My Unsatisfying Critique of Nihilism

I watched the video. I guess I am an absurdist and I am with Sartre.

In the video, he kept referring to states of despair and suchlike.

A modicum of emotional regulation, please. So there’s no plan, and that’s okay. Relax. Embrace the uncertainty and ambiguity.

It’s fine to say I don’t know. It’s fine to accept responsibility for one’s understanding of experience.

I don’t know. Maybe indeed when I die, my body rots and that’s that. I’m okay with that, if that’s what is on offer.

He seemed terrified by the idea of a godless existentialism. That’s his way, and I accept that.

I don’t care. Meaning, if I am just here, and there’s no reason for that, that’s okay. I am here, and I am not important.

He seemed to need answers, so much so that he was willing to create them as needed. That’s fine. To live a human life can indeed be terrifying.

But I will not lie. I will not pretend. I have no answers, and I do not know. What does this all mean? I suppose that’s contextual. In the grandest scheme, nothing, and that’s okay. What comes after? Maybe nothing, and that’s okay. Regardless, why care or worry about it?

If we are born, live, and die, for no reason, and no purpose, would it matter? I think and feel my life is more than enough. I have suffered, and I have known bliss. I have seen beauty and witnessed horrors. Is this somehow cheap if this is all there is?

Well, why even place a value on it? Why decide? All this categorization of good and evil, and meaning versus chaos, and faith versus reason.

Who cares? Would I trust any answer? How could I know the truth, even if I had an answer?

You can tell me there’s no God, no meaning, nothing beyond, and my response is “okay.” And that’s okay, because what does my answer matter? It matters not.

Cheers,
Ian
 
QuickTwist said:
Food for thought...




I think the afterlife is totally worth thinking about, and if you think there is no evidence for that, you should really look into NDEs.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, it's not atheist people's fault, if the world has a meaning or not. The uneasiness we may feel towards lack of meaning/pointlessness of human existence is not atheist people's fault. Atheist only look at this possible reality and decides and reacts to it. But atheists never "created" this reality.

Now, you say, the belief of God has an impact : our possible life after death.

Well then. I don't want to worship a god, who helps or does not help people based on who worship him. I think it's the action of a megalomanioc self centered autocrat, and I don't want to worship that kind of individual. Divine rewards should be given, based on action, and not based on "worshipping the deity", which I think is unhealthy relationship.

Now, moral : the video quotes dostoievski, saying a world without god will be devoid of moral, and killer will act the way they want. I think it's misquote. You see, yes, Doestoievski feared a world devoid of god, devoid of moral. But in his book "crime and punishment", we see that the main protagonist, who kills out of interest, feels the dread, of guilt and shame. The moral of the book is this : Even if God or exterior justice is absent, the culprit is always punished. Be it by guilt or remorse, he is in jail either way.

And I don't think atheist people kill more than religious people. I don't think lack of religiousity means endangered moral / ethic
 
Last edited:
Imnosuperman said:
Well, to be fair, it's not atheist people's fault, if the world has a meaning or not. The uneasiness we may feel towards lack of meaning/pointlessness of human existence is not atheist people's fault. Atheist only look at this possible reality and decides and reacts to it. But atheists never "created" this reality.

Now, you say, the belief of God has an impact : our possible life after death.

Well then. I don't want to worship a god, who helps or does not help people based on who worship him. I think it's the action of a megalomanioc self centered autocrat, and I don't want to worship that kind of individual. Divine rewards should be given, based on action, and not based on "worshipping the deity", which I think is unhealthy relationship.

Now, moral : the video quotes dostoievski, saying a world without god will be devoid of moral, and killer will act the way they want. I think it's misquote. You see, yes, Doestoievski feared a world devoid of god, devoid of moral. But in his book "crime and punishment", we see that the main protagonist, who kills out of interest, feels the dread, of guilt and shame. The moral of the book is this : Even if God or exterior justice is absent, the culprit is always punished. Be it by guilt or remorse, he is in jail either way.

And I don't think atheist people kill more than religious people. I don't think lack of religiousity means endangered moral / ethic
Click to expand...
Your reflection touches on something essential:the human need to position morality somewhere _either outside ourselves (God),
_or inside (conscience, guilt, meaning).
Dostoevsky feared a world without an anchor, but he also showed that humans create internal anchors on their own.
Raskolnikov collapses under shame and self-awareness long before divine justice enters the picture.Which suggests something important: Morality is not owned by religion, nor invented by atheism. It is a human phenomenon that predates both.Where belief and disbelief differ:
-is not in what is right
-but in WHY it is right.

Some place meaning above themselves.
Some keep meaning within themselves.
Both paths can lead to integrity_or to collapse:depending on the person.
In the end, the real drama isn’t God.
It’s the human heart trying to carry its own weight.






Giammarco
 
AkarItaly said:
Your reflection touches on something essential:the human need to position morality somewhere _either outside ourselves (God),
_or inside (conscience, guilt, meaning).
Dostoevsky feared a world without an anchor, but he also showed that humans create internal anchors on their own.
Raskolnikov collapses under shame and self-awareness long before divine justice enters the picture.Which suggests something important: Morality is not owned by religion, nor invented by atheism. It is a human phenomenon that predates both.Where belief and disbelief differ:
-is not in what is right
-but in WHY it is right.

Some place meaning above themselves.
Some keep meaning within themselves.
Both paths can lead to integrity_or to collapse:depending on the person.
In the end, the real drama isn’t God.
It’s the human heart trying to carry its own weight.






Giammarco
Click to expand...
I agree
 
Just to note, godless heathen that I am, free of tether or moral compass, I have raped and murdered in accordance with my desire, will, and whim, which is to say, not at all.

Best to You,
Isn
 
These are just some thoughts I'm playing out that come from the discussion. I'm not an atheist myself, but it's really valuable to explore every angle. I think the danger for anyone with strong convictions either way is that we can dig a belief hole for ourselves and are unable to see beyond its edge - it's good to climb out of it frequently and not just debate, but get feel what others are saying from within their own point of view.

I think that the argument in the video that atheism can lead some people to very deep negative feelings is not at all a good argument against it. There are many truths in life, such as death and taxes, that can also lead to bad feelings, but they very clearly have no problem existing.

The suggestion of @Imnosuperman that God is not interested in non-believers who will not worship him is not what Christianity says. The core Christian message is that salvation cannot be earned - it's a totally free gift out of love. God needs a response in the form of acceptance of this gift, just as any human who gives us something needs the recipient to accept it, otherwise it cannot be made. But no amount of praying or behaving can earn this gift - at best these are only responses to it.

The discussion on ethics is very interesting - particularly the implication that even in a world where there is no transcendent ethical law provided by a religion, there is an unwritten meta-morality which can be used to judge the validity of all other ethical systems. Otherwise it would be perfectly valid for anyone to set up whatever moral code they fancy. Of course it usually isn't a problem when it's just an individual who tries this, but it is when a whole society does - as evidenced by the great totalitarian systems of the past 100 years that have removed individual freedom and persecuted minorities in terrible ways.

I think that atheism does have a problem with these mass ethical horror stories, as we have seen in the communist states that have institutionalised atheism then gone on to behave in what we think of as appalling ways. This of course also happens when a state is founded on some terrible aberration of religious values as has happened with Christianity in the past, and Islam in both the past and present. But by what right are these terrible aberrations of ethical systems judged from an atheist perspective? I can see how such a right can be claimed as coming ultimately from God, but without God is it not just a case of who on earth is biggest and most powerful? Those guys didn't think they were doing wrong - they were fully compliant with their own brand of ethics and tried to impose this on other nations.

I guess one answer may lie in the Eastern concept of Karma - in Buddhism this operates not like the actions of a divine judge, but like a law of nature such as gravity. Buddhism seems to be agnostic on the existence of God and therefore the law of Karma is both objective yet does not involve a divine revelation or command. Reading between the lines of what folks have said here, it sounds like atheists who believe that there is a common, underlying ethical system are describing something very like the law of Karma? But that raises strange concepts about the nature of the world, because we then have to ponder how such a law came into being.

Another answer, as @aeon implies, might be that our ethics were born in the evolutionary processes that led to people. It sounds plausible, but then the world in which we live is totally different to the small nomadic communities in which this might have happened. Early civilisations look even less like cooking pots for what we think of today as good and bad given the horror stories that have been passed down about them in history and archeology. It's a very shaky foundation for an ethical superstructure against which all the diverse candidate structures can be judged.
 
Remember, someone tossing people into a grinder is just tossing and grinding.

It has no inherent value, moral or otherwise, until someone decides to judge.

No-thing is other than it is. Each and every, a form born of dualism, so object-subject comes about from our consciousness.

That something is good or evil, if a person believes in those ideas, is only when judged as such, and as such, from conception, not a tangible reality.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Imnosuperman said:
Well then. I don't want to worship a god, who helps or does not help people based on who worship him. I think it's the action of a megalomanioc self centered autocrat, and I don't want to worship that kind of individual. Divine rewards should be given, based on action, and not based on "worshipping the deity", which I think is unhealthy relationship.
Click to expand...

If God was like any other intelligent being, you would be right. But I believe all goodness, anything that is good, comes from God.

Matthew 5:45
"For he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Not to mention that Christ literally died for you in about the most painful way a human can dream up.
 
QuickTwist said:
If God was like any other intelligent being, you would be right. But I believe all goodness, anything that is good, comes from God.

Matthew 5:45
"For he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Not to mention that Christ literally died for you in about the most painful way a human can dream up.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that a godly like figure can't come up with a better idea to get rid of sins, than put himself on a cross and die in pain.
 
QuickTwist said:
This is largely the problem, I think.
Click to expand...
No, your judgement is. My not caring is my business. You judging that as problematic is you violating boundaries. With all due respect, mind your own business.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Imnosuperman said:
I find it hard to believe that a godly like figure can't come up with a better idea to get rid of sins, than put himself on a cross and die in pain.
Click to expand...

I encourage you to read this article I wrote on the subject.

www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

A Philosophical Look at the Gospel

Why is there something rather than nothing? Philosophers have agonized over this for a very long time. This is a question that needs to be answered. The basic answer to why there is something rather than nothing is because of God and His will to create. This is an argument that I have...
www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

aeon said:
No, your judgement is. My not caring is my business. You judging that as problematic is you violating boundaries. With all due respect, mind your own business.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

Judgements are impossible to avoid. If you say, "I like your outfit today," that is also judging, just in a positive direction. If you say, "I don't like that you are judging me," that is also a judgment against me for judging you.
 
QuickTwist said:
Judgements are impossible to avoid. If you say, "I like your outfit today," that is also judging, just in a positive direction. If you say, "I don't like that you are judging me," that is also a judgment against me for judging you.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and true.

Now please, fuck right off.

Cheets,
Ian
 
aeon said:
Fair enough, and true.

Now please, fuck right off.

Cheets,
Ian
Click to expand...
Wait, what?

I don't understand your reaction.

While I do not agree with everything @QuickTwist says, it's no reason to result to anger. He's free to have his own opinions, and especially, on a thread, he himself created. Right or wrong, he can be free to speak his mind
 
Last edited:
QuickTwist said:
I encourage you to read this article I wrote on the subject.

www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net

A Philosophical Look at the Gospel

Why is there something rather than nothing? Philosophers have agonized over this for a very long time. This is a question that needs to be answered. The basic answer to why there is something rather than nothing is because of God and His will to create. This is an argument that I have...
www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net www.oldthingspassawayallbecomesnew.net



Judgements are impossible to avoid. If you say, "I like your outfit today," that is also judging, just in a positive direction. If you say, "I don't like that you are judging me," that is also a judgment against me for judging you.
Click to expand...
I think you're biased. Earlier, here, you mentioned philosophers. It so turned out you quoted them, without even having read them. You only were referring to a youtube video, and it was all the documentation you had at your disposal. While it's okay to be uneducated, I think it would serve the debate a great deal, if you took a minute and read, the books you're sometimes basing your philosophy upon with
 
aeon said:
Remember, someone tossing people into a grinder is just tossing and grinding.

It has no inherent value, moral or otherwise, until someone decides to judge.

No-thing is other than it is. Each and every, a form born of dualism, so object-subject comes about from our consciousness.

That something is good or evil, if a person believes in those ideas, is only when judged as such, and as such, from conception, not a tangible reality.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
When you dive into the deep, the only reference you have is the internal code you built before entering the dark.

Down there, there are no democratic constructs__ only the void.

It’s a crooked path, shaped by trials and thresholds.No one can judge us from the surface.But we still recognize the boundary when we meet it.

As someone once said: “Will triumphs over intellect.”


Giammarco
 
John K said:
These are just some thoughts I'm playing out that come from the discussion. I'm not an atheist myself, but it's really valuable to explore every angle. I think the danger for anyone with strong convictions either way is that we can dig a belief hole for ourselves and are unable to see beyond its edge - it's good to climb out of it frequently and not just debate, but get feel what others are saying from within their own point of view.

I think that the argument in the video that atheism can lead some people to very deep negative feelings is not at all a good argument against it. There are many truths in life, such as death and taxes, that can also lead to bad feelings, but they very clearly have no problem existing.

The suggestion of @Imnosuperman that God is not interested in non-believers who will not worship him is not what Christianity says. The core Christian message is that salvation cannot be earned - it's a totally free gift out of love. God needs a response in the form of acceptance of this gift, just as any human who gives us something needs the recipient to accept it, otherwise it cannot be made. But no amount of praying or behaving can earn this gift - at best these are only responses to it.

The discussion on ethics is very interesting - particularly the implication that even in a world where there is no transcendent ethical law provided by a religion, there is an unwritten meta-morality which can be used to judge the validity of all other ethical systems. Otherwise it would be perfectly valid for anyone to set up whatever moral code they fancy. Of course it usually isn't a problem when it's just an individual who tries this, but it is when a whole society does - as evidenced by the great totalitarian systems of the past 100 years that have removed individual freedom and persecuted minorities in terrible ways.

I think that atheism does have a problem with these mass ethical horror stories, as we have seen in the communist states that have institutionalised atheism then gone on to behave in what we think of as appalling ways. This of course also happens when a state is founded on some terrible aberration of religious values as has happened with Christianity in the past, and Islam in both the past and present. But by what right are these terrible aberrations of ethical systems judged from an atheist perspective? I can see how such a right can be claimed as coming ultimately from God, but without God is it not just a case of who on earth is biggest and most powerful? Those guys didn't think they were doing wrong - they were fully compliant with their own brand of ethics and tried to impose this on other nations.

I guess one answer may lie in the Eastern concept of Karma - in Buddhism this operates not like the actions of a divine judge, but like a law of nature such as gravity. Buddhism seems to be agnostic on the existence of God and therefore the law of Karma is both objective yet does not involve a divine revelation or command. Reading between the lines of what folks have said here, it sounds like atheists who believe that there is a common, underlying ethical system are describing something very like the law of Karma? But that raises strange concepts about the nature of the world, because we then have to ponder how such a law came into being.

Another answer, as @aeon implies, might be that our ethics were born in the evolutionary processes that led to people. It sounds plausible, but then the world in which we live is totally different to the small nomadic communities in which this might have happened. Early civilisations look even less like cooking pots for what we think of today as good and bad given the horror stories that have been passed down about them in history and archeology. It's a very shaky foundation for an ethical superstructure against which all the diverse candidate structures can be judged.
Click to expand...
I don't answer, but it's because I agree
 
I mean he did say it's an unsatisfying critique...
 
AkarItaly said:
When you dive into the deep, the only reference you have is the internal code you built before entering the dark.

Down there, there are no democratic constructs__ only the void.

It’s a crooked path, shaped by trials and thresholds.No one can judge us from the surface.But we still recognize the boundary when we meet it.

As someone once said: “Will triumphs over intellect.”


Giammarco
Click to expand...
Who said that?

It ressembles Nietzsche. "If you look long enough into the void, the void looks back at you". But I don't recognise your quote
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top