Polsky215 Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Is atheism inherently nihilistic? Without God can there be a morality? Please post sources if you used any. Im in debate and God is a "sin" to bring up in any round. So my plan next year is to prove that all the discussion about morality is ridiculous from an atheistic or at least agnostic perspective. Morality needs God... only i need some help explaining why.
ThePenciledOne Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 I would say no. Don't have time for a larger explanation than that at the moment.
ParadiseFound Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 I'm an atheist. I don't believe that life has any real meaning or purpose and I don't believe in objective morality; I just try to live my life by The Golden Rule. I guess that makes me a nihilist. This may sound strange, but I personally find that knowing my life is completely inconsequential and that nothing anyone on this whole planet does, has ever done or will ever do actually matters really uplifting and comforting.
stevil Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 I think you need to define morality before we can answer whether Atheists ascribe to morality. From an Atheist's perspective there is no objective morality. From my perspective I don't like the terms moral or immoral because to me it implies an objective morality standard. But don't confuse this to mean that Atheists do not strive to be good people. With regards to nihilism, I think this comes in many different flavours, and I would not want to come to assumptions as to what a person might mean by this so I think this needs definition too, for the purposes of this thread.
Mr.Cat Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 No, atheism does not imply nihilism. In fact, most atheists/agnostics I know are [b]not[/b] nihilists. "[i]Divine Command[/i]" in my personal opinion is a poor, if not faulty, ethical model.
stevil Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Here's a pretty good article from an ex-theist. [url="http://thehiberniatimes.com/2011/06/03/atheism-is-the-true-embrace-of-reality/"]Atheism Is the True Embrace of Reality - By Paula Kirby[/url] [quote] Few atheists would be so bold as to declare the existence of any god at all utterly impossible. Atheism is, quite simply, the position that it is absurd to believe in, much less worship, a deity for which no valid evidence has been presented. Atheism is not a faith: on the contrary, it is the refusal to accept claims on faith [/quote] [quote] And atheists care about reality: not what it might be comforting to believe, or what has traditionally been believed, or what we have been instructed to believe. And this focus on reality, far from diminishing our experience of life, as so many religious people imagine, actually makes our lives all the richer: once you have faced up to the reality that there is no evidence to suggest there is another life after this one, it becomes all the more important to live this finite life to the full, learning and growing, and caring for others, because this is their only life, too, and there is no reason to believe there will be heavenly compensation for their earthly sufferings.An atheist life, well lived, leads to the only kind of afterlife there is any evidence for whatsoever: the immortality of living on in the fond memories of those who loved us. [/quote]
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 nihilism usually implies not giving a sh*t about anything. i dont think one could concliude that atheists are all about that. it's actuially unheard of to assume they are nihilists. ive heard a lot about how it takes faith to be an atheist etc, but to say they're nihilists is unfair and rare, and out field.
Polsky215 Posted June 19, 2011 Author Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) Stevil, thank you for your response, but keep in mind that Catholic doctrine does not preach belief in the EXISTENCE of God on faith. "Faith" in catholic teaching is not used in the sense of "i believe it" but rather "i believe you." I think this is a very commonly misunderstood fact. We should not believe in God for no reason because there are many gods to choose from. For me, miracles and the various arguments (not the ontological argument) suggested through the ages are proof of God. Edited June 19, 2011 by Polsky215
Mr.Cat Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1308440680' post='2255753']nihilism usually implies not giving a sh*t about anything. i dont think one could concliude that atheists are all about that. it's actuially unheard of to assume they are nihilists. ive heard a lot about how it takes faith to be an atheist etc, but to say they're nihilists is unfair and rare, and out field.[/quote]Nihilism has extremes, but people who don't care can be better described as amoral, in my humble personal opinion.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 I've always tended to hypothesize that the logical conclusion of atheism is amoral nihilism, but Sean disagrees with me, so I'm probably wrong.
Laudate_Dominum Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308448813' post='2255814'] I've always tended to hypothesize that the logical conclusion of atheism is amoral nihilism, but Sean disagrees with me, so I'm probably wrong. [/quote] I wouldn't say that I disagree you really. It's just that without more information the term atheism is just a negative to me. I'm hesitant to judge all possible atheistic philosophies in one stroke.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1308487151' post='2255913'] I wouldn't say that I disagree you really. It's just that without more information the term atheism is just a negative to me. I'm hesitant to judge all possible atheistic philosophies in one stroke. [/quote] Yeah, I don't think I'm really considering the broadest possible meaning of atheism when I say that. However, I've always leaned towards the idea that without believing in some kind of God, any ethical theories besides relativism and hedonism and nihilism are simply inconsistent... based on half-baked concepts that don't really make sense outside of their theistic concepts. You know what I mean; you've heard the same arguments before. What sorts of atheism would you be thinking about that might logically allow a non-nihilistic mentality?
Mr.Cat Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 I wonder why more atheists are not nihilists, in any sense, if these religiously motivated assertions are true. In fact, to date, I have never met a nihilist atheist. I suppose all these atheists are just too dumb... lol, right.
stevil Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308501066' post='2255953'] based on half-baked concepts that don't really make sense outside of their theistic concepts[/quote] That's actually quite insulting. Would you call the golden rule a half baked concept? How does the golden rule stack up beside the adherence to not having female preists because, through observing tradition, you don't think god wants female preists?
Nihil Obstat Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308555854' post='2256272'] That's actually quite insulting. Would you call the golden rule a half baked concept? How does the golden rule stack up beside the adherence to not having female preists because, through observing tradition, you don't think god wants female preists? [/quote] Didn't mean to insult you. I'm talking about my experience. No I wouldn't call the golden rule a half-baked concept, although if it were divorced from theistic tradition I don't think it would have a lot of logical consistency outside of utilitarianism.
stevil Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308556009' post='2256274'] Didn't mean to insult you. I'm talking about my experience. No I wouldn't call the golden rule a half-baked concept, although if it were divorced from theistic tradition I don't think it would have a lot of logical consistency outside of utilitarianism. [/quote] The golden rule, a humanistic outlook and adherence to the governing laws tends to keep people including Atheists on the straight and narrow. Going by an American report based on religious affilliation, Atheists are under represented in comparison to percentage of population in prisons with respect to their percentage of population outside of prison. We tend to be quite law abiding. The times we disagree with theists tend to be when we side with equal rights (Gay marriage, Women in power positions), or giving people the right to choose an end to their own suffering (Euthanasia), or offering respect towards people who choose to love someone of the same gender, or when we are pro education (sex ed), or when we look to be inclusive of all religions and non religions. I can't know who the people are that have given you your perspective of Atheists in general, but I think generally we are pretty decent people and I think that secular law (e.g. common law) has progressed over many years of many people around the world discussing issues and confilct and how it applies to real world situations. For the most part I feel that theists and atheists agree on "morals", but there are some that we disagree on. I often think there is too much focus on the differences. Edited June 20, 2011 by stevil
Guest fullerej Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308558922' post='2256276'] Going by an American report based on religious affilliation, Atheists are under represented in comparison to percentage of population in prisons with respect to their percentage of population outside of prison. We tend to be quite law abiding. [/quote] I wonder if this is a religious/moral reason, or more of a socioeconomic reason. Atheists are also under represented in the poorer socioeconomic levels as well. Just a thought.
Socrates Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 [img]http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g470/GregoryIRice/nihilists.jpg[/img] Vee believe in nuzzink, Lebowski, NUZZINK! [img]http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g470/GregoryIRice/NIhilists2.jpg[/img] [img]http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g470/GregoryIRice/nihilism.jpg[/img]
Polsky215 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Posted June 20, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308555854' post='2256272']<br />That's actually quite insulting.<br /><br />Would you call the golden rule a half baked concept? <br /><br />How does the golden rule stack up beside the adherence to not having female preists because, through observing tradition, you don't think god wants female preists?<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br /> Yes im quoting myself but i need to fix a mistake when i see it. Here is the response to those who call the women priest question sexist. [quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1308424313' post='2255661']<br />The answer is very simple. No where in the bible are there women priests. As Catholics (and as Christians), our religion is believed to be from God, not from humans. Therefore, our only means of knowing what is morally right and wrong is from the bible and revelation. Since no divine revelation has proclaimed, "Thou shalt ordain women," lets address what the scripture says. No where in scripture are women priests ordained. Women in the new (and the old though possibly less obviously) are treated in high esteem. Jesus treats women with great respect and spends large amounts of time with them. He never scolds women because they just so happen to never be wrong. However, Jesus is constantly having to repremand and correct the silly men who he travels with who just dont seem to understand or be willing to receive his message like the women. On top of this the most important saint and queen of heaven is mary, a woman. Mary is the greatest human to ever live asside from Jesus who was God. Ironically other Christian faiths have removed mary from her position of importance as set up by the Catholic Church. To claim that the church is sexist is ridiculous. <br /><br />But why not women priests, if women can do the job as good as men and are even held in such high esteem? The answer primarily comes from the fact that Jesus, when he established the priesthood at the last supper saying, "do this in memory of me,", purposefully had no women present. Jesus had no problem breaking away from cultural norms (ex: the sabbath, eating with women on other occasions, talking with foreign women and prostitutes) so any argument saying that he was held back from ordaining women by cultural factors is false. He was God; He did what he wanted to do! On top of that if there was one person to ever deserve being a priest (if being a priest were about what one deserves or their capability at the "job") Mary would be that person. Jesus never ordained his so highly esteemed mother. Now we see that Jesus and all of scripture have made it very clear that women are not to be priests, but what is the possible logical reasoning of God?<br /><br />The answer is symbolism that has an important role in every sacrament. God begot humans out of his love. Creation was receptive of this begetting. In marriage man begets (though not totally in the same way) children out of himself, his own seed, and the woman is receptive of this. The priesthood (masculine) is a marriage with the church (feminine). The priest acts as a man in marriage begetting the spiritual seeds of grace from God to the receptive church. This is the role of the priest and that is why it is reserved for men reguardless of how much better women might be at the "job." <br /><br />For further explanation read: "The priveledge of being a woman" by alice von hildebrandt and "Why matter matters" by David Lang<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now