Atheism and nihilism

[durangodawood]

...I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Why should the world keep any aspect of you (or me) around for eternity?

It seems like we're unreasonably clinging to "me" here. I know we invest a lot in building the "me" over our short lives. But nothing owes us a permanent return on that investment.

 

[Strathos]

Why should the world keep any aspect of you (or me) around for eternity?

It seems like we're unreasonably clinging to "me" here. I know we invest a lot in building the "me" over our short lives. But nothing owes us a permanent return on that investment.

Exactly, we are not owed or deserving of it. But God offers it to us anyway.

 

[durangodawood]

Exactly, we are not owed or deserving of it. But God offers it to us anyway.

Well that's a matter of faith.

But my point is that the world does not owe us a positive sum for the plus x and minus x of our life and death.

And I'm still skeptical that meaning can only reside in eternity. You certainly have not demonstrated that it is so.

 

[Kylie]

In pure materialism, death is permanent. It cancels out everything. If your value in life is X, your death and eventual fading into obscurity is -X. Add them together and you get 0.

Yes, That's why Beethoven hasn't had any impact at all since his death...

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes.

So you concede those things do have value. My point stands.

 

[Strathos]

Yes, That's why Beethoven hasn't had any impact at all since his death...

He'll be forgotten eventually.

So you concede those things do have value. My point stands.

Not under pure materialism.

 

[Kylie]

He'll be forgotten eventually.

No changing the goalposts, Strathos. You said it was DEATH that cancelled out everything. I pointed out an example of someone who was dead and is still a very influential part of society. Now you're just running around trying to cover yourself by claiming it's not death but TIME that cancels out everything.

 

[Strathos]

I also asked if anyone would remember you a million years from now.

 

[KCfromNC]

They would be useless to you.

Not true, it would serve two purposes :

1 - show that people who are claiming that finite things are worthless actually believe what they're saying
2 - give me extra spending money. Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

So far, though, no one seems to be willing to practice what they preach.

 

[stevevw]

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 first thing that crossed my mind is "what is the moral basis for atheists criticizing religion as bad". So they cannot really be nihilists if they use some sort of value to claim religion is bad. In fact, even though they don't realize it by making such as "truth" claim they are in fact supporting the idea of there being a moral lawgiver such as God.

 

[durangodawood]

I also asked if anyone would remember you a million years from now.

Still trying to understand why meaning is only real if its eternal.

You wouldnt assert that for other human sensibilities would you? For instance, would you deny that love in a materialist context is real love?

Can one person really love another in a materialist setting? I'd say absolutely yes.

 

[durangodawood]

The first thing that crossed my mind is "what is the moral basis for atheists criticizing religion as bad". So they cannot really be nihilists if they use some sort of value to claim religion is bad. In fact, even though they don't realize it by making such as "truth" claim they are in fact supporting the idea of there being a moral lawgiver such as God.

There's other ways of arriving at values aside from divine-decree theory.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not under pure materialism.

Nobody said anything about materialism, I said what I do TODAY matters today. You agree, thus my point stands.

 

[Ken-1122]

The first thing that crossed my mind is "what is the moral basis for atheists criticizing religion as bad". So they cannot really be nihilists if they use some sort of value to claim religion is bad. In fact, even though they don't realize it by making such as "truth" claim they are in fact supporting the idea of there being a moral lawgiver such as God.

Perhaps the atheist himself is his own moral lawgiver.

 

[Ken-1122]

I also asked if anyone would remember you a million years from now.

Why does it matter if someone remembers you a million years from now?

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps the atheist himself is his own moral lawgiver.

Yes, that is possible but then that would not mean anything as far as a claim outside the person making the claim. If the person making the claim is protesting to someone and making claims that God and the bible or Christianity is bad then it wouldn't mean much to anyone who they are complaining to. So all that protesting is really meaningless as far as any "truth" claim being put out into the world. In that sense, you could say it was nihilistic when separated from the claimant.

 

[stevevw]

There's other ways of arriving at values aside from divine-decree theory.

Such as

 

[KCfromNC]

The first thing that crossed my mind is "what is the moral basis for atheists criticizing religion as bad". So they cannot really be nihilists if they use some sort of value to claim religion is bad. In fact, even though they don't realize it by making such as "truth" claim they are in fact supporting the idea of there being a moral lawgiver such as God.

Or at least conscious beings who are able to value morality, such as humans.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, that is possible but then that would not mean anything as far as a claim outside the person making the claim. If the person making the claim is protesting to someone and making claims that God and the bible or Christianity is bad then it wouldn't mean much to anyone who they are complaining to.

It depends on who he is complaining to. If he is complaining to someone who already has issues with the claims of the God of the Bible, or Christianity, it will reinforce their negative views they already have of Christianity which usually results in interest in what he is saying. I think Christians call that "preachin' to the Choir.

 

[stevevw]

Or at least conscious beings who are able to value morality, such as humans.

What do you mean by valuing morality? A conscious being can value morality but that doesn't mean what they value is morality as often value means different things to different people. Such as pain and pleasure or "likes and dislikes" which don't equate to morality so easily.