Naturalism = Nihilism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2014, 01:22 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWLvp_6wq0

William Craig(don't just shoot the messenger) sums up what I've been trying to say here!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 05:55 AM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2014 06:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
It's a huge pile of crap. WLC's "absolute" moral values are no more absolute "received" values (from an external *deity*) than ANY OTHER set of values which humans hold, and INTERPRET according to what they have learned to value. It's a FALSE dichotomy. All religious systems, (including the major religions) imported their morality from their cultures, and TEACH them to their children, argue about them, and eventually write them into their books. Thus Craig and all religious fanatics who say they get their morals from an *external* (absolute) source have simply not followed the bouncing ball back to the beginning, (and actually know very little history). It's a distinction without a difference. Religious values, (which claim the gods as their source) are no more "absolute" than ANY other human moral system. There is no source for morality for humans, other than humans.

WLC is a lying dishonest SOB, (as Krauss demonstrated here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-A_SU3m5c )




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-07-2014, 06:11 AM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2014 06:14 AM by nietzsche101.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
you just keep missing the point man.....

The point of the discussion was "does naturalism=moral nihilism?"

You, me and WLC all agree with this premise; naturalism=moral nihilism ... so i'm not even to sure why we are arguing??





I want to here from someone who wants to refute this notion that "moral nihilism logically follows once we accept naturalism as true".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 06:15 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(26-07-2014 06:11 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  you just keep missing the point man.....

The point of the discussion was "does naturalism=moral nihilism?"
You, me and WLC all agree with this premise; naturalism=moral nihilism ... so i'm not even to sure why we are arguing??
I want to here from someone who wants to refute this notion "naturalism=moral nihilism".

No we don't agree on anything. You are delusional and can only HEAR (not "here") what you want to hear. There is no "notion" to refute. You have not even demonstrated your OP's premise to be true. Every atheist here, (not "hear") and any one I know HAS a set a values, and it's led to NOTHING remotely like what you say it leads to.

Go the fuck away. Your are unable to even begin to discuss your OP.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-07-2014, 06:23 AM
Re: RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(26-07-2014 06:11 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  you just keep missing the point man.....

The point of the discussion was "does naturalism=moral nihilism?"

You, me and WLC all agree with this premise; naturalism=moral nihilism ... so i'm not even to sure why we are arguing??





I want to here from someone who wants to refute this notion "naturalism=moral nihilism".

You keep adding more just brushing off People answering you're point and altering what you want.

You wanted a rational reason to act "good" in a moral nihilist world, but now you want someone to refute moral nihilism... Why and how? There are objective moral believing atheists who say even without a higher authority there can be a quantitative morality.. But its once again a system of lessening suffering, which you don't seem to take as valuable.

At times you seem like you simply want a way to deal with this issue, but any response you get is you arguing it without expounding on your rationale to HOW you come to your premises. You've yet to explain any logical progression of how something is more or less rational, because not everyone agrees with the assertions you make in that regard.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
26-07-2014, 06:37 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(25-07-2014 05:57 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  "What position would you find to not be a joke?"

If secular humanism will admit that it has its own faith, then it's no longer a joke!

And the two or three times I've told you it's arbitrary don't count, why?


(25-07-2014 06:29 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  (Under Naturalism) Empathy is irrational because it compels us to sacrifice, just so we can "keep our conscience happy"....our conscience has no solid foundation, so why pretend like it does?

Yes and no. It provides incentive in the form of happy drugs. Your brain rewards you for certain behaviors.

Also, it's not irrational. You're ignoring the part of a long term gain in exchange for a short term loss. Cooperation isn't just some cost you pay when you could otherwise be stealing; it offers substantial benefits... which you're ignoring when deciding whether or not you should cooperate.


(25-07-2014 08:47 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  The aim of the thread, was not a discussion on how "morality" evolved (descriptive - what "is" - the hard facts of nature)....

I'm asking if there is a True(not arbitrary, not a personal opinion, not a social construct) difference between, what we call right/wrong? (prescriptive - what we "ought" to do)

It's arbitrary. I've said this numerous times. I've also said that despite this,
  • it comes with substantial benefits, and
  • the vast majority of us seem to be fine adhering to it, anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
26-07-2014, 06:45 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
@Bucky Ball
"There is no source for morality for humans, other than humans." - This is, what I'm refering to as "moral nihilism"!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... So yes! we do agree with the premise; naturalism=moral nihilism!!!!!!!!!!!!

you just want to play word games!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense"












@ClydeLee
"There are objective moral believing atheists who say even without a higher authority there can be a quantitative morality.. But its once again a system of lessening suffering, which you don't seem to take as valuable."

That's Because, it's not real system of morality at all!
you just redefine the word "morality" to mean "being nice to others for selfish reasons".......

it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!

- and so really this notion of morality, is actually just egoism(wearing the mask of kindness)!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
@ RobbyPants
"It's arbitrary. I've said this numerous times. I've also said that despite this,
it comes with substantial benefits, and
the vast majority of us seem to be fine adhering to it, anyway."

it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



- why will no one address this point?

this is so frustrating, everyone just keeps saying "morality is arbitrary, but it's in your own self interest to follow it!"


BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN IT IS NOT!?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(25-07-2014 09:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-07-2014 09:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Only humans do that. You are mixing levels of explanation.

If we're talking about evolution, let's talk evolution - not human culture.
Humans are the only creatures that have stepped outside of the strictures of evolution.

What difference does it make which species does it ? Many other species have evolved empathy, and "battle' for their groups.

But they don't - they battle for close relatives, the ones who share their genes. There is no such thing as group selection.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 07:10 AM
Re: RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(26-07-2014 06:57 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  @ RobbyPants
"It's arbitrary. I've said this numerous times. I've also said that despite this,
it comes with substantial benefits, and
the vast majority of us seem to be fine adhering to it, anyway."

it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



it falls apart as soon as it is no longer in ones self interest to be nice to others!



- why will no one address this point?

this is so frustrating, everyone just keeps saying "morality is arbitrary, but it's in your own self interest to follow it!"


BUT WHAT ABOUT WHEN IT IS NOT!?

Because you're making leaps in logic without explaining your rationale... Which I've told you 3 times now.

And the answer is so fucking what!? That doesn't matter. It's not the case when other people contently exist but will when the last two men stand alone over the last piece of food. It doesn't change anything these days because long term benefits DO exist in altruism that do make it a "less suffering" choice to do "good"

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: