Nihilistic atheism

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.

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.


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?

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

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).

People starve in Africa because of political corruption and war, which are the result of people's choices.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

Uh-huh. Funny how you even you can't keep track of what you intended the purpose of this thread to be about.


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.


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?

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?

__________________

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.

You as usual.

Oh, but I did read it:

Today, an Arizona state senator wants to make attending church mandatory.

Chrstine, if you lived in the U.S., you might be more baffled

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

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?

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.

Don't talk ill of nihilists or they'll throw a ferret in your bathtub.

__________________

Lunatics like that abound everywhere but they're becoming more and more irrelevant. Even a 5th grader could tell her that that's unconstitutional.

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.

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.

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.

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.