View Full Version : Nihilistic atheism
I'm just curious how popular the 'nihilistic' version of atheism is that seems to be trendy on the net and in the media.
Basically the form of atheism I consider 'nihilistic' centers on the theme that 'existence is meaningless' or on the positive assumption that when you die 'this is all there is'. And usually argues against there being a god based on the claim that because there is 'suffering in the world', there can be no God.
I'm not big on this type of atheism, and I think it's the one most popular with angsty teens who're disillusioned with religion.
I'm also not big on agnosticism either - because my view is that even though there is not hard evidence of a god (let alone a specific god) - a person can still have an opinion whether one exists or not. Just like a person can have an opinion on anything (such as whether OJ Simpson was guilty or not) even without concrete evidence of it.
I think that either positive atheism (I believe there is no god because...) or diesm/theism is a less wishy washy position - however I'm not fond at all of the atheist argument that 'suffering in the world' disproves a god. Or simply resorting to the 'there's no evidence of a god' position to avoid giving a personal opinion on whether there's one or not. I'd like to hear other opinions on why there isn't a god. (Keep in mind again I'm not talking about a specific god like Jesus or Allah - I'm simply talking about "a god" in general). Love to get some feedback here.
Daniel M
03-25-15, 11:44 PM
I would conisder myself an atheist who perhaps fits the criteria for being nihilistic in that I largely agree with the statement 'existence is meaningless' in the way it's normally intended, but I definitely would never make the claim that my beliefs are in any way influenced by 'the suffering in the world', that's not the reason why I don't believe in God, in fact I would say that statement more commonly comes from agnostic or religious people who are doubting their beliefs (unsure) or trying to sympathise with those who aren't religious, i.e "Yeah, I can see why you don't believe in God with all this suffering in the world..."
I'll maybe type more of what you want (arguments why there isn't God) tomorrow, I'm off to bed for now.
Citizen Rules
03-25-15, 11:49 PM
'nihilistic' atheism...agnosticism...positive atheism...diesm/theism
Love to get some feedback here.
I'd give you some feedback but I was never big on labels, heck I'm not even sure what all those isms mean?
For myself I kinda go with the Popeye approach, "I yam what I yam"
I'd give you some feedback but I was never big on labels, heck I'm not even sure what all those isms mean?
For myself I kinda go with the Popeye approach, "I yam what I yam"
Well from what I hear 'atheism's' sometimes used as a broad label for anyone who 'doesn't believe in a god', but it can include agnostics too.
'Positive atheism' means someone believes with certainty that there is no god.
The 'nihilistic' term I used relates more to the mentality that the world or universe is overall 'bad' or 'meaningless' (ex. such as due to warfare, famine, etc).
Citizen Rules
03-26-15, 12:03 AM
I see....I like the Taoist philosophy of the universe. There's no, all good or all bad...good or bad are relative and comes from how we view an event.
Miss Vicky
03-26-15, 01:25 AM
I identify as atheist, because with all the horrible things happening in the world, I'm faced with the choice of either believing there is no God or believing that God is real but is undeserving of worship because he stands by while these things continue to happen.
If that's nihilistic atheism, fine. Whatever, but I don't think this viewpoint has anything to do with teen angst.
I identify as atheist, because with all the horrible things happening in the world, I'm faced with the choice of either believing there is no God or believing that God is real but is undeserving of worship because he stands by while these things continue to happen.
Problem is that that's a false dichotomy since that's an argument against a perfect or omnipotent creator (which is only a concept of god that exists in religions like Christianity or Islam anyway).
As opposed to a creator who isn't omnipotent or 'perfect' in the sense that they could just 'snap' their fingers and make all of the problems go away. Which fits in more with my deistic belief. Because even human geniuses and inventors can't invent a 'perfect' creation, so why should a creator of the universe be automatically expected to be capable of that?
If that's nihilistic atheism, fine. Whatever, but I don't think this viewpoint has anything to do with teen angst.
It's the view I see most often with the younger or more 'angry' style of atheists; and it's the only opinion I've ever heard expressed from people who say they believe there is no god or higher power.
I say it's a poor argument since it's similar to saying "a Ferrari couldn't have had a designer if it has mechanical flaws". That's why I was interested in hearing better arguments for the positive belief that there's no god.
Funny Face
03-26-15, 02:56 AM
I'd give you some feedback but I was never big on labels, heck I'm not even sure what all those isms mean?
For myself I kinda go with the Popeye approach, "I yam what I yam"
I've only heard the term Atheist, without any subcategories. I've been called an Atheist ever since I was little, however, now one of my best friends likes to tell me..."You say Atheist, but I hear Buddhist." All these terms like- positive and nihilistic are really fascinating! I've always been a fan of SBNR "spiritual but not religious," but I might replace that with Citizen's Popeye approach. :)
I identify as atheist, because with all the horrible things happening in the world, I'm faced with the choice of either believing there is no God or believing that God is real but is undeserving of worship because he stands by while these things continue to happen.
If that's nihilistic atheism, fine. Whatever, but I don't think this viewpoint has anything to do with teen angst.
Considering how long we've known each other, I don't think we've had a really in-depth discussion about Atheism and religion...I may bring this up next time we get together- get ready! :D
Miss Vicky
03-26-15, 03:13 AM
Problem is that that's a false dichotomy since that's an argument against a perfect or omnipotent creator (which is only a concept of god that exists in religions like Christianity or Islam anyway).
:rolleyes:
I'm obviously talking about the Christian notion of God as an omipotent and all powerful being. And, quite frankly, if there exists a deity that isn't omnipotent and all powerful, why would that deity be worthy of worship?
:rolleyes:
I'm obviously talking about the Christian notion of God as an omipotent and all powerful being.
That's the false dichotomy that I was talking about; that a fictional god from a specific religion is the only alternative to 'atheism'.
And, quite frankly, if there exists a deity that isn't omnipotent and all powerful, why would that deity be worthy of worship?
It wouldn't be worthy of "worship" - that'd be based on the concept God's a king or dictator rather than a designer.
I'd say it'd mean acknowledging that there is greater purpose in life as part of nature itself, and that this is revealed through science - which is what deism is essentially.
Miss Vicky
03-26-15, 03:36 AM
That's the false dichotomy that I was talking about; that a fictional god from a specific religion is the only alternative to 'atheism'.
Those are the alternatives that make the most sense to me. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but you can keep your preaching to yourself. You cannot say with absolute certainty that it is a "false dichotomy." You don't know the truth of what's out there any more than anybody else does.
I'd say it'd mean acknowledging that there is greater purpose in life as part of nature itself, and that this is revealed through science - which is what deism is essentially.
Greater purpose as defined by what? "Revealed through science" how?
Those are the alternatives that make the most sense to me. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but you can keep your preaching to yourself. You cannot say with absolute certainty that it is a "false dichotomy."
It's a false dichotomy because you mentioned only "atheism" contrasted with a theistic version of God who 'just allows bad things to happen' and demands 'worship'. So you presented only 2 options when there are more.
You don't know the truth of what's out there any more than anybody else does.
I don't have to 'know' to have a belief, or as the religious call it - faith.
No one currently 'knows' in the sense of physical proof if alien life exists elswhere the universe - but they can still have a belief that there is or isn't and reasons for believing it.
Greater purpose as defined by what? "Revealed through science" how?
We hold these truths to be self-evident...
Did a google search and I found this, and still disappointed. All of the arguments still base off the concept of a "theistic" or omnipotent God such as in Christianity rather than a Deistic God, or just revert to the subject of a "lack of physical proof" (which isn't relevant when it comes to a belief whether there is a god or not).
http://www.existence-of-god.com/arguments-for-atheism.html
We hold these truths to be self-evident...
That's not really an answer. Why would the universe having been the product of a deity give it more meaning than one which began without this deity? You say you're a deist, right? So, let me get this straight...you believe the universe has a designer of sorts, and this designer is not just a force, but something conscious and thus capable of action, and it acted to create/design the universe? And is it safe to assume you fall into the classic camp of deism which states this deity is far away and does not meddle or interact with the life forms in the universe? I'm trying to grasp why this deity would give meaning to life. I also fail to see how it's anything other than a wishy-washy form of agnostic-atheism, but maybe that's just me.
As for having beliefs without having complete knowledge, then of course all of our beliefs are without complete knowledge, but I think there's something to be said for having justified beliefs. Beliefs that correspond to reality as we're capable of understanding it. Wishful thinking is not a justification, as far as I'm concerned. As for there being a deity as I think you've described, I would say I'm agnostic. It's just impossible to say one way or the other, but I definitely lean toward the atheist side. Either way it doesn't matter, because this deity's existence in no way impacts our existence. As for a personal god who watches over us and perhaps will punish or reward us after death, I'm definitely an atheist. Again I don't think it matters. I would reject any god who would eternally punish someone for not believing in it. It boils down to this: any god worthy of worship wouldn't demand it, and any god who would demand worship isn't worthy. So there you go. As for meaning in existence, you could just as well say existence is it's own meaning, and as for meaning in our own lives, then we decide what meaning to give it, which might be a cliche, but it's better than the alternatives.
That's not really an answer. Why would the universe having been the product of a deity give it more meaning than one which began without this deity? You say you're a deist, right? So, let me get this straight...you believe the universe has a designer of sorts, and this designer is not just a force, but something conscious and thus capable of action, and it acted to create/design the universe? And is it safe to assume you fall into the classic camp of deism which states this deity is far away and does not meddle or interact with the life forms in the universe? I'm trying to grasp why this deity would give meaning to life. I also fail to see how it's anything other than a wishy-washy form of agnostic-atheism, but maybe that's just me.
The specifics of the god entity aren't important - my belief is that a higher power bought the universe into being, and that the meaning is in inherent part of the workings of nature itself (rather than something God sat down and "decided").
As for having beliefs without having complete knowledge, then of course all of our beliefs are without complete knowledge, but I think there's something to be said for having justified beliefs. Beliefs that correspond to reality as we're capable of understanding it. Wishful thinking is not a justification, as far as I'm concerned.
"Wishful thinking" doesn't validate or invalidate a belief - for example some theists use the same argument against atheism (ex. that atheists don't want to 'risk' the possible consequence of punishment from God).
I'd say a belief would have to have evidence outright disproving it in order to be invalid.
As for there being a deity as I think you've described, I would say I'm agnostic. It's just impossible to say one way or the other, but I definitely lean toward the atheist side. Either way it doesn't matter, because this deity's existence in no way impacts our existence. As for a personal god who watches over us and perhaps will punish or reward us after death, I'm definitely an atheist. Again I don't think it matters. I would reject any god who would eternally punish someone for not believing in it. It boils down to this: any god worthy of worship wouldn't demand it, and any god who would demand worship isn't worthy. So there you go. As for meaning in existence, you could just as well say existence is it's own meaning, and as for meaning in our own lives, then we decide what meaning to give it, which might be a cliche, but it's better than the alternatives.
I'd say that meaning is self-evident in nature based on observation of the cause and effect of behaviors - so while people can assign personal meanings, some have proven benefits over others.
In other words true meaning isn't something which an individual can just 'decide on a whim' - it's determined by genetics and human evolution.
The specifics of the god entity aren't important - my belief is that a higher power bought the universe into being, and that the meaning is in inherent part of the workings of nature itself (rather than something God sat down and "decided").
Yeah, still makes no sense.
"Wishful thinking" doesn't validate or invalidate a belief - for example some theists use the same argument against atheism (ex. that atheists don't want to 'risk' the possible consequence of punishment from God).
I'd say a belief would have to have evidence outright disproving it in order to be invalid.
I never said it validates or invalidates a belief. I said it doesn't make it a justified belief. You know, a legitimate belief. And if a belief is simply wishful thinking, then the obvious assumption is there isn't any objective, rational reasons for believing it otherwise.
I'd say that meaning is self-evident in nature based on observation of the cause and effect of behaviors - so while people can assign personal meanings, some have proven benefits over others.
In other words true meaning isn't something which an individual can just 'decide on a whim' - it's determined by genetics and human evolution.
Personal meaning is not determined only by genetics and human evolution, and I certainly didn't say it was decided on a whim.
Cobpyth
03-26-15, 10:33 AM
I'm also not big on agnosticism either - because my view is that even though there is not hard evidence of a god (let alone a specific god) - a person can still have an opinion whether one exists or not. Just like a person can have an opinion on anything (such as whether OJ Simpson was guilty or not) even without concrete evidence of it.
So people can have an opinion on anything, but they can't have the "opinion" that they simply don't know?
Makes no sense to me.
Miss Vicky
03-26-15, 11:30 AM
I don't have to 'know' to have a belief, or as the religious call it - faith.
The same applies to me and my recognition of only two possibilities: God (as seen in the various Christian religions and similar faiths) or no God.
No one currently 'knows' in the sense of physical proof if alien life exists elswhere the universe - but they can still have a belief that there is or isn't and reasons for believing it.
That's exactly my point: Believe as you choose to believe, but don't tell me that what I believe is wrong nor insinuate that it has anything to do with "angst."
We hold these truths to be self-evident...
Read: 90sAce has no answer to this question and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Citizen Rules
03-26-15, 12:17 PM
...I've been called an Atheist ever since I was little, however, now one of my best friends likes to tell me..."You say Atheist, but I hear Buddhist."... I've always been a fan of SBNR "spiritual but not religious," I like that! It applies to me too. How about I make up a new term: Spiritual Nonconformist, that's what I'm calling myself.
...I would reject any god who would eternally punish someone for not believing in it.I like that. I don't bend a knee for anyone, not even a omnipotent being.
Believe as you choose to believe, but don't tell me that what I believe is wrong... I agree. That's why I have staid away from the other Question for Atheist thread. Ultimately it turns into a bashing of others ideas and then nothing is learned. It's near impossible to change someone's mind in a debate on religion/atheism, so why try?
The same applies to me and my recognition of only two possibilities: God (as seen in the various Christian religions and similar faiths) or no God.
That would be incorrect, since 'possiblities' aren't something you get to decide - you decide your own belief.
For example someone can belief alien life exists or not - but they can't believe it's "impossible for their to be a possibility about alien life existing... or something" - that makes no sense and sounds like a cop out.
That's exactly my point: Believe as you choose to believe, but don't tell me that what I believe is wrong nor insinuate that it has anything to do with "angst."
Personal experience is that when people realize religions like Christianity and the like are a crock and become atheist, they start out very negative and disillusioned - later on a lot of them mellow out (when I first left Christianity I was an atheist for a little while, and I fit this attitude - this is also the attitude and age range I saw on a lot of atheism related forums).
The view that "there is no god because of suffering" though is a huge fallacy like I explained and is a nihilistic belief
Read: 90sAce has no answer to this question and doesn't know what he's talking about.
My answer is that the the universe has a diestic creation.
So people can have an opinion on anything, but they can't have the "opinion" that they simply don't know?
Makes no sense to me.
That's not an "opinion" - it's stating a technical truth (basically just a wishy washy way of avoinding taking a stance on something).
It would be like responding "The Godfather won an Oscar" if someone asked me "Do you think the Godfather is a good movie?". That's just stating a technical truth to avoid giving a personal belief or opinion (yes/no, because...)
I'm guessing by the end of this thread 90sAce will have inadvertently convinced at least two of you to start believing in God.
I'm guessing by the end of this thread 90sAce will have inadvertently convinced at least two of you to start believing in God.
Wasn't trying to convince or prove to anyone there's a "god", no. Since I'm a diest it's not as though I believe a person must 'consciously believe in god to avoid damnation' or some nonsense like that. I also obviously don't believe you can "prove" god since god exists totally independent from nature.
I made a request to hear atheist arguments that "no god exists" - but which aren't based on the 'problem of evil' (aka evil and suffering disproves god), because I think this is false (if you don't take on an omnipotent god), and has nihilistic undertones. Even on other websites, this is the only atheist argument I see against the existence of a god, along with arguments which specifically target theism and Christianity (but not the "god concept" altogether).
Considering you made a thread attempting to convince non-religious people to embrace religion it's pretty ironic that you argue here.
Considering you made a thread attempting to convince non-religious people to embrace religion it's pretty ironic that you argue here.
So I guess we can add "irony" to the list of things you don't understand.
So I guess we can add "irony" to the list of things you don't understand.
No it's totally ironic - you have a 100 page thread challenging non-religious people, but show up in a thread to (falsely) criticize for 'trying to make people believe in God"? That's ironic in every sense of the term, as well as a lie.
I made the thread pretty clear - I'm tired of the "problem of evil argument" I see atheist use because I think it's a fallacy, and I wanted to hear better atheist arguments for the idea that "there cannot be a god" than that, since they're very scarce to find on the internet.
Miss Vicky
03-26-15, 02:07 PM
Somebody explain to me the point of believing in a creator that has no power or control over that which it has created?
What comfort or meaning is to be found in an absentee god?
No it's totally ironic - you have a 100 page thread challenging non-religious people, but show up in a thread to (falsely) criticize for 'trying to make people believe in God"?
Good grief. Read the post again.
Somebody explain to me the point of believing in a creator that has no power or control over that which it has created?
But the 'control' was in the creation itself.
What comfort or meaning is to be found in an absentee god?
The difference IMO is that this means there is an 'order' in the universe itself.
I used the car analogy again - Enzo Ferrari may not be able to 'snap his fingers' and correct mechanical flaws in a Ferrari, but he nevertheless designed it with an order to how it functions.
Versus the alternative that 'everything happens completely by random/accident' then.
Point is again I'd like to hear arguments against the possibility of 'a god' other than the 'problem of evil argument' which I think is very overused.
I'm with Vicky on this one...
Or there is a god, or there isn't.
If there isn't, problem solved, why pray to Him? If there is, he can control the universe or he can't.
If he can't, problem solved, why pray to Him? If he can, he's a sadistic ****, why pray to Him?
matt72582
03-26-15, 04:35 PM
I try to do the right thing for the right reason, and not for any rewards. I think the reward is having the ability to do good for others and yourself.
And for the concepts of "good and bad" I guess I believe the better parts of people, instead of absolutists which are usually conditioned responses.
As for death, I think it's the ending of existence. Probably similar to the period before I was born.. I think when you're dead you don't even know. So try to enjoy today as much as you can.
I try to do the right thing for the right reason, and not for any rewards. I think the reward is having the ability to do good for others and yourself.
Good things however do have a chemical reward, so there is a scientific explanation for the benefit. It's a different type of chemical reward however than say, using a drug.
This isn't exclusive to humans either - animals don't have human reason or 'morality' but they have instinctive drive towards behavior which is 'good' for themselves or their species.
And for the concepts of "good and bad" I guess I believe the better parts of people, instead of absolutists which are usually conditioned responses.
As far as that goes, absolute costs/benefits can be verified in nature - which is what I'd say morality is based on.
As for death, I think it's the ending of existence. Probably similar to the period before I was born.. I think when you're dead you don't even know. So try to enjoy today as much as you can.
Well no one really 'knows' what happened before death, since they have no physical memory of it.
There's still no explanation however for 'individual consciousness' - consciousness as a concept is caused by brain activity, but what causes a person to be 'born in their specific body' (as opposed to millions of other people they 'could be born as') can't just be explained away by 'brain activity'.
That's not an "opinion" - it's stating a technical truth (basically just a wishy washy way of avoinding taking a stance on something).
It would be like responding "The Godfather won an Oscar" if someone asked me "Do you think the Godfather is a good movie?". That's just stating a technical truth to avoid giving a personal belief or opinion (yes/no, because...)
Never mind if the person hasn't seen The Godfather, right? Go ahead and take a stand anyway. Better yet defend this stance until the bitter end, even if it takes dozens of posts and thousands of words and an inexhaustible willingness to attack everyone else's position, and then finally when everyone else has moved on to better things, you can declare yourself the victor. Right? Sounds good.
I'm with Vicky on this one...
Or there is a god, or there isn't.
If there isn't, problem solved, why pray to Him? If there is, he can control the universe or he can't.
If he can't, problem solved, why pray to Him? If he can, he's a sadistic ****, why pray to Him?
"Free will? What's that?" -- everyone in this thread, apparently.
Funny Face
03-26-15, 04:58 PM
I like that! It applies to me too. How about I make up a new term: Spiritual Nonconformist, that's what I'm calling myself.
Spiritual Nonconformist! I like it!
Recently, I met up with one of my favorite college professors and we were discussing the titles people have in a company- Editor, CEO, CFO, sales associate, customer service representative...etc and how sometimes the terms we commonly use do not accurately describe or encompass everything a person does, especially when we are running our own business. She said she is going to call herself the CDM- Creative Decision Maker. I loved it so much, I told her I'm going to borrow that term and use it myself, in business and life!
Never mind if the person hasn't seen The Godfather, right?
No one has to have seen the Godfather. People can read reviews from critics they trust, watch clips, consider the quality of previous films by the actor and director, etc
People decide whether or not they think a movie will be good/bad based on trailers - it's called taking a risk and making a judgment call. And people have to do this in every area of life, since they can't 'know everything' for certainty.
There's always the 'possibility' for example of dying in a car wreck, but people take a risk and make a judgment call every time they get in their car - desipite not being able to predict psychically what will happen.
Go ahead and take a stand anyway. Better yet defend this stance until the bitter end
Nope, plenty of people have an opinion but are open to changing their opinion if proven wrong. Just like if a person reluctantly goes to see a movie thinking it will suck, but they turn out to love it.
If someone decides up front that they will never change their opinion no matter what other facts come into play - then that's just their own stubbornness.
, even if it takes dozens of posts and thousands of words and an inexhaustible willingness to attack everyone else's position, and then finally when everyone else has moved on to better things, you can declare yourself the victor. Right? Sounds good.
Why all the strawman? Again it sounds like you've just got 'theism' on the brain, as in the loonies thinking they can provide 'scientific proof of Noah's flood" and crap like that.
If a belief's based on deism, as in something which pre-dates the known universe or can't by definition have 'physical proof' - it'd be pretty dumb to claim you can 'prove it' to someone - but the idea that one can't have a belief without concrete proof is completely false.
The only argument I've made here is that "problem of evil" is a bad argument against the existence of "a god", and I listed reasons why. Funny thing is that people immediately jump in with reactionary claims like 'him wanting worship' or 'him being omnipotent' because they immediately associate god with theistic versions of god like Allah and Jesus.
Why all the strawman? Again it sounds like you've just got 'theism' on the brain, as in the loonies thinking they can provide 'scientific proof of Noah's flood" and crap like that.
So we can also add "straw man" as another concept you don't understand, and possibly "analogy" and "humor" and probably a few others.
The only argument I've made here is that "problem of evil" is a bad argument against the existence of "a god", and I listed reasons why. Funny thing is that people immediately jump in with reactionary claims like 'him wanting worship' or 'him being omnipotent' because they immediately associate god with theistic versions of god like Allah and Jesus.Strictly speaking that isn't even close to the only argument or assertion you've made. For instance, you've made far more of an argument that everyone needs to form an opinion on everything, no matter what their familiarity, or interest, is with the subject. And you've rejected the stance, "I don't know" and there you're wrong. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate stance, whether you like it or not.
As for your frustration with people "jumping in with reactionary claims," let me point you back to your original post:
I'd like to hear other opinions on why there isn't a god. (Keep in mind again I'm not talking about a specific god like Jesus or Allah - I'm simply talking about "a god" in general). Love to get some feedback here. So you ask for feedback, and then when you get it, you reject it as "reactionary." I'm not an unbeliever because of the problem with evil, but that doesn't mean the problem of evil can just be dismissed because your version of god is so far away it has zero effect on anyone's daily life. If what you're looking for is an argument against this distant god of yours, you're probably not going to get it. If you're making an argument for design, then you can research the counter-argument by people who understand physics, but I seriously doubt anyone here can articulate the argument sufficiently. And the argument against design is speculative anyway, so it's not going to convince you in all probability...which is not an argument for design, or for this god of yours, because again saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate.
As for better things to do.. my two-year-old is clamoring for a bath, so off I go.
Oops, an accidental double post.
matt72582
03-26-15, 06:38 PM
I think "I Don't Know" is not only legitimate, but it's a very honest position when everyone tries to have an answer for everything.
So we can also add "straw man" as another concept you don't understand, and possibly "analogy" and "humor" and probably a few others.
Who's 'we'? It annoys me when people claim to speak for 'everyone'.
It's definitely a strawman yes, since you mentioned 'arguing to try to convince people of a belief' when I was never trying to convince people that "there is a god".
Only thing I was trying to convince is that the 'problem of evil' is a bad argument against the general idea of a god (which is not limited to the omnipotent, ruler style of god in modern religions), because it is.
Strictly speaking that isn't even close to the only argument or assertion you've made. For instance, you've made far more of an argument that everyone needs to form an opinion on everything, no matter what their familiarity, or interest, is with the subject. And you've rejected the stance, "I don't know" and there you're wrong. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate stance, whether you like it or not.
The argument is that "there's no hard proof" doesn't mean a person can't have an opinion. One of the popular opinions against believing in a god I hear is that "it's stupid to believe something without proof", but I disagree, if the belief isn't something reliant on proof to begin with.
As for your frustration with people "jumping in with reactionary claims," let me point you back to your original post:
So you ask for feedback, and then when you get it, you reject it as "reactionary."
It was reactionary because I went out of my way to explain I wasn't talking about a theistic or omnipotent god, but people immediately showed up with the same claims about god (ex. 'demanding worship', just sitting by and 'letting bad things happen', etc).
So I take it some people just skimmed over the post, and immediately started talking in terms of 'gods' like the Christian god.
I'm not an unbeliever because of the problem with evil, but that doesn't mean the problem of evil can just be dismissed because your version of god is so far away it has zero effect on anyone's daily life.
It would be dismissable if god's power doesn't extend to 'being able to correct problems with the world'.
If what you're looking for is an argument against this distant god of yours, you're probably not going to get it. If you're making an argument for design, then you can research the counter-argument by people who understand physics, but I seriously doubt anyone here can articulate the argument sufficiently. And the argument against design is speculative anyway, so it's not going to convince you in all probability...which is not an argument for design, or for this god of yours, because again saying "I don't know" is perfectly legitimate.
As for better things to do.. my two-year-old is clamoring for a bath, so off I go.
Again, 'design' refers to things which pre-date the physical universe (before the big bang), which brought the universe into being. It sounds like you're talking about "intelligent design", which is totally different and theistic (it argues that things in the known world were created in their present state rather than evolved, which is pretty much the same as "creationism"). Apples to oranges.
I think "I Don't Know" is not only legitimate, but it's a very honest position when everyone tries to have an answer for everything.
Beliefs can't be 'honest or dishonest' since they're beliefs. Saying a person believes there is a god is not saying "I can provide evidence that there is a god".
"I don't know" is only relevant if someone asked "where's your proof?".
IMO giving a personal opinion is actually more honest, since it's expressing one's own feeling about something (which they do have) - refusing to express an opinion and instead just substituting it with a factual statement is basically hiding one's feelings or opinions in order to 'avoid the possibility of having to admit they're wrong later".
christine
03-26-15, 07:19 PM
I never understand why people care so much about whether someone else believes in a god or not. I am an atheist, I'm happy in my own self contained unbelief. I know when I die that's that. I'm equally as happy that someone else thinks they will go to heaven or that others believe in reincarnation or whatever else. It doesn't bother me what beliefs other people have and it baffles me as to why it's such an area of contention.
I never understand why people care so much about whether someone else believes in a god or not. I am an atheist, I'm happy in my own self contained unbelief.
The thread was arguing against the 'problem of evil' argument - not 'caring' whether or not people are atheist.
I know when I die that's that.
You don't though, since that's presuming that you know why individual consciousness occurs in first place. How you explain why "you" were born in your body, as opposed to someone else's? Saying that consciousnesses 'in general' is caused by brain activity doesn't explain this - so it's a faith based belief, not 'knowledge'.
And the idea of 'afterlife' being dependent on 'atheism/theism' isn't true - there's no reason why natural and scientific explanations for 'existence' after physical death aren't possible.
In order to 'know' you'd have to have evidence of it, by your own definition it's physically impossible to 'know' this since it occurs outside of nature - so saying 'you know that's that' isn't really any different than saying you 'know you'll go to heaven'.
If you believe 'that's that', that's a different story. Though I'd be interested in knowing why - as opposed to believing in existence after death from a scientific POV
I'm equally as happy that someone else thinks they will go to heaven or that others believe in reincarnation or whatever else. It doesn't bother me what beliefs other people have and it baffles me as to why it's such an area of contention.
Who's 'we'? It annoys me when people claim to speak for 'everyone'.
It's definitely a strawman yes, since you mentioned 'arguing to try to convince people of a belief' when I was never trying to convince people that "there is a god".
Only thing I was trying to convince is that the 'problem of evil' is a bad argument against the general idea of a god (which is not limited to the omnipotent, ruler style of god in modern religions), because it is.
Another thing you don't understand: the "proverbial we." And no, it wasn't a straw man argument. You might claim it was an attack on you, but when there's several examples of you doing exactly what I implied you do, then it's not an attack, but an illustration of your methodology. A methodology you're currently using with your argument against the problem of evil and your assertion that "I don't know" is a legitimate stance to take on claims about reality.
The argument is that "there's no hard proof" doesn't mean a person can't have an opinion. One of the popular opinions against believing in a god I hear is that "it's stupid to believe something without proof", but I disagree, if the belief isn't something reliant on proof to begin with.
Nobody is stopping anyone from having an opinion. And while it may not be stupid to believe something without proof, it is stupid to defend it as if you do have proof or can make any definitive claim about it, and it's even more stupid to criticize others for not willing to make a claim one way or the other.
It was reactionary because I went out of my way to explain I wasn't talking about a theistic or omnipotent god, but people immediately showed up with the same claims about god (ex. 'demanding worship', just sitting by and 'letting bad things happen', etc).
Probably the best thing to do is to just ignore you, then the problem would be solved.
Again, 'design' refers to things which pre-date the physical universe (before the big bang), which brought the universe into being. It sounds like you're talking about "intelligent design", which is totally different and theistic (it argues that things in the known world were created in their present state rather than evolved, which is pretty much the same as "creationism"). Apples to oranges.
It may have "sounded" to you like i was talking about intelligent design, but I wasn't, which illustrates a consistent problem you have: not even understanding what people are saying.
Beliefs can't be 'honest or dishonest' since they're beliefs. Saying a person believes there is a god is not saying "I can provide evidence that there is a god".
Did I use the terms "honest" or "dishonest" with regards to beliefs, or are you just going off on a tangent, and putting those words in quotations for some other reason than is commonly accepted?
"Free will? What's that?" -- everyone in this thread, apparently.
What's the free will of thousands of children that starve to death in Africa?
What's the free will of hurricances, tremors, vulcanos that kill people every year?
What's the free will of thousands of children that starve to death in Africa?
What's the free will of hurricances, tremors, vulcanos that kill people every year?
I don't understand what that has to do with 'free will'? That has to do with the human concept of reason and decision making (versus only being able to react to primal impulses like lesser animals).
What's the free will of thousands of children that starve to death in Africa?
People starve in Africa because of political corruption and war, which are the result of people's choices.
What's the free will of hurricances, tremors, vulcanos that kill people every year?
This one is admittedly trickier, but there are lots of possible explanations. For one, people don't have to live near things like volcanoes; if you live below sea level and drown, is that an act of God, or the result of your own choice? For another, whatever befalls us on earth would seem relatively insignificant compared to an afterlife (if there is one), so treating earthly pain as some kind of indictment implies that it's of paramount importance, which assumes the conclusion of the skeptic. For yet another, it seems extreme to suggest a loving God would never allow anything to befall us, given that loving parents allow it to happen all the time for our own benefit. And if it can be theoretically justified on some level, the question then becomes whether or not you would expect to be able to determine the best level better than God. And that's without even getting into the doctrine of Original Sin. Et cetera.
The point is not that you'll necessarily find any of these reasons persuasive (I'm fairly sure you won't), but that a lot of thought has gone into this issue throughout history, and it's something on which reasonable people can (and do) disagree. So I think it's pretty glib to say "well, bad stuff happens, so either God doesn't exist or He's a sadist." It's a lot more complicated than that.
Another thing you don't understand: the "proverbial we." And no, it wasn't a straw man argument. You might claim it was an attack on you, but when there's several examples of you doing exactly what I implied you do, then it's not an attack, but an illustration of your methodology. A methodology you're currently using with your argument against the problem of evil and your assertion that "I don't know" is a legitimate stance to take on claims about reality.
Why so pissy? And no I'm not following that at all.
You brought up the assertion of arguing and trying to 'prove' to people there is a god even without evidence, which wasn't what any of my posts were about.
There's a trendy version of atheism which asserts that believing in "a god" is false or 'bad', usually with the argument that because "there's no evidence of a god" that it's 'stupid' or wrong to believe it (ex. the "imaginary friends are for kids" type of rhetoric that's popular on the net). I wanted to hear reasons on why this is. That went over your head apparently.
Nobody is stopping anyone from having an opinion. And while it may not be stupid to believe something without proof, it is stupid to defend it as if you do have proof or can make any definitive claim about it, and it's even more stupid to criticize others for not willing to make a claim one way or the other.
Probably the best thing to do is to just ignore you, then the problem would be solved.
It may have "sounded" to you like i was talking about intelligent design, but I wasn't, which illustrates a consistent problem you have: not even understanding what people are saying.
Could be because you're not making it clear what you're saying. You and others - like Vicky immediately bringing up arguments against the "Christian god" in her first post, when the thread specifically mentioned it was not talking about theistic gods. So it's she who didn't read or comprehend it. And from the sound of your posts, you too.
Did I use the terms "honest" or "dishonest" with regards to beliefs, or are you just going off on a tangent, and putting those words in quotations for some other reason than is commonly accepted?
That was for another poster - that just gives me even more of the hunch that you're not even reading thoroughly before making these replies.
You brought up the assertion of arguing and trying to 'prove' to people there is a god even without evidence, which wasn't what any of my posts were about.
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible, because I never even implied you were trying to prove to people there is a god without evidence. It's actually much worse than that...you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, usually about the most petty thing you can sink your teeth into.
There's a trendy version of atheism which asserts that believing in "a god" is false or 'bad', usually with the argument that because "there's no evidence of a god" that it's 'stupid' or wrong to believe it (ex. the "imaginary friends are for kids" type of rhetoric that's popular on the net). I wanted to hear reasons on why this is. That went over your head apparently.
Uh-huh. Funny how you even you can't keep track of what you intended the purpose of this thread to be about.
Could be because you're not making it clear what you're saying. You and others - like Vicky immediately bringing up arguments against the "Christian god" in her first post, when the thread specifically mentioned it was not talking about theistic gods. So it's she who didn't read or comprehend it. And from the sound of your posts, you too.I realized afterward I'm much to blame for this lack of understanding, because I apparently gave you too much credit. Which is funny, because I don't give you much credit at all. I assumed you were familiar with the argument from design, and thus you would be familiar with fine-tuning argument, which is relevant to your deistic views. See, I actually tried to engage you in discussion, first with my questions to you about your views on deism in my very first post, and then about the argument from design. Lesson learned.
If you want to know why I'm "pissy" toward you, it's because you have no interest in discussion, and you certainly have no interest in understanding anyone else's position on anything. You're only interested in being combative, aggressive, and obnoxious. God forbid you ask someone questions, at least without it being a set up for you to come back at them with fists swinging.
That was for another poster - that just gives me even more of the hunch that you're not even reading thoroughly before making these replies.If that was for another poster, then reply to them. Don't include it in a reply to me. Or better yet, don't reply to me at all.
If you're right, then there wouldn't be much point in saying it, would there?
Miss Vicky
03-27-15, 11:19 AM
You and others - like Vicky immediately bringing up arguments against the "Christian god" in her first post, when the thread specifically mentioned it was not talking about theistic gods. So it's she who didn't read or comprehend it. And from the sound of your posts, you too.
The actual question you asked is "How popular is nihilistic atheism?" You then proceeded to explain your own views on the subject of the existence of a deity, all the while copping a condescending attitude about this "trendy" form of atheism. I responded by stating that I am an atheist and gave my own personal reasons as to why I choose to believe that way. That is not an argument, it is a statement of fact.
Who's failing to comprehend now?
The actual question you asked is "How popular is nihilistic atheism?" You then proceeded to explain your own views on the subject of the existence of a deity, all the while copping a condescending attitude about this "trendy" form of atheism. I responded by stating that I am an atheist and gave my own personal reasons as to why I choose to believe that way. That is not an argument, it is a statement of fact.
Made it pretty clear the atheism I was talking about is the branch which thinks it's "wrong" or "bad" to believe there is a god. Versus the run of the mill atheist who "just doesn't believe in a god". And made it very clear it was talking about gods altogether, not just theistic or Christain gods. So you didn't read.
Not to mention nothing was 'condescending', since I was referring to the type of atheism I jumped into for a short time when I was an 'angsty teen' - and having an intelligent discussion about this on a typical atheism forum wouldn't be possible, it'd just be met with a bunch of cliche ("it's stupid to believe stuff without proof" or "adults shouldn't have imaginary friends") type of crap - so again you didn't read.
Who's failing to comprehend now?
You as usual.
Miss Vicky
03-27-15, 01:03 PM
Made it pretty clear the atheism I was talking about is the branch which thinks it's "wrong" or "bad" to believe there is a god. Versus the run of the mill atheist who "just doesn't believe in a god". And made it very clear it was talking about gods altogether, not just theistic or Christain gods. So you didn't read.
Oh, but I did read it:
Basically the form of atheism I consider 'nihilistic' centers on the theme that 'existence is meaningless' or on the positive assumption that when you die 'this is all there is'. And usually argues against there being a god based on the claim that because there is 'suffering in the world', there can be no God.
matt72582
03-27-15, 01:20 PM
I never understand why people care so much about whether someone else believes in a god or not. I am an atheist, I'm happy in my own self contained unbelief. I know when I die that's that. I'm equally as happy that someone else thinks they will go to heaven or that others believe in reincarnation or whatever else. It doesn't bother me what beliefs other people have and it baffles me as to why it's such an area of contention.
Today, an Arizona state senator wants to make attending church mandatory.
Chrstine, if you lived in the U.S., you might be more baffled :)
christine
03-27-15, 02:12 PM
Today, an Arizona state senator wants to make attending church mandatory.
Chrstine, if you lived in the U.S., you might be more baffled :)
Now that is baffling! Specially as its in the middle of her supporting a concealed gun carrying bill in a debate! Does that mean she wants it to be compulsory to attend church wearing a concealed firearm? :D
For those who don't know, every state has its own Congress. So while "State Senator" probably sounds powerful, there are literally thousands of such people.
Captain Spaulding
03-27-15, 02:21 PM
Don't talk ill of nihilists or they'll throw a ferret in your bathtub.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4793174/nihilists-o.gif
Today, an Arizona state senator wants to make attending church mandatory.
Chrstine, if you lived in the U.S., you might be more baffled :)
Lunatics like that abound everywhere but they're becoming more and more irrelevant. Even a 5th grader could tell her that that's unconstitutional.
Oh, but I did read it:
Correct - so it's referring to the atheists who are against people believing in a god, versus the ones who simply don't believe in one . Not sure what the 'offical term is' - maybe it's anti-theists, "new atheists", "nihilists", "gnostic atheists", etc
You didn't read it very well before you started replying.
What's the free will of thousands of children that starve to death in Africa?
What's the free will of hurricances, tremors, vulcanos that kill people every year?
As far as that goes, I'd say that "happiness" is primarily dependent on having a positive attitude and behavior toward others, rather than mere material circumstances (good or bad)
So even a starving child in Africa who is a 'good person', or someone like Ghandi who went through lots of adversity - is more happy than someone like Kim Jong Un - who has all the power and material possessions he needs, but doesn't treat others well.
This is supported by science as well - since the chemical 'oxytocin' is produced through positive interaction with others, and can't just be 'substituted' by other pleasure chemicals like dopamine, seratonin, etc - this is why some millionaires have taken their lives. So the end result isn't nearly as despondent as it's made out to be.
Of course if you take the 'theist' position it's still hard to justify God "allowing this to happen" (even using arguments such as that 'people grow stronger from suffering') - since he created the entire 'order' of the universe itself, and could just as well have created a universe where people didn't have to 'suffer' to grow wiser or stronger.
Miss Vicky
03-27-15, 03:39 PM
Correct - so it's referring to the atheists who are against people believing in a god, versus the ones who simply don't believe in one . Not sure what the 'offical term is' - maybe it's anti-theists, "new atheists", "nihilists", "gnostic atheists", etc
You didn't read it very well before you started replying.
Nowhere in your initial post did you state or imply anything about "nihilistic atheists" being opposed to other people having faith in a god. You simply defined nihilistic atheism as being a "trendy" form of atheism with a belief that existence is meaningless, that there is nothing after death, and that god does not exist because people continue to suffer.
From a certain point of view, there is no me, no god, only the universe.
It exists as a whole, without time, from beginning to end in eternity.
To me there is no "god" as humans believe, because I can see into the how and why behind our churches.
The organized church serves only itself IMO.
All of our knowledge throughout civilization is meaningless if you want to truly consider if there is a god.
You've just got to look inside yourself and discover your feelings.
It's always been funny to me how people can accept that god is eternal, and these same people get totally hung up on the concept that the universe was "created" at some point. The universe is something that has always existed.
Before the big bang, there was a universe - it was simply compressed.
At the top of a mountain time moves faster than walking on the ground.
The more gravity you have the slower time moves forward.
If 100% of all mass is in a single point of space, IMO time ceases to exist - it is eternal.
We simply are.
As 'god' says "I am"
If there is a god, he is the universe itself. And we are him.
If there is any afterlife it is in the sense that time itself is an illusion. We are eternal in the here and now.
If there is a god, he is the universe itself. And we are him.
But whether god is some stereotypical "bearded man living in the sky" or whether he 'is the universe', I'd say that's still different than the idea that there is 'no order' to the universe, only random occurrences.
What I find interesting is that my beliefs preclude the existence of time travel.
The same with anyone that believes in god, you cannot believe in time travel.
For example.. lets suppose that hitler is in hell for the life that he lead.
I travel back in time and adopt him as a young child and raise him to be a selfless and giving human being. Eventually when he dies he goes to heaven.
If time travel exists then man is more powerful than god.
Don't talk ill of nihilists or they'll throw a ferret in your bathtub.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4793174/nihilists-o.gif
Well it's better than them shoving a hamster up my ass. :p
But whether god is some stereotypical "bearded man living in the sky" or whether he 'is the universe', I'd say that's still different than the idea that there is 'no order' to the universe, only random occurrences.
I do not believe that anything is truly random.
I believe that the future is 100% deterministic.
Interestingly this doesn't preclude a belief in free will, but it's complicated and off topic. (and covered in the matrix trilogy as well ) I don't want to get into a free will discussion I was just trying to state my pov.
What I find interesting is that my beliefs preclude the existence of time travel.
The same with anyone that believes in god, you cannot believe in time travel.
For example.. lets suppose that hitler is in hell for the life that he lead.
I travel back in time and adopt him as a young child and raise him to be a selfless and giving human being. Eventually when he dies he goes to heaven.
If time travel exists then man is more powerful than god.
That's still talking about a Christian, theist version of god - other than Yoda I don't know of anyone here who believes in that, or even in the stereotypical firey version of "hell" - since I'm pretty sure it was stolen from Tartarus in Greek mythology, and didn't exist in the Jewish or Christian religion before they were influenced by the Roman empire.
Citizen Rules
03-27-15, 03:52 PM
Quote, Subcommander T'Pol: "The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible."
It's always been funny to me how people can accept that god is eternal, and these same people get totally hung up on the concept that the universe was "created" at some point. The universe is something that has always existed.
...
Before the big bang, there was a universe - it was simply compressed.
I'm pretty sure there's a logic problem with this.
If the universe has always existed, yet there was a time when everything was concentrated into a single point before expanding, why wasn't that expansion already triggered? If the expansion were triggered by some impersonal, naturally occurring force (like gravity), it would have already happened, given that it had infinite time to occur beforehand.
Therefore, either a) the universe has not always existed or b) something chose to begin its expansion. And choice implies a mind, which is what we mean by God in the first place.
matt72582
10-31-16, 06:50 PM
The Devil, Probably
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ4MzAzMTE5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjA0NTEzMQ@@._V1_.jpg
FromBeyond
10-31-16, 07:01 PM
I find all arguments for atheism dumb and redundant, especially those based on religion. I am a great believer in intelligent design, I can't even argue with atheists anymore, I just find them so dull. Even worse is hearing a religious person argue with an atheist, both a pair of idiots who think they know everything, saying that I have had friends of both and I just quietly overlook their head trauma
Miss Vicky
10-31-16, 07:14 PM
I am a great believer in intelligent design... idiots who think they know everything
Hmmm.... :skeptical:
Citizen Rules
10-31-16, 07:40 PM
I find all arguments for atheism dumb and redundant... Where's that negative rep button at? when I need it... Geez, talk about painting with a broad brush:rolleyes:
FromBeyond
10-31-16, 09:03 PM
Hmmm.... :skeptical:
Yeah Intelligent design is not saying I know who... or why... or when... or how... but yet I know it, there is a difference.
Captain Steel
10-31-16, 09:11 PM
I find all arguments for atheism dumb and redundant, especially those based on religion. I am a great believer in intelligent design, I can't even argue with atheists anymore, I just find them so dull. Even worse is hearing a religious person argue with an atheist, both a pair of idiots who think they know everything, saying that I have had friends of both and I just quietly overlook their head trauma
You believe in intelligent design. Okay. But are you a "Creationist"?
(The two need not be mutually inclusive.)
FromBeyond
10-31-16, 09:21 PM
You believe in intelligent design. Okay. But are you a "Creationist"?
(The two need not be mutually inclusive.)
I am a creationist but not in the religious sense. I believe in the natural process and evolution and that to me makes god even greater, even more intelligent "god" being a word to describe something I will never understand with my puny human brain, not some old white guy with a big beard sitting in a cloud farting rainbows.
Captain Steel
11-01-16, 12:57 AM
I am a creationist but not in the religious sense. I believe in the natural process and evolution and that to me makes god even greater, even more intelligent "god" being a word to describe something I will never understand with my puny human brain, not some old white guy with a big beard sitting in a cloud farting rainbows.
Yes. I was referring to "creationist" in the religious or traditional sense.
It's a very specific school of thought: basically that the account in the book Genesis is correct in every detail, that the timeline of the Bible is factual (and thus the Earth is only between 4 and 6 thousand years old) and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
All creationists believe in intelligent design, but not all believers in intelligent design are necessarily creationists.
gandalf26
11-01-16, 05:21 AM
I said we'll cut off your JOHNSTON!!
matt72582
11-01-16, 06:33 AM
No one knows.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.