Quote:But....people organize religion, not God.

I suggest you give Leviticus another read.

Boru

(October 17, 2013 at 5:23 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I can't believe this thread has gone 14 pages. Haven't we done morality to death? It's not even an interesting topic anymore, and ronny has been around long enough to know it. He's just trolling.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17592.html

Yes.

See the problem with de-nihilists, is this. They trust their conscience, but not its source. They form ethical systems based on reason without accepting the basis of the world's rational order. Its been 14 pages of "works for me" without any reflection on why it works. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. De-nilhism is the refusing to face that conclusion.

(October 17, 2013 at 9:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: See the problem with de-nihilists, is this. They trust their conscience, but not its source. They form ethical systems based on reason without accepting the basis of the world's rational order. Its been 14 pages of "works for me" without any reflection on why it works. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. De-nilhism is the refusing to face that conclusion.

I really don't understand how any sort -theism affects a life that much. Because I reject the existence of God, suddenly life has to be meaningless? When I was Christian my life had meaning, but now that I identify as atheist it doesn't? Even though when I was Christian I rarely paid attention to my own religion, and it barely affected my outlook on life compared to now?

I don't get how my disbelief in a diety makes me a nihilist.

I mean, nihilists? Fuck me. Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjh-nFCfp2s

(October 17, 2013 at 9:26 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjh-nFCfp2s

Let's not forget that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city...that aint legal either.

(October 17, 2013 at 9:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: See the problem with de-nihilists, is this. They trust their conscience, but not its source. They form ethical systems based on reason without accepting the basis of the world's rational order. Its been 14 pages of "works for me" without any reflection on why it works. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. De-nilhism is the refusing to face that conclusion.

(October 17, 2013 at 9:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: See the problem with de-nihilists, is this. They trust their conscience, but not its source. They form ethical systems based on reason without accepting the basis of the world's rational order. Its been 14 pages of "works for me" without any reflection on why it works. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. De-nilhism is the refusing to face that conclusion.

Um what is this psychobabble?

Atheism first of is a position, it is not a loyalty oath ON ANY ISSUE.

"Why stuff works" is what scientists work on figuring out, that is independent of what the label of the scientist is.

And whatever "why" scientists figure out does not need anyone's god to fill in that gap.

Nihilism is a label, it is not a lab. Labs are where things are tested and falsified.

Atheists come to different conclusions and have different ideas and different levels of education. Which is why regardless of label, when a dispute about the nature of reality is at issue, science, and labs are where those things are tested and falsified.

"This is all their is" does not say morality is meaningless. It is in the here and now to the living, even if it is not to the history of the universe or the future of the universe.

(October 17, 2013 at 9:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: See the problem with de-nihilists, is this. They trust their conscience, but not its source. They form ethical systems based on reason without accepting the basis of the world's rational order.

What? That isn't intelligible to me. Elaborate please?

Quote:Its been 14 pages of "works for me" without any reflection on why it works. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. De-nilhism is the refusing to face that conclusion.

To say that nihilism is logically derived from atheism being true is just an assertion. It is quite easy to see how a dejected nihilism could be logically concluded from your brand of theism:


Say you convinced me that God must indeed exist, and your God (and understanding of him) in particular. Oh boy. Now I either have to choose to be infinitely tortured in fire and sulphur or spend eternity with a being I find repugnant and incredibly immoral. A being that would let its 'mercy' be so easily trumped by its vanity.

You can't get any more dejectedly nihilistic as that.


And no, I'm not a nihilist in case you were wondering, though nor am I apposed to some forms of nihilism, even if I don't hold to them.

(October 17, 2013 at 9:04 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: See the problem with de-nihilists, is this. They trust their conscience, but not its source. They form ethical systems based on reason without accepting the basis of the world's rational order. Its been 14 pages of "works for me" without any reflection on why it works. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism. De-nilhism is the refusing to face that conclusion.

And if the answer to the question of the source is, currently, "I don't know," then the answer is I don't know. I know you christians love to plant your god into any gap in knowledge you can find, but don't mistake our honest lack of knowledge as a lack of reflection. The fact is, some of us- myself included- have been speculating as to why in this very thread; the fact that you don't like it, or don't accept our tentative conclusions yourself, doesn't mean they aren't valid enough, and it certainly doesn't obligate us to abandon them and move on to conclusions you do like because you aren't the arbiter of other people.

Even if we were to leave behind all the speculation done in this thread- not likely, because your weird self righteous rambling doesn't come close to cogency at any point- that wouldn't get us an inch closer to determining that your god must be the source of morals, and I think you know that. It's why you throw out this bullshit nihilism smokescreen, hoping to distract us from the fact that you haven't presented an argument once.

So congrats, Chad: your very best efforts don't even address the issue you seek to prove. Good thing you came up with the folksy portmanteau first, huh?