(March 11, 2015 at 7:22 pm)wiploc Wrote: Why doesn't theism open the door to nihilism? Theists like to claim we're supposed to comply with an objective standard that we don't make up ourselves. We don't get to vote on it. We don't have to agree with it. It doesn't have to be good for us. There doesn't have to be anything good about it.

If that isn't nihilism, what is?

And how does having this code dictated by an invisible eccentric make it "objective"?

Theists believe there is more to observable reality than we can perceive. They believe in purpose and intent.

A nihilist basically perceives all as a 'big game of billiards'. Simply particle-wave interactions that have no purpose or significance. There are several interpretations of nihilism, but they all pretty much boil down to this, IMHO.

Myself, I am a mereological nihilist. Basically, the whole does not exist, only the parts. What we perceive has nothing to do with reality.

(March 11, 2015 at 7:22 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(March 11, 2015 at 7:18 pm)IATIA Wrote: IMHO, it does open the door. It is then one's choice to step through or not.

Why doesn't theism open the door to nihilism? Theists like to claim we're supposed to comply with an objective standard that we don't make up ourselves. We don't get to vote on it. We don't have to agree with it. It doesn't have to be good for us. There doesn't have to be anything good about it.

If that isn't nihilism, what is?

And how does having this code dictated by an invisible eccentric make it "objective"?

Professor Wiki Wrote:Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.[1]

We are talking about the rejection of intrinsic value not extrinsic value.

(March 11, 2015 at 7:40 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: We are talking about the rejection of intrinsic value not extrinsic value.

There is no framework, in either theism or atheism, in which the claim of intrinsic value does not depend solely on fiat assertion... or contrarily, rejection.

(March 11, 2015 at 7:40 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: We are talking about the rejection of intrinsic value not extrinsic value.

Intrinsic value is an oxymoron. Value always requires a valuer. Value always exists in the valuer, not in the thing valued.

To assert the contrary, to assert the existence of value intrinsic to an object, is to claim that something can be valuable without being valuable to anyone or for anything. That's nonsense.

Intrinsic value proponents would claim that there are objects that cause people to value them unconditionally, for example acts that produce more pleasure cause us to value them unconditionally. I don't know how we would be able to know that. Most arguments given are based heavily on intuitions and thought experiments which are nothing to write home about. However, most of the time moral realists aren't clear as to what intrinsic value is, will disagree greatly over what has intrinsic value, and even over what "intrinsic value" means.
Personally I don't see what the big deal about intrinsic value would be. Intrinsic value doesn't resolve moral disputes; So, in terms of practically it doesn't make difference.

(March 11, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ....what you're saying makes literally no sense at all: we can't recognize commonalities unless those commonalities belong to beings that are magic? How the hell does that even follow?

I know how much you hate it when I put words in your mouth, so why would you do that to me? I said nothing about magic.

Is the 'commonality' between particular things real or is it merely something in the intellect? For example, when you refer to apples is the concept of apple something objectively apparent to anyone or is it subjective depending on personal opinions about what an apple is?

(March 11, 2015 at 7:22 pm)wiploc Wrote: Why doesn't theism open the door to nihilism? Theists like to claim we're supposed to comply with an objective standard that we don't make up ourselves. We don't get to vote on it. We don't have to agree with it. It doesn't have to be good for us. There doesn't have to be anything good about it.

If that isn't nihilism, what is?

And how does having this code dictated by an invisible eccentric make it "objective"?

Perhaps a definition of nihilism is in order: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms: skepticism, negativity, cynicism, pessimism;
IN PHILOSOPHY: extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

Theism does in no way lead to nihilism since God would be the source of meaning and of course there would exist realities beyond the physical.

If God does exist and he did declare a "code" it would be objective for our perspective because our individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings would not affect it.

(March 12, 2015 at 9:08 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I know how much you hate it when I put words in your mouth, so why would you do that to me? I said nothing about magic.

No, that was me teasing you, perhaps pointing out that all the things you baselessly assert to have a pull on reality are as insubstantial as, yes, magic. It's a comparison, not a direct quote.

Quote:Is the 'commonality' between particular things real or is it merely something in the intellect? For example, when you refer to apples is the concept of apple something objectively apparent to anyone or is it subjective depending on personal opinions about what an apple is?

When I refer to an apple, I am referring to a particular object in reality, possessed of a set of characteristics unique to that object, that we have chosen to call an apple. Like all language this is a collaborative definition, but it works for ease of communication, and this is why we have a common lexicon. There is nothing subjective about the set of traits that an apple possesses, just the label we chose to place upon them; if we decided to call apples shark testicles, they would still possess those traits, and could be recognized by them. It'd just take so much effort to replace the one word with the other that it'd hardly be worth it.

But apples aren't concepts, they're real things that exist objectively. Only the word is a concept, and that's hardly a controversial thing, is it? I mean, all language is conceptual.

(March 12, 2015 at 9:42 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 11, 2015 at 7:22 pm)wiploc Wrote: Why doesn't theism open the door to nihilism? Theists like to claim we're supposed to comply with an objective standard that we don't make up ourselves. We don't get to vote on it. We don't have to agree with it. It doesn't have to be good for us. There doesn't have to be anything good about it.

If that isn't nihilism, what is?

And how does having this code dictated by an invisible eccentric make it "objective"?

Perhaps a definition of nihilism is in order: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

Theists like to claim that living in the natural world would be meaningless, that the proclamations of some super-fairy are all that give life meaning.

Doesn't that open the door to nihilism? Aren't they just a hairs-breadth away from it?

The super-fairy doesn't exist, and the alleged proclamations are idiotic, contradictory, and absurd. They take way meaning more than give it.

Quote:synonyms: skepticism, negativity, cynicism, pessimism;

We're skeptical about the value of vile fantasies; they're skeptical about the value of real life.

As for pessimism, they desire a world in which most people suffer extreme torture forever. Any other worldview is optimistic by comparison.

Quote:IN PHILOSOPHY: extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

That's not atheism. It's nothing like atheism. It's a little like, you know, theism, which could maintain that gods are the "ultimate" reality, and that the real world is just a fantasy, a hologram, a fiction created by the gods.

Quote:Theism does in no way lead to nihilism since God would be the source of meaning and of course there would exist realities beyond the physical.

You made that up, right? How would gods be a source of meaning? If someone were so depressive that she couldn't find meaning in natural reality, how would she get meaning from an invisible eccentric?

Quote:If God does exist and he did declare a "code" it would be objective for our perspective because our individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings would not affect it.

"Objective for our perspective." I love that.

Consider my neighbor kid, Timmy. If Timmy made a code, would that be objective from the perspective of gods?

Are the gods going to feel meaningless unless they hear about Timmy's code? If not, why should it work the other way?

Isn't the claim that atheism opens the door to nihilism just one way that theists slander people they don't like?

Steve's definitions of nihilism seem to be conveniently damning and encompassing of just about everyone that isn't an objective theist...