The morals of an atheist

Abookamongstthemany · June 2007

angelica wrote:

It's seeming to me that you are completely misconstruing the term "nihilism".

According to wikipedia on nihilism, there are many traits that refer to you, and therefore it seems a little odd that you keep labelling others as nihilist.

according to wikipedia on nihilism, here are some aspects that seem to apply to you:

--"...it was first introduced into philosophical discourse by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi ... who used the term to characterize rationalism"

--"Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."

--"Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" does not exist"

--"the most common type of nihilism tends toward defeatism or fatalism"

Seriously! The most common type tends towards fatalism!?!?!

FinsburyParkCarrots posts a video urging awareness of humility with knowledge, and you call that "nihilism"?? And yet you nearly erase the individual from existence, due to that he/she is merely determined and therefore possesses little "purpose" or "value". Something is seriously being misconstrued here!

I kept thinking the same thing! I looked it up twice because of him referring to it... I thought I must have been crazy bc of what I've always thought it meant. And according to Ahnimus, I am crazy so I didn't bother trying to clear it up.

angelica · June 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I kept thinking the same thing! I looked it up twice because of him referring to it... I thought I must have been crazy bc of what I've always thought it meant. And according to Ahnimus, I am crazy so I didn't bother trying to clear it up.

Yeah! He was accusing me of being nihilist, and I thought it seemed that I was the opposite of that, so I was confused. And when he tried to spell it out to me, it was revealed that all of the views he attributed to me, and to nihilism, were his own misunderstandings of my veiws. Today, after I noticed he's creating a pattern of using that label to minimize the value of what people are saying, I thought it needed a deeper look!

In Fins' case, he presented that wonderful video, with it's very reasonable premise. It seemed so silly that Ahnimus would take issue with cautioning against thinking one is ABSOLUTELY "right" and possesses ABSOLUTE knowledge. Everyone needs to practise that kind of caution once one begins to acquire information since knowledge has a power that can be easily abused. And science, in it's actual practice by real trained scientists, must also adhere to that knowing. Just like a doctor, in using the term "psychosis" or "psychotic" there goes a very large responsibility, that is supported by indepth training. In the clinical use, doctors must be very responsible with how they use the word. Ahnimus tries to say he's using the "clinical" term for psychosis, and really he's not even close to understanding the clinical use and meaning for the term of psychosis. He dangerously misapplies it to represent his belief in an ABSOLUTE knowledge that entitles him to judge humans. As fins' video portrays, it's human ignorance and arrogance that makes that mistake. And that's just not justifiable! No matter what label one uses, such as "nihilist"! To use imformation to justify being harmful, or degrading or otherwise detrimental, or to struggle with power, is not okay! It's misapplication of information and is the opposite of knowledge! It's information that has become distorted/infected by human ego and power struggles.

wavesonwheels · June 2007

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=A36BB0C9-69F8-4ED5-B17A-B4BF07AC05A1&f=00&fg=copy

tiger god

Jeanie · June 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I kept thinking the same thing! I looked it up twice because of him referring to it... I thought I must have been crazy bc of what I've always thought it meant. And according to Ahnimus, I am crazy so I didn't bother trying to clear it up.

Oh! Well!!! I had no idea I was in such illustrious company!!

I feel so much better about being labelled delusional and demented now that I know that you too have been deemed crazy Abook.

Damn!! It's an honor as far as I can see if you are the company I'm included in.

angelica · June 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Oh! Well!!! I had no idea I was in such illustrious company!!

I feel so much better about being labelled delusional and demented now that I know that you too have been deemed crazy Abook.

Damn!! It's an honor as far as I can see if you are the company I'm included in.

Interestingly, when Ahnimus calls people "crazy" its when they are talking about the finer nuances of the human condition, and of existence. It's in terms of when others (you, Abook, myself, for example) have a natural predisposition towards and have spent a great amount of time cultivating a reasoned awareness about the subjective levels of human experience. And according to the psychological developmental stages I cite on the board, that worldview is the next level past one-dimensional objective awareness (while also including objective awareness). What this means is that the practice of objective awareness alone is unable to perceive the nuances, depths and details about the human condition. So when using the word "crazy" to describe what his line of process (pure objective study) is unable to perceive speaks to the "accuser" and not the accused.

And yet, subjective human condition type concerns have been studied in various highly reputable and advanced schools of thought since the 19th century.

Ahnimus · June 2007

Continue to read on in the wikipedia article

angelica · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Continue to read on in the wikipedia article

Oh, trust me, I have.

What's happening is that those you accuse of being "crazy" or nihilistic are referring to their studies in complex abstract areas of study. Those who are integrating an objective and subjective view come to be quite savvy in these areas.

When one does not see the sense or logic behind such complex abstractions, that is about a lack of comprehension. That is not about those who study such complex abstractions believing that there is no organized system of objective truth behind such abstractions. As a matter of fact, I have a strong sense of moral and subjective and universal truth after studying these existing patters for some time, and after being naturally aware of them for much of my life. And some of the others you call "crazy" have as well, from what I can see. We PERCEIVE these patterns that are very complex and we naturally seek to understand them using logic and objectivity. Part of understanding these truths is understanding it is not accurate to impose these truths on other people. It seems you are viewing this knowledge from an objective standpoint and are confusing that with the idea that we believe these truths do not exist--and nothing could be farther from the truth. We've spent years working on being responsible in interpersonal aspects of life and we merely know that we have missed the whole point of what we seek when we undermine others.

Ahnimus · June 2007

no, Bowonksy or whatever was arguing that there is no absolute truth. That is nihilism.

Nihilism may come in many forms, certainly Nietsche was a nihilist in the sense that there is no divine purpose to life, but he still saw purpose in naturalism and rejected the form of nihilism that includes there being no absolute truth.

Brain of J.Lo · June 2007

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So, I've had this argument used against me twice.

"But with an atheist, what stops them from killing another person?Or stealing? They don't have morals. Why would they?"

One of the most ridiculous, ignorant, and unfounded comments I've had the unfortunate luck to be around and hear.

Has any other atheist around here had their morals questioned with this argument? Why do people come up with this shit? And how can they really believe that?

I agree that this argument is bullshit. I'm not an atheist, but I suppose I would fall into the category of "agnostic", if there must be a label. But, I have lived my life in accordance with the teachings of Christ, because he was (to put it mildly) a stand-up guy. I plan to use him as an example when teaching my daughter how to be a good person, too.

I don't do this so that I'll get to "heaven" or so that god likes me. I don't do it for myself. I do it for the people around me. I am kind to others because it's the right thing to do...not because it's what god wants me to do in order to get into heaven.

People should do good things because it makes the world better, and stop worrying so much about their own personal quest for salvation.

pjamdude69 · June 2007

catefrances wrote:

i am an atheist. i have morals. my morality is sorely tested when supposed tolerant christians tell me im going to hell. at which point i smile and say, 'if i actually believed in a hell that would concern me. but seeing's how i don't please go away.' or when supposed christians try and justify war to me whilst claiming a belief in jesus as their lord and saviour. somehow they seem not to understand the tenets of christ's teachings.

i was having a conversation with a friend who is a believer, on our daily walk this morning. 'you think about it', she said,' why would people bother to get up in the morning if there was no God and no afterlife. what would there be to live for?'
oh heck i don't know perhaps the life they have NOW, not one promised to them AFTER they're dead.

what's the point in living a life where the reward is eternal life in heaven? who the fuck wants to live forever. and why do you think we should anyway? how arrogant is Mankind to think that he is deserving of such a thing over all the other creatures. creatures who live to survive. Man is the most destructive force on this Earth and he feels somehow, that is deserving of a reward after death. if i were God i'd tell the lot of us, as a species we blew it and there is no place for us in his heaven. that is of course, if i were a believer .

Could not have said it any better Cate... Excellent fucking post.. I got into a little bit of a pissing match with a "believer" on this very board last year in a very similar thread subject... Having morals and values is just part of being human, nothing to do at all with what or who you believe in. And doing right and wrong is basically just human nature, following the laws of the land (despite the fact that some believers will have you believe all those laws are governed by a "god"- fuck that)...
I've had my own father try to convince me that I need to have christ in my life, regardless of the fact that I've lead a pretty damn good life without any of that bullshit in the equation. Hell, my wife's a christian and we've been together 11 years (guess she's not a very "diehard" christian if she's been with an atheist for over a decade

).. She tried once or twice when we first started going out to get me to go church or christian related functions and I politely told her "No thanks, Sundays are for watching football or recovering from a fucked up hangover"... Some friends and co-workers in the past have been surprised when they find out I'm an atheist- saying shit like "you don't act like an atheist", like there's some particular way we're supposed to act... Whatever, I'm a happy fucker disbelieving in whatever I want so it's all good..

Ahnimus · June 2007

"One class of men has always been anxious to keep step with the crowd. The way is easier and the rewards more certain. Another class has been skeptical and resentful of the crowd. These men have refused to follow down the beaten path; they strayed into the wilderness seeking new and better ways. Sometimes others have followed and a shorter path was made. Often they have perished because they left the herd. In the sight of the organized unit and the society of the time and place, the man who kept the path did right. The man who tried to make a new path and left the herd did wrong. In its last analysis, the criminal is the one who leaves the pack. He may lag behind or go in front, he may travel to the right or to the left, he may be better or worse, but his fate is the same."

-Clarence Darrow (Crime it's cause and it's treatment; 1922)
Complete Book
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm

onelongsong · June 2007

angelica wrote:

Interestingly, when Ahnimus calls people "crazy" its when they are talking about the finer nuances of the human condition, and of existence. It's in terms of when others (you, Abook, myself, for example) have a natural predisposition towards and have spent a great amount of time cultivating a reasoned awareness about the subjective levels of human experience. And according to the psychological developmental stages I cite on the board, that worldview is the next level past one-dimensional objective awareness (while also including objective awareness). What this means is that the practice of objective awareness alone is unable to perceive the nuances, depths and details about the human condition. So when using the word "crazy" to describe what his line of process (pure objective study) is unable to perceive speaks to the "accuser" and not the accused.

And yet, subjective human condition type concerns have been studied in various highly reputable and advanced schools of thought since the 19th century.

i agree. i'm glad man has not come through the ages with the same "if it can't be explained it doesn't exist" attitude. we'd still be sitting around a fire wondering where it came from. science strives to conquer the unknown and science never considers itself done; ie: have nothing more to discover. his short sightedness or maybe tunnelvison could come from failing to look outside of science. a true scientist must look outside of science in order to find new discoveries or new things to explain.
because science can't explain our experiences; doesn't mean they don't exist. it only means that science has yet to explain them.

Ahnimus · June 2007

The point is science does explain experiences, you just don't care to find out.

You are the one that is denying yourself the knowledge.

onelongsong · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The point is science does explain experiences, you just don't care to find out.

You are the one that is denying yourself the knowledge.

what? are you saying science closes it's eyes and refuses to attempt to explain? that answers why science cannot explain these things if you are right.

i know what you know but i look beyond what is known. many of us on this board have been through and/or are going through a disabling condition. i've found that these people do endless research just to fight boredom. i find them to be the most educated in several topics and their insite on many subjects both interesting and informing.

i enjoy learning from you but i want more. not more from you but more from life. i want to dive into the unknown and see what else there is. i know there is more; i can feel it. i only wish you could EXPERIENCE one of these things we talk about. i feel you are missing something. maybe i'm wrong; but that's how i feel.

Abookamongstthemany · June 2007

onelongsong wrote:

i agree. i'm glad man has not come through the ages with the same "if it can't be explained it doesn't exist" attitude. we'd still be sitting around a fire wondering where it came from. science strives to conquer the unknown and science never considers itself done; ie: have nothing more to discover. his short sightedness or maybe tunnelvison could come from failing to look outside of science. a true scientist must look outside of science in order to find new discoveries or new things to explain.
because science can't explain our experiences; doesn't mean they don't exist. it only means that science has yet to explain them.

Good post. It has always been those who have searched beyond the boundries that have made the greatest advances in mankind.

Ahnimus · June 2007

onelongsong wrote:

what? are you saying science closes it's eyes and refuses to attempt to explain? that answers why science cannot explain these things if you are right.

i know what you know but i look beyond what is known. many of us on this board have been through and/or are going through a disabling condition. i've found that these people do endless research just to fight boredom. i find them to be the most educated in several topics and their insite on many subjects both interesting and informing.

i enjoy learning from you but i want more. not more from you but more from life. i want to dive into the unknown and see what else there is. i know there is more; i can feel it. i only wish you could EXPERIENCE one of these things we talk about. i feel you are missing something. maybe i'm wrong; but that's how i feel.

Yea, it sounds like due to your conditions you won't accept the fact of reality, but rather search for and confabulate purpose. It makes sense.

onelongsong · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, it sounds like due to your conditions you won't accept the fact of reality, but rather search for and confabulate purpose. It makes sense.

and thus we see who has the closed mind.

Ahnimus · June 2007

onelongsong wrote:

and thus we see who has the closed mind.

Well, isn't that what you said?

angelica · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

no, Bowonksy or whatever was arguing that there is no absolute truth. That is nihilism.

Nihilism may come in many forms, certainly Nietsche was a nihilist in the sense that there is no divine purpose to life, but he still saw purpose in naturalism and rejected the form of nihilism that includes there being no absolute truth.

You've called me a Nihilist this week, and you alluded to fins post being Nihilist. And I know you are inaccurate regarding myself.

Further, it looks like you are glossing over your own Nihilistic tendencies, as put forth in my post above.

I'm not at all concerned with "Bowonsky" or whomever--I'm speaking to your interpretations and claims that are patently inaccurate.

angelica · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The point is science does explain experiences, you just don't care to find out.

You are the one that is denying yourself the knowledge.

Science explains the one-dimensional objective level. It cannot eplain the subjective levels because science, by it's very nature does not involve opinions and personal point of view. Science operates from a different worldview-point than subjective, interpersonal humanitarian sensitive awareness operates from. People's opinions and points of view, as well as cultural views/opinions are what is studied at the subjective levels--both objectively and subjectively.

The morals of an atheist

Comments

Categories