if the universe, or Creation, has a goodness apart from God, then it is in quality more limited and "below" that of God's own inherent Goodness.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around inherent and intrinsic things. In terms of the things God creates, goodness is how well they perform as designed. In terms of God, what is goodness? In your other post you talked about recognizing things as subjectively bad, and that you saw the Christian God as standing in contrast to that, or that's what I took from it anyways. Is that accurate?

Ana the Ist · Jul 2, 2020

Occams Barber said:
And yet...

If you were to do a little survey of atheist posts in CF, I'm willing to bet that the majority would be on issues related to social justice or equality.

It almost as if they actually care about things.

OB

Speak for yourself lol.

Occams Barber · Jul 2, 2020

Ana the Ist said:
Speak for yourself lol.

Don't laugh @Ana the Ist . Your post history is, almost exclusively, one of contesting social issues.

The difference is that your social opinions are a little to the right of most atheists on CF. Nevertheless your posts are still about social issues.

I see you as a right wing SJW

.

OB

stevevw · Jul 2, 2020

Speedwell said:
Yes it is very like that. But subjective moralists are allowed to regard certain moral precepts which they have learned through nurture and which reside in their superegos as "independent moral truth apart from them that is holding them accountable." They don't need your permission.

Yes but that is not a moral truth but rather a learned morality from another human or human's personal view. It is still subjective and subjective morality cannot make independent truth claims.

stevevw · Jul 2, 2020

durangodawood said:
Thats what I think morality is: prudential standards coded into the human mind in such a way that violation feels like a sort of internal pain, and encoded into the society such that violation incurs a social pain which also manifests in the psyche.

But prudential standards are not moral values. They are like instructions for anything including non-moral situations. IE if you want to produce a good crop then you must till and fertilize the soil. There is no moral value or obligation to do what is required. You can choose not to till and fertilize the soil or not to eat healthily and exercise and it won't be morally wrong.

Plus what one person thinks is the proper way to get a good result someone else will disagree and neither are morally right or wrong. Each will react differently to how they experience that pain according to their personal sensitivities and experiences. So there is no way to determine any moral code as it is arbitrary and subjective.

Morality doesn't need to be anything else in order to explain its origin and effectiveness.

It does if you want to claim a moral "truth" that would be the ultimate right and best way for morality. Morality based on personal experiences and views is a poor basis as it is influenced by too many factors such as personal bias and motive or just individual experience that skews things so that the best interests of people is not the main priority.

And "objective" is absolutely the wrong word to use for divine-origin morality. If that's objective, then show it to me.

Objective morality isn't just about a divine origin. It is about morality being independent of humans regardless of what or who is its origin. Therefore we can say that for humans appealing to morality like it is real or a "truth" claim is supporting the independence of morality beyond humans because their appeal to that morality is required despite their personal views. They could not function otherwise.

Otherwise as mentions and relating things back to the OP subjective morality is not really about moral truth values but rather personal views and cannot have any status when taking those personal views beyond their own minds when engaging with people. When people engage they both accept and appeal to certain truth values whether they like it or not.

They cannot appeal to subjectivity otherwise the whole interaction breaks down and socialization would be impossible. The fact they do appeal to moral truths is not because of socially agreed morality because it doesn't work that way in individual interactions. Moral truths are real and not some subjective agreement that may or may not be what is right because that is just an extension of the same subjectivism that cannot determine moral truth.

Speedwell · Jul 2, 2020

stevevw said:
Yes but that is not a moral truth but rather a learned morality from another human or human's personal view.

Correct. Now you are beginning to get it: morality is socially determined.

It is still subjective and subjective morality cannot make independent truth claims.

Independent of what? The content of our consciences does not need to be "objective" to be regarded as superior to individual opinion for resolving moral questions.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 2, 2020

Moral Orel said:
I have a hard time wrapping my head around inherent and intrinsic things. In terms of the things God creates, goodness is how well they perform as designed. In terms of God, what is goodness? In your other post you talked about recognizing things as subjectively bad, and that you saw the Christian God as standing in contrast to that, or that's what I took from it anyways. Is that accurate?

Yes, that is approximately what I'm attempting to begin to convey here.

But far be it from me to say that all of this axiological talk as it relates to the concept of God which we find in the Bible (as opposed to the one that gets barfed up for discussion apart from the Bible) is conceptually distinct and clear beyond clear.

When we're dealing with the Bible, I'll be the first one to stand up and say, "It ain't all as clear as I'd like it to be, so I'm not sure exactly how to explain God's goodness." No, I'll just say that I am attracted to the overall values of Jesus and allow that to inform me as far at it all can go.

Then again, when I look at the axiological concepts of something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or even the U.S. Declaration of Independence or our Constitution, I ain't going to say it's so "clear" either where ontology or axiology are concerned.

Yet, we find people Left and Right just screaming for their piece of the supposed "Good Pie" that we all think we just "know" exists. But while they're screaming about all of this on all sides, even in churches, I just pull out my Calvin and my Hobbes and start reading. ^_^

But what was the question again? Oh yeah. In terms of God in and of Himself, what is goodness?

Frankly, I don't exactly know. How would I? Wouldn't I have to be God to understand that? From my own limited, mortal human vantage point, I could take a stab at discerning what God's own Goodness amounts to, but in the stabbing process I'll probably butcher the whole thing up ...

Still. I rather think that Eternal Life, Eternal Love and and Eternal Existence are the good aspects of God that we're supposed to somehow intuit and perceive. Isn't this what Jesus is driving at in what the New Testament relates to us?

durangodawood · Jul 2, 2020

stevevw said:
But prudential standards are not moral values. They are like instructions for anything including non-moral situations. IE if you want to produce a good crop then you must till and fertilize the soil. There is no moral value or obligation to do what is required. You can choose not to till and fertilize the soil or not to eat healthily and exercise and it won't be morally wrong.

Moral rules have their origin as prudential standard. But thats not the whole story. They are also given weight and force when enshrined in religion, founding myths, law, other traditions (as I already noted). i think they also comport with certain deeper instinctual mental structures, though I'm less sure about this.

stevevw said:
Plus what one person thinks is the proper way to get a good result someone else will disagree and neither are morally right or wrong. Each will react differently to how they experience that pain according to their personal sensitivities and experiences. So there is no way to determine any moral code as it is arbitrary and subjective. It does if you want to claim a moral "truth" that would be the ultimate right and best way for morality. Morality based on personal experiences and views is a poor basis as it is influenced by too many factors such as personal bias and motive or just individual experience that skews things so that the best interests of people is not the main priority.

Morality clearly isnt just one persons opinion. Its a consensus of the wise based on understanding people and society over generations. In other words: wisdom, not whim.

stevevw said:
Objective morality isn't just about a divine origin. It is about morality being independent of humans regardless of what or who is its origin. Therefore we can say that for humans appealing to morality like it is real or a "truth" claim is supporting the independence of morality beyond humans because their appeal to that morality is required despite their personal views. They could not function otherwise.

It seems bizarre that morality would be independant of humans. Its utterly about humans.

stevevw said:
Otherwise as mentions and relating things back to the OP subjective morality is not really about moral truth values but rather personal views and cannot have any status when taking those personal views beyond their own minds when engaging with people. When people engage they both accept and appeal to certain truth values whether they like it or not.

I dont believe in subjective morality. I think I made clear that wisdom based morality emerges from a consensus of the wise based on observations and understanding of human behavior and its outcomes.

stevevw said:
They cannot appeal to subjectivity otherwise the whole interaction breaks down and socialization would be impossible. The fact they do appeal to moral truths is not because of socially agreed morality because it doesn't work that way in individual interactions. Moral truths are real and not some subjective agreement that may or may not be what is right because that is just an extension of the same subjectivism that cannot determine moral truth.

I dont know where youre getting that wisdom based morality is subjective.
1. its based on observations and understanding of the outcomes of various behaviors.
2. its supports values that are demonstrably natural to being human

Moral Orel · Jul 2, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
But what was the question again? Oh yeah. In terms of God in and of Himself, what is goodness?

Frankly, I don't exactly know. How would I? Wouldn't I have to be God to understand that? From my own limited, mortal human vantage point, I could take a stab at discerning what God's own Goodness amounts to, but in the stabbing process I'll probably butcher the whole thing up ...

People must mean something when they declare "God is good". When I say something is good I mean that I like it, it makes me feel pleasant emotions, or it is at least associated with things that make me feel pleasant emotions. What do you mean when you say "God is good"?

2PhiloVoid said:
Still. I rather think that Eternal Life, Eternal Love and and Eternal Existence are the good aspects of God that we're supposed to somehow intuit and perceive. Isn't this what Jesus is driving at in what the New Testament relates to us?

Color me a cynic, but those sound like things that God gives people, not really aspects of God Himself.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 2, 2020

Moral Orel said:
People must mean something when they declare "God is good". When I say something is good I mean that I like it, it makes me feel pleasant emotions, or it is at least associated with things that make me feel pleasant emotions. What do you mean when you say "God is good"?

Well, if you know how to analytically acquisition what specifically and exactly the ancient Israelites and their Jewish descendants "meant," please let me know.

Otherwise, I'm going to think you're playing a game with me, because I've already vetted OUT that there is a difference between what I, as a modern day, 21st century American numb-skull might only surmise constitutes God's Goodness and that which is being inferred, however cryptically or literarily, by the ancient biblical writers. I can not just enter into their 'mind-frame' and see and think and feel what they see and think and feel and fully conceptualize about God and His Goodness. I'm just a late arrival on the scene, trying to existentially hash things out as I go, hoping for the best.

See how I'm parsing this out, even in existential terms from my own vantage point?

I suppose I can posit that it is in my power to spot the fact that God is portrayed by the biblical writers as Holy and Pure and Just and Beneficent and Empowering and Life-giving, generally speaking. How all of that works exactly, conceptually in the long-run, I couldn't know. But there it is, and if it's real---and I have a hunch it is---then in the future, I'm going to experience God and His Goodness via Eternal Life in Christ, something of which I only 'feel' and 'perceive' a few snatched pieces of right now via disparate fragments of history and in some partial way in my own life.

I'm not sure what else you're looking for. It's not like anyone could actually give a fully and satisfying justification of all of this conceptual jungle of theology regarding God and His Goodness, Moral. No, all we get in the 'now' are essential scraps to eat on while we're here ...

Color me a cynic, but those sound like things that God gives people, not really aspects of God Himself.

I'm under the impression that 'those things' can be both. It doesn't have to be seen as dichotomous in nature.

Moral Orel · Jul 2, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Well, if you know how to analytically acquisition what specifically and exactly the ancient Israelites and their Jewish descendants "meant," please let me know.

I want to know what you mean when you say that "God is good". I'm sure what you mean is influenced by what they've written, and we have no reason to assume they'll be perfectly in line with one another of course, but surely you must mean something when you state that "God is good", don't you?

2PhiloVoid said:
Otherwise, I'm going to think you're playing a game with me, because I've already vetted OUT that there is a difference between what I, as a modern day, 21st century American numb-skull might only surmise constitutes God's Goodness and that which is being inferred, however cryptically or literarily, by the ancient biblical writers. I can not just enter into their 'mind-frame' and see and think and feel what they see and think and feel and fully conceptualize about God and His Goodness. I'm just a late arrival on the scene, trying to existentially hash things out as I go, hoping for the best.

See how I'm parsing this out, even in existential terms from my own vantage point?

I'm not playing games, honestly, I'm just probing for as satisfying of an answer as is possible. I understand we'll hit a brick wall at some point.

2PhiloVoid said:
I suppose I can posit that it is in my power to spot the fact that God is portrayed by the biblical writers as Holy and Pure and Just and Beneficent and Empowering and Life-giving, generally speaking. How all of that works exactly, conceptually in the long-run, I couldn't know. But there it is, and if it's real---and I have a hunch it is---then in the future, I'm going to experience God and His Goodness via Eternal Life in Christ, something of which I only 'feel' and 'perceive' a few snatched pieces of right now via disparate fragments of history and in some partial way in my own life.

I'm not sure what else you're looking for. It's not like anyone could actually give a fully and satisfying justification of all of this conceptual jungle of theology regarding God and His Goodness, Moral. No, all we get in the 'now' are essential scraps to eat on while we're here ...

I'm under the impression that 'those things' can be both. It doesn't have to be seen as dichotomous in nature.

You've listed more qualities here like in the last post. Are you saying these qualities are good and God is good because he possesses those qualities?

Ana the Ist · Jul 2, 2020

Occams Barber said:
Don't laugh @Ana the Ist . Your post history is, almost exclusively, one of contesting social issues.

If you broadly define everything as a social issue...sure.

They got rid of the philosophy section.

The difference is that your social opinions are a little to the right of most atheists on CF. Nevertheless your posts are still about social issues.

Perhaps.

I see you as a right wing SJW .

You're certainly entitled to your opinion...but I'm not really right wing and I definitely don't believe in social justice.

stevevw · Jul 2, 2020

Speedwell said:
Correct. Now you are beginning to get it: morality is socially determined.

As mentioned that which is socially learned is not a moral truth but rather relative morality. A tribe in Africa can learn that female genital circumcision is morally acceptable but may actually be morally reprehensible. But under relative morality different societies cannot say that another culture is morally wrong because from their perspective they are doing nothing wrong but living a socially acceptable moral value.

Independent of what? The content of our consciences does not need to be "objective" to be regarded as superior to individual opinion for resolving moral questions.

But that is not how subjective/relative morality works. It is determined by individual and societal preferences. Whatever is determined as on trend with what is morally right. Sometimes what is determined as wrong by our conscience is rationalized as OK because it also goes against socially acceptable ideas of what is right according to those social norms.

Case in point abortion or underage access to inappropriate content which many would say was unacceptable but because believe that there is no God humans are the gods and their rights come first and these things have to be accommodated to uphold individual rights.

These and many others like them are the moral norms of modern-day society that were not acceptable years ago showing how moral values can be rationalized away depending on what people think is OK according to a number of influences based on personal preferences and beliefs.

What is deemed to be wrong according to our conscience can be ignored and eventually people can harden their hearts to what is moral truth and intuitively known to us. So, in reality, this subjective and relative morality is not morality at all but a human-made version according to what they think is OK.

Speedwell · Jul 2, 2020

stevevw said:
As mentioned that which is socially learned is not a moral truth but rather relative morality. A tribe in Africa can learn that female genital circumcision is morally acceptable but may actually be morally reprehensible. But under relative morality different societies cannot say that another culture is morally wrong because from their perspective they are doing nothing wrong but living a socially acceptable moral value.

Of course they can say that. They can claim superior moral insight or demonstrate that certain acts deemed moral actually cause harm.

But that is not how subjective/relative morality works. It is determined by individual and societal preferences. Whatever is determined as on trend with what is morally right. Sometimes what is determined as wrong by our conscience is rationalized as OK because it also goes against socially acceptable ideas of what is right according to those social norms.

That sort of behavior is routinely observed even in those who believe that the content of their consciences is divinely inspired.

Case in point abortion or underage access to inappropriate content which many would say was unacceptable. These are moral norm s of modern-day society that were not acceptable years ago showing how moral values can be rationalized away. What is deemed to be wrong according to our conscience can be ignored for various reasons and eventually people can harden their hearts to what is moral truth. So, in reality, this subjective and relative morality is not morality at all but a human-made version according to what they think is OK.

Sex. Why is it always sex? Given the serous moral issues which face humanity, sexual morals issues pale in comparison. Besides, most sexual behavior is regulated by custom and tradition, not morality.

NB, if you look at the history of abortion, you will see that attitudes towards it haven't really changed all that much; just the point of pregnancy where it begins to be deemed murder. With respect to the sexual education of young women, I hardly see that as a moral issue at all, unless the education be false or misleading; bearing false witness, don't you know.

stevevw · Jul 2, 2020

durangodawood said:
Moral rules have their origin as prudential standard. But thats not the whole story. They are also given weight and force when enshrined in religion, founding myths, law, other traditions (as I already noted). i think they also comport with certain deeper instinctual mental structures, though I'm less sure about this.

The problem I see is that these prudential standards can be entirely human-made which opens them up to being influenced by many influences that can be personally and socially motivated. So for example, if you want an inclusive free-thinking and democratic society then allow all beliefs and views to be equal. Give individuals more valuable than the group. So if there is an objective moral truth out there these values undermine this.

The stage is open for whoever can make the loudest noise or whoever can influence others as to what they think is morally right. Using Prudential standards as a moral standard is open to being manipulated and what is determined as morality is not really morality but individual or societal ideas according to whatever is the latest view of what makes a good life.

Morality clearly isnt just one persons opinion. Its a consensus of the wise based on understanding people and society over generations. In other words: wisdom, not whim.

The problem is as we know and have seen in our history what is claimed as wise is masqueraded with motivations that are more sinister. The truly wise are often shot down as this goes against those more sinister motivations. Without a clear moral grounding morality even when agreed can be open to many influences. It usually results in those in power being the ones who determine what is right and best despite society thinking that they are the ones determining things.

It seems bizarre that morality would be independent of humans. It's utterly about humans.

Yes, everything is filtered by humans so in that sense reality is subjective. But that doesn't mean there is no objective morality. Just like people can have a subjective view about the physical world and yet the physical world can be objective so can they about morality. It just means we have to look for different ways to understand objective morality. Many say this can be done through the way people act like morality is objective despite their subjective views.

I dont believe in subjective morality. I think I made clear that wisdom based morality emerges from a consensus of the wise based on observations and understanding of human behavior and its outcomes.

But as I pointed out humans are susceptible to many influences that skew their views about what is wise and what is wise can sometimes be a barrier to what is wanted. We have seen this in history. It may be wise to not destroy the planet. But other motives can be rationalized as also good and dictate that we end up doing.

I don't know where you're getting that wisdom based morality is subjective.

Because wisdom is open to personal and group views which are not always wise but can be justified as wise.

1. it's based on observations and understanding of the outcomes of various behaviors.

And what those outcomes are can be subjective as well. IE the debate about economic needs over environmental needs. At the moment economic needs are winning at the cost of the earth. This example goes on across many domains from what is best for families and small communities to what is best for world peace.

2. its supports values that are demonstrably natural to being human

What does that even mean. According to modern-day society there is no natural, no nature when it comes to humans. It is up to people to determine what is rather than even science in many cases. Whatever people feel and express. Modern thinks materialism is what makes us happy yet many people are sad. So this shows how human wisdom can be misleading.

The Bible says Romans 1: 18-23
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

So people can deny the truth and by doing this what they think is wise can be foolish. That seems to be happening a lot nowadays.

stevevw · Jul 2, 2020

Speedwell said:
Of course they can say that. They can claim superior moral insight or demonstrate that certain acts deemed moral actually cause harm.

The problem is who says that harm equates to a moral wrong. Who said that other cultures use harm as a moral measure. It's a funny situation as on the one hand people are told to be tolerant of different cultures' morality because "it is different from ours" and differences should be accepted even if they seem alien to our moral views.

Yet at the same time intuitively feel that somethings are just not right. They want to make a stand against these practices but in doing so are imposing their views on others. Who said that one culture can claim their morality from across the other side of the world is more right and dictate what another culture can and cannot value morally.

When it comes to relative morality there is no independent measure. So when western society imposes their view of what is morally right based on harm they are just imposing their view that harm should be the measure of morality. Even so, that is being objective about morality and negating the idea of subjective/relative morality and tolerance as promoted by western morality. It just doesn't work and exposes the unrealistic idea of subjective/relative morality as being the only way to measure moral values.

The hypocrisy of the Moral Relativist
However, the atheist often fails to see that this disqualifies him from any rational discussion of values or morality. If the atheist admits that he can only make subjective moral judgments, entirely relative to his feelings and his culture, then he has nothing objective to say. He can’t say that “it’s wrong to torture, kidnap or rape.” He can only say, “From the standpoint of my own culture, feelings and judgments, what you’re doing is wrong.” However, he can’t say that these things are indeed wrong!

However, the atheist continues to make absolute judgments about things even after admitting that there is no basis to make these judgments. He calls the God of the Bible a “sadist,” but from the standpoint of moral relativism, there is nothing wrong with being a sadist. It might be deemed wrong in my culture, but really, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with it, because there is no right and wrong to begin with. There are just competing individual judgments.
Mann's Word: The Hypocrisy of the Moral Relativist

Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible
They say moral disagreement is best explained by the idea that there are many different and incompatible relative moral truths, which are in some way determined by the beliefs of a given society; and that this is the only kind of moral truth there is. So for the Aztecs it was true that human sacrifice is morally permissible, although it is false for us.

So if this relativist’s argument is good, then by his own standards he should not believe its conclusion is objectively true; or if he is entitled to believe its conclusion, it follows that the argument is not good.

Need it be self-defeating to hold that moral truth is relative and that that truth about moral truth is itself merely relatively true too? Happily, we do not need to consider this question with much care, since I think the core problem with moral relativism is not that it is false, implausible or self-defeating, but simply that it is unintelligible. I mean by this that there is no intelligible concept of truth that can be used to frame the thesis that moral truth is relative to the standards or beliefs of a given society.
Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible | Issue 97 | Philosophy Now

Sex. Why is it always sex? Given the serious moral issues which face humanity, sexual morals issues pale in comparison. Besides, most sexual behavior is regulated by custom and tradition, not morality.

I would disagree and say that many think sex is associated with morality and the fact that it is rationalized as just a custom and tradition shows how morality can be viewed as something other than morality based on personal views.

NB, if you look at the history of abortion, you will see that attitudes towards it haven't really changed all that much; just the point of pregnancy where it begins to be deemed murder.

I'm thinking more about abortion being immoral period regardless of the science that informs people of what life is. I think you will find that despite science showing us that a fetus is a life more than people think that is not the motivation. Abortion was and is more about individual rights which is a more modern idea.

With respect to the sexual education of young women, I hardly see that as a moral issue at all, unless the education be false or misleading; bearing false witness, don't you know.

That is not the issue. Sex education is not about morality but avoiding situations that can lead to issues about morality. But it is more about the philosophy behind sex education. What is deemed as OK or not which determines what is to be taught in sex education? This is dictated by society's view about what is morally OK.

The problem is under a subjective/relative moral system because there is no clear and united position that can be taught in sex education can be undone with society's views in practice which sends the opposite message in saying its OK to do certain things.

The happy Objectivist · Jul 3, 2020

Lord Vega said:
Some religious people claim that atheism, which is defined as a lack of belief in deity or deities, is inherently nihilistic. Since atheists come from all nationalities, races, socio-economic backgrounds, and indeed all walks of life, it is reasonable to say that making such a sweeping generalization of all atheists isn’t fair.

However, many atheists spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing religion. Visit any atheist blog on the internet, and there you won’t find one positive article on faith. It seems like everything they post is hostile towards religion. You’ll never see them post a link to a news story about Christians feeding the poor or being good people in general. The same can be said about atheist books: read any book from renowned atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, and all they have to say about religion is bad. In fact, the world's most famous blasphemy advocate Christopher Hitchens even wrote a book called How Religion Poisons Everything.

Since it seems like almost all atheists are hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity, which is an inherently peaceful faith that improves morals and provides eternal salvation for all believers, wouldn’t it make sense to think that atheism is inherently nihilistic? It’s not like you ever see atheists praising religion and talking about how good it is. If that is what they believed, they probably wouldn’t be atheists in the first place.

The happy Objectivist · Jul 3, 2020

Lord Vega said:
Some religious people claim that atheism, which is defined as a lack of belief in deity or deities, is inherently nihilistic. Since atheists come from all nationalities, races, socio-economic backgrounds, and indeed all walks of life, it is reasonable to say that making such a sweeping generalization of all atheists isn’t fair.

However, many atheists spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing religion. Visit any atheist blog on the internet, and there you won’t find one positive article on faith. It seems like everything they post is hostile towards religion. You’ll never see them post a link to a news story about Christians feeding the poor or being good people in general. The same can be said about atheist books: read any book from renowned atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, and all they have to say about religion is bad. In fact, the world's most famous blasphemy advocate Christopher Hitchens even wrote a book called How Religion Poisons Everything.

Since it seems like almost all atheists are hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity, which is an inherently peaceful faith that improves morals and provides eternal salvation for all believers, wouldn’t it make sense to think that atheism is inherently nihilistic? It’s not like you ever see atheists praising religion and talking about how good it is. If that is what they believed, they probably wouldn’t be atheists in the first place.

Hi all, new here.
To be sure, many atheists are nihilists but I suspect that this is a result of most of them being skeptics. They don't have a very good understanding of concepts. And many of them hold a hodgepodge of philosophic ideas, many self contradictory, that they've picked up from reading different philosophers which they have accepted without validation or integration. They think that concepts are mere social conventions or social constructs cut off from reality and purely subjective. A view like that would lead one inevitably to think that there's no objective basis for values. There are no ideas inherent to atheism though. It simply identifies their view on a single issue, their lack of belief in a god.

The assumption here is that religion is the only source of values but this is not the case. The source of values is reality, specifically in the context of a living organism's life needs. So long as an organism lives, it needs values to continue living and those values are determined by its nature. So no god or belief in one is necessary for values to exist. The factual life requirements of the organism are the basis of values.

I haven't read the whole thread yet so I apologize if I'm repeating something someone else said.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 4, 2020

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I'm curious to know what people think the relationship is between conscience and moral values, and the origin or source of conscience.

Oh, and just one more thing[/columbo], would it be reasonable to say that believers in objective morality think that their own morals necessarily correspond with those objective morals?

Atheism and nihilism

Is atheism inherently nihilistic?

Yes

No

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Aggressively serene!

Newbie

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Dis Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Aggressively serene!

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads