Atheism equals Nihilism

[Michael]

Atheism = Nihilism

Nihilism = really bad

Therefore, atheism = really bad.

Any objections?

[Donkey]

Donkey = Atheist

Donkey =/= nihilist

ergo

Atheism =/= nihilism

[Michael]

Donkey = Atheist

Donkey =/= nihilist

ergo

Atheism =/= nihilism

What if Donkey = subjectively confused?

[Donkey]

What if Donkey = subjectively confused?
Not entirely out of the question.

[Michael]

Not entirely out of the question.

The point is, all we have to go on here is Donkey's own subjective and biased assement of the matter that cannot be verified or confirmed in any way.

That's not sufficient in my books. ;)

[Donkey]

The point is, all we have to go on here is Donkey's own subjective and biased assement of the matter that cannot be verified or confirmed in any way.

That's not sufficient in my books. ;)
Isn't nihilism sort of inherently absolutist?

[Michael]

Isn't nihilism sort of inherently absolutist?

Absolutist, I suppose it is. But it is more realistically described as 'negating' all absolutes.

[andrewl]

Atheism = Nihilism

Nihilism = really bad

Therefore, atheism = really bad.

Any objections?

OK, i'll play.

An atheist does not necessarily think life is meaningless.

Andrew

[partofme]

Why is nihilism bad?

[Michael]

OK, i'll play.

An atheist does not necessarily think life is meaningless.

Andrew
Maybe, maybe not.

But the bottom line is that atheism rejects any meaning of the universe by definition.

How can you say you reject meaninglessness? That sounds just like the same subjective bias that Donkey was referencing above. That is to say, you are asserting that 'atheism might be nihilistic, but you are an exception to that rule'.

If you define your meaninglessness as meaningful, that's good enough for you (that's what I mean by subjective bias).

[andrewl]

Why is nihilism bad?

True. Certainly if one is truly a nihilist defining anything as bad is nonsensical.

From a non-nihilist perspective i suppose nihilism would be "bad" because it does not espouse any sort of meaning for god, country, and destiny.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Maybe, maybe not.

But the bottom line is that atheism rejects any meaning of the universe by definition.

The standard definition of atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of god. One would have to believes that a belief in god is the only source of meaning of the universe . However, perhaps an atheist believes that life is the only source of meaning of the universe (or that there is multiple sources) - and surely an atheist believes in the existence of life?

How can you say you reject meaninglessness? That sounds just like the same subjective bias that Donkey was referencing above. That is to say, you are asserting that 'atheism might be nihilistic, but you are an exception to that rule'.I'm only saying that atheism does not exclude a life of meaning.

If you define your meaninglessness as meaningful, that's good enough for you (that's what I mean by subjective bias).But that is not what i'm doing. My meaningfulness has a source, that source just happens to not be in god.

Andrew

[Non Sequitur]

I guess my question is how is life meaningful, except from a purely self centered point of view ("I value my life because I don't want to die"), without a higher reality saying it is meaningful?

[andrewl]

I guess my question is how is life meaningful, except from a purely self centered point of view ("I value my life because I don't want to die"), without a higher reality saying it is meaningful?

The only meaning i have ever found in life is purely generated by life itself. Music, nature, children, athletics, literature, art, family, friendship, community, etc... I would even add religion in a tangential sort of way to that since i find some religiously inspired music absolutely beautiful.

The only reality that matters to me is the one i can touch, feel, hear, sense, smell, see, etc..

I dare say that appealing to a reality that is beyond human senses is dangerous. I believe quite strongly that it is that appeal that leads humanity directly to ecocide.

Andrew

[Michael]

From a non-nihilist perspective i suppose nihilism would be "bad" because it does not espouse any sort of meaning for god, country, and destiny.

Andrew
Or laws, or morality, honor, principle, duty, responsibility or anything else.

[andrewl]

Or laws, or morality, honor, principle, duty, responsibility or anything else.

Yes. I have yet to actually come across anybody like that....

Andrew

[partofme]

Or laws, or morality, honor, principle, duty, responsibility or anything else.

Is it nihilistic to act on those things but to believe they are either based on human emotion in that we feel they are good or feel what they result in is good?

[Michael]

Yes. I have yet to actually come across anybody like that....

Andrew
Other than three-quarters of the human population you mean? (and 100% of our politicians and business leaders)

[andrewl]

Other than three-quarters of the human population you mean? (and 100% of our politicians and business leaders)

Odd how all of those people would claim to believe in God.

Andrew

[Michael]

Odd how all of those people would claim to believe in God.

Andrew
It is likely that you would publicly claim it too if your paycheck and all your social and economic standing in society depended upon the necessity of publicly claiming it. :shrug:

(I'm saying this in a general sense, not a specific accusation! :) )

Being a radical is always so much easier when you are poor. ;)

[The Drunk Guy]

It is likely that you would publicly claim it too if your paycheck and all your social and economic standing in society depended upon the necessity of publicly claiming it. :shrug:

(I'm saying this in a general sense, not a specific accusation! :) )

Being a radical is always so much easier when you are poor. ;)
I disagree that it is simply a public claim. I feel strongly that these folks truly consider themselves faithful believers that just don't have time to consider their faith. Its a disgusting practice, but I suspect it accounts for 80% of Christianity.

If they truly did not believe, they would realize that being openly atheistic could have a totally new connotation after so many people stopped mentioning religion. Open denial of God is one thing, but simply avoiding the topic is another.

And I would argue that atheism is more closely related to narcissism than nihilism. :D

[Michael]

I disagree that it is simply a public claim. I feel strongly that these folks truly consider themselves faithful believers that just don't have time to consider their faith. Its a disgusting practice, but I suspect it accounts for 80% of Christianity.

If they truly did not believe, they would realize that being openly atheistic could have a totally new connotation after so many people stopped mentioning religion. Open denial of God is one thing, but simply avoiding the topic is another.
My point is that it is impossible to tell one way or the other. Thus, the only thing one can go by is the public claim. That isn't really satisfactory though because it can hide as much as it reveals.

And I would argue that atheism is more closely related to narcissism than nihilism. :D
While I might be inclined to agree with this on a purely theoretical basis, my experience suggests the opposite may be more likely in reality.

And that suggests to me that a fourth (undefined) factor may be involved to skew the results. At some of the more modest IQ levels, there probably is no substantive difference between nihilism and narcissism anyway.

[Margot]

I still don't understand why nihilism is "really bad."

[The Drunk Guy]

And that suggests to me that a fourth (undefined) factor may be involved to skew the results. At some of the more modest IQ levels, there probably is no substantive difference between nihilism and narcissism anyway.
IQ would be the chief divider in many arguments, including your assertion that atheism=nihilism. The lower the IQ, the higher the probability that one truly believes the 'evils' of atheism and lack of 'life-glorification.'

[Margot]

Nihilism (M-w.com style):
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

How do you equate atheism with that? Not atheists believe that existence is "senseless." Atheism simply means that there is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.

I feel like we're all throwing around really big words without actually defining them.

And besides that, not all traditions have to do with God. I mean, the other definition of nihilism (still M-w.com style) is this:

2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

That doesn't go with atheism at all whatsoever.

Finally, I still don't get what is so fundamentally bad about nihilism in the first place.

[SMadsen]

Atheism = Nihilism

Nihilism = really bad

Therefore, atheism = really bad.

Any objections?
Any objection? Nah, that kind of stuff is usually just bollocks projection. One could just as well say that an abuddhist, i.e., anyone else but a Buddhist, is nihilistic. Who cares. It's nothing but silly projection by the one who can't conceive that others make sense of things without employing his particular mindset.

In fact, if we're going to analyze what constitutes meaning and purpose, I'm finding theism to be fundamentally nihilistic since it relies on an extra-universal meaning in order for the universe to make sense and for life to have a purpose. The universe is nil and, consequently, life purposeless to the theist without the theistic deity.

As an atheist I'm of the opposite view; I find the universe to make perfect sense by itself and life full of purpose. It's the need of meaning and purpose imposed by a pretty much undefinable invention of an outside existence that is nil to me.

[SMadsen]

I guess my question is how is life meaningful, except from a purely self centered point of view ("I value my life because I don't want to die"), without a higher reality saying it is meaningful?
How does life become meaningful from a purely self centered point of view ('I value myself so much that I need to invent gods to cater for me for now and forever') because a higher reality says it is meaningful?

[SMadsen]

Come to think of it, what is a higher reality higher than?

[Donkey]

I still don't understand why nihilism is "really bad."
It's not inherently bad.

[The Drunk Guy]

Come to think of it, what is a higher reality higher than?
Amsterdam. Pretty fucking sweet, huh?

[Margot]

It's not inherently bad.

TADA!

[Michael]

It's not inherently bad.
Nothing can be inherently bad unless you accept the principle of universalism (which I consider nonsense, or theocracy).

TADA!
Are you trying to assert that nihilism isn't a bad thing?

Nihilism is considered to be inherently bad since the only thing that apparently gets people to do good things in this world is the fear of being punished by some god. The theory suggests that nihilists don't care about anything at all, therefore there is nothing to stop them from doing really bad anti-social things - and no reason for them to do good things.

[Margot]

Nihilism is considered to be inherently bad since the only thing that apparently gets people to do good things in this world is the fear of being punished by some god.

Who says?

[Margot]

Nihilism is considered to be inherently bad since the only thing that apparently gets people to do good things in this world is the fear of being punished by some god. The theory suggests that nihilists don't care about anything at all, therefore there is nothing to stop them from doing really bad anti-social things - and no reason for them to do good things.

Also, the definition of nihilism I posted doesn't fit with the assertion that they don't care about anything at all.

[partofme]

Really it seems to me that doing "good" and not "bad" comes from emotions more than anything.

[Michael]

Nihilism (M-w.com style):


How do you equate atheism with that? Not atheists believe that existence is "senseless." Atheism simply means that there is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.

I feel like we're all throwing around really big words without actually defining them.

You are citing a popular or common definition of the term of atheism. Atheism, technically speaking, is a formal rejection of theism (which is the definition I tend to use most consistently).

And if you believe that existence has some 'sense' or 'purpose' then you are essentially taking a theist-based position.

As for the M-W definition, the first quoted part is a surprisingly good definition, though, as I've always noted, dictionaries (in English language specifically) only record the common usage of a term. That is to say, dictionaries do not presume to actually define a term - they only describe it.

And in this respect, any rejection of THE objective basis of morality/truth is both atheist (objective truth/morality defines religion/theism) and nihilist (existence is senseless and useless).

And besides that, not all traditions have to do with God. I mean, the other definition of nihilism (still M-w.com style) is this:


That doesn't go with atheism at all whatsoever.

I don't see why not. The Russian anarchist-nihilists were all atheists, so the commonality is justified.

And theism includes all God-based religions, but it also includes non-book-based religions too. If any tradition/institution can be accurately described as a religion, then it is theist - Jehovah/Allah is not required.

Atheism, by definition, contains commonality with nihilism in respect of rejecting all theism.

Finally, I still don't get what is so fundamentally bad about nihilism in the first place.
Nihilism is the assertion of the senselessness of existence. This is generally perceived to represent a major threat to civil society since all of civil society is based on the theoretical principle of mutual benefit of social cohesion, but in reality, one might argue that civil society is based upon a powerful myth of god punishing evil wrongdoers (or at least holding some of them in check).

Indeed, one might assert that the myths that are used to make our modern society function are many and very deep. Mythbusters and their supporters are thus not only unpopular, but downright dangerous to civil society.

Alternatively, one must rationally suspect that a Nietzscheian 'ubermensch' always lurks behind the curtain of nihilism. If this isn't good reason to fear nihilism, I don't know what is. :shrug:

[Lily]

Nihilism - 1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

Huh. You'd think that whoever came to that conclusion would have offed himself long before he had had the time or the inclination to define it. :p

[Michael]

Huh. You'd think that whoever came to that conclusion would have offed himself long before he had had the time or the inclination to define it. :p
Perhaps. Many of the late 19th century Russian-anarchist-nihilist types did die violent deaths... but Jean-Paul Sartre did not.

The more common reaction is sybiartic or perhaps classical epicurianism for the refined artsy-set. Both of which entail 'retreating' from society.

[Lily]

Perhaps. Many of the late 19th century Russian-anarchist-nihilist types did die violent deaths... but Jean-Paul Sartre did not.

The more common reaction is sybiartic or perhaps classical epicurianism for the refined artsy-set. Both of which entail 'retreating' from society.


Well, I suppose if existence is senseless, you can either party or throw yourself off the nearest building. :shrug:

[Margot]

You are citing a popular or common definition of the term of atheism. Atheism, technically speaking, is a formal rejection of theism (which is the definition I tend to use most consistently).


Hmm. That definition implies that belief in God is the default state, and that anyone without is rejecting belief in God.

Technically, the prefix A simply means without. Yeah. Like asymmetrical, without symmetry. Theism is just the belief in a god. Atheism is without the belief in a god. We don't say someone with a crooked nose is rejecting symmetry.

Your definition is the popular one. Mine is the etymological one.


As for the M-W definition, the first quoted part is a surprisingly good definition, though, as I've always noted, dictionaries (in English language specifically) only record the common usage of a term. That is to say, dictionaries do not presume to actually define a term - they only describe it.



If we want to choose our definitions, like yours above, we should state them up front. Our definitions differ. We can't get anywhere that way.

What do you call people who don't actively reject a belief in God? People who are just never introduced to theism? Your definition lumps these people in with the active rejectors, which is prejudiced. You're addressing a specific group of atheists whilst simultaneously including the whole.

[SMadsen]

Amsterdam. Pretty fucking sweet, huh?
:lol:

[SMadsen]

Nihilism is considered to be inherently bad since the only thing that apparently gets people to do good things in this world is the fear of being punished by some god. The theory suggests that nihilists don't care about anything at all, therefore there is nothing to stop them from doing really bad anti-social things - and no reason for them to do good things.
Pure apologetics.

[SMadsen]

Well, I suppose if existence is senseless, you can either party or throw yourself off the nearest building. :shrug:
Nah, that would make sense by itself.

[SMadsen]

Hmm. That definition implies that belief in God is the default state, and that anyone without is rejecting belief in God.

Technically, the prefix A simply means without. Yeah. Like asymmetrical, without symmetry. Theism is just the belief in a god. Atheism is without the belief in a god. We don't say someone with a crooked nose is rejecting symmetry.

Your definition is the popular one. Mine is the etymological one.
And it's also the correct one unless one has been indoctrinated that an absence of an ideology can only exist by positive rejection. Irrelevance is the most common reason for ideologies to be absent.

[Michael]

Pure apologetics.
I agree, but that's beside the point. In reality, the greatest danger to civil society comes from the true beleivers, but that's not what society recognizes.

[Michael]

Hmm. That definition implies that belief in God is the default state, and that anyone without is rejecting belief in God.
No. My statement said nothing about any God.

Technically, the prefix A simply means without. Yeah. Like asymmetrical, without symmetry. Theism is just the belief in a god. Atheism is without the belief in a god. We don't say someone with a crooked nose is rejecting symmetry.

Your definition is the popular one. Mine is the etymological one.
No, my definition is the actual historical one. Atheism is a formal rejection of theism/religion.

A simple lack of belief is not atheism. That's just apathy, ignorance or disinterest. Atheism is a formal rejection.

Besides which, etymology never sells well with the public. Indeed, the public uses all kinds of terms incorrectly according to etymology.

If we want to choose our definitions, like yours above, we should state them up front. Our definitions differ. We can't get anywhere that way.
I didn't invent the definition. The definition of atheism as a rejection of theism is the original definition given when the word entered the language, as used by theists to attack religious opponents. This is what the term has meant for a couple hundred years now.

The attempt by non-believers to co-opt the term of 'atheist' to represent themselves with a label is a very modern development - and requires that one ignore the meaning the word has always had and adopt a new context-free meaning to serve as a partisan label - just because the partisans wish it so.

I'm not big on political bandwagons. :shrug:

What do you call people who don't actively reject a belief in God? People who are just never introduced to theism?
These types have usually been called "deists" for the last couple centuries.

Your definition lumps these people in with the active rejectors, which is prejudiced. You're addressing a specific group of atheists whilst simultaneously including the whole.
It seems like you are jumping conclusions here without justification.

[Multiplum]

Nihilism - 1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless I think I actually subscribe to this viewpoint. If my life was total shit, I'd just kill myself. Experiencing the world with/through my mammalian brain with all its inherent reward pathways just makes it a ride worth staying on. I find the idea of an eternal conscious existence (souls?), along with the belief that our actions have consequences beyond our own conscious appreciation of them - that they "still exist" after we die or w/e -preposterous.

Is it not contradictory to recognize nihilism as bad if you have a nihilistic world view?

[SMadsen]

Is it not contradictory to recognize nihilism as bad if you have a nihilistic world view?
I'm not sure but I think Michael is asserting that any good thing said about nihilism negates it because it infers a positive value where there should either be a negative value or no value at all. Fx., saying that reward pathways make life worth pursuing infers a meaning to life. Not much of a meaning perhaps, but more than is required to maintain a nihilistic view.

If that's what Michael says then I tend to agree with it. What I don't agree with is that atheism equals nihilism (which you've also just clearly showed that it doesn't).

[Multiplum]

I'm not sure but I think Michael is asserting that any good thing said about nihilism negates it because it infers a positive value where there should either be a negative value or no value at all. Fx., saying that reward pathways make life worth pursuing infers a meaning to life. Not much of a meaning perhaps, but more than is required to maintain a nihilistic view.

If that's what Michael says then I tend to agree with it. What I don't agree with is that atheism equals nihilism (which you've also just clearly showed that it doesn't).

I'm not sure about it inferring a meaning to life. I can't really wrap my head around it, seeing as how I'm already here. It would be a hassle killing myself just for the sake of it, which is about as void of ultimate meaning as staying alive. I don't know if a complete lack of joyous feelings is required to be a nihilist or not. Nihilism and happiness are incompatible?

Atheism does not equal nihilism, no. At least I don't see it that way. Most atheists seem to care a lot about human progress and the continuing existence of the species and additional fauna beyond their own lives, regardless of how temporary it all is.

[SMadsen]

I'm not sure about it inferring a meaning to life. I can't really wrap my head around it, seeing as how I'm already here. It would be a hassle killing myself just for the sake of it, which is about as void of ultimate meaning as staying alive. I don't know if a complete lack of joyous feelings is required to be a nihilist or not. Nihilism and happiness are incompatible?
Not nihilism and happiness but nihilism and a meaning to existence. According to nihilism, happiness is useless (in a context of a meaning to life) but it's neither non-existent nor supposed to be absent. It's only a meaning to existence that's absent.

Atheism does not equal nihilism, no. At least I don't see it that way. Most atheists seem to care a lot about human progress and the continuing existence of the species and additional fauna beyond their own lives, regardless of how temporary it all is.
I agree. It does not take a theism to infer a meaning to existence. On the contrary (since theism needs artificial invention of entities in order for life to make sense).

[Michael]

If that's what Michael says then I tend to agree with it.
I certainly agree with that point.

What I don't agree with is that atheism equals nihilism (which you've also just clearly showed that it doesn't).[/SIZE]
I don't think anyone has "clearly showed that it doesn't".

I certainly don't agree that atheism = nihilism, indeed, I've made the argument against that several times. I'm just trolling for an argument here and looking to see if anyone can come up with a good argument for it.

[SMadsen]

I don't think anyone has "clearly showed that it doesn't".
Ok. I guess it depends. If one agrees that having reward pathways make life worth pursuing suggests that life has a meaning then Multiplum has clearly shown that atheism is not equal to nihilism since such a meaning is not predicated on any kind of theism. If one disagrees then it's still open for discourse.

To me, it's merely one of many examples that clearly show that a meaning of life is not predicated upon notions of divinity.

[Michael]

To me, it's merely one of many examples that clearly show that a meaning of life is not predicated upon notions of divinity.

I'm just surprised that no one is taking up the obvious argument. Alas.

I've given what I consider to be a very strong and emphatic answer to this question in previous threads, yet none here seem to have used that one. :shrug:

[Michael]

Is it not contradictory to recognize nihilism as bad if you have a nihilistic world view?
Not necessarily. It could be, but that depends on your world view.

Value judgements are always relative.

[Michael]

I think I actually subscribe to this viewpoint. If my life was total shit, I'd just kill myself. Experiencing the world with/through my mammalian brain with all its inherent reward pathways just makes it a ride worth staying on. I find the idea of an eternal conscious existence (souls?), along with the belief that our actions have consequences beyond our own conscious appreciation of them - that they "still exist" after we die or w/e -preposterous.

I'm not satisfied with this argument, though it certainly is a valid one.

My problem is that it seems to be a bit too hedonistic and self-referential for my taste. I think that there are better grounds.

[SMadsen]

I'm just surprised that no one is taking up the obvious argument. Alas.

I've given what I consider to be a very strong and emphatic answer to this question in previous threads, yet none here seem to have used that one. :shrug:
I don't think there is an argument. Nor a question.

[Zarquon]

Human beings have intrinsic meaning to their existence by virtue of their existence, that is, life is meaningful because it is life and all that encompasses(family, friends, accomplishments, art, sensory experience,etc); life does not require an outside entity to confer meaning to it in the first place.
But, if life does require meaning to be conferred by an outside entity, then it opens up the question of where said entity gets its life's meaning from.
Either the entity possesses it intrinsically(in which case why can't humans themselves possess meaning too?) or it too has it conferred by another which leads to the question of where the another gets its meaning from and so on till infinity. Or the entity itself has no meaning, in which case, human life also has no meaning.

[SMadsen]

Or it is simply claimed to be beyond our ability to understand its meaning, in which case human life has a meaning that conveniently is beyond our comprehension but a meaning nonetheless.

[Michael]

Or it is simply claimed to be beyond our ability to understand its meaning, in which case human life has a meaning that conveniently is beyond our comprehension but a meaning nonetheless.

This does appear to be a common assertion, but doesn't it fly in the face of the old "god is inscrutable' argument? If god is unscrutable, then how can we know that a purpose does exist since god is beyond our comprehension too!

Seems like a logical contradition there (or two articles of faith stacked on top of each other, but both are floating in the air without any rational grounding).

[Non Sequitur]

This does appear to be a common assertion, but doesn't it fly in the face of the old "god is inscrutable' argument? If god is unscrutable, then how can we know that a purpose does exist since god is beyond our comprehension too!

Seems like a logical contradition there (or two articles of faith stacked on top of each other, but both are floating in the air without any rational grounding).

well, isn't that were revelation comes in? I have yet to encounter a religious belief which did not entail some sort of divine revelation.

[Zarquon]

well, isn't that were revelation comes in? I have yet to encounter a religious belief which did not entail some sort of divine revelation.
and which revelation(I include the various 'godmen'/mystics of India and other places here, as why should a Jewish carpenter have a monopoly on revelations) to trust among the hundreds of competing ones over the millennias?
and why trust any claim to divinity and of miracles among the competing hundreds?
Its all rather subjective and culturally contingent isn't it?;)

[Non Sequitur]

and which revelation(I include the various 'godmen'/mystics of India and other places here, as why should a Jewish carpenter have a monopoly on revelations) to trust among the hundreds of competing ones over the millennias?
and why trust any claim to divinity and of miracles among the competing hundreds?
Its all rather subjective and culturally contingent isn't it?;)

In a way. Certainly which one a person believes in dependent on a bunch of different factors. Yes, I say Christ = the truth and a Muslim would say the Allah as revealed by the Koran = the truth and A Hindu would Brahman= the truth. But at the root of all of that is the concept that there is a higher reality that is not subjective. That's a starting point at least.

[Zarquon]

In a way. Certainly which one a person believes in dependent on a bunch of different factors. Yes, I say Christ = the truth and a Muslim would say the Allah as revealed by the Koran = the truth and A Hindu would Brahman= the truth. But at the root of all of that is the concept that there is a higher reality that is not subjective. That's a starting point at least.
What if its a human invention that served certain needs (and still does among certain societies) in a hostile and overwhelming world?
And the common cold is also universal isn't it?;)

[Non Sequitur]

What if its a human invention that served certain needs (and still does among certain societies) in a hostile and overwhelming world?

Very certainly a possibility which should always be considered. I just can't quite bring myself to that conclusion. Plus, what fun would that be:)

And the common cold is also universal isn't it?;)

:lol: true enough, but I have never heard of a sneeze giving salvific revelation.

[leenco12]

Atheism = Nihilism

Nihilism = really bad

Therefore, atheism = really bad.

Any objections?
Donkey = Atheist

Donkey =/= nihilist

ergo

Atheism =/= nihilism

[The Drunk Guy]

Donkey = Atheist

Donkey =/= nihilist

ergo

Atheism =/= nihilism
First, welcome to DWF.

Second, thank you for bringing this thread back to my attention.

I recently read an interesting article about the stigma of being atheist. It turns out that there is a direct correlation to church attendance and the stigmatization of atheists.

I'm glad they choose the spiteful god of the Old Testament over the loving god of the New Testament. It makes it easier for me to frown upon their religion. (Not that I have a terrible time with it anyway.;))

[Non Sequitur]

I'm glad they choose the spiteful god of the Old Testament over the loving god of the New Testament. It makes it easier for me to frown upon their religion. (Not that I have a terrible time with it anyway.;))

Not that I'm a stickler, but they are one and the same God. :D

[Michael]

Not that I'm a stickler, but they are one and the same God. :D

That strikes me as problematic, given that many Christians seem to assert that the (obnoxious sections) Old Testament is no longer valid according to Jesus.

The problem is the "cake and eat it too" argument. If they are one and the same God, then all that OT crap that is so obnoxious still stands. Or did God change his mind? :ummm:

That is to say, if the Bible represents the 'word of God' then that applies to the whole shebang. Immortal Gods can't go around changing their minds when it is convenient for their worshippers.

[evanescence]

Matthew 5
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[Non Sequitur]

That strikes me as problematic, given that many Christians seem to assert that the (obnoxious sections) Old Testament is no longer valid according to Jesus.

The problem is the "cake and eat it too" argument. If they are one and the same God, then all that OT crap that is so obnoxious still stands. Or did God change his mind? :ummm:

That is to say, if the Bible represents the 'word of God' then that applies to the whole shebang. Immortal Gods can't go around changing their minds when it is convenient for their worshippers.

Reports of Marcion's demise were highly exaggerated :lol:

For those who don't know, Marcion of Sinope was a Bishop in the second century that taught that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New were two different god's with the Old Testament God being evil and the New Testament God being good. He was excommunicated for Heresy (today called Marcionism). I go into this because the truly great heresies never die. Many people fall into Marcion's way of thinking today (Lutheranism is particularly prone to this). The "throw out the Old Testament" logic runs into difficulty because much of the New Testament is really just commentary on the Old.

[The Drunk Guy]

Reports of Marcion's demise were highly exaggerated :lol:

For those who don't know, Marcion of Sinope was a Bishop in the second century that taught that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New were two different god's with the Old Testament God being evil and the New Testament God being good. He was excommunicated for Heresy (today called Marcionism). I go into this because the truly great heresies never die. Many people fall into Marcion's way of thinking today (Lutheranism is particularly prone to this). The "throw out the Old Testament" logic runs into difficulty because much of the New Testament is really just commentary on the Old.
Isn't he considered an early leader of Gnosticism?

[Non Sequitur]

Isn't he considered an early leader of Gnosticism?

Yes. Marcionism and Gnosticism usually come together because the Old Testament is one of the greatest difficulties for the Gnostic.

[Michael]

Reports of Marcion's demise were highly exaggerated :lol:

For those who don't know, Marcion of Sinope was a Bishop in the second century that taught that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New were two different god's with the Old Testament God being evil and the New Testament God being good. He was excommunicated for Heresy (today called Marcionism). I go into this because the truly great heresies never die. Many people fall into Marcion's way of thinking today (Lutheranism is particularly prone to this). The "throw out the Old Testament" logic runs into difficulty because much of the New Testament is really just commentary on the Old.

In that case, the OT is the 'word of God' and still stands. :shrug:

Time to start checking your clothing labels and smiting your daughters. :rolleyes:

[Non Sequitur]

In that case, the OT is the 'word of God' and still stands. :shrug:

Time to start checking your clothing labels and smiting your daughters. :rolleyes:

This is only true if hold the following

1. Historical context doesn't matter

2. every single word is equal and directly inspired by God.

[Michael]

This is only true if hold the following

1. Historical context doesn't matter

2. every single word is equal and directly inspired by God.

How is "historical context" relevant to a timeless, eternal, omnipotent God?

Secondly, how are the obnoxious/silly sections of the OT deemed to be no longer authorative? What is the theological justification for that?

[dilettante]

How is "historical context" relevant to a timeless, eternal, omnipotent God?

Secondly, how are the obnoxious/silly sections of the OT deemed to be no longer authorative? What is the theological justification for that?

I'm sure Non can speak better to the theological arguments, but a lay response might be that, while God maybe timeless and eternal, humans and their cultures are not. Context matters in understanding any communication between we diverse and ever-changing mortals.

As to the second issue, I've always been baffled by the way both fundamentalists and non-believers often seem to agree on the notion that the Bible (a collection of writings from different centuries, by different people, in different languages and genres) must be taken on an all-or-nothing basis and treated as a uniform whole, as if all the components must be treated as equally true/literal/inspired/timeless or equally false/mythic/human/archaic simply because they're all published in the same book.

[Michael]

I'm sure Non can speak better to the theological arguments, but a lay response might be that, while God maybe timeless and eternal, humans and their cultures are not. Context matters in understanding any communication between we diverse and ever-changing mortals.
Sounds like you are raising the idea that the Bible isn't the word of God, but is the word of men. I have no objection to that, but that position is problematic for theology.

Secondly, theology can never change. If it changes, that means either A) God changed his mind, or B) previously perfect theology was an error.

I don't think either option is acceptable to theologians because if any theology is held to be flawed in any way, how can one know that all theology isn't flawed in some what? If any one piece is an error, maybe lots of it are errors? How can anyone know which is correct theology and which is erroneous theology?

As to the second issue, I've always been baffled by the way both fundamentalists and non-believers often seem to agree on the notion that the Bible (a collection of writings from different centuries, by different people, in different languages and genres) must be taken on an all-or-nothing basis and treated as a uniform whole, as if all the components must be treated as equally true/literal/inspired/timeless or equally false/mythic/human/archaic simply because they're all published in the same book.
Non-believers only go by what the believers say about it.

Either the Bible is a definitive holy book that defines Christianity, or the Bible is the literal 'word of God', or the Bible is nothing more than just a hodgepodge of stories that are not authoritive or difinitive.

Given such options, it is no wonder that religious types retreat to the 'word of God' position. Anything else is a slippery slope to irrelevance. :shrug:

But if religious types revert to the "hodgepodge" line, then the Bible is no different than an anthology of poetry. And if that's the case, why does the Bible deserve any special legal status or treatment? Burning bibles is no more symbolic or significant than burning comic books.

Bottom line is that the bible can't be an 'ordinary' book (filled with human errors) and still be the sacred Holy Book of Christianity at the same time. The two concepts are contradictory.

[dilettante]

Sounds like you are raising the idea that the Bible isn't the word of God, but is the word of men. I have no objection to that, but that position is problematic for theology.

Secondly, theology can never change. If it changes, that means either A) God changed his mind, or B) previously perfect theology was an error.

I don't think either option is acceptable to theologians because if any theology is held to be flawed in any way, how can one know that all theology isn't flawed in some what? If any one piece is an error, maybe lots of it are errors? How can anyone know which is correct theology and which is erroneous theology?

Well, I think all but a small minority of Christians would assert that both God and men contributed to the texts of the Bible. The precise mixture of contributions is open to debate, but there's little support for the idea of the book simply falling from heaven. And regardless of who it's from, its certainly written to humans; even if God penned the words directly, it would be important to know the historical context of the people who received them in order to compare it to our own.

As to theology never changing, that seems silly. It's no secret that theology has changed drastically over the preceding millennial as people have tried to develop a better understanding of God. Most, if not all, individuals have experienced changes in their personal theology, and countless believers of just about all religions regularly work to improve their theological understanding, through prayer, meditation, study, reading, listening to teachings, debating...etc.


Non-believers only go by what the believers say about it.

Either the Bible is a definitive holy book that defines Christianity, or the Bible is the literal 'word of God', or the Bible is nothing more than just a hodgepodge of stories that are not authoritive or difinitive.


Why limit the options like that? Why couldn't one see the Bible as a collection of texts, some (or all) of which contain words from God? Why force it to either be entirely and completely authoritative or not authoritative at all? That just unnecessarily forces people to extremes and eliminates common ground.

[Michael]

Well, I think all but a small minority of Christians would assert that both God and men contributed to the texts of the Bible. The precise mixture of contributions is open to debate, but there's little support for the idea of the book simply falling from heaven. And regardless of who it's from, its certainly written to humans; even if God penned the words directly, it would be important to know the historical context of the people who received them in order to compare it to our own.

The Qur'an for example, is asserted to be "the word of God" plain and simple, dictated to Mohammad who wrote it all down.

As for the Bible, if it is written by a variety of humans, over a period of centuries, generations removed from the lifetimes of the people "quoted", and engaged with a process of editing by committee in the 4th century, it certainly appears to be a human book like any other. The assertion of these are "words of God" becomes nothing more than an article of faith that defies the facts of the matter.

The Muslim claim of "word of God" is at least is plausible. For the Bible, it is not credible or plausible that a collection of texts, written by a collection of people over a period of a couple centuries, and then edited extensively, can be anything but, "human origin". Asserting that the "word of God" was simply "recorded" by that process just defies credibility.

As to theology never changing, that seems silly. It's no secret that theology has changed drastically over the preceding millennial as people have tried to develop a better understanding of God. Most, if not all, individuals have experienced changes in their personal theology, and countless believers of just about all religions regularly work to improve their theological understanding, through prayer, meditation, study, reading, listening to teachings, debating...etc.
Theology has changed drastically over the preceding 1000 years? Really? Like how? As far as I know, all the core doctrines are the same as they have been for some 1700 years.

Why limit the options like that? Why couldn't one see the Bible as a collection of texts, some (or all) of which contain words from God? Why force it to either be entirely and completely authoritative or not authoritative at all? That just unnecessarily forces people to extremes and eliminates common ground.
Its not my rule - it is just an observation. The Christian claims about the Bible indicate that the Bible was entirely a work of human hands.

Now Christians can have faith that the Bible was inspired by God, but that claim is entirely implausible to non-Christians. The Muslim claim about the Qur'an is much more plausible for non-believers because the 'facts' match up with the claim (relatively speaking). This is not the case with the Bible where the facts contradict the claim.

Btw, I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to a discussion of Atheism and Nihilism. The authorship of the Bible is entirely irrelevant to both Atheists and Nihilists. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

How is "historical context" relevant to a timeless, eternal, omnipotent God?

Secondly, how are the obnoxious/silly sections of the OT deemed to be no longer authorative? What is the theological justification for that?

Historical context matters because God accommodates himself to us. If God did not accommodate himself, we would be unable to understand or comprehend the almighty. Therefore, God comes to a people and makes his will understandable. In the case of the OT, the background is an iron age culture that was constantly conquered. That is going to produce a very different picture of God then, say, the Roman gods.

As for the OT, each verse can be a case unto it's own so it's hard to paint broad brush strokes but a couple points will help

1. The New Testament is clear that the OT law does not apply in the same way to Gentiles (non Jews) as it does to Jews. Much of the OT is a special agreement between God and his chosen people. Even Jewish theology states that not all of the 10 commandments are universal (I think it's 7 of them are). The New Testament is about bringing people who were not included in the original promise into the family if you will. This is why adoption is a common term in the New Testament. In this understanding, it is not that the OT is no longer authoritative, but that much of it is not meant for you and me as gentiles.

2. As you so often note, the letter of the law and meaning of the law are two different things. Frequently the Old and New Testament make this point. The actual letter of the Law is quite different than what was intended by the law (read the Sermon on the Mount or any of the OT Prophets here). Quite frequently Jesus criticizes the religious leaders of the day for holding a strict interpretation of the law, yet forgetting the larger point.

3. Much of the Old Testament is the national stories of a people group that existed thousands of years ago. As i have often stated, it is not God's word pure and simple, but God's word mixed with a lot of other stuff.

[Non Sequitur]

I feel like I should also clear up the term "Word of God." This term gets used often and I can probably be accused of being sloppy with it myself. When we speak of the "Word of God" there are three ways this term is used

1. before the incarnation (birth of Jesus), the "Word of God" is the force through which the universe is upheld and God's power made actual in the cosmos (still a person in the trinity).

2. After the birth of Christ, Jesus is clearly the "Word of God" made man. Christ is the living "Word of God." This is most important. Jesus as the living Word is fullest revelation of God to humanity.

3. The Bible is also referred to as "the Word of God" because it is a tool that God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, uses to reveal himself. However, the Bible is not the "Word of God" in the same way that Christ is. The Bible's authority comes from the fact that it is the written record of human interaction with God and the living Word.

[Michael]

I feel like I should also clear up the term "Word of God." This term gets used often and I can probably be accused of being sloppy with it myself. When we speak of the "Word of God" there are three ways this term is used

1. before the incarnation (birth of Jesus), the "Word of God" is the force through which the universe is upheld and God's power made actual in the cosmos (still a person in the trinity).

2. After the birth of Christ, Jesus is clearly the "Word of God" made man. Christ is the living "Word of God." This is most important. Jesus as the living Word is fullest revelation of God to humanity.

3. The Bible is also referred to as "the Word of God" because it is a tool that God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, uses to reveal himself. However, the Bible is not the "Word of God" in the same way that Christ is. The Bible's authority comes from the fact that it is the written record of human interaction with God and the living Word.
This is an entirely technical and Christian definition of the term, but I'll accept it as authoritive on that ground.

And thanks for making this clarification - it is quite helpful for understanding theology. :)

[Michael]

Theology has changed drastically over the preceding 1000 years? Really? Like how? As far as I know, all the core doctrines are the same as they have been for some 1700 years.
I suppose I ought to quibble with myself here since no one else has. :o

I'll retract this as being 'over-exuberant rhetoric' as it is obvious that the Protestant reformation alone does represent a substantive shift in theological doctrine. I suppose the advent of the doctrine of papal infallibility in the late 19th century is another notable one.

Just for curiosity, can anyone name any other notable ones? I'm sure there's been quite a few small or minor changes, I'm really only talking about 'major' changes in theology since the 4th century. :ummm:

(eek! I just realized that I was continuing this :offtopic: digression and even encouraging more of it! - I shall blame Non Sequitur just on principle!) :lol:

[Michael]

Putting on my moderator's hat, I've reviewed this thread through and have found that the interchange between SMadsen, Multiplum and myself resolved the thread issue (pages 5-6) pretty much entirely (at least to my satisfaction as poster of the OP and thus 'ruler of the thread').

On this basis, the 'alleged' digression into religious doctrine and theology is NOT to be considered as "off-topic" here. :D

So please feel free to continue these present lines of discussion. :)