Atheism=Nihilism?

[Kia ora]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309677416' post='2262538']
Kia ora bro,
You from Aotearoa?
[/quote]

Yup. You a Kiwi as well?

[stevil]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1309678787' post='2262542']
Yup. You a Kiwi as well?
[/quote]
From Auckland

[Kia ora]

Same here. Moved over the pond quite a few years back and now an Aussie as well.

[Aragonn]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309668763' post='2262484']
It's amazing to me the amount of attacks on this site that are made against a generalised and incorrect view of Atheists that some people within the Phatmass community have.
The attacks are relentless and disengenuous. The people making the attacks are unwilling to listen to any of the Atheists providing clarification. It seems to me that these people think they know it all.

The word "good" is not owned by Christians and was not defined by the Christian god.
Yes, it is hard to pin down what is good, and many people do what others would consider bad things, on their road to good intentions.
If you contend that good means law abiding, then going by the study based on religious afilliation of prisoners in America then it is reasonable to conclude that Athiests adhere to good better than non Atheists, of every denomination and religion.
If you content that good means being humanistic, treating others as equals and showing respect and love regardless of peoples beliefs, gender, sexual orientation then again the Atheists win out hands down.

If you contend that good means following the Catholic Church's stance, then Atheists could be seen as not being as good as Catholics. But then again these goals are not what most Atheists would consider good.

When I refer to good, I loosly mean being law abiding and humanistic, which is what I would have told you if you had decided to ask rather than make a strawman example of my statement. (this I find very dishonest and not good)
[/quote]

You keep missing my point.

[b]I am not making a sociological claim[/b] (ie. "all atheists are bad people" or "all theists are good people") so I'm not sure why you're talking about humanists and prisonerst. [b]I am making a philosophical claim.[/b] Namely that in a materialist world view concepts such as good and bad, as they are not material, can have no real existence outside of the human mind. If their only existence is in the human mind then they become subjective for each person and you lose any standard of "good" by which to judge your actions.

[Aragonn]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309667296' post='2262472']
That still doesn't answer why good is good. Is there an intrinsic goodness to good or is it good because some moral law at a given time says that it's good?
[/quote]

There is an intrinsic goodness. Things are not good because God declares them so, God declares them so because they are good. This goodness cannot exist separated from God, as He is its Creator. It is not an arbitrary moral law.

[quote]
People try to apply consistent meaning to things and for that to work there is a certain logical chain to thoughts and beliefs (saying for instance "pepsi is good therefore Mickey Mouse exists" is meaningless),
[/quote]

The argument from morality is not "morality exists thus God exists", but rather "if morality exists then God must exist". It's up to the individual to decide, through a process of introspection and historical study, if moral absolutes do exist. My point was that most atheists act like they do. This sentiment isn't anything new, Fydor Dostoyevsky wrote that "if God does not exist there is no difference between a murder and a kiss". The most intelligent atheists have always embraced the complete collapse of moral systems that atheism brings with it, hence you have Nietzsche talking about emptying the world of value.

[quote]
but the leap of faith that is "there is something rather than nothing therefore it was consciously created" is not logically rational.
[/quote]

You misunderstand the cosmological argument. One infers from the existence of the universe the need for a first cause (this is inescapable, the infinite regress is a logical fallacy), and then from the design in the universe concludes that it is far more probable that that first cause as an intelligence that created the universe in a way conducive to its operation and the emergence of life rather than an unconscious event that randomly, by chance, lead to the universe we inhabit.

[quote]
I think practically every aspect of a belief in a personal god (one that's outside of the mind) to be irrational.
[/quote]

Well that's not very specific so I can't respond. I'm not sure if you're sincere with these discussions or not. I hope you are, and you seem respectful enough, but a lot of atheists I've spoken with (and a good number of my friends are atheists) are more interested in taking cheap shots at religion or justifying their own unbelief rather than seriously considering the questions. We both seem to be from Australia/NZ so you're probably as tired as I am at this hour of the night. On the chance that you are sincere and find these issues interesting I'll leave you with something a friend of mine wrote on the jump from belief in a God to belief in a personal God. He's far more eloquent when it comes to this stuff than I am.

God Bless

[quote]Someone asked on an internet forum where I occasionally lurk, "how does someone jump from theism to "Jesus is God"? The issue of determining Christ's divinity, of progressing from simple theism to a proper Christian belief, is something I have wanted to put into writing for a while, so I wrote him an essay in response. Perhaps it's a bit more than what he wanted. He also asked about the problem of considering a religion which requires personal change, even though one may be content with their current personality and behaviour. This is what I posted.




[b]The Existential Solution of the Incarnation[/b]

It is possible and simple enough to demonstrate the existence of God through logic, and to believe in God. The problem, however, is reconciling this fact with the crude reality of our existence. Our world is far from perfect – it is godless. 'Fallen,' if you will. This is a flawed reality, one which is so plainly and self-evidently detached from God and anything divine and perfect that it can easily fill one with despair. How can we reconcile this world of suffering, moral evil, imperfection and general fallenness, which we experience through the senses, with the perfection and goodness of the God who we know through the intellect and the heart?

When I realised that I believed in God when I was seventeen (I'm now nineteen), I was deeply agitated by this problem. These two contradictory facts – the reality of God, and the reality of this flawed and ungodly world – seem in total opposition. From an existential perspective, Christianity is the only way in which they are reconcilable, in terms of the perfection of its doctrine in solving this problem.

This world is fallen. It is a shadow of the glory and the beauty and perfection which it ought to be. True perfection, true glory and freedom come from the life in communion with God – that is, pure harmony of love and unity, in which all of creation is united with the creator. God has invited us back to that state. God broke into this world in the Incarnation. He did not come as a mighty warrior on a chariot, as so many other religions of the world imagine their gods, to conquer and punish the disobedient. He came as an infant, born into poverty and marginalisation in an oppressed corner of the world. He lived in solidarity with the marginalised people of society's fringes. He 'took upon himself' humanity; the human condition with all of its trials, despairs, anguishes and sufferings, to the greatest extent: he took on torture, humiliation, estrangement, emotional despair, physical agony, and even the very reality of death itself. As St Gregory of Nazianzus said, "that which is not assumed, cannot be healed." Christ assumed the human condition and transfigured it, by his sacrifice bringing the fallen human condition and the perfect glory of God into unison, reconciling them on Calvary. In the Resurrection he came back from death, glorified, but still bearing the wounds of his ordeal: he had come back transfigured, the human condition which he assumed having been transfigured in him. The death of Christ, his abject murder, was his triumph over death; in his offering of himself as a victim at the hands of his killers, he reconciled humanity to God and brought about the greatest victory of all. We are invited to partake in that victory and the new life which it brings. We are invited to enter into communion with God through Jesus Christ, to be deified and sanctified by the Holy Spirit as we grow in imitation of Christ, partaking in the power of his resurrection, experiencing his power of transfiguration, to attain to perfect unity with God in the Kingdom which is "not of this world."

[b]The Witness of the Church throughout History[/b]

The theological and philosophical significance of Christ, as explained above, is certainly beautiful from an existential and aesthetic perspective, but I understand the issue is much bigger than that. What of historicity and evidence? There is plenty of that as well. The Church herself bears the greatest witness in her unbroken line of bishops, starting with the first apostles. The lines of apostolic succession of the bishops of the Church bishops can be traced back all the way to the first apostles, who have continuously for 2000 years proclaimed the sacred message which they received. The first apostles were martyred and persecuted for their message, as were their successors. Despite the dangers and persecutions their suffered, they never shied away from proclaiming the Gospel: instead, they proclaimed it loudly and with great intellectual power and wisdom, leading their flocks, nurturing the communities of the Church, and bringing sinners and non-believers to Christ, pursuing their work even in the face of persecution and death. The message is out there; it has been proclaimed. Your responsibility is to receive it and to act. Jesus never sat with people having intellectual debates about evidence, pros and cons, historicity, empirical demonstration, etc. It was simple, with no space for the deliberations of intellectual difficulties. "And he said to them, 'Follow me, and I shall make you fishers of men.' Immediately they dropped their nets and followed him." (Mt 4:19-20); 'After this Jesus went and saw a tax-collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up, left everything, and followed him" (Lk 5:27-28).

[b]The Documentary Evidence of the Gospels and other 1st Century Writings[/b]

Nevertheless, the historical evidence is overwhelming. Be careful not to think of the New Testament as a single source. The NT is not a book: it is a library, an entire collection of sources from a variety of different authors, who wrote in different contexts to different audiences, all emphatically proclaiming the same message. Textual criticism proves that these sources were not written in collaboration: there are minor details which are not consistent, which would not have been overlooked if the writers of the different Gospel accounts had written them together in collaboration. It is clear that these writings are the works of separate authors who wrote independently of each other. Nonetheless, they all proclaim the same message: Jesus Christ, the long-awaited Messiah, proclaimed the Kingdom of God, performed miracles, was executed by Crucifixion, rose from the dead on the third day, and identified himself and revealed himself (through his miracles, his transfiguration, his resurrection) to be God incarnate. There are plenty of extra-biblical authors who attest to Christ from this period as well, and we have the writings of men who knew Christ, and other men who were disciples of the Apostles. For example, we have the testimony of St Ignatius, the first-century bishop of Antioch, who was a follower of St Peter. In all ancient records, there is no other kind of historical witness or testimony of such integrity as that of the apostolic witness of Christ.

[b]The Spiritual Encounter of Christ[/b]

There is also the evidence from the millions and millions of people throughout history of have personally encountered Christ in their hearts, whose lives have been transformed by Christ, who have gone from depravity and sin and crime into a life of holiness because their spiritual encounter with Christ changed them forever. The monastics of both eastern and western Christian traditions trained their minds into disciplined vehicles of prayer, and lived in ecstatic communion with the living Christ whose presence was a daily reality for them (These monastic traditions are still alive, and many monasteries welcome guests to come and experience their lives of prayer and liturgy). We experience Christ in our hearts, in the journeys and events of our lives, in our spirituality and prayer, in the liturgy of the Church, in the annual celebration of his Nativity and his Resurrection. The power of Christ is a very real power which radically transforms human hearts, societies, even entire civilisations.

[b]The Testimony Provided by Miracles[/b]

There is also the evidence of the many miracles performed by the saints in the name of Christ. Holiness and its healing and transformative power flows from the saints, who are holy in themselves, and from things which have been made holy. Then there are the various cases of Marian apparitions, Eucharistic miracles, stigmata, etc. For a more recent example, see the article of Our Lady of Zeitoun, an apparition of the Virgin Mary who appeared above a Coptic Church in Egypt, and was witnessed by thousands and even photographed. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun[/url]




[b]On entering the Church despite the incompatibility of one’s current behaviour and/or attitudes; response to the asker’s question about considering a religion which requires change, despite his contentedness with his current self.[/b]

No one is rejected by the Catholic Church, but certain behaviours and attitudes are done away with as we are drawn into the mystery of Christ. It is by the power of Christ’s grace that our attitudes, behaviours and our very natures are transformed. It is no simple task, but through the grace of God it is possible. I am nothing like the person I was three years ago. My behaviour back then was completely incompatible with being a follower of Christ, a communicant of the Church. Transformation is an essential part of ‘taking up your cross’ and following Christ.

If you become convinced that the Truth subsists in Christ and his Church, then don’t let anything hold you back. ‘Who you are’ will be transformed and glorified, brought into a new life of authenticity. It is not without hardship and sacrifice, but it brings with it the treasure that is worth more than anything else in the world. Don’t be afraid of change – it happens in our lives regardless and often without our control. Don’t let yourself feel ‘held back’ because you act or think in ways which aren’t consistent with the model idea of ‘Christian living.’ All are called, all are accepted. Once we are at Christ’s feet, the work of transformation takes place on its own (but only with our co-operation). Changing your behaviour is no problem at all if your heart is converted and transformed. That process of conversion could be rapid and dramatic, or it could take years. Nonetheless, if you feel the call, follow it and see where it leads you.

Remember, above all, perhaps Christ’s most often repeated phrase throughout the Gospels: “Do not be afraid.”




[/quote]

Edited July 3, 2011 by Aragonn

[Aragonn]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1309702222' post='2262599']
Same here. Moved over the pond quite a few years back and now an Aussie as well.
[/quote]

Welcome to Australia

[Kia ora]

Hah, I've been living here for 11 years now.

[quote]The most intelligent atheists have always embraced the complete collapse of moral systems that atheism brings with it, hence you have Nietzsche talking about emptying the world of value.[/quote]

But Nietzsche supported the project of [i]revaluation[/i]. Not annihilation.

Aragonn, how do you know that objective morality is true? How can you prove that to me, a moral nihilist?

Edited July 3, 2011 by Kia ora

[Aragonn]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1309704111' post='2262607']
Hah, I've been living here for 11 years now.



But Nietzsche supported the project of [i]revaluation[/i]. Not annihilation.
[/quote]

And look how did that turned out for him...

[quote]
Aragonn, how do you know that objective morality is true? How can you prove that to me, a moral nihilist?
[/quote]

I wasn't arguing against moral nihilism, I was explaining why I believe moral relativism is the only logical consequence of atheism (something that a few other posters on this thread disagreed with, or at least used terminology that was inconsistent with their world views).


The question of demonstrating the existence of any universal moral principles at all is an entirely different issue. Off the cuff I would say observation of various cultures and introspection lead me to believe that man is made for morality; but it's too late to get into that now.

[stevil]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309702458' post='2262602']
You keep missing my point.

[b]I am not making a sociological claim[/b] (ie. "all atheists are bad people" or "all theists are good people") so I'm not sure why you're talking about humanists and prisonerst. [b]I am making a philosophical claim.[/b] Namely that in a materialist world view concepts such as good and bad, as they are not material, can have no real existence outside of the human mind. If their only existence is in the human mind then they become subjective for each person and you lose any standard of "good" by which to judge your actions.
[/quote]

If we are talking about a standard, then lets try for two:
1. Governing law
2. The golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated)

These are very basic and simple principles at face value, adhered to by most Atheists. The golden rule is often a principle of common law which evolves over time based on real world examples.
To state that Atheists have no sense of being good and hence implying that we are likely to go around killing each other and stealing from each other and doing other bad things is dishonest. When Atheists perform good acts it is either because we don't want to get into trouble from the law or because we are selfless in accordance with the idea of the golden rule.

[Aragonn]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309719367' post='2262692']
If we are talking about a standard, then lets try for two:
1. Governing law
2. The golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated)

These are very basic and simple principles at face value, adhered to by most Atheists. The golden rule is often a principle of common law which evolves over time based on real world examples.
To state that Atheists have no sense of being good and hence implying that we are likely to go around killing each other and stealing from each other and doing other bad things is dishonest. When Atheists perform good acts it is either because we don't want to get into trouble from the law or because we are selfless in accordance with the idea of the golden rule.
[/quote]



Okay, once again you have failed to get my point. I never said that atheists are more likely to go around killing each other. For the second time I am not making a sociological point.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309703458' post='2262605']
There is an intrinsic goodness. Things are not good because God declares them so, God declares them so because they are good. This goodness cannot exist separated from God, as He is its Creator. It is not an arbitrary moral law.[/quote]

Would this be in line with "god is good"? That goodness is god or god is the source of goodness?

[quote]The argument from morality is not "morality exists thus God exists", but rather "if morality exists then God must exist". It's up to the individual to decide, through a process of introspection and historical study, if moral absolutes do exist. My point was that most atheists act like they do. This sentiment isn't anything new, Fydor Dostoyevsky wrote that "if God does not exist there is no difference between a murder and a kiss". The most intelligent atheists have always embraced the complete collapse of moral systems that atheism brings with it, hence you have Nietzsche talking about emptying the world of value.[/quote]

I take a more humanistic and evolutionary (biological/genetic/psychological) approach, to this which sort of invalidates what Dostoyevsky said.

[quote]You misunderstand the cosmological argument. One infers from the existence of the universe the need for a first cause (this is inescapable, the infinite regress is a logical fallacy), and then from the design in the universe concludes that it is far more probable that that first cause as an intelligence that created the universe in a way conducive to its operation and the emergence of life rather than an unconscious event that randomly, by chance, lead to the universe we inhabit.[/quote]

I agree that an infinite regress is impossible - at one point you'll reach [i]something [/i]that's the first and was always there but why do people think that we're just one step removed from the first cause? It's possible that the universe was caused by something that was itself caused or that it caused itself, as some say could've happened with the singularity as a result of fluctuations, but nobody knows much about the singularity in the first place so that's speculation.

[quote]Well that's not very specific so I can't respond. I'm not sure if you're sincere with these discussions or not. I hope you are, and you seem respectful enough, but a lot of atheists I've spoken with (and a good number of my friends are atheists) are more interested in taking cheap shots at religion or justifying their own unbelief rather than seriously considering the questions. We both seem to be from Australia/NZ so you're probably as tired as I am at this hour of the night. On the chance that you are sincere and find these issues interesting I'll leave you with something a friend of mine wrote on the jump from belief in a God to belief in a personal God. He's far more eloquent when it comes to this stuff than I am.

God Bless [/quote]

I am being sincere but I've heard all the arguments before. You can take your pick...prayer, for instance. How is it rational to believe that it works? I understand the meditative value that some derive out of it, but do you really believe that something is listening on the other side? How would you rationally justify that?

And thanks for the quote from your friend, the existential solution part is good insight into the thoughts of someone with that perspective.

And no, I'm half way across the world actually, in Brazil. I'm just a chronic insomniac.

[Aragonn]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309744661' post='2262846']
Would this be in line with "god is good"? That goodness is god or god is the source of goodness?
[/quote]

I'd say that God is the source of all goodness. Don't quote me on that though, this is heading into theological ground that I haven't studied enough to speak confidently on. I'm sure there are other members of Phatmass that could answer this.


[quote]
I take a more humanistic and evolutionary (biological/genetic/psychological) approach, to this which sort of invalidates what Dostoyevsky said.
[/quote]

Humanism is a bit of a joke. If man is simply another animal then he has the same value as any other animal. To treat any human better than we treat that chicken you ate for dinner last night would be "species-ism" (to quote Peter Singer). There would be no logical reason to treat humans better than any other animal, other than our own irrational prejudices.

If you believe humans are a composite of soul and body with a final destiny to repose in God, well that changes the worth of human beings somewhat..

If you take an evolutionary approach to morality then what would you say your standard of "good" is? Presumably, if we're using survival of the fittest to explain morality, it would be whatever further advances the individual. Would you agree with this?

[quote]
I agree that an infinite regress is impossible - at one point you'll reach [i]something [/i]that's the first and was always there but why do people think that we're just one step removed from the first cause? It's possible that the universe was caused by something that was itself caused or that it caused itself, as some say could've happened with the singularity as a result of fluctuations, but nobody knows much about the singularity in the first place so that's speculation.
[/quote]

The uncaused cause does not have to immediately precede the big bang. The point is that we can use reason to discover that there exists something that

a) Stands outside space and time (as it necessarily existed before the creation of space and time with the big bang)
b) Caused either immediately or through a sequence of events the formation of this universe
c) Has no origin
d) Is necessarily greater than the universe, as the greater does not come from the lesser.

This looks pretty similar to the "I Am Who Am" revealed to Moses to me. In fact the only attribute missing that would make this uncaused cause what we call God is active consciousness, which can be established by observing the rationality that pervades the universe.

To quote Cardinal Ratzinger:
[i]
"Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the "Logos." It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything that exists. Today, this should be precisely its philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not, therefore, anything other than a "sub-product," or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal. The Christian faith inclines toward this second thesis, thus having, from the purely philosophical point of view, really good cards to play,"

[/i]

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309750445' post='2262865']
Humanism is a bit of a joke. If man is simply another animal then he has the same value as any other animal. To treat any human better than we treat that chicken you ate for dinner last night would be "species-ism" (to quote Peter Singer). There would be no logical reason to treat humans better than any other animal, other than our own irrational prejudices.

If you believe humans are a composite of soul and body with a final destiny to repose in God, well that changes the worth of human beings somewhat..[/quote]

I don't feel that one needs to elevate themselves to that level to have worth.

And Singer's point is a bit absurd I think. Though I do think that animals need to be treated well and not made to suffer, and even those that are bred to be eaten should be killed painlessly. Singer's also a vegan, and people are omnivores who specifically bred certain animals to be domesticated and used for food. The logical consequence [u]in the real world[/u] (if you don't eat people, then you should'nt eat animals) of his version of humanism is that people might starve, and [i]human[/i]ism does favour humans though it doesn't mean mistreating animals.

[quote]If you take an evolutionary approach to morality then what would you say your standard of "good" is? Presumably, if we're using survival of the fittest to explain morality, it would be whatever further advances the individual. Would you agree with this?[/quote]

Individual? We're a social species.

Evolution explains how genes for altruism and empathy evolved and offers some explanatory models for why they would get selected, even though in some cases altruism is detrimental to the individual. I think that morality is partly genetic and partly nurture (culture/taught etc.) within the context of a society (social animals have to get along in order to thrive) and there are more powerful arguments to support this.

To me saying that objective morality exists and that goodness comes from god is a non answer.

[quote]The uncaused cause does not have to immediately precede the big bang. The point is that we can use reason to discover that there exists something that

a) Stands outside space and time (as it necessarily existed before the creation of space and time with the big bang)
b) Caused either immediately or through a sequence of events the formation of this universe
c) Has no origin
d) Is necessarily greater than the universe, as the greater does not come from the lesser.

This looks pretty similar to the "I Am Who Am" revealed to Moses to me. In fact the only attribute missing that would make this uncaused cause what we call God is active consciousness, which can be established by observing the rationality that pervades the universe.

To quote Cardinal Ratzinger:
[i]
"Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the "Logos." It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything that exists. Today, this should be precisely its philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not, therefore, anything other than a "sub-product," or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal. The Christian faith inclines toward this second thesis, thus having, from the purely philosophical point of view, really good cards to play,"[/i]
[/quote]

And saying that the first cause is conscious and intelligent (verified intelligence, not something that looks like intelligence) is exactly what I don't agree with.

[stevil]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309741939' post='2262834']
Okay, once again you have failed to get my point. I never said that atheists are more likely to go around killing each other. For the second time I am not making a sociological point.
[/quote]
OK, I probably am struggling to understand what is purely a [b][b]philosophical claim[/b][/b] I keep trying to relate what you are saying by converting it into my view of what is the real world. So it seems I am converting it incorrectly. You might as well be speaking a foreign language, because i'm not understanding it.

[xSilverPhinx]

Stevil, did someone respond to answer why you got the tag? I saw that even MrCatholicCat (atheist) was given the tag as well and either dUSt didn't see that I'm also an atheist or...something. I still think it's weird and inappropriate.