Nihilism (2 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

Yeh, you have a point with that.

I am merely speaking as an individual, they are wrong to me.
But even those who do wrong (and are mentally stable) would they not know that what they did is wrong? They understand that it is, but choose to do it anyway, or so I believe.

Rape and murder and being a dickhead are wrong because they are negatively impacting on another person, which I see as wrong. While this does not necessitate that the next guys sees them as wrong, I don't understand how a mentally stable person could try and justify them.

Thats one of the major issues I have with the notion that morals can exist outside of a religious framework. If you don't have a God, telling you (at least initially) what is right and wrong, it all becomes a matter of opinion and because everyone has the fundamental right to act in regards to what they see as right, it all falls apart. No-one really knows whats trully right or trully wrong, it just comes down to popularity.

You can have morals without believing in God, but it is almost definate then that your morals are your own personal interpretations of those taught by a religion which infleunced your upbringing (and so are at the least, based on those of a higher authority).

Are you implying that it is an inbuilt part of the human condition to identify such acts as (rightfully) wrong? Can you suggest a reason why this may be the case?

Hmm, maybe I spoke before thinking afterall, perhaps we don't have inherent morals...I will have to ponder this some more...

Its a really interesting debate. Philosophy is great, I'm like addicted to it haha.

 

[Name_Taken]

So I thought the OP said no religious debates.

Woops

 

[moll.]

Actually, most morals are based around the fact that they either negatively influence, affect or harm others.

Not at all.
Most of the basic morality we have ingrained in our psyche is simply there so that we can live harmoniously in our tribe, rather than have a solitary and difficult existence in our individual cave. Current theory suggests that the only reason humans ever took over from the Neanderthals wasn't because we were smarter, bigger or faster. They won on all three counts. It was because we were more social creatures. Part of that no doubt has to do with our innate ability to live in peace with others.
Morality exists for selfish reasons, not cos Evolution or God are humanists.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

So I thought the OP said no religious debates.

As for Nihilism: meh. Worthy philosophy, just too many idiotic people and misconceptions attached to the label.

Indeed. Please keep the thread on topic. I'm looking for opinions lol.

 

[Ethanescence]

Lol, asserting that there is no God, requires faith in unto itself as there is not proof that God doesn't exist.

If you are agnostic atheist, you don't need faith to lack belief in dieties as you are not claiming ultimate knowledge and/or denying the existence of deities.

In fact, it requires faith to even believe in what science can demonstrate. One must first have faith in the scientific method, the scientists themselves, and subsequently, faith in the universe; that everything is in fact acutually explainable through something as mundane and crude as science or mathematics.

Do you know the difference between atheism and science? And how is this relevant to my post?

The religion of athiesm proclaims the path of light to the individual, through the study of the holy scripture "The God Delusion" and worship to it's saviour Richard Dawikns himself.

Stop creating strawman logical fallacies. It's only showing your ignorance.

Ok on a serious note now.... Christianity is just the belief in a loving and sympathetic God, it is not tied to hate crime or religiously inspired murder or the like. You can claim that the religion fosters negative attitudes to homosexuality, which it does, it is described as a sin, a moral wrong. However the Bible also teaches us to love our neighbour, to be charitable and not to judge people "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

Saying it isn't tied to religiously inspired crime doesn't suddenly make it true. The two are clearly linked. Hence why it is "religiously inspired" crime...

And the Bible is not Christianity in a book. There are apsects of the faith outside of the Bible.

Yes, clearly.

While Christianity is not everything in the Bible, everything in the Bible is part of Christianity. There's no denying that.

It is possible to be Christian without having read all of (or even any of for that matter) the Bible.The Bible is an important reference tool for the faithful, but not simply a list of rules (although it does present some) and should not be seen as such.

This has already be stated by you several times. Why are you repeating yourself?

 

[Graney]

Just becuase it hurts someone is not a reason why it morally wrong. Advancing your own self interest at the expense of others (this is in a Godless world BTW) is hardly a "wrong" ambition. You owe nothing to others, or to society, and don't have an obligation not to hurt them, unless you are able to establish why in fact that you do.

This is true, this is exactly my world view.

It just so happens that not hurting others, and instead acting cooperatively, is almost always in your self-interest.

The term "self-interest" in these discussions, is always used ambiguously, with the implication that it means lots of sex, drugs etc... limited physical pleasures. This is a very simplistic understanding of self-interest. Harming others and deliberately taking advantage of them would cause me a great deal of psychological pain (which can no more easily be dismissed by reason than physical pain).

I would determine that helping others, acting with kindness and generosity, bring me greater satisfaction than stealing and harming others, purely by the application of reason and responding to my base emotions.

I can rationally determine that it is in my self-interest to act for the creation of love, kindness and life in the world.

 

[Name_Taken]

And what specific "beliefs" would they be?

Um primarily the belief in that there is no God.

 

[Ethanescence]

Not at all.
Most of the basic morality we have ingrained in our psyche is simply there so that we can live harmoniously in our tribe, rather than have a solitary and difficult existence in our individual cave. Current theory suggests that the only reason humans ever took over from the Neanderthals wasn't because we were smarter, bigger or faster. They won on all three counts. It was because we were more social creatures. Part of that no doubt has to do with our innate ability to live in peace with others.
Morality exists for selfish reasons, not cos Evolution or God are humanists.

Isn't that just rephrasing what I said?

I never claimed that innate morals were solely humanitarian or charitable.

 

[moll.]

Isn't that just rephrasing what I said?

I never claimed that innate morals were solely humanitarian or charitable.

No. You were saying that the cause of morality is the desire to avoid hurting others.
I'm saying that's simply a coincidental by-product of self-interest.

 

[Name_Taken]

Isn't that just rephrasing what I said?

I never claimed that innate morals were solely humanitarian or charitable.

If morality exists to facilitate peaceful social interaction and co-operation (from an evolutionary perspective in the context of our "tribe" or w.e), how would that explain that societies morals change?

 

[Ethanescence]

Um primarily the belief in that there is no God.

So what is the fundamental difference between those who lack belief in god, and those who lack belief in unicorns?

You suggested in your previous post that people being atheist enforce their beliefs on others. But atheism has no doctrine or holy text in which to enforce any beliefs, or even a lack of belief. The choice to enforce beliefs on others is solely the choice of the individual, and is unrelated to atheism itself.

Whereas Christianity through the Bible promotes the idea of spreading Christianity and Christian ideals, atheism has no such equivalent.

 

[Name_Taken]

Stop creating strawman logical fallacies. It's only showing your ignorance.

It was a satire

I never expected anyone to take it seriously.

 

[Graney]

It was a satire

I never expected anyone to take it seriously.

A lot of people do argue the "science is also a religion" thing seriously, which is pretty frightening.

 

[Name_Taken]

So what is the fundamental difference between those who lack belief in god, and those who lack belief in unicorns?

You suggested in your previous post that people being atheist enforce their beliefs on others. But atheism has no doctrine or holy text in which to enforce any beliefs, or even a lack of belief. The choice to enforce beliefs on others is solely the choice of the individual, and is unrelated to atheism itself.

Whereas Christianity through the Bible promotes the idea of spreading Christianity and Christian ideals, atheism has no such equivalent.

Nonono what I meant was, athiests forcefully forcing their beliefs upon others (that is there is no God <-- thats a belief) has had just as bad consequences on humanity in history as has religious people forcing thier beliefs on people, then bringing up the exmaples of Stalin and Mao etc.

I would say it is somewhat inevitable that when someone who holds a particular belief (eg that there is no God) comes into contact with someone who has a conflciting belief (ie. religious guy who believes in God), they both start impressing their beliefs on each other. Doesn't have to be forceful tho.

 

[Ethanescence]

No. You were saying that the cause of morality is the desire to avoid hurting others.
I'm saying that's simply a coincidental by-product of self-interest.

Oh sorry, I think understand where you're coming from now.

But I don't entirely understand why there's this focus on self-interest. I admit self-interest would be a large component of morals that are a by-product of evolution, but many other innate morals would have developed out of other means unrelated to self-interest. Evolution is a mechanism of survival, and survival does not always equate to self-interest.

Purely out of curiosity, do you have an examples of actions of self-interest that harm/hurt others, but aren't seen as morally wrong?

 

[Graney]

If morality exists to facilitate peaceful social interaction and co-operation (from an evolutionary perspective in the context of our "tribe" or w.e), how would that explain that societies morals change?

If morals are absolute, why have they changed since biblical times...

 

[theism]

well it would be the debate of moral relativism wouldn't it?

go ahead and try to live life as a moral relativist.

you won't get very far.

 

[Name_Taken]

If morals are absolute, why have they changed since biblical times...

I think absolute morality exists, however society's, what could be thought of as "collective" or consensus morality changes. "Collective morality" changes with society's changing interpretation of absolute morality.

Does that make sense? :S

 

[moll.]

Oh sorry, I think understand where you're coming from now.

But I don't entirely understand why there's this focus on self-interest. I admit self-interest would be a large component of morals that are a by-product of evolution, but many other innate morals would have developed out of other means unrelated to self-interest. Evolution is a mechanism of survival, and survival does not always equate to self-interest.

But it does.
Survival is simply advancing your own life for as long as possible, by any means necessary. That's self-interest at it's most pure form.
The vast majority of the time, this can be done in harmony with those around you, and often this harmony itself even helps. Occassionally, it also helps to go against the society in which you live, or change to a different society with different values (gangs etc). Either way, immoral or not, survival is the basis of the choice.

Purely out of curiosity, do you have an examples of actions of self-interest that harm/hurt others, but aren't seen as morally wrong?

David vs Goliath acts are a basic example. If a starving child steals a loaf of bread from the supermarket, then the supermarket and it's owners are harmed, yet very few people in society would see the child's theft as completely wrong. If a concerned mother outs a local man to the press as a pedophile, and ruins his life, who would call her callous and immoral? Few people would believe that Robin Hood was actually in the wrong, even if he had kept King John's loot for himself.

 

[moll.]

I think absolute morality exists, however society's, what could be thought of as "collective" or consensus morality changes. "Collective morality" changes with society's changing interpretation of absolute morality.

Does that make sense? :S

I would argue that society's collective morality is simply an average or median of the morality of the individuals in that society. It changes because because each new generation has a different philosophical outlook upon various social issues than the generation before.
Why else would a man born in 1760 find slavery perfectly acceptable, and yet a man born in 1960 would find the idea of treating a human being as a commodity to be ghastly? The answer is the rise of the humanist outlook in the two centuries between.