Do you wish there's a god?

[The Grand Nudger]

-and in what way would it matter whether they did or didn't make sense, or made more or less sense?

---

Are you saying that you honestly just don't get the category difference between a child capable of rejecting the claims of theists and remaining an atheist into adulthood; and a baby, rock, lizard, children raised by wolves, or people in a permanent vegetative state?

Not at all. And I don't know how you'd get that from my post.

If a child hears, evaluates, and rejects religious claims, then he's using his mind and he has reasons. Good reasons or bad. 

Do these reasons stay the same, after he's learned more? I should hope not, as little kids don't really understand much theology.

You couldn't get this any more wrong, and you're trying.

I didn't actually reject the claims of any given theist as a child, I just never believed them.  I was a much more friendly agnostic atheist than any you'll find on the boards, that much I do know. It didn't seem like much of a stretch for -any- god story to be true, and I heard many, many more than just the one that most people are familiar with. Why couldn't thousands of gods be flitting all over the place, dragging the sun across the sky and painting dew on the morning flowers? Monsters too, all things that go bump in the night? Why not? I just didn't believe them, myself. There's a difference between not believing a claim and rejecting it, and not all rejection has or requires reasons in the first place.  

Atheism is a statement of a fact.  Not a position on some other thing, no matter how hard you want it to be, Bel. People say all sorts of shit all the time, you don't actually wander through your life actively accepting and rejecting everything that falls from other peoples lips For Reasons™. It doesn't matter if we're discussing a child or an adult, gods or anything else, this little rule you're desperately flogging is nonoperative. You could have a mulligan the first time, because hey, maybe it's very far out of your own experience......but at this point....?

Here's what I'd propose. Most people..theist or atheist, didn't actually reason themselves into either state. Maybe this is embarrassing, or they don't like the feeling of arbitrarity that it produces - and so they invent ad hoc rationalizations not only -as- "The Reasons™", but very literaly as an ad hoc rationalization for that state.

I would be very, very surprised if a person found god or fell from god as a direct result of rational thought. If you spent a few years reading the (de)conversion stories on af, for example, you'll note a cadence. People "found it harder and harder to believe" or "harder and harder not to believe" -and then- went searching for reasons™ to believe, or to support their new state of dis or non belief. People had some experience, either legitimizing or delegitimizing the notion. It's a very rare instance in which the head leads doubt or belief.

We're all simply wrong about ourselves in one way or another. I used to assume that I must have had reasons, for example. We've got a believer here who thinks that it's seeing pretty stuff and meaning that makes them believe. We've got an atheist who thinks that they wish there were a god.

I can't tell you what any reason was or even could have been, people see pretty things and meaning and don't believe, and with everything we know about the power of wishthinking..what are the odds that an atheist has a genuine godwish?

You, for your part, clearly need to believe that there is some challenging or sophisticated theology that others are not properly addressing and would have to in order for their atheism to be..who knows what..., but what would that be..again?

[Acrobat]

No I don’t hope that life has such meaning, no more than you hope it’s meaningless. It just that does, or at least from my perspective. That the arguements for existential nihilism, make less sense of our experience of reality.

In what ways does it make less sense?

For one it makes less sense of our moral perceptions, such as our perception of torturing innocent babies just for fun as truly wrong, and not wrong like that dress doesn’t go with those shoes.

It makes less sense of our desire for meaning, truth, goodness, etc..

[The Grand Nudger]

So what if it does?

It's already been explained to you that and why moral wrong and wrong dress with shoes is a silly equivocation - and that's not actually what nihilism proposes.....but as to the main contention..so what if it did make less sense?

[LadyForCamus]

In what ways does it make less sense?

For one it makes less sense of our moral perceptions, such as our perception of torturing innocent babies just for fun as truly wrong, and not wrong like that dress doesn’t go with those shoes.

No, it doesn’t. There are perfectly natural, evolutionarily-grounded explainations for why we feel love for babies. It’s really not a brain bruster as to why living things care for their offspring. It makes a lot more sense than the explanation: “We love babies because some god programmed us to love them, because he wants us to. Because...well, I’ve never seen him, so I’m not really sure about any of his reasons.” Also, let’s not forget that entire groups of people routinely murdered babies in the name of sacrifice to their gods. So I guess this universal understanding that harming babies is not so universal after all.

It makes less sense of our desire for meaning, truth, goodness, etc..

How so?

[Acrobat]

No, it doesn’t. There are perfectly natural, evolutionarily-grounded explainations for why we feel love for babies. It’s really not a brain bruster as to why living things care for their offspring.

Few things, I also accept evolution, appealing to evolution in defense of nihilism, doesn’t get much mileage as an argument. Evolution isn’t the source of the potential for lumps of matter to love, have eyes, reproduce, consciousness, etc... It only actualizes such potentials.

Secondly, I didn’t say our love or empathy for babies. I was referring to our perceptions of the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun, as something truly wrong, and not subjectively wrong, like we might say of our taste in food.

So I guess this universal understanding that harming babies is not so universal after all.

Human beings across cultures and societies share a core morality, respond similarly to a variety of moral questions. So yes there are some universal understanding when it comes to right and wrong. It should also be said recognizing right and wrong, is not the same as doing what’s right or wrong. A thief may know it’s morally wrong to steal, yet steal.

Secondly the practice of child sacrifice, or murdering babies, operates on delusions and false beliefs to justify it, like scapegoating.Those practicing it have to deny or conceal the innocence of their victims, to mask the wrongness  of performing such actions. Meaning that their beliefs, operate similar to other delusional and false beliefs, like holocaust denial, or flat earthism, and not like people who have different taste in clothes. Operate like denials of reality, rather than differences in subjective opinions.

It makes less sense of our desire for meaning, truth, goodness, etc..

How so?

Which of these cases, would make a better case for nihilism:

A reality in which we didn’t desire truth, meaning, and goodness. Just creatures looking to survive and reproduce, and not creatures like us, who seek something to live for.

Or a reality in which we do posses such desires.

Which of these realities would appear more meaningless?

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1897897' dateline='1554487971']
When I talk about childish arguments this is the sort of thing I mean. It is the mindset of a toddler.

I am not joking there is litterallya stage of brain development where people look for reasons for things to exist.

In the mind of a two year old fish live in the sea, therefore the sea is for fish to live in, if there is a thing with a purpose then obviously there was a purpose giver...

Most people outgrow this and realise that fish live in the sea because that is how they have evolved to be. However some people stay in a childlike mentality and that's one of the reasons for religion.

You’re right about one thing. That we perceive a reality as product of purpose, that it possess a meaning, and that recognition is observed even in toddlers, even among those not raised in a children’s home.

That is because it is an early stage of human development.

But it’s false that most people outgrow this perception,

Actually we usually move beyond that stage at about five years old.

when in fact this perceptions just matures and grows as we get older. The only people that don’t believe this are a minority,

In more backwards societies perhaps, but only due to the infantilising effect of religion.

the handful of atheists, most of whom don’t even deny that it’s true, they just claim to lack a belief in it, while avoiding committing to any sort  antithesis view, like nihilism.

Why should they, all they have to do is not find god convincing.

I also don’t think, thoughtful people, would see teleological statements such MLK “The Arc of the Moral universe” as childish, or the various beliefs that drove the civil rights movements, that where built on unwavering beliefs in such a telelogical moral order.  Or at least the antithesis beliefs, or lack of beliefs among unbelievers on such concepts, don’t appear anymore adult like.

And yet anything a theist can do in the name of theism an atheist can do just because they are nice.

What god is made of?
How god does his godding?
Where did it exist before the universe/time existed?

What do any of those questions, have to do with any of the beliefs or claims I made here?

They show that you have not established what a god is, so why should I give any idea about it any credence.

[robvalue]

I don’t see what nihilism has to do with atheism or theism. In fact, I find nihilism to be a meaningless term.

What is it referring to?

If it’s saying there is no subjective meaning/purpose, that no one finds any meaning in anything, then that’s clearly false. To be "a nihilist" under these conditions would just be denying basic evidence.

If it’s saying there’s no objective meaning/purpose, then I’d say such a thing is impossible anyway. You always have to create some sort of filter or reference point for which to determine the meaning or purpose of something. Even if this is a purpose which relates to something outside of our section of reality (a god or whatever), it is still a subjective purpose, to that god. That’s no more objective than me finding meaning or purpose.

So basically, I find the term redundant. It’s either trivially true or trivially false, depending on how you define the terms. The only thing that makes sense is to apply it to yourself only: "I find no meaning or purpose in anything", or something like that. This doesn’t say anything about meaning or purpose in general. Adding or subtracting a god wouldn’t add or subtract any meaning or purpose for me. It’s irrelevant. I already have things which give me meaning and purpose. If someone else finds those things meaningless, that doesn’t make me a nihilist.

---

PS: I thought of another way of representing what people sometimes mean by it.

"I find the way other people attribute meaning/purpose to be meaningless."

In other words, if I set the standards for what counts as meaning or purpose, then I can use that to deny anyone else’s attempts to find it, thus resulting in "nihilism".

[Acrobat]

I don’t see what nihilism has to do with atheism or theism. In fact, I find nihilism to be a meaningless term.

What is it referring to?

If it’s saying there is no subjective meaning/purpose, that no one finds any meaning in anything, then that’s clearly false. To be "a nihilist" under these conditions would just be denying basic evidence.

If it’s saying there’s no objective meaning/purpose, then I’d say such a thing is impossible anyway. You always have to create some sort of filter or reference point for which to determine the meaning or purpose of something. Even if this is a purpose which relates to something outside of our section of reality (a god or whatever), it is still a subjective purpose, to that god. That’s no more objective than me finding meaning or purpose.

So basically, I find the term redundant. It’s either trivially true or trivially false, depending on how you define the terms. The only thing that makes sense is to apply it to yourself only: "I find no meaning or purpose in anything", or something like that. This doesn’t say anything about meaning or purpose in general. Adding or subtracting a god wouldn’t add or subtract any meaning or purpose for me. It’s irrelevant. I already have things which give me meaning and purpose. If someone else finds those things meaningless, that doesn’t make me a nihilist.

---

PS: I thought of another way of representing what people sometimes mean by it.

"I find the way other people attribute meaning/purpose to be meaningless."

In other words, if I set the standards for what counts as meaning or purpose, then I can use that to deny anyone else’s attempts to find it, thus resulting in "nihilism".

When in doubt of what something means, use wikipedia:

"Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent , and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. "

You suggest there's no relationship between existential nihilism and atheism, yet most self identifying atheists seem to subscribe to some form of existential nihilism, while hardly any theist does. I'm guessing you think this is just coincidental?

---

You’re right about one thing. That we perceive a reality as product of purpose, that it possess a meaning, and that recognition is observed even in toddlers, even among those not raised in a children’s home.

That is because it is an early stage of human development.

But it’s false that most people outgrow this perception,

Actually we usually move beyond that stage at about five years old.

when in fact this perceptions just matures and grows as we get older. The only people that don’t believe this are a minority,

In more backwards societies perhaps, but only due to the infantilising effect of religion.

Are you that out of touch? The vast majority of people view life as possessing some ultimate purpose and meaning, regardless of whether you think that's the result of religion or not. I mean who do you think the "we", who move beyond this is? What percentage of humanity, both past and present would you say believe life possess no intrinsic meaning or purpose? I'd say it's pretty close to 0%, since most of the world over has in some form or the other held a religious or teleological view of life.


It's also a bit odd, that you seem aware that toddlers and young children perceive reality as possessing purpose, even when raised in non-religious homes, which indicates this seems to by intuitive, natural perception of reality. Do you think this early intuition is a product of our evolution? And that religions just sort of preserves it much longer than it would have been able to survive on its own?

[robvalue]

What qualifies as intrinsic purpose? If you define it as only god-related purpose, then of course, no god means no intrinsic purpose. But that’s just a tautology. This is the final kind of nihilism definition I was referring to.

I could argue that even god-purpose isn’t intrinsic to life itself, but in fact it’s our output which has purpose to god, or whatever.

This comes back to the whole problem that purpose is subjective.

---

PS: it’s an argument about facts versus value judgements. Facts are objective, value judgements are subjective. To which does nihilism refer? If it’s the former, then it can be trivially easy to demonstrate some fact or other which is supposed to show there is "no purpose". Whether or not the definitions used are convincing enough to carry the weight of the semantics would be up to the reader though. I can similarly demonstrate a fact which I claim shows life does have purpose. It all depends on what someone counts as purpose.

If it’s the latter, then there are no facts, only opinions and subjective evaluations.

[Acrobat]

What qualifies as intrinsic purpose? If you define it as only god-related purpose, then of course, no god means no intrinsic purpose. But that’s just a tautology. This is the final kind of nihilism definition I was referring to.

I could argue that even god-purpose isn’t intrinsic to life itself, but in fact it’s our output which has purpose to god, or whatever.

This comes back to the whole problem that purpose is subjective.

---

PS: it’s an argument about facts versus value judgements. Facts are objective, value judgements are subjective. To which does nihilism refer? If it’s the former, then it can be trivially easy to demonstrate some fact or other which is supposed to show there is "no purpose". Whether or not the definitions used are convincing enough to carry the weight of the semantics would be up to the reader though. I can similarly demonstrate a fact which I claim shows life does have purpose. It all depends on what someone counts as purpose.

If it’s the latter, then there are no facts, only opinions and subjective evaluations.

No, not all values are subjective. 

"Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts."

If some values, like moral values are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, than your claim that they're all subjective is false. In fact if you want to go down the line of arguing that there are no objective moral truths, the same exact argument could be used against non-moral objective truths.

As atheist philosopher Louise Anthony put it “Any argument for moral scepticism is going to be based on premisses which are less obvious than the reality of moral values themselves.”