what being apart from the law means.

[Question Mark]

What I notice is that Drich presents his case respectfully and supports his arguements to the best of his understanding. Whether he is right or wrong is besides the point. For all his effort, he gets maligned, insulted and his claims are mocked. He doesn't stoop to that level. Point is a good many of the nihilists here are not just unconvinced. They are openly hostile to anyone who believes in God and they reason from that hate.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, or reply to me at all since you seem to ignore me a great deal, but when you say nihilists I think you mean atheists. If you're going to raise someone on a pedestal for not stooping to petty name-calling, it might be a good idea for you to emulate them, and not misrepresent atheists as nihilists. It's untrue, unjust, and to some of us rather offensive.

[Drich]

Well then let me get to the point.

On the advice of several people years ago when I was first questioning the accuracy of the christian belief system, I tried asking god for guidance int he same manner as is described in Matthew, and a few other ways such as outright praying, reading some scripture, etc., and none of it worked.

Why would you say that god did not reveal himself to me when I A/S/Ked?

How does your version Compare to what the Neighbor did in the Parable?

I can see one huge difference right off the bat.

So why would you say that it didn't work for me?
[/quote]
you stopped at asking. you did not seek or knock.

[Question Mark]

How does your version Compare to what the Neighbor did in the Parable?

I can see one huge difference right off the bat.

So why would you say that it didn't work for me?

you stopped at asking. you did not seek or knock.
[/quote]

Seek I certainly did. Do you think I just stood there and thought "God, please reveal yourself to me?". That's be ridiculous. I looked around, trying to see him in things, see if there were signs or something, which is why I asked earlier what I should be looking out for.

Perhaps I can only knock once I've successfully sought, but I didn't do that. I haven't found the door yet.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...when you say nihilists I think you mean atheists.

No, I mean nihilists. Let's see denies the existence of God, denies that life has inherent purpose, believes in the finality of death, denies the possibility of an universal moral standard...have I missed anything. If the shoe fits, wear it. I do know some atheists who are not nihilists, but they're pretty rare in these parts.

Besides, calling someone a nihilist is not an insult, it just recognizes the logical consequences of their philosophy. It's not like say calling someone a f*ck-tard or a sheeple. So if it offends you that's too bad. I don't do politically correct when the right word is emotionally neutral.[/quote]

[Question Mark]

...when you say nihilists I think you mean atheists.

No, I mean nihilists. Let's see denies the existence of God, denies that life has inherent purpose, believes in the finality of death, denies the possibility of an universal moral standard...have I missed anything. If the shoe fits, wear it. I do know some atheists who are not nihilists, but they're pretty rare in these parts.

Besides, calling someone a nihilist is not an insult, it just recognizes the logical consequences of their philosophy. It's not like say calling someone a f*ck-tard or a sheeple. So if it offends you that's too bad. I don't do politically correct when the right word is emotionally neutral.

[/quote]

I couldn't care less what's politically correct or not. That bridge has overstretched its support structure.

A nihilist is someone who rejects established laws, codes, and institutions of understanding reality. This, does not an atheist make. Rejecting the concept of an unproven god, an unproven afterlife, and accepts that a moral philosophy based on the arbitrary decrees of that unproven god is utter nonsense, does indeed make an atheist.
If you want to go around calling atheists nihilists, if it makes you happy then go ahead. I call them realists.

By the same token, I think I'd be justified in calling someone who does believe in an unproven god, does believe in an unproven afterlife, and does accept that an arbitrary moral system created by an unproven god is a worthwhile means of dictating the lives of themselves and possibly other people, deluded
Emotionally neutral, and fits the bill. Deluded.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A nihilist is someone who rejects established laws, codes, and institutions of understanding reality.

You have described an anarchist, not a nihilist. One of the greatest minds in philosophy, Nietzsche, was a nihilist and he is the model I use for defining nihilism. BTW since you usually do not make the effort to understand subtle distinctions and seem to prefer hostile rants instead of using clearly presented arguments, I generally do not find your posts all that interesting.

[Question Mark]

A nihilist is someone who rejects established laws, codes, and institutions of understanding reality.

You have described an anarchist, not a nihilist. One of the greatest minds in philosophy, Nietzsche, was a nihilist and he is the model I use for defining nihilism. BTW since you usually do not make the effort to understand subtle distinctions and seem to prefer hostile rants instead of using clearly presented arguments, I generally do not find your posts all that interesting.

So you're opposed to rants, but not an argumentum ad hominem? You're a rude, petty individual who I've seen misrepresent those who you disagree with on multiple occasions without shame, and when this is pointed out to you, you degrade those objections to "hostile rants", as opposed to considering the points those "rants" contain.
I suppose if you could consider other people's points though, I wouldn't be wasting my time now pointing that flaw out.

I feel a particular revulsion at the thought of ever conversing with you again, and so do not intend to do so. It's my hope that you'll find entirely obliging, and I hope one day that you come to realise just how disingenuous your misrepresentations of other people's arguments are.

[genkaus]

No, I mean nihilists. Let's see denies the existence of God, denies that life has inherent purpose, believes in the finality of death, denies the possibility of an universal moral standard...have I missed anything. If the shoe fits, wear it. I do know some atheists who are not nihilists, but they're pretty rare in these parts.

You've missed quite a lot, apparently. Most of the atheists I talk to here do believe that life has meaning and purpose (though not inherent) and they do not deny the possibility of a universal moral standard (though they do deny its current existence).

Also, are you arguing that nihilism is the logical consequence of atheism?

---

A nihilist is someone who rejects established laws, codes, and institutions of understanding reality.

You two seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You are talking about political nihilists and he is talking about existential nihilists.

[Question Mark]

A nihilist is someone who rejects established laws, codes, and institutions of understanding reality.

You two seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You are talking about political nihilists and he is talking about existential nihilists.

Fair enough. I thought that's what was being implied, and I would have been fine to discuss instead the differences between an atheist and an existential nihilist had the opportunity arose, but the point is moot now, given the circumstances.

[genkaus]

One of the greatest minds in philosophy, Nietzsche, was a nihilist and he is the model I use for defining nihilism.

If Nietzsche is the basis for your model of nihilism, then you should learn atleast as much about his position as I can from a cursory reading of wikipedia. He saw nihilism not as a philosophy but as a stage in humanity's development. He saw that the rejection of the concept of god - which many people did take as the basis for objective meaning and purpose of life and of morality - would lead to nihilism, i.e. destruction of all those values and ideals. He saw it as a necessary consequence, but one to be used as a stepping stone for humanity to discover the true or correct foundations upon which they should build their values. That does not sound like a nihilist as you'd describe it.