Are atheists nihilists? Do they hate Little Prince?

[questfortruth]

SInce you can't prove or test for the existence of a soul

Categories are:
1. Visible non-living matter: water, air, stones, pencil, TV, PC, IA, etc.
2. Invisible non-living matter: Dark Matter, Dark Energy.
3. Visible living matter: bears, birds, cats, dogs, etc.
4. Invisible living matter: souls, angels.

“The most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched, they are felt with the heart.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

“And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

Definition:
Matter comes from the verb Matter. What matters is matter.

 

[SomeRandom]

Pretty sure atheists are aware of non seeable things like “emotions.”

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Pretty sure atheists are aware of non seeable things like “emotions.”

It's funny to see someone post stuff like the OP, and then suddenly twig that they're talking about me.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

I find it particularly strange when Atheists get apologetic about it and say that they are not nihilists, when on an objective level, morality and meaning are psychological and sociological traits, and "morality" itself being an innately religious conceptualization of the value of these ideas in an objectivized sense. So an Atheist holding onto "bronze age" ideas such as morality and meaning, would be an inconsistency in logic (in any sense beyond it's social convenience and wider social limitations of secular legal systems), in holding onto a solidity in terms of holding an objectively false view; that these things exist independent of culture (when they're shown to be culturally relative).
When morality itself, as now commonly defined and applied in the modern/postmodern world, would be seen as a product of philosophy (which could be also seen as a subset of psychology) which is in the realm of thought, which is not reflective of reality in itself, according to non-idealistic views (which Atheists generally are), meaning that even in this context we realize that morality would require some circular reasoning to justify itself.

 

[ChristineM]

I find it particularly strange when Atheists get apologetic about it and say that they are not nihilists, when on an objective level, morality and meaning are psychological and sociological traits, and "morality" itself being an innately religious conceptualization of the value of these ideas in an objectivized sense. So an Atheist holding onto "bronze age" ideas such as morality and meaning, would be an inconsistency in logic (in any sense beyond it's social convenience and wider social limitations of secular legal systems), in holding onto a solidity in terms of holding an objectively false view; that these things exist independent of culture (when they're shown to be culturally relative).
When morality itself, as now commonly defined and applied in the modern/postmodern world, would be seen as a product of philosophy (which could be also seen as a subset of psychology) which is in the realm of thought, which is not reflective of reality in itself, according to non-idealistic views (which Atheists generally are), meaning that even in this context we realize that morality would require some circular reasoning to justify itself.

I find it particularly strange when an theist makes bold claims about what they have no idea about.

FYI. Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Any other attribute assigned to atheism is nothing more than ignorance and bigotry.

Morality itself is a human trait, also enjoyed by some animals. To steal and bastardise morality, keep it for yorself while denying the trait is nothing more than a sad rallying cry for solidarity to the "whatever" cause and again is accepted through ignorance.

I am atheist and based solely on your post suggest i am a far more moral person than the religionist who is deliberately ignorant of a group of people they hate and tries to dehumanise that group because it more comfortable.

 

[ChristineM]

It's funny to see someone post stuff like the OP, and then suddenly twig that they're talking about me.

Or more precisely, think they aew talking about you.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

I find it particularly strange when an theist makes bold claims about what they have no idea about.

FYI. Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Any other attribute assigned to atheism is nothing more than ignorance and bigotry.

Morality itself is a human trait, also enjoyed by some animals. To steal and bastardise morality, keep it for yorself while denying the trait is nothing more than a sad rallying cry for solidarity to the "whatever" cause and again is accepted through ignorance.

I am atheist and based solely on your post suggest i am a far more moral person than the religionist who is deliberately ignorant of a group of people they hate and tries to dehumanise that group because it more comfortable.

Morality (which is rooted in there being some kind of objective tangibility, of which such a perception originates from the idea of divine Law) is a religious value assigned to behavior traits and patterns. In a general Atheist view, such conceptions are bronze age, yet many Atheists (such as yourself) still choose to hold onto that bronze age conceptualization while rejecting God. (which again, is not a defense of God).

It's funny that in your emotional post, you think that I am glorifying morality for myself, when in reality I am condemning morality for being a construct unrelated to the real-world things that it is used to describe (which is behavior traits and patterns related to actions occurring between two or more conscious beings).

Your appeal to "some animals", affirms part of what I said. And their behavior traits and patterns quite often are very antithetical to their own.

 

[McBell]

Morality (which is rooted in there being some kind of objective tangibility, of which such a perception originates from the idea of divine Law) is a religious value assigned to behavior traits and patterns.

Ah, so it is your claim that morality did not exist before belief in god?

Morality is not objective by any stretch of the imagination and is only claimed to be objective by those who wish for some sort of high ground.

Morality only has to do with religion when people complicate morality with religion.

That you try so hard to marry the two is most revealing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find it particularly strange when an theist makes bold claims about what they have no idea about.

FYI. Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Any other attribute assigned to atheism is nothing more than ignorance and bigotry.

Morality itself is a human trait, also enjoyed by some animals. To steal and bastardise morality, keep it for yorself while denying the trait is nothing more than a sad rallying cry for solidarity to the "whatever" cause and again is accepted through ignorance.

I am atheist and based solely on your post suggest i am a far more moral person than the religionist who is deliberately ignorant of a group of people they hate and tries to dehumanise that group because it more comfortable.

Well, yes. You are right about atheists.

Now for some believers in objective reality and some versions of natural, that is different.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

...
For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knowable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[49] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[54] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[55]
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[49]
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[49]
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[49] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[56]

...

Now if for naturalism as all of the word/universe/reality is natural, it differs on how some naturalists versus others explain the following exchange:
A naturalist: The world is natural.
Me: No!
How you explain my ability to say no says something about which version of natural you use. And yes, there are at least 2 definitions. A common everyday folk definition and a scientific one.
So we are back at our old game:
Google: Natural definition versus natural definition science.
And don't just click the first link.

So ChristineM, what now? I can find 2 different definitions of natural and they contradict each other. What now?

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Ah, so it is your claim that morality did not exist before belief in god?

No, I am saying that Morality is a prejudice of an innately religious nature which only makes sense and only has, in the context of a metaphysical system where there are eternal values and signs placed on actions.

Outside of that context, it is a farce and a conceit to continue speaking of things in this religious manner instead of in the psychological, sociological, anthropological level that actually exists on, which is a ruling of actions between two parties or more which are deemed acceptable or unacceptable within the wider social and cultural context that it inadvertently self-authorizes according to it's own social and cultural self-perception related to it's collective social organism, which entails it's own telos.

What I am distinguishing is what the concept of "Morality" as it is perceived (which is of an innately religious nature, even in the way that most dishonest Atheists still treat it), from the way that it actually functions. And very obviously, it functions as a function to itself. It is innately a tool or method of which social organisms sustain themselves according to their telos.
This requires having collective transgressions which are the walls to which the collective comfort zone of the society/culture operates and expands itself within, again with it's aim towards it's telos. These transgressions are illegal for it's citizens but legal for it's military, etc.
This is the case in all societies/cultures and in religion itself.

 

[ChristineM]

Morality (which is rooted in there being some kind of objective tangibility, of which such a perception originates from the idea of divine Law) is a religious value assigned to behavior traits and patterns. In a general Atheist view, such conceptions are bronze age, yet many Atheists (such as yourself) still choose to hold onto that bronze age conceptualization while rejecting God. (which again, is not a defense of God).

It's funny that in your emotional post, you think that I am glorifying morality for myself, when in reality I am condemning morality for being a construct unrelated to the real-world things that it is used to describe (which is behavior traits and patterns related to actions occurring between two or more conscious beings).

Your appeal to "some animals", affirms part of what I said. And their behavior traits and patterns quite often are very antithetical to their own.

Bullpoop

Morality is a human trait. Without it civilisation could not have developed to invent your god and religion.

It is also enjoyed by some animal's that show social behaviour, how many times does a meercat go to church?

The bronze age idea is god, atheism tends, but not always, consider evidence to be more valid than bronze age beliefs.

Sheesh the hatred you show is palpably in you specious claims

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bullpoop

Morality is a human trait. Without it civilisation could not have developed to invent your god and religion.

It is also enjoyed by some animal's that show social behaviour, how many times does a meercat go to church?

The bronze age idea is god, atheism tends, but not always, consider evidence to be more valid than bronze age beliefs.

Sheesh the hatred you show is palpably in you specious claims

Are you aware that Bronze Age brains are the same as modern brains? The psychology behind religion has nothing to do with religion as such and some non-religious humans share the same psychology as some religious humans.

You are assuming that all modern is better because it is modern. Some of the ideas of the West predate Christianity and are not religious, yet they are as much culture as religion is culture and even you are affected by that.
You question religion. Okay, I can also do that. Can you question your own nature and nurture? Or if you like culture?

That is where it always ends. Can you be as skeptical of other humans beliefs as you are of your own?
Can you question what evidence is and understand that there is not just one kind of evidence/proof/truth and what not? Your understanding of that is as cultural as any other human.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's funny to see someone post stuff like the OP, and then suddenly twig that they're talking about me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, I am saying that Morality is a prejudice of an innately religious nature which only makes sense and only has, in the context of a metaphysical system where there are eternal values and signs placed on actions.

Outside of that context, it is a farce and a conceit to continue speaking of things in this religious manner instead of in the psychological, sociological, anthropological level that actually exists on, which is a ruling of actions between two parties or more which are deemed acceptable or unacceptable within the wider social and cultural context that it inadvertently self-authorizes according to it's own social and cultural self-perception related to it's collective social organism, which entails it's own telos.

What I am distinguishing is what the concept of "Morality" as it is perceived (which is of an innately religious nature, even in the way that most dishonest Atheists still treat it), from the way that it actually functions. And very obviously, it functions as a function to itself. It is innately a tool or method of which social organisms sustain themselves according to their telos.
This requires having collective transgressions which are the walls to which the collective comfort zone of the society/culture operates and expands itself within, again with it's aim towards it's telos. These transgressions are illegal for it's citizens but legal for it's military, etc.
This is the case in all societies/cultures and in religion itself.

So you don't see morality of any kind existing in non-human life? And if you were to examine such and found that it were so - many species being quite social and having penalties for 'bad' behaviour, for example - then how would you explain this? Think objective morality is involved here - rather than having evolved, and which is the likeliest explanation for our morality?

 

[ecco]

Categories are:
...
Matter comes from the verb Matter. What matters is matter.

The title of your OP screams...

Are atheists nihilists? Do they hate Little Prince?

Yet you did nothing to further the concept posed in the title.

So, what's your point?

 

[Audie]

I find it particularly strange when an theist makes bold claims about what they have no idea about.

FYI. Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Any other attribute assigned to atheism is nothing more than ignorance and bigotry.

Morality itself is a human trait, also enjoyed by some animals. To steal and bastardise morality, keep it for yorself while denying the trait is nothing more than a sad rallying cry for solidarity to the "whatever" cause and again is accepted through ignorance.

I am atheist and based solely on your post suggest i am a far more moral person than the religionist who is deliberately ignorant of a group of people they hate and tries to dehumanise that group because it more comfortable.

Some of these anti-atheist bigots make it real easy to understand how it happens
that like mknded people havd often banded together to try to kill all the atheists,
betimes in the most gruesomely holy means theit twisted minds can devise.

 

[Audie]

The title of your OP screams...

Are atheists nihilists? Do they hate Little Prince?

Yet you did nothing to further the concept posed in the title.

So, what's your point?

Thevpoint? To point out where the hate actually is

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some of these anti-atheist bigots make it real easy to understand how it happens
that like mknded people havd often banded together to try to kill all the atheists,
betimes in the most gruesomely holy means theit twisted minds can devise.

Yeah, some religious people are like that. So what? That is natural, real and how reality works! What is the problem?

 

[ChristineM]

Some of these anti-atheist bigots make it real easy to understand how it happens
that like mknded people havd often banded together to try to kill all the atheists,
betimes in the most gruesomely holy means theit twisted minds can devise.

Absolutely, during my life i have been seriously mentality and/or physically attacked 4 times, each time by a loving christian. Its very sad that their bible can do to some of them

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely, during my life i have been seriously mentality and/or physically attacked 4 times, each time by a loving christian. Its very sad that their bible can do to some of them

Yes, and I have mean mistreated by secular humanists. Poor you and poor me. Can we move on! You are not all of humanity and those humans were not all of humanity. Nor am I all of humanity.
Do you seriously what to do this for all of humanity based on what happened to you? Or me?