Support NeoGAF

[HazySaiyan]

Lol

 

[Air]

Btw, I really do love the thread title. Feel like it could go on a t-shirt or something.

 

[ibyea]

See, it doesn't matter if there is no inherent purpose in life. Life keeps going and it's still the same life as it always have been. We follow our own objectives like we always have. And to be honest with you, do you really want to be a puppet to some inherent purpose you are not aware of at all?

Also even if religion were true, morality would still be subjective at its foundation.

 

[Noirulus]

Sorry, but this is patently untrue. In seminary one of our first classes is about all the ways things change in the Biblical accounts and the understanding over time. This isn't some progressive seminary either, this is Biblical Scholarship taught by major Biblical Scholars that write the commentaries and research your churches use.

Even in the first three chapters of Genesis we have two creations accounts that are in a different order.

The Biblical account speaks of a firmament (a literal dome) where the stars are holes that the glory of God is shining through in.

There's a story in the OT where the a kings aide becomes a follower of God. He talks about how when he returns, the king is old and rest on his arm when he kneels to his pagan God - which means this aide will also have to kneel. Elijah respond to him, "go in peace." Essentially, "That rule about not bowing to false idols, no big deal. It's your heart the matters." - changed rule.

We could talk about the New Testament where Peter has a vision from God that tells him he can eat animals now. He replies "surely not lord." Because he had been taught all throughout the Bible that it was wrong, but now God is saying it's ok.

And then if I really wanted to get technical we could talk about all of the disagreements on location and accounts in the OT and the NT. Or we could talk about the MASSIVE disagreements on the translations of certain words in the Bible. Which translation are you declaring to "never change?" Because I can tell you right now that every English translation has MASSIVE leaps in certain areas because of language differences. So, again, it has changed.

And as others have brought up, we have largely rejected slavery and the poor treatment of women that the NT seems to happily support in some areas. Again, we evolved and changed.

I have a question about this. Where does the basis for belief come from if there are such contradictory teachings found throughout the scriptures?

 

[MajinSweet4]

I'm an atheist as well but I've never understood the mind set presented in the OP. In fact, I find it baffling. Why is a "guiding hand" needed for things to have value? I still care about people and things regardless of how random or chaotic the creation of those things are. And sure, nothing last forever, but that makes the time we have more valuable, not less. If anything, it makes me more grateful. The very fact that I exist and have met amazing people makes me insanely lucky, just because that will be gone someday doesn't make it a waste. Also, the bit about morals. While morals are certainly influenced by culture, society and other outside factors, at the end of the day we do in fact decide on our moral values. The basics of empathy drive most morals and is something the vast majority of people understand, and it doesn't require anything but understanding of yourself and others.

 

[TheOctodad]

Living life is the atheist god. You eat, hopefully fuck, shit, until death. There is no meta divine meaning - after all we're just a mix of Neanderthals and Denisovans. When you die you go back to where you were before you were born - nothingness

Couldn't you argue that the evolutionary process itself is some form of "meta meaning?" The way you distill parts of existence seem to be somewhat reductionistic to me in a similar way that someone saying "Why do you play video games, you're just smashing plastic so make light change color on a screen."

This isn't an argument for God as much as it is an encouragement to see life through a bit more of a sense of gratitude and wonder. I find the opportunity to participate in the this universe, to love and be loved, to experience art, music, nature, laughter, etc. to be incredibly meaningful. Perhaps it is just "making meaning" but if you can "make meaning" then it isn't just "meaningless."

 

[Toxi]

If you are playing devil's advocate it is a poor one. This isn't the 1800s. We know where our capacity for morality comes from. We can see the beginnings of morality in other primate species. You don't magically lose the capacity for empathy and judgements of fairness just because you cease believing in god. Unless you want to assert Chimpanzees believe in God.

Off-topic, I wouldn't be surprised if chimpanzees had the capacity for superstition.

Maybe not God, but think about how a chimpanzee that grows up in a zoo would perceive things. It doesn't know what glass is. It doesn't know where the food comes from. It doesn't know why they sometimes have to a different home. It doesn't know why there are no predators. It doesn't know why there are people watching it or what the flashing things they hold are. If it arrives at any conclusion about those things (And a chimpanzee can do that as long as it is able to comprehend basic cause and effect), it will be based only on what it as a chimpanzee can think of. That's not much different from humans not knowing why the the bright shiny circle in the sky rises and sets and assuming some giant hand is moving it.

 

[Soriku]

It's true. You don't need God to be a good person. But what's to stop you from going back to those morals when things in your life are at your worst? Or changing your morals completely? Morality without a fixed point is a very scary thing in my opinion.

If only it were that simple. Religious people break their rules all the time. You can absolutely argue that religious people have no fixed morality for that reason. You can have fixed rules, but if people don't want to follow them, the rules become irrelevant.

And anyway, the last time I checked the most notorious terrorists were religious. So if you believe religious people have a greater likelihood of being moral, I would think again.

 

[Always-honest]

Off-topic, I wouldn't be surprised if chimpanzees had the capacity for superstition

Wasn't there a very recent video proving this?

 

[TheOctodad]

I have a question about this. Where does the basis for belief come from if there are such contradictory teachings found throughout the scriptures?

You'll have to be more specific to what you are thinking, as I could point you to about 20 different books and 1,000 of pages discussing your question on such a broad scale.

My annoyingly simplistic response would be, I find this to be consistent with Jesus, and many Christians throughout history. Though, in large part, not the dominant ones in power. Though I would argue that that very fact could very well mean they were more in alignment with Jesus than the ones who used Christianity to create an empire.

 

[Nickle]

I'm glad I finally found God, before that I couldn't stop murdering people.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

The point of Christianity is to do nice so you can be one with god after life. It's completely self fulfilling. While on the planet you still get to pat yourself on the back for being good even if you tell yourself that's not why you do it.

It is self-fulfilling but not ego-fulfilling, if you see what I mean. It's not "I want to be one with God to get my prize" but "I want to be one with God because everyone is lost, myself included, and the greater universal purpose is to be rescued, and as such to rescue others".
Being proud of yourself is not charitable in itself, and as such is a mortal sin. It's not like it can be easily avoided either, like masturbation, but all Christians are expected to strive toward that ideal and not embrace non-charitable acts and thoughts. Jesus didn't pat himself on the back for doing better things than everyone else, all he did was keep urgently preaching about his interpretation of the OT until his death.

Not saying that what Christians do is what Christianity expects of them, but yeah.

 

[ibyea]

Off-topic, I wouldn't be surprised if chimpanzees had the capacity for superstition.

Maybe not God, but think about how a chimpanzee that grows up in a zoo would perceive things. It doesn't know what glass is. It doesn't know where the food comes from. It doesn't know why they sometimes have to a different home. It doesn't know why there are no predators. It doesn't know why there are people watching it or what the flashing things they hold are. If it arrives at any conclusion about those things (And a chimpanzee can do that as long as it is able to comprehend basic cause and effect), it will be based only on what it as a chimpanzee can think of. That's not much different from humans not knowing why the the bright shiny circle in the sky rises and sets and assuming some giant hand is moving it.

Various animals can have superstition actually. I believe Skinner box experiments can induce superstitions on animals.

 

[Henkka]

Personally, I find these kinds of philosophical discussions of Atheism/Deism and morality to generally be a huge adventure in people having wildly different definitions of God and morality.

As a "Christian," most of the versions of God that atheist describe, I don't believe in either. But that's largely the fault of evangelicalism and the Westernized ideas of God the have become popularized and not the atheist perspective themselves.

I think imagining "God" as a verb more than a noun is a helpful start in a better picture of God. I actually believe that the very "engine" of the evolutionary process of the universe could be described as God. As the universe evolves into greater complexity and awareness, we begin to have more of an awareness of our role within it and to care for it and each other.

Honestly, this just sounds like you're taking something that bears very little resemblance to anything commonly thought of as "God" and arbitrarily slapping that label on it. When an average churchgoer thinks of God, they're not thinking of the "engine of the evolutionary process of the universe" or whatever. They're thinking of a personal, thinking being that created the universe and answers prayer. Throughout history, the label "god" has been used to describe such beings. If your concept is nothing like those, why even use the same word, if not for sentimental reasons?

 

[Toxi]

Wasn't there a very recent video proving this?

It didn't prove superstition, it just showed unusual behavior that might be superstition. It could also be many other things.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

I have a question about this. Where does the basis for belief come from if there are such contradictory teachings found throughout the scriptures?

Personal philosophy and experience. The way one was brought up as well (not easy to not believe in God if you were raised with no alternatives). Finally, one rarely joins a religious community after becoming 100% convinced of, and committed to, their belief, but rather experiences something beyond what they know after taking part in the community and the rituals and pondering such things.
But again, it's not for everyone and not everyone who is religious is "seriously" religious either.

 

[Noirulus]

You'll have to be more specific to what you are thinking, as I could point you to about 20 different books and 1,000 of pages discussing your question on such a broad scale.

My annoyingly simplistic response would be, I find this to be consistent with Jesus, and many Christians throughout history. Though, in large part, not the dominant ones in power. Though I would argue that that very fact could very well mean they were more in alignment with Jesus than the ones who used Christianity to create an empire.

Well, I was actually thinking of the example right in your own post. That believing in false idols can be ok as long as your heart is right. However, In Jeremiah it says that god will ruin anyone who believes in false idols.

 

[Funyarinpa]

snip, snip, snippety snip

Great stuff. I respect your outlook greatly.

 

[Griss]

As an atheist, I don't struggle with the 'meaninglessness' part of things at all. I ascribe my own meaning to my life, and as a human being driven by biological processes it's normal and natural that I do so.

However I do struggle with the moral relativism parts. I find it very difficult to reconcile why the law should bind me if it doesn't sync up with my own personal morality and there is only a tiny risk of getting caught. Causes me to feel alienated a lot of the time. Everyone probably deals with this is one way or another, but being able to say 'God wills it' would make things easier.

I suppose I get caught between judging people harshly and feeling like the act of judging itself is a useless task.

 

[creatchee]

"Our ancient ancestors didn't have gods until they invented them" thats not how culture works you know. It's not a singular invention that create the idea of god, it was culture change and adaptation that lead to the idea of god. Our "ancient ancestors" didn't debate the existence of god, you can't call people who simple don't denote the existence of god as atheist (Would you call culture that believe in magical ritual atheists?), but contemporary atheism is absolutely a direct reaction to theism, just look at the name itself A-theism. In industrialized culture, people take the idea of god literally, but most other cultures they don't justify their beliefs, they just live it. It's fluid, it changes over time, and most of all it the contemporary meaning that matter most, history to most culture doesn't matter, it the myths and stories that are told that matters (Even in the secular west, people and stories are mythicized).

Plus religion doesn't necessarily stipulate the belief in god. The three major religion are aiming to be universal and are trying to explain the world (Because of the idea of enlightenment), but religion is just culture, we designate it as a category.

You understanding of religion is material, try to view it a symbolic system, and not a direct reaction to physical world and needs.

But you see, that's exactly how culture worked.

There was a time when early humans dealt solely in basic needs - survival, food, reproduction etc., which is also indicative of the ape ancestors that we evolved from. You can find this in any anthropology/archeology/prehistory textbook or website. They were atheists by default - you can say "but the root of the word" all you like, but, by definition, they did not believe in a god, thus, were atheists.

One day (figuratively), a group of these early people explored the idea of a higher power. That is the very point in history where theism was invented. That is the very point where gods were invented. It doesn't matter that different tribes in different parts of the world had their own gods or when they had them. The point is that one day there was not a god (as an idea). The next day, there was. Somebody invented it, symbolically or otherwise.

 

[Fenderputty]

It is self-fulfilling but not ego-fulfilling,

This is a meaningless distinction. Neither are altruistic.

 

[BossDarkseid]

I have definitely contemplated the relationship between atheism and nihilistic behaviors and thoughts.

If I were ever atheist, I would be a piece of garbage with no moral compass, because such a thing would be meaningless. I guess in that sense, being a believer in a higher power makes me a better person.

Gawd...no it doesn't. Surely it's closer to being a piece of gabage with no moral compass when you make assumptions and generalise a group of people over the Internet?

To me..its up to us/the individual/the self to be nice, polite and define their own moral compass. I don't know if I believe in God but I'm not anti religion, I think it's a good thing...

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Anyone who says morality comes from God or that their belief in God is the only reason they are moral, well, you are a broken individual. Evolutionarily our brain has moved away from the selfish, animalistic nature to a more compassionate, community driven brain.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

But you see, that's exactly how culture worked.

There was a time when early humans dealt solely in basic needs - survival, food, reproduction etc., which is also indicative of the ape ancestors that we evolved from. You can find this in any anthropology/archeology/prehistory textbook or website. They were atheists by default - you can say "but the root of the word" all you like, but, by definition, they did not believe in a god, thus, were atheists.

One day (figuratively), a group of these early people explored the idea of a higher power. That is the very point in history where theism was invented. That is the very point where gods were invented. It doesn't matter that different tribes in different parts of the world had their own gods or when they had them. The point is that one day there was not a god (as an idea). The next day, there was. Somebody invented it, symbolically or otherwise.

Atheism is a cultural act, it's not an a-cultural ideas, it based in the secularized western culture. That's why I say that "our ancient ancestors" weren't atheists, maybe they lacked a belief in god, but were not the contemporary understanding what atheism is. You are projecting your ideas onto protohumans and early human cultural.

I don't know if I'm projecting this (And tell me If I am) but I feel I'm getting evolutionist vibes from you position. Humans don't move along one path (Like James Frazer would argue), it does go from magic to religion and then secular scientific culture. Culture doesn't make sense all the time, and we shouldn't project our own culturally based idea onto other people.

 

[TheOctodad]

Well, I was actually thinking of the example right in your own post. That believing in false idols can be ok as long as your heart is right. However, In Jeremiah it says that god will ruin anyone who believes in false idols.

Basically there's a few ways to read the bible. The dominant one in America right now is not the way it was read for a large part of Christian history. The idea of the Bible being "inerrant" is only a few hundred years old and didn't emerge until the Enlightenment. Christian's basically created an alternative theology to combat the Enlightenment thinking that was emerging in culture.

Many Christians though have read the Bible, not as a textbook, but as a library of people's experiences with the divine through history. It's a book that is deeply steeped in culture, ancient perspectives, and incredibly honest (and often brutal). It is not meant for us to read and draw a distinct morality from, as much as it is to learn about how God has interacted with people throughout time. A popular phrase is to say, "God always speaks in a way that the people could understand." Much of the Old Testament is God working with a barbaric, ancient culture, to slowly evolve them towards more responsibility. We see glimpses of this when he tells Israel that, "You are to be a blessing to all the nations."

But the story of the OT is that they don't follow through with this call to be a blessing and ultimately find their downfall because of this. They justify genocide, slavery, and war by using God's name, but it doesn't seem that this is what God actually wanted (as we will see in Jesus).

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus life is my lens through which I read the rest of the Bible. After all, that is what being a Christian actually means - to look like Christ. So if Jesus says, "Love your enemy." I have to believe that overrides any ancient concept of justifiable genocide - full stop. We all have a lens to view it through, but I believe one that centers on Jesus is the only one that actually holds merit to being a "Christian." All others seem to be an attempt to justify having your cake and eating it to (I'm looking at you Crusades, Evangelical churches that are worth millions, and the Evangelical Republican party).

Honestly, this just sounds like you're taking something that bears very little resemblance to anything commonly thought of as "God" and arbitrarily slapping that label on it. When an average churchgoer thinks of God, they're not thinking of the "engine of the evolutionary process of the universe" or whatever. They're thinking of a personal, thinking being that created the universe and answers prayer. Throughout history, the label "god" has been used to describe such beings. If your concept is nothing like those, why even use the same word, if not for sentimental reasons?

Hm. I disagree.

The average church goer might think that, but that doesn't mean that's not true. The average person can't explain the process of an iPhone, but if I have a technological understand of all of the processes behind it and can articulate it it doesn't make me "wrong." Why say, "human" being when we all actually know we are merely 7 billion, billion, billion, atoms? Are we just merely being sentimental? Or are we speaking in ways we can understand for the context?

My views are shaped by a number of Christians throughout history - St. Francis of Assisi, Origen, Julian of Norwich, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, C.S. Lewis, Henri Nouwen, Ilia Delio, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Richard Rohr, Thomas Merton, I can list a hundred more.

People's understandings of God (or their rejected image of God) reflect their stage of psychological and cognitive development (see Erik Erikson and Piaget for some fundamental secular examples of this and Jame Fowler's stages of faith work to see corresponding stages of belief). What I am articulating is just a few levels deeper and more complex than "average." Which is not so say I'm "better," just to say this is something I've studied all my life (much like my iPhone example).

And again, my awareness of this doesn't mean anything really - other than maybe I can explain it differently and see connections other may not. Because at the end of the day, I still believe that those who love and care for this world and others are all doing the work of God regardless. Or to quote Jesus, "Love your neighbor as yourself - this is the second, and equally greatest commandment."

 

[Mr Waluigi]

Honestly, this just sounds like you're taking something that bears very little resemblance to anything commonly thought of as "God" and arbitrarily slapping that label on it. When an average churchgoer thinks of God, they're not thinking of the "engine of the evolutionary process of the universe" or whatever. They're thinking of a personal, thinking being that created the universe and answers prayer. Throughout history, the label "god" has been used to describe such beings. If your concept is nothing like those, why even use the same word, if not for sentimental reasons?

God is YHWH - "I Am That I Am".
The most consistent interpretation of God in the Bible is that he is the creator and overseer of the universe, who has communicated with prophets to tell us his opinion on the shit people have done.
You say "your concept", but the very concept of God changes with each generation and culture, and overall theism has always changed constantly, much like art and fashion do (for example).
That doesn't mean that "God" is just a vague idea people throw around to answer questions they can't solve. Rather, as philosophies, cultures, words change, so does our way to describe this thing called "God" that doesn't change in itself but that we can't seem to fully grasp no matter how hard we think.
The characterization of God as an angry guy in the skies who hates fags is particularly strong in American Protestant communities, yes. But not only does every religion have a different interpretation of God, but so does every sect within each religion, each community within each sect, each individual within each community.

We can't say God "is" or "isn't" a big angry man in the skies, because we simply don't know God personally (or else he would be easy to prove the existence of). Several interpretations of God have existed over time, from the Trinity to the Unique, Unchanging God of Islam to the more fickle God of Judaism to pantheons of deities to there not really being a God in a sense we can understand (mysticism) to there not being a God at all (atheism). You can't be surprised that religiously uneducated people are going to simplify theological points and stubbornly stick to them though.

 

[SturokBGD]

I would totally go to church if TheOctodad was my minister.

 

[TheOctodad]

For those of you who want to see a helpful chart of cognitive development that corresponds to ideas of "God" (based of of actually psychological and cognitive theory) here you go:

I would totally go to church if TheOctodad was my minister.

Best compliment ever.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

God as meta-process seems pretty attractive to me, but I find I can distill it much more purely when starting from a mash of science and broad philosophy than I can from starting the brew from a western religious viewpoint. I think a lot of atheists or agnostics would probably feel the same way, so strong are the associations that religion usually carries.

But meta system transition theory and spiral dynamics are indeed the good shit.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

This is a meaningless distinction. Neither are altruistic.

One is spiritually fulfilling, one is material/physical/emotional.

It's like saying that breathing isn't altruistic. It's not something you can control, it's part of the greater order of the universe (how the human organism operates to stay alive), you can't say it's "selfish" or "altruistic" if no one really had a word in it (except one's parents, but Christianity does strongly suggest to remain single and childless if it is possible).

By doing what the gospels claim to be good deeds, one doesn't work their way to Heaven, or manipulate the greater order to give themselves a room next to God. We will all return to God, in a natural order, unless we decide not to. If God calls one to him, it's not a selfish act to comply to how the universe works.

(this is from a very non-secular point of view, don't cringe at my choice of words ok)

 

[creatchee]

We can't say God "is" or "isn't" a big angry man in the skies, because we simply don't know God personally (or else he would be easy to prove the existence of).

TIL God is Schrödinger's cat.

 

[Foffy]

Judge people for humanity, never from morality.

Morals are flimsy as shit. The true innate worthiness of beings is beyond borders.

 

[TheOctodad]

God as meta-process seems pretty attractive to me, but I find I can distill it much more purely when starting from a mash of science and broad philosophy than I can from starting the brew from a western religious viewpoint. I think a lot of atheists or agnostics would probably feel the same way, so strong are the associations that religion usually carries.

But meta system transition theory and spiral dynamics are indeed the good shit.

Absolutely. Which is why my reading is about 60% theology, 20% science/quantum mechanics, neuroscience, 20% philosophy/sociology.

I find God just as much in the sciences as I do in theology. If God is, as Dante said, "the ground of all being" than any study that leads to deeper understanding of the universe is, by it's very nature, a deeper understanding of God.

 

[CloudWolf]

This thread is weird. Caring about life and morality isn't tied to whether your believe in a higher power at all. It makes you human.

 

[DedValve]

This is all true, but a godless society would still continue to operate because people have consciences and follow social/cultural standards not to mention the fact that there are general ethical and moral principals that are pretty universally agreed upon regardless of religion.

You could even say that religion is worse in some areas of ethics/morality such as gay people and equal rights

Spoiler

and mixing fabrics.

Morality imo is not something defined by a belief in god. If you truly become amoral just because you don't have a higher power to worship for you then chances are you were always amoral you just couldn't see it.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

TIL God is Schrödinger's cat.

In a way, he is - we don't know his nature until we see him (which is after death? or maybe when the world ends? people don't even agree)
Many philosophers have tried to prove God in rational ways and have failed, yet the feeling that anything exists at all beyond our usual perception has prevailed for a good chunk of our history.

I don't think anyone can go and say "my belief is 100% right and everyone else's is 100% wrong". Ignoring the fact this has caused a good deal of unneeded death historically, it's also highly pretentious to claim one has understood and seen everything about God while everyone else is completely and absolutely wrong. If it were so easy, either everyone would see and feel the same things when it comes to the spiritual, or we would have stuck to one religion since pre-history.

I find the concept of the Trinity attractive because it is a symbol of how the nature of God is simply unattainable to our little mortal minds.

(note this is from a very theological point of view, all atheistic ideas are thrown out the window right now)

 

[Kyonashi]

There's that fantastic Kubrick interview in Playboy of all places that basically says when you realise life has no meaning you're free to create your own. I'm athiest but not a nihilist because I believe I'm free to create my own meaning in life - to choose what is important to me and follow it doggedly. That will always mean more to me than any religious faith.

 

[Pantaghana]

In a way, he is - we don't know his nature until we see him (which is after death? or maybe when the world ends? people don't even agree)

Why so sure god is male?

 

[Shmuppers]

Why so sure god is male?

He's referred to as the "father" and "son". The Holy Spirit is genderless.

 

[Playsage]

Paraphrasing Rousseau's "The Social Contract":

"Social interactions (and, therefore, society) are a necessity for the species' survival which is dictated by a natural survival instinct"

You "can explain" to yourself non dogmatic morality by thinking about this.

Eazy!

 

[ThusZarathustra]

Absolutely. Which is why my reading is about 60% theology, 20% science/quantum mechanics, neuroscience, 20% philosophy/sociology.

I find God just as much in the sciences as I do in theology. If God is, as Dante said, "the ground of all being" than any study that leads to deeper understanding of the universe is, by it's very nature, a deeper understanding of God.

I suppose. But it comes down to the individual associations, and the semantics, while still just that, are important. "God" has such inescapable connotations that it's always seemed dicey to use, at least to me. Eastern religion has always appealed much more to me in that sense. "God" as a word in use, other than the institutional connotations, has always seemed a largely megalomaniacal idea to me, in a weird way, because it feels like the goal is usually to connect with or identify with something greater in a way that elevates the individual above others, and using the term without that sense of innate superiority seems nearly impossible to me.

Considering you've had to state a couple of times that this doesn't make you better than anybody else, I think I might not be the only one who feels the same way. The connotations are just unfortunate, that's all.

 

[TheOctodad]

He's referred to as the "father" and "son". The Holy Spirit is genderless.

Technically, "holy spirit" is a feminine word in the Greek.

God is genderless though yes, but the original languages essentially required you to select a gender, so they defaulted to male (given the society at the time, that's not shocking).

I suppose. But it comes down to the individual associations, and the semantics, while still just that, are important. "God" has such inescapable connotations that it's always seemed dicey to use, at least to me. Eastern religion has always appealed much more to me in that sense. "God" as a word in use, other than the institutional connotations, has always seemed a largely megalomaniacal idea to me, in a weird way, because it feels like the goal is usually to connect with or identify with something greater in a way that elevates the individual above others, and using the term without that sense of innate superiority seems nearly impossible to me.

Considering you've had to state a couple of times that this doesn't make you better than anybody else, I think I might not be the only one who feels the same way. The connotations are just unfortunate, that's all.

I totally get where you're coming from. And I absolutely agree.

One of the realities of religion is it does provide, at least at a basic level, a shared language. I typically use "God" because of my audience and that allows me to connect with a feeling that many of them identify as positive and safe. However, if I'm interacting with an audience that is largely Eastern or agnostic/atheist, I will typically use words like, "creative energy," "engine of the universe," etc. Because at the end of the day, I don't think any of our words are really capable of talking about whatever God/Divine Energy/Power/Spaghetti Monster we are referring to is.

There's a great philosopher named Peter Rollins that has a book on this called, "How (Not) To Speak of God." I highly recommend it.

 

[Astral Dog]

The only Cynic here is you op

 

[Mr Waluigi]

Why so sure god is male?

What other word should I use? English isn't my first language, but I thought "he" worked for something neutral.

edit: And yeah, as others have said God himself is genderless. The Father, although a, well, father-like figure, is only called so because of his role. Jesus was male but he also treated both sexes with a lot of equality (unlike St Paul). The Holy Spirit is feminine, because of the required grammar in Greek. I don't think many people seriously think God is male, even among some of the less serious believers (of any theistic religion really, although Islam makes it even more clear that God does not ressemble his creatures in any way).

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

The athiest also loses any concept of a fixed morality. If different cultures have different (or even opposing) moral values, why should I follow any of them? Why not just make up my own morality where I can do whatever I want? It would be no more or less authentic than any other.

s.

why do people still say shit like this

you think going around doing whatever you want regardless of consequence is ultimately good for one's survival? come on...

Morality and laws and social order is a survival mechanism or system, the best way to survive is to live with people or next to people you get along with. Period. If you dont get along with your neighbors your life will likely be short/miserable. We are social beings by nature.

 

[Always-honest]

It didn't prove superstition, it just showed unusual behavior that might be superstition. It could also be many other things.

Oh right. Yeah that was it.

 

[Toxi]

Btw, I really do love the thread title. Feel like it could go on a t-shirt or something.

Sounds like a punk song.

 

[Always-honest]

There's that fantastic Kubrick interview in Playboy of all places that basically says when you realise life has no meaning you're free to create your own. I'm athiest but not a nihilist because I believe I'm free to create my own meaning in life - to choose what is important to me and follow it doggedly. That will always mean more to me than any religious faith.

Exactly. It's freedom.

 

[MikeyB]

Compassion is baked into most of us according to empirical evidence (sorry psychopaths and sociopaths). That gets us to how we ought to treat the near and dear. We live in societies and enlightened self-interest promotes the expansion of that compassion into rational laws for good order so that we can live peaceful lives.

It's not an a priori argument but I don't see how that or the absence of God hurts the motivation to treat others well and live according to laws.

 

[News Bot]

In what sense? Do you think I have misunderstood Nietzsche, or are you trying to say you don't share his thoughts on this?

I don't share his thoughts or your agreement with him. Nihilism is not based on a negative outlook on humanity and it does not intrinsically support a worldview of indifference or isolationism (or "No!"). While I'm sure it applies to some particularly weak-willed individuals, nihilism in general does not promote these.

Nietzsche's views on nihilism are flawed for the sole reason that he refuses to acknowledge it beyond its position as a foil to "Christian values", claiming it to be merely the impetus of a psychological crisis, which I've never experienced as embracing nihilism is the only true sense of liberation I've had thus far. Nihilism does not promote negativity, acknowledging that life has no meaning is not a criticism of life. While there is no meaning or purpose to the nature of existence, that doesn't mean that meaning or purpose can't be found, or created in the case with every religion. The problem with many religions however is that the "strength" it gives doesn't come from the individual, it's illusory and amounts to not much more than indoctrination. It's the self in conflict (or at peace) with an amalgamation of reality and fantasy. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

In my view, nihilism promotes true liberty of the self. Meaninglessness is not despair, it is freedom. Nietzsche's quote posted earlier is a more accurate portrayal of nihilism than most of his actual thoughts on it. He viewed nihilism as the outcome of frustrations in the search for meaning, when in reality it is more of a door to being able to create meaning. Frustrations surrounding it stem from the inner conflict of a few, not from nihilism itself. Some people despair at the thought of being given complete agency over life and self, but this despair is not nihilism to me.

All in my opinion, anyway. I'm still a fan of Nietzsche.