Atheism=Nihlism=unTruth

[AlexanderG]

Atheists are Nihilists, and if so, they are not true. Nihilism is defined by F. Nietzsche as the phrase "Truth does not exist, because God is dead." Nihilism is wrong because it denies the truth. And if this is so, then God has been proved quite scientifically. So?

What a strange sequence of statements. Did you get this from an apologist who wrote a book 30 years ago or something?

I'm an atheist, and I'm not a nihilist. I also believe that truth exists. It is a property of statements that comport with reality. Whatever accurately describes reality is true to the extent that it does so.

I have no idea where your last comment came from about proving god, and I don't see how it relates to whether or not some third party person denies that truth exists? Science doesn't prove anything, for one. Also, if you want to indicate that your claim is correct, you need to give good evidence that specifically supports that claim, instead of arguing that someone with some other claim is wrong.

 

[Link]

I don't find existentialism as a rational way to live because we can't make up a human's value we rather recognize it. But if God wasn't real, existentialism was closest thing to handle a no value/meaningless, but it's severely irrational for many reasons aside from what I mentioned.

Existentialist by definition are in agreement that without God, there is no objective value to human life.

Most people haven't reflected over this issue either way.

 

[viole]

Atheists are Nihilists, and if so, they are not true. Nihilism is defined by F. Nietzsche as the phrase "Truth does not exist, because God is dead." Nihilism is wrong because it denies the truth. And if this is so, then God has been proved quite scientifically. So?

You are not even wrong.

ciao

- viole

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't find existentialism as a rational way to live because we can't make up a human's value we rather recognize it. But if God wasn't real, existentialism was closest thing to handle a no value/meaningless, but it's severely irrational for many reasons aside from what I mentioned.

Existentialist by definition are in agreement that without God, there is no objective value to human life.

Most people haven't reflected over this issue either way.

I think you are missing out the bit about our supplying value, even if subjective. Not all art, music, architecture and all the rest is inspired by religious belief, besides our interactions with other humans and non-human life, and which for many gives them great value. Would you deny all non-human life any value, since it is unlikely that they think for one second about God?

 

[firedragon]

Why does it matter to you what atheists are?

What is your endgame in your campaign to smear atheism?

Do you ask similar "why do you care" questions from everyone? How about smear campaigns of all kinds of things? End games of agendas?

Im curious really.

 

[Link]

I think you are missing out the bit about our supplying value, even if subjective. Not all art, music, architecture and all the rest is inspired by religious belief, besides our interactions with other humans and non-human life, and which for many gives them great vale. Would you deny all non-human life any value, since it is unlikely that they think for one second about God?

No I understand what they mean, I just find it irrational, because I believe in recognition of value and appreciating people for who they truly are and impossibility to just making it what we wish.

There's many problems in making up value for humans, subjectivity is not necessarily arbitrary but can include arbitrariness and would be a mix of truth (like enjoyment can be perceived) and that (how meaningful we attach to enjoyment), in case, of it, and I believe it's way too arbitrary to have meaning.

 

[Link]

Also there is questions, do we value enjoyment and that see value in humans through that, or should we value enjoyment because of our value of humans and want them to enjoy? The latter only is possible in objective type value while the former is quite arbitrary and can even be said to reduce us to almost like animals.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No I understand what they mean, I just find it irrational, because I believe in recognition of value and appreciating people for who they truly are and impossibility to just making it what we wish.

There's many problems in making up value for humans, subjectivity is not necessarily arbitrary but can include arbitrariness and would be a mix of truth (like enjoyment can be perceived) and that (how meaningful we attach to enjoyment), in case, of it, and I believe it's way too arbitrary to have meaning.

Well all I can say is - life is messy.

 

[Link]

Well all I can say is - life is messy.

Doesn't have to be.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Doesn't have to be.

Well we surely are a mix of animal and something more evolved, so how could we be otherwise - as to being messy. I think this is where I have so much disagreement with religions - tending to blame our animal nature (which we can't escape from but just have to deal with) as to behaviour, desires, and such, with things like sin and all the rest, when we should just be more realistic.

 

[stvdv]

they are not true

Atheism=Nihlism=unTruth

Indeed "(Atheism=Nihlism)" = unTruth

 

[firedragon]

Atheists are Nihilists, and if so, they are not true. Nihilism is defined by F. Nietzsche as the phrase "Truth does not exist, because God is dead." Nihilism is wrong because it denies the truth. And if this is so, then God has been proved quite scientifically. So?

Atheists are not necessarily Nihilists. Atheists are not necessarily even Atheist. Some of them are theists. Some of them believe in astrology. Some of them believe in spirituality. They have love, care, and bonds just like theists. Even those who claim to be Nihilists may not be Nihilists. Research proves that 18% of the atheists are in fact theists of some sort. Any research you can quote to prove that they are Nihilists?

Anyway, this phrase of Nietzsche you quoted appears three or four times in his book. Which one are you referring to? None of them read that way. So I think, this is a misquotation. So please do clarify if you could, from which page, whats the full quotation.

Thanks in advance.

 

[SigurdReginson]

No I understand what they mean, I just find it irrational, because I believe in recognition of value and appreciating people for who they truly are and impossibility to just making it what we wish.

There's many problems in making up value for humans, subjectivity is not necessarily arbitrary but can include arbitrariness and would be a mix of truth (like enjoyment can be perceived) and that (how meaningful we attach to enjoyment), in case, of it, and I believe it's way too arbitrary to have meaning.

I find your thought process confusing. Why should we assume that there is one unified objective value associated with something like human beings - especially since the concept of human value can only be observed in the real world in a subjective context?

If human value was objective, things like slavery and rape wouldn't exist, it seems to me. People couldn't be devalued because their value would transcend subjective understanding and would be a force of nature they would have no choice but to be subject to - just like inertia, gravity, or any other objective force of nature.

"Objective value" is a term that really can't mean anything useful, it seems.

 

[AlexanderG]

Atheists are not necessarily even Atheist. Research proves that 18% of the atheists are in fact theists of some sort.

Huh? Citation please. How are you even defining theist and atheist? Are there people who believe gods exist but who also identify as atheists? I would find this very odd.

 

[stvdv]

Atheists are Nihilists, and if so, they are not true. Nihilism is defined by F. Nietzsche as the phrase "Truth does not exist, because God is dead." Nihilism is wrong because it denies the truth. And if this is so, then God has been proved quite scientifically. So?

Atheism = Lack of believe in "God" (I am not sure which definition of God they use)

So, the definition of Atheism does not even speak about Truth, just about "God"

And the definition of F. Nietzsche you give proves nothing; just his opinion

 

[AlexanderG]

No I understand what they mean, I just find it irrational, because I believe in recognition of value and appreciating people for who they truly are and impossibility to just making it what we wish.

There's many problems in making up value for humans, subjectivity is not necessarily arbitrary but can include arbitrariness and would be a mix of truth (like enjoyment can be perceived) and that (how meaningful we attach to enjoyment), in case, of it, and I believe it's way too arbitrary to have meaning.

I don't really see your point. To me, all gods seem "made up," "what we wish," and the desires and properties of these various gods seem entirely subjective and arbitrary. Theism doesn't solve this problem. You could define your particular god as having the property of granting humans objective value, but I could in turn define my personal opinions as giving humans objective value, or maybe its a stone that does it, or a potted plant, or an 11-dimensional slug creature outside of time and space. Definitions are imaginary concepts in our brains; they alone are not evidence of anything in reality external to our thoughts.

It also seems a bit narrow-minded to assume that a god (presumably only your god) is the only possible source of objective value. There could be a mindless, natural property of the universe that gives humans objective value. There is no logical contradiction or impossibility in this idea. There could be a being who made an objective value machine that is currently operating to give us objective value, but the being who made it has long since died. There are an infinite number of possibilities along these lines. All of them, including your god, currently have exactly the same evidence to support their existence, namely none at all.

People and things have value because we value them. How's that for a definition?

 

[stvdv]

Huh? Citation please

IF @firedragon makes such a claim, you can be sure it is true
Took me ca. 2 sec. to check; less than asking @firedragon for citation
(1 sec to select his line, 1 sec to rightclick+SearchGoogle + 1 msec for Google to find it)

Are there people who believe gods exist but who also identify as atheists? I would find this very odd.

Many people act 'odd', so I am not surprised

 

[Justanatheist]

Atheists are Nihilists, and if so, they are not true. Nihilism is defined by F. Nietzsche as the phrase "Truth does not exist, because God is dead." Nihilism is wrong because it denies the truth. And if this is so, then God has been proved quite scientifically. So?

So you have converted me I am no longer an atheist............................................................................................................right now whats the best offer I can get for my immortal soul?

Terms and conditions apply.

 

[AlexanderG]

IF @firedragon makes such a claim, you can be sure it is true
Took me ca. 2 sec. to check; less than asking @firedragon for citation
(1 sec to select his line, 1 sec to rightclick+SearchGoogle + 1 msec for Google to find it)


Many people act 'odd', so I am not surprised

Ah, I found it. It says 18% of atheists believe in a "higher power." So @firedragon was in fact mistaken. From the Wikipedia article on the 12-Step program which uses the higher power language, "In current twelve-step program usage, a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, science, and Buddha."

That's nice. 18% of atheists can go ahead and believe in higher powers like existential freedom, science, nature, etc. That actually still makes them atheists.

Can you see the differences in our approaches here? One used critical thinking, investigation, and questioning, and the other used confirmation bias.

 

[Justanatheist]

Ah, I found it. It says 18% of atheists believe in a "higher power." So @firedragon was in fact mistaken. From the Wikipedia article on the 12-Step program which uses the higher power language, "In current twelve-step program usage, a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, science, and Buddha."

That's nice. 18% of atheists can go ahead and believe in higher powers like existential freedom, science, nature, etc. That actually still makes them atheists.

Yes one of my best friends just got out of 3 months of rehab, she is an ex JW and now has no belief in gods, she choose a tree for her higher power which her mentor described as her choosing nature. Quite interesting stuff the twelve-step programme.