Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[fr0d0]

My knowledge of God isn't flawed.

This statement presupposes 3 things:
That a god exists.
That you know things about him.
That your knowledge corresponds to how he really is.

Without proving those three your statement is meaningless.

Agreed. And?

We can make decisions based upon this reality being a just one, assuming a just God making it so. We know this reality is unjust. We witness that most days.

Contradiction alert: If we know this reality is unjust and we make decision on the assumption that it is just, then we are essentially making decision based on a lie.

Forgive me for being imprecise. A reality sans God ie the atheist reality, as established.

You're accusing the mainstream church of having a conflicting understanding of God, where the mainstream church maintains what it decides is a consistent understanding of God, all acknowledging the Nicene creed. You're going to have to be specific and state what exactly you find to be conflicting. We have a few different flavours of mainstream Christians here who could confirm either their connection or disconnection with me.

The bolded statement is sufficient to establish conflicting understanding of god. FYI, consistency on a subject is determined by logical coherency, not popular vote.

Our understanding of God does not conflict, but is logically consistent and coherent. I don't know how you would think that we could consider each other equally valid believers if not.
If you have an example of one of the other Christians on here who you think has an opposing idea of God on these forums I'd like to see if your claim is true.

Belief shapes our understanding of reality. That applied to everyone.

Not everyone - for most here reality shapes beliefs.

All of our beliefs adopt reality. Our understanding of it is what sets us apart. My understanding of it includes a just creator. Yours doesn't. Belief in God doesn't change the colour of grass, but it does change my view of pointless suffering, for example.

Any flawed thinking is simply flawed thinking. It has no bearing on the differing realities perceived either side of justice.

It does if the assumption of justice is a product of flawed thinking.

You're chasing your tail there I believe. Your answer is exactly my first sentence.

---

I was trying to summise Jenny's points. It is a common concept that reality is unjust, and one that Christianity adopts. Human nature is flawed.

Again - both of these assertions presuppose supervening consciousness.

Not in my understanding they don't. Can you explain why you think that they might please?

I'm not claiming anything more than a theological concept here. I'm never going to want to prove to you that there is objective proof of God that negates belief in him. Even accepting the notion is insufficient. But you get my point.

The point I'm getting here is this: If you presuppose the fantasy notion that a perfectly just god exists then you can logically conclude that perfect justice exists and that reality is just and that all who disagree are doing so based on wrong reasoning and any glaring deviations from reality can be compensated by coming up with more fantasies.

All I'm doing here is presenting the reasoning to show that acknowledging a just God produces a different world view that is preferable to one that considers life to be unjust. I think that's a successful argument.

It's not an argument for the existence of God. Like I said, I don't think that's even possible, and I wouldn't even entertain it.

I get your point.

People failing at considering a just God... it was never people that were perfectly just. We fail as our nature makes us.

Apart from simply repeating it, you haven't yet established the existence of a just god either.

And I never will. See above.

In not accepting coquettish positions on faith. The mainstream church accept variations that are complimentary.

Also the variations that are contradictory.

Wow where did "coquettish" come from!?! Stupid autocorrect lol

Never contradictory, no.

---

My knowledge of God isn't flawed. That knowledge is so far undefeatable and therefore solid. My knowledge is however limited, as we can't know all there is to know about God.

You claim your knowledge of god is unflawed? On what possible basis?

Limitations are flaws.

Unflawed (eww horrible word ) on the basis that they are so far undefeated.

A perfect sphere is limited in that it cannot be a cube. Does that make it flawed?

We can make decisions based upon this reality being a just one, assuming a just God making it so. We know this reality is unjust. We witness that most days.

If this reality is unjust, it is unjust. Assuming a just god doesn't change it any.

Our perception is what is different, not reality.

You and I know what justice would look like. Our perception of reality is shaped by it.

Yes but our perceptions neither match, nor change actual reality.

Agreed

You're accusing the mainstream church of having a conflicting understanding of God, where the mainstream church maintains what it decides is a consistent understanding of God, all acknowledging the Nicene creed. You're going to have to be specific and state what exactly you find to be conflicting. We have a few different flavours of mainstream Christians here who could confirm either their connection or disconnection with me.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."

This is what is agreed by most churches. It's very broad. The details are either in depute or so undefined as to be meaningless. Certainly justice is not defined in a useful way.

Those are central tenets that I acknowledge. Ok so you showed what we agree upon. Now show me something which, in your opinion, is conflicting to the extent that it should divide us.

Belief shapes our understanding of reality. That applied to everyone.

Yes but our beliefs don't shape reality, only our understanding of it.

Agreed

Any flawed thinking is simply flawed thinking. It has no bearing on the differing realities perceived either side of justice.

Thinking is what describes justice. If it's flawed so is the justice imagined. There are no differing realities, only differing perceptions of reality.

Agreed