Activism Explained: Why We Do What We Do

Cerberus it's quite simple and if you understood philosophy you'd clearly see I've been extremely consistent on pushing for arguments for Nihilism. Also please use philosophical dictionary when reciting a philosophical topic, otherwise it just shows that you just another layman.

The whole point is everything is meaningless, even your failed corrections.

The MO for the American Atheists = meaningless

Everything in life = Meaningless

I've clearly refuted everything this village atheist has thrown at me and it is just blatantly obvious that you have no idea what we are actually discussing, and you just want to be there for your friend. (which is meaningless as well)

It's ok, I understand coming from your position of a layman, what I'm saying can easily be misrepresented. I am trying to do the best I can with all these misunderstandings coming from the "naturalist" end.

Without God, there is no meaning; life has absolutely no meaning...there is no ultimate purpose...If you don't have ultimate purpose, all these tiny little purposes [in your life] are nothing else but ways to tranquilize your boredom

If there truly were no objective meaning or purpose or morality beyond the subjective act then one cannot condemn a war as being objectively unjust. One also cannot take up a left-wing political position as a morally superior vision of creating some better social state for all. One can think life has no objective meaning but one has to live as if there were.

Well I see it as if naturalism is true, human beings would still be a distinct organism possessed with reflective and objectivizing intelligence. Duvh properties could still be said to be ethically significant in the sense that they are necessary conditions of being an agent and, a fortiori, of being a moral agent. But I see no reason to think, without begging the question, that humans are therefore objectively morally valuable or have any moral obligation, which would include survival or creating a best civilization, I mean what exactly would a best local civilization look like?

All and all how does it follow from Homo Sapiens' reflective and objectivizing intelligence that what is conducive to human flourishing is morally good?

First off I see that an irreconcilable conflict between any moral demand that might be upon us (the objectivity of which is moot) and the demands of one's well-being and there is no way to decide rationally which to follow. I agree with the Overriding Reasons Thesis (namely, that moral value always trumps prudential value) is not true, for one may have extremely strong prudential reasons for not acting morally and there seems to be no common scale in which to weigh against prudential considerations.

I'll also argue that contemporary evolutionary psychology teaches that our basic evaluative judgments have evolved from precursors in lower primates. Evolution, however, is unconcerned with truth per se; it merely selects adaptive behaviour. As I pointed out, if God does not exist then the process evolution took is the result of numerous chance contingencies. There are a huge number of different ways evolution could have occurred.

Each different way offers the possibility that radically different evaluative judgments of humans or any other moral agents could have emerged. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that the evaluative judgments we actually ended up making, given how the evolution did occur, just happened to be objectively true; this entails that all possible judgments that could have been made just happened to be false.

So in conclusion: The difference is not mere semantics at all. To say that is to completely miscomprehend a huge element of moral philosophy. The subjectivist claims that the terms have personal meaning but the nihilist argues that they cannot even have a personal meaning. Clearly they are not one and the same view shrouded in obtuse terminology. All professional philosophers accept the distinction so you have quite a job to do to argue otherwise.

But if, for you, there is no difference then you ARE, after all, a moral nihilist since you are admitting that when you say "good" it is functioning as nothing more than "like". So when you say [as you probably would, that the holocaust was "bad" what you mean is you don't like it - but with no more meaning than if you were to say you don't like pizza. And you have to accept that others might "like" what you "dislike".

For you individual judgments on the holocaust are as subjective as people's judgments on food types. They cannot have any more meaning than that. That is what is completely ridiculous about your moral stance. I refuse to accept that anyone could be so amoral that they could go to Sobibor and say"I don't like this." whilst the person standing next to them smiles and says "Actually I really like this!" No rational person could accept that and if you think you could you have alot of explaining to do.

Also please use philosophical dictionary when reciting a philosophical topic, otherwise it just shows that you just another layman.

Please use proper grammar, as it makes you seem like a layman.
Good for the goose, etc:
Accident, as used in philosophy, is an attribute which may or may not belong to a subject, without affecting its essence. The word "accident" has been employed throughout the history of philosophy with several distinct meanings.
So that changes the entire context of our 'accidental' existence.

1. Cerberus it's quite simple & if you understand philosophy you'd clearly see I've been extremely consistent on pushing for arguments for nihilism.
2. Also please use philosophical dictionary when reciting a philosophical topic, otherwise it just shows that you're just another layman.
3. The whole point everything's meaningless, even your failed corrections.

The church had labeled atheists as nihilists, which is exactly what you're doing.
Don't you know any history?
So I'm correct in what I say, nice try though.
And now I'll give the definition, once again.

Nihilism n.
1. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

So, I just want to be there for my friend?
Why yes, I do.
The same as you'd be there for your theist friends too, right?
So you're saying that coming in defence for your friends is meaningless too, right?
I'm glad we've cleared that up.

" without god, there's no meaning? "
I see you're still pushing an amoral and completely bankrupt opinion, and not philosophy in any since of the term.
How sad.

You equate the Holocaust with, pizza?
Did you ever know any Holocaust survivors?
Because I'd bet you haven't.
Don't ever show your face in my area and talk that shit, because if you do, your god isn't going to help you, I can assure you of that.

Have you always suffered from this delirium?
I'd seek help, theolegion.

Cerberus

philosphystilldoesntmatter,

You have some very wrong ideas about evolution.

Mutations are random for purposes of a general audience. In actual fact, rates of mutation are different for different genes. The mutation rate can also be affected by radiation. Further, the mutation must start from the genes in play. A mutation that would put wings on a horse will simply not happen.

Tetrapods will not evolve another set of limbs that can be used as wings. When mammals evolved wings, they had to use their arms for it, or actually, mostly just their hands. Bats ended up with very short arms and long hands that have become webbed and thus wings. When birds evolved wings, they did it a bit differently, using arms and a single finger to build their wings.

Regardless, a tetrapod does not merely sprout wings. Mutation is not that random.

That said, mutation can be said to be random from the standpoint of not being directed.

But, here is your huge mistake.

Natural selection, the process that drives evolution, is anything but random. It is non-directional. It is not directed toward larger or smarter animals. But, it is always selecting that which can survive a bit better. It does so by deleting that which can't. So, most mutations being neutral or bad fall on the scrap heap. Those few that are beneficial for survival are "chosen" by the fact that they helped the individual to survive and reproduce.

Moral behavior has been selected for in a great many social species. Monkeys and apes all display morals. Humans happen to have more complex morals. But, they did not evolve in a vacuum. And, they sure as hell didn't start with religion. Morals are not arbitrary. They are chosen slowly and evolve over time.

That's why the morals of the bible seem so awful today.

Were morals created by some god, they would be cast in stone and unchanging. That they change implies that we learn and evolve culturally over time. We gradually learn, for example, to extend the "in group" to more and more people, granting greater and greater rights to people once considered to be "others" who were unworthy of moral considerability.

This could not happen if there were an all-knowing god providing such morals.

An all-knowing god would already know the end product of morals, would lay that all out for all of us. And, we'd just stick to those morals. But, we don't. We decide that no one should be stoned to death. We decide that if others choose another day for their sabbath than we do, then maybe that's OK too. Then, later we decide that maybe it's OK to even allow people to not always take the same day off each week. Then we decide that we each get to decide for ourselves when to rest and when not to do so. Later, we may even decide that two days a week for rest is better than one.

Then, at some point, we can decide that maybe rape victims can get on with their lives without either being killed or marrying their rapists, depending on the location of the rape. Maybe we even prosecute the rapist. Maybe we set up rape centers to help the victims to get past the horrible moment in their lives.

All of these changes over time could not happen if there were an all-knowing and unchanging god guiding us. These better morals would have been handed down to Moses. In fact, such a god would have told Adam about these things. Though, of course, there was no Adam. But, it seems there may have been an Eve from whom we're all descended. So, perhaps your god could have told her the game plan from the start.

Scream nihilism all you want if it makes you happy.

But, it sure as hell does not conjure up any gods. So, if you want to argue that there actually is a god, not just that there must be one for there to be meaning in your life, find some actual evidence of your god. Once you realize that there are no gods out there, hence the complete and total lack of any evidence, then you can come back here and we'll help you grasp the very adult concept of creating meaning for yourself.

Okay, fun time's over, time to put this baby to rest.

A. The argument from complexity (i.e., the teleological argument) - if the world was a few thousand years old, you'd have a point. It's 4.54 billion years old, plenty of time for compounded simplicity to become complex.
B. The Goldilocks effect: the odds against us actually existing are a XXXXX (pick a number, any number) AGAINST us existing. Hume demolished this in the 17th CE by simply pointing out there's no point of reference for comparison.This goes for point A as well. The only yardstick we have to measure by is this world, this reality.
C. There can be no meaning or morals w/out divine guidance/intervention - there is no proof that this source exists. Outside of some poorly told a-historical fables derived from Iron Age sheep herders.
D. Reason can't emerge from non-reason. This is about the stupidest argument yet. It violates the laws of physics, because cause-and-effect stipulate that everything has a beginning & end, & all is prone to entropy.
E. The Uncaused cause - this is simply special pleading. It's an excuse - 'well, everything HAS a beginning & end, except THIS!' Aquinas was an asshole, & none too bright. This also goes to point D.
E. Paley's Watchmaker - this is the easiest to dismantle, in the least amount of time. Every 'designer' is prone to the exact same laws of physics as the 'designed'.

There are numerous tropes - they have been trotted out time & again. We've seen them all at least a hundred times just on this blog alone. They are now filed under PRATT - Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

In the meantime, Sophistry has yet to provide any solid proof outside of some complex semantic gymnastics of his 'divine source' of morality.
That the holocaust occurred, & that the clouds did NOT burst open, no giant reached forth from the split skies to protest this enormous atrocity, is not proof enough no one is up there.

The standard pat response is that 'man has free will' - but the religious violate this 'principle' time & again (note that I actually know how to use the '' properly). They force themselves into our lives, into our government, trying desperately to dictate how the 'other half' should live.
If 'man' has 'free will' - Sophistry should explain how slavery was permissible for centuries. Or why little children are regularly shot to death in the streets of Rio, because there so many, all thanks to the Holy Cee's stand on contraception.

The afterlife. It poisons everything.

Overtired this morning, another item:
Like Lewis, PM uses a false dichotomy - it's either god or man, man is flawed, ergo GOD!
Note that I only stated that our senses are unreliable. As per usual, PM fell into the rhetorical trap. Either our senses are 100% RELIABLE, or GOD!
Most absolutists ignore the granularity of natural processes, & the fact that natural selection tends to weed out the lower 10% of the spectrum. (Or whatever the % is).
I also tend to ignore when theists quote atheists, Darwin, or any other damn thing, because my many years of fighting these battles & drilling down into the context of these quotes, the theist ALWAYS mis-quotes.
Hence the saying: "Any text taken out of context is a pretext."
Pretext is all theists do.

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Why yes, this has been brought up, many, MANY times by other theist posters.
Dahmer was RAISED a fundamental christian. This is a standard pathetic excuse - 'evolution made me do it!' It's just as absurd as 'the devil made me do it!'
Dahmer is just proof that the afterlife poisons everything.

theologysureashelldoesntmatteratall,

Krystaline had you nailed from the get-go. Kris, I'm surprised you missed it.

The graceful life philosophers were all atheists, by definition. They included Epicurus and Siddhartha Gautama (the original Buddha). The very idea of a graceful life was founded upon forming a way of life that would be moral and ethical for its own right not for any god(s) who don't exist.

Having not read anything by any atheist philosophers shows that you are a theologist (maybe) but definitely not a philosopher.

This is why when I press you for reasons to think there may be any gods in the universe, you don't even respond. You don't even get as far as Nuh uh.

Were you versed in philosophy, you'd probably try some of the better philosophical arguments for the existence of god(s). All such arguments are fundamentally flawed, but some make more sense than others. You could have tried the best, the prime mover, and hoped that I wouldn't call you on its endless recursion problem. (If everything needs a creator, so does any god you dream up.) You could have tried the watchmaker argument that fails to account for imperfection in design and also fails to take into account the conditions of the early earth.

But, you didn't.

And, you sure as hell didn't try to take the bait and show any hard scientific evidence for your god. So, say what you will about atheists, but we do live in a godfree universe.

If you want to make the arguments you do about getting meaning from god, you must first show that this is a godinfested universe.

You have not even tried to do so. Why not?

I'm truly sorry for your inability to find meaning in our godfree universe. But, that doesn't change the fact that it is a godfree universe.

Theology will never teach you about evidence.

Therefore, you will never arrive at correct conclusions based on the evidence from theology. You cannot ever prove god exists from theology for the very field of study assumes in its name that there is at least one god in the universe. So, it never actually asks the question of whether there are any.

How can you ever answer a question you refuse to ask?

As I said, feel free to come back when you discover the godfree nature of our universe and we will teach you to embrace and enjoy the liberating affects of being a free adult.

BTW, please please please in your next post at least attempt, in some way, shape, manner, or form to show that you acknowledge that your own personal lack of meaning in life does not in itself conjure up the existence of any gods. For that is the argument that I see you making again and again and again.

I need god, therefore there is at least one.

Silly, no? I need $10,000,000 ... oh wait ... what's this large lump stuck between my sofa cushions? Weeeeeelaaaaaah!!