[Serious] Absolutes and Atheism

[Rev. Rye]

Which doesn’t mean that things are supposed to stay at “No god=no order.” Some (read: The Last Man) stay there, but the real goal is to create a whole new set of values, one that’s more life-affirming than the old, dead, Christian, order.

[Silver]

Nietzschean atheists believe that no God = no order.

This makes no sense to me as an atheist. How does an atheist who does not believe in the existence of a god equate the deity's non-existence with no order? Are you attempting to convince us this perspective means order can only be had with god, in an obtuse dualistic understanding of nature?

[Belacqua]

Which doesn’t mean that things are supposed to stay at “No god=no order.” Some (read: The Last Man) stay there, but the real goal is to create a whole new set of values, one that’s more life-affirming than the old, dead, Christian, order.

Right. But this is a created order. It's not one that's intrinsic to the universe. 

The Ubermensch is über because he creates an order of his own. He doesn't discover an underlying order, as scientists are said to do.

[Belacqua]

How does an atheist who does not believe in the existence of a god equate the deity's non-existence with no order? 

Because for philosophers God = universal ordering principle. Your image of God is probably different.

Are you attempting to convince us this perspective means order can only be had with god, in an obtuse dualistic understanding of nature?

I'm attempting to tell you what Nietzsche wrote.

[emjay]

Which doesn’t mean that things are supposed to stay at “No god=no order.” Some (read: The Last Man) stay there, but the real goal is to create a whole new set of values, one that’s more life-affirming than the old, dead, Christian, order.

Right. But this is a created order. It's not one that's intrinsic to the universe. 

The Ubermensch is über because he creates an order of his own. He doesn't discover an underlying order, as scientists are said to do.

Does that mean Nietzsche was some sort of Idealist? Seems a pretty extreme position to hold. We wouldn't be here if there wasn't at least some reliable causal structure to the universe.

[Deesse23]

..possible worlds ..

Please clarify: ACTUALLY possible or more like "i can conceive of"?...or maybe something else?
I am asking because "possible worlds" often is used as a very disingenuous way for some to smuggle in a deity during an argument.

I am not asking trick questions. What non-theistic absolutes, if any, do you, as an atheist, believe in?

Isnt that a bit disingenuous, after just having acknowledged to Tomato that atheism is the lack in belief in a god, nothing else?

[Belacqua]

Does that mean Nietzsche was some sort of Idealist? 

Depends what you mean by Idealist, I guess. Platonic idealists are the opposite of Nietzsche, holding that there is an eternal realm of ideas. German Idealist -- maybe so, in a kind of extreme way. 

But I'm not clear on how we should use "Idealist" here.

Seems a pretty extreme position to hold. 

Probably safe to say that any sentence beginning "Nietzsche believed __________," could end with "which was a pretty extreme position." 

We wouldn't be here if there wasn't at least some reliable causal structure to the universe.

I think so too. So, as the OP is asking, we'd want to inquire as to what those unchanging and reliable causal structures are exactly. 

There's no doubt that his ideas have been way more influential in the social sciences than in physics. As Rev. Rye said, the Ubermensch is reinventing values. Not laws of mechanics. The sorts of causal structures we tend to question today are more societal, traditional, and cultural -- or thanks to Nietzsche we see that what used to be called science is now seen as culture, and therefore may be questioned. 

So post-Nietzscheans have made careers on the challenging and reinterpretation of things that were once taken as objective science, but which they showed to be definitions or values that might in fact change. Foucault, famously, attempted to demonstrate that human sexuality and mental illness are far less physical/scientific fields and more related to power dynamics and tradition.

The whole trans debate that's going on now is a descendant of Nietzsche's provocations. For a long time people thought that maleness or femaleness were objectively determined by anatomy or, later, chromosomes -- hard science. But now people have declared that this objective science has no value, and that a person can overrule anatomy through feeling. Basically, will overcomes anatomy.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The whole trans debate that's going on now is a descendant of Nietzsche's provocations. For a long time people thought that maleness or femaleness were objectively determined by anatomy or, later, chromosomes -- hard science. But now people have declared that this objective science has no value, and that a person can overrule anatomy through feeling. Basically, will overcomes anatomy.

Lol nonesense 

[Rev. Rye]

*Sighs*

Gender Identity≠Sex




Even sex is more complicated than just anatomy or chromosomes




And a personal testimony from someone who was born with testicles and XY Chromosomes, but has a mutation that ensured she could do fuck-all with them. Seriously, the testosterone running through her veins was about as effective at making her male as a hail of Uzi fire would be at killing Superman.

[Belacqua]

*Sighs*

Gender Identity≠Sex 

Yes, I understand that we no longer believe objective physical tests determine gender.