Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[SteveII]

You need to add some pants to this "in the image of God" idea. Best we can tell, we're material beings from top to bottom. If you want to introduce something like a soul, you need to defend that assertion.

Rasetsu--I was looking for non-religious articles.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bio...e-says-yes

Additionally, I read somewhere about a neurosurgeon stimulating a conscious patient to move a hand or some other action. The patient responded " I didn't do that or I didn't make that sound". There is no place in the brain where you can stimulate a person to decide to do something.

---

I'm happy for people to give me opinions, and I will take them under consideration.

I decide my own morality, and I'm very happy with it.

It's almost as if Steve just crawled out from under a rock and discovered civilization yesterday. Has he not considered that moral philosophy has been an engagement of thoughtful minds for at least 2,400 years, none of which has depended on his or anyone's conception of God? Does it really pass him by unnoticed that we can talk about the good in the same way as deity yet to a far greater advantage, as in being intelligible, when we drop the silly metaphysics? It's funny how the things they make sacred never have any remote bearing on real-world events when the entire basis of sanctity as a conception lies in our experiences.

Far greater advantage?? So subjective morality is superior to objective morality--even though we all pretend that there is objective morality?

---

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good.

The bible contradicts that statement. Regardless, why would a god differentiate between good and bad? What would it's baseline be? If god is "necessarily good", then would not all things be good, including Satan, evil, death, suffering, etc.?

Free will

---

-ah, but it sounds like you can..provided you don't give it -too- much thought.

The question only becomes "Is it sensible to define what it is/does as -the good-?, or , conversely is -the good- to be assigned a positive value judgement?" -In either case my conclusion is (still, after this language scrubbing) no, of course. If it is -the good- to either engage in the acts attributed to your god, or to be responsible, ultimately, for all that we see in the world - then I'm not interested in the good, I don't positively value it (and as positioning that probably sounds, again it's all about how it sounds, like it would be a convenient position to place an opposing viewpoint in...but it's all window dressing, you and I both still know exactly what we're talking about even if a casual observer is asking themselves "wtf did rhythm just say...he's not interested in -the good-?").

I'd use different language (and in this case am simply going with what you give me), but it doesn't matter, because we use different words for the same concepts all the time (most notably in that we speak many languages). It's the same question, different language. That's the trouble, Steve - in that it's just as easy to ask the question again by changing a few words as it is to avoid the question by changing a few words. The question itself remains, no matter how many layers of obfuscation either of us chooses to add, and constantly positioning ourselves so that what we say sounds better doesn't actually address the issue. Essentially, we're giving a turd a few layers of gelcoat. It may be shinier afterwards, but it's still a turd-and obviously so.

I understand your point.

If you really want to read a thoughtful discussion on this, try the podcast transcript: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/did-god-c...-testament

Regarding what people do to each other..that is the consequence of free will.

---

God's nature is The Good

How did you come to use that conclusion-in-need-of-justification as a premise?

If God exists, he would be the greatest conceivable being. It is far greater to have in his nature the definition of good than to dream up a subjective morality for humans.