Atheism and nihilism

[durangodawood]

Such as

Natural conditioning.
Reason.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Yes if two people already see eye to eye on what is being claimed then they will understand each other's position, But that will not mean that both their positions are making any claim to "truth" beyond those two people.

It is just applying the same logic to an individual making a subjective claim but to more than one person IE now we have two individuals with subjective views agreeing but still not making an sense beyond those two as far as that moral claim being "truthful". You could add a third person and so on but it still won't make their claim real or factually true.

 

[stevevw]

Natural conditioning.
Reason.

But reasoning alone means nothing. Someone could reason that taking money from the rich is good. What is the basis or reference point that tells the person reasoning a moral issue that they are right? What is natural conditioning mean?

 

[durangodawood]

But reasoning alone means nothing. Someone could reason that taking money from the rich is good. What is the basis or reference point that tells the person reasoning a moral issue that they are right? What is natural conditioning mean?

Natural conditioning is like: I have a biological basis for valuing friendship, health, material security, etc. We can reason from I value food to I value farms, for instance.

 

[Strathos]

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

If something only "matters today", then it never really mattered in the long run. When I was a little kid I once got upset that I didn't get the toy I wanted for my birthday. That's completely irrelevant now.

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

Because if you are forgotten, you may as well have never existed at all.

 

[Ken-1122]

If something only "matters today", then it never really mattered in the long run. When I was a little kid I once got upset that I didn't get the toy I wanted for my birthday. That's completely irrelevant now.

There is a big difference between something not mattering a million years from now, vs something not mattering within your lifetime. That analogy failed

Because if you are forgotten, you may as well have never existed at all.

Says who? Who decided if you are eventually forgotten, that your life never meant anything in the first place? Because I can guarantee you whoever decided that, is a person who does not make up the rules

 

[durangodawood]

If something only "matters today", then it never really mattered in the long run. When I was a little kid I once got upset that I didn't get the toy I wanted for my birthday. That's completely irrelevant now....

So if you endure eternally, your not getting the toy will matter eternally along with all the other actions and emotions of your life?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes if two people already see eye to eye on what is being claimed then they will understand each other's position, But that will not mean that both their positions are making any claim to "truth" beyond those two people.

It is just applying the same logic to an individual making a subjective claim but to more than one person IE now we have two individuals with subjective views agreeing but still not making an sense beyond those two as far as that moral claim being "truthful". You could add a third person and so on but it still won't make their claim real or factually true.

Excellent point. Now apply that same analogy to Christians who believe what the bible says about God's rules.

 

[Strathos]

So if you endure eternally, your not getting the toy will matter eternally along with all the other actions and emotions of your life?

Not getting the toy is pointless compared to my current life, like a materialist existence is pointless compared to eternity.

 

[stevevw]

Natural conditioning is like: I have a biological basis for valuing friendship, health, material security, etc. We can reason from I value food to I value farms, for instance.

Yes, you can have these values but someone else may value other things. That says nothing about whether what you value is a "truth" value for others or everyone. You value a farm, someone else values home in the city. You value friendship someone else values their own company or you value material security someone else values non-materialism.

 

[durangodawood]

Not getting the toy is pointless compared to my current life, like a materialist existence is pointless compared to eternity.

But why does only the "good stuff" carry on for eternity?

Not getting the toy is pointless because youve moved on. But if meaning endures forever, rather than getting erased by time, then your stuck with the dumb stuff too.

 

[stevevw]

Excellent point. Now apply that same analogy to Christians who believe what the bible says about God's rules.

The difference is what Christians believe is not their opinion but what God has said through Jesus. Jesus says he is the "truth". Though Christians believe that Jesus's teachings are how they should live morally all find it hard and do not necessarily want to do what God's will is.

Humans have a natural tendency to not want to follow God so their personal views (self-will) may differ. But they put this aside and follow God's will through faith believing what Jesus says that he is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to God unless through him.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, you can have these values but someone else may value other things. That says nothing about whether what you value is a "truth" value for others or everyone. You value a farm, someone else values home in the city. You value friendship someone else values their own company or you value material security someone else values non-materialism.

Of course there's truth to valuing a farm. Thats where reason comes in. Anyone who values being fed (a natural value) will value farms if they think about it. It doesnt mean you want to personally be a farmer necessarily.

 

[Strathos]

But why does only the "good stuff" carry on for eternity?

Not getting the toy is pointless because youve moved on. But if meaning endures forever, rather than getting erased by time, then your stuck with the dumb stuff too.

Because in Heaven, only "good stuff" exists.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Yes, different people can value the same thing differently. I'm not sure I see the relevance to the conversation, or much of a point here. Is it supposed to be a shocking revelation that not everyone applies the same subjective judgements as everyone else?

 

[KCfromNC]

If something only "matters today", then it never really mattered in the long run.

I'm still waiting for anyone to offer to send me all the money they have in their wallet right now - seems like that would be a good way to actually demonstrate that something which only "matters today" "never really mattered in the long run".

So far, silence.

It is almost as if this "it has to be eternal or it is meaningless" stuff doesn't actually work here in reality.

 

[Ken-1122]

The difference is what Christians believe is not their opinion but what God has said through Jesus. Jesus says he is the "truth".

The problem with Jesus is that he never wrote anything down. So the only thing we know about him is what other people claimed he said; and of course there is much disagreements and contradictions with what various people have claimed he said.

If you believe those people who wrote the books that eventually became the Holy Bible, according to those people Jesus claimed to be the son of God etc. etc. But then if you believe what some of the people who wrote some of the books that eventually became known as the Gnostic gospels, or even the Holy Koran, according to those people Jesus never even made such claims. So its all a matter of which people you choose to believe.

But regardless of which version you choose to believe about Jesus, what Jesus says is limited to those who see eye to eye with whatever he said and does not go beyond those people; kinda the same way you mentioned what I say is limited to the people who see eye to eye with me and does not go beyond.

 

[Strathos]

I'm still waiting for anyone to offer to send me all the money they have in their wallet right now - seems like that would be a good way to actually demonstrate that something which only "matters today" "never really mattered in the long run".

So far, silence.

It is almost as if this "it has to be eternal or it is meaningless" stuff doesn't actually work here in reality.

It's a similar reason to why most Christians don't commit suicide.

 

[stevevw]

Of course there's truth to valuing a farm. That's where reason comes in. Anyone who values being fed (a natural value) will value farms if they think about it. It doesn't mean you want to personally be a farmer necessarily.

You misunderstand what I am saying. Valuing a farm is not a moral issue. It is more about prudential values like if you want to be healthy then eat well or if you want to have a bumper crop then till and fertilize the soil. These are things you need to do if you want a certain outcome.

But people do not have to do them and there is no obligation to do them. If someone didn't do them they would not be doing anything that is morally wrong. So they are not a moral value that people ought to do in a certain situation as the right thing to do as opposed to the wrong thing morally.

 

[stevevw]

The problem with Jesus is that he never wrote anything down. So the only thing we know about him is what other people claimed he said; and of course there is much disagreements and contradictions with what various people have claimed he said.

No as far as I know there isn't obvious disagreement as to what Jesus said especially his teachings. There may be some differences in the historical facts according to the different authors but that is not about his teachings. Jesus mostly used parables which were designed to make it easier and simpler to understand. You cannot misunderstand or misinterpret them. For example the prodigal son, everyone agrees what this is about.

If you believe those people who wrote the books that eventually became the Holy Bible, according to those people Jesus claimed to be the son of God etc. etc. But then if you believe what some of the people who wrote some of the books that eventually became known as the Gnostic gospels, or even the Holy Koran, according to those people Jesus never even made such claims. So its all a matter of which people you choose to believe.

A fair and truthful investigation in to these other books and writings will show that if there were any false writings it was these. They were written well after Christ died like the Gnostic gospels were written in the 2nd century by people who claimed to have visions from people who know Jesus.

As opposed to the New Testament which is consistent with each other book including the Old Testament. It is based on eye witness accounts from people who knew Jesus and was written not too long after his death. You have to remember around the 2nd century there were many who made false claims about Jesus and religious writings and artifacts were a big industry back then.

But regardless of which version you choose to believe about Jesus, what Jesus says is limited to those who see eye to eye with whatever he said and does not go beyond those people; kinda the same way you mentioned what I say is limited to the people who see eye to eye with me and does not go beyond.

No there is only one set of writings about what Jesus says that all Christians believe and follow and that is what is written in the New Testament. If we were to apply it to a subjective system then all those other books you mention about Jesus would also have the same status as the New Testament as one of the subjective views about Jesus. But they are not. They are relegated to the false prophet status.