Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Nihiilism and Christianity.

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 8:28:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
For the complete and utter idiots on this board,you know you are the majority. When discussing Christianity, it is important to recognize it is not the moral nihilism worldview. So, why the f#ck any of you idiots think moral nihilism is a rebuttal to an argument about morals in the christian worldview is absolutely and immensely astounding. It is about as relevant as talking about the improbability of resurrection to christians and the rebuttal having to do with buddhism. Its 2 different worldviews, the only one relevant in the argument is the worldview the question is about. Now, please for fucks sake stay on topic.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 8:40:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 8:28:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
For the complete and utter idiots on this board,you know you are the majority. When discussing Christianity, it is important to recognize it is not the moral nihilism worldview. So, why the f#ck any of you idiots think moral nihilism is a rebuttal to an argument about morals in the christian worldview is absolutely and immensely astounding. It is about as relevant as talking about the improbability of resurrection to christians and the rebuttal having to do with buddhism. Its 2 different worldviews, the only one relevant in the argument is the worldview the question is about. Now, please for fucks sake stay on topic.

All it really is, is a bunch of high school kids on this board have learned a new phrase that they think makes them look intelligent. So, they throw it around as if they understand the position or the ramifications of said position, not caring that the word is irrelevant to said topic.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 9:28:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Moral nihilists should know they're not meaningfully rebutting Christianity because they're coming from a completely different philosophical starting point. To rebut Christianity it is necessary to start at the Christian God or even the core texts. Now, Izbo, instead of spamming mundane oppositions to Christianity how about you revisit your debate with Contradiction and make a detailed rebuttal to his ontological, contingency, and cosmological arguments. I'd sure rather read that thread than a provocative PoE thread or some thread mentioning Christianity leading to some evil.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 10:15:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 9:28:35 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Moral nihilists should know they're not meaningfully rebutting Christianity because they're coming from a completely different philosophical starting point.

Mmmm!!

Though I Do think that arguing the merits of having Belief in the existence of God is the most Direct method of challenging a christian understanding..
I also am quite sure you're wrong in saying that arguing from a Moral Nihilist perspective provides no room for discussion/persuasion.

For why are things "right and wrong"??

christian's generally are rather undecided as to whether it's "right" b/c God Wills it.. or if it's "Right" prior to god's willing it.

this is a good way to Open up the discussion and get them engaged with it.

and either position they support has Further questions to answer

for if it's "Right" prior to God's willing... How do They know of it and it's Priority??? is it through Their Own will? is That why they're so sure?? what makes these Rights and Wrongs float by themselves Disconnected from and Prior to God and Humanity?

and if it's Right B/C God wills it.. then why is God's right's and wrong's to be upheld by me?
How's God come to "right" and "wrong" things? why does he choose "good" over evil? what are good and evil?
Ultimately it comes down to God caring, god chooses b/c of his nature... and if you Care differently/choose differently b/c of Your nature.. what makes it so that you should choose reflecting what God cares about Rather than what You care about.
There's no reason to choose something But that you care about it.

I think both these (nihilistic type) arguments would be relevant to discussions of Morality.. Including discussions with christians.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 10:37:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 8:28:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
For the complete and utter idiots on this board,you know you are the majority. When discussing Christianity, it is important to recognize it is not the moral nihilism worldview. So, why the f#ck any of you idiots think moral nihilism is a rebuttal to an argument about morals in the christian worldview is absolutely and immensely astounding. It is about as relevant as talking about the improbability of resurrection to christians and the rebuttal having to do with buddhism. Its 2 different worldviews, the only one relevant in the argument is the worldview the question is about. Now, please for fucks sake stay on topic.

Moral Nihilism does not rely upon a particular metaphysical framework.

the character of "moral" decisionmaking need to be explained in any framework you support...

in getting someone to explain what makes something 'moral' you can find further things to question.. and in ANY framework a Floaty, disconnected, un-explained morality floating as a standard by itself is unacceptable.. and in any framework the reason for going by Someone elses care-based decisions needs to be provided.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 11:56:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 8:28:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:
For the complete and utter idiots on this board,you know you are the majority. When discussing Christianity, it is important to recognize it is not the moral nihilism worldview.

1: Who said it was?
2: Is moral nihilism and Christianity mutuall exclusive, if so why?
3: Do you know what moral nihilism is?

So, why the f#ck any of you idiots think moral nihilism is a rebuttal to an argument about morals in the christian worldview is absolutely and immensely astounding.

It was never offered as such, you seem unable to comprehend simple English.

It is about as relevant as talking about the improbability of resurrection to christians and the rebuttal having to do with buddhism. Its 2 different worldviews, the only one relevant in the argument is the worldview the question is about. Now, please for fucks sake stay on topic.

You are so retarded you make my teeth bleed.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 12:00:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You should note, Izbo10, that moral nihilism was never used to actually counter the Christian world view, but rather your assumption that murder was wrong (moral nihilism=no "ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments" is wrong or right) and its relative role to the Christian world view. (This was in the "murder wrong in the Christian world view")

If we were actually attacking the Christian worldview, we atheists would have used a different approach of questioning the existence/possibility of existence of God, or maybe point out the possible contradictions in his characterization.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 12:19:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 10:15:42 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/6/2011 9:28:35 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Moral nihilists should know they're not meaningfully rebutting Christianity because they're coming from a completely different philosophical starting point.

Mmmm!!

Though I Do think that arguing the merits of having Belief in the existence of God is the most Direct method of challenging a christian understanding..
I also am quite sure you're wrong in saying that arguing from a Moral Nihilist perspective provides no room for discussion/persuasion.

For why are things "right and wrong"??

christian's generally are rather undecided as to whether it's "right" b/c God Wills it.. or if it's "Right" prior to god's willing it.

this is a good way to Open up the discussion and get them engaged with it.

and either position they support has Further questions to answer

for if it's "Right" prior to God's willing... How do They know of it and it's Priority??? is it through Their Own will? is That why they're so sure?? what makes these Rights and Wrongs float by themselves Disconnected from and Prior to God and Humanity?

and if it's Right B/C God wills it.. then why is God's right's and wrong's to be upheld by me?
How's God come to "right" and "wrong" things? why does he choose "good" over evil? what are good and evil?
Ultimately it comes down to God caring, god chooses b/c of his nature... and if you Care differently/choose differently b/c of Your nature.. what makes it so that you should choose reflecting what God cares about Rather than what You care about.
There's no reason to choose something But that you care about it.

I think both these (nihilistic type) arguments would be relevant to discussions of Morality.. Including discussions with christians.

Christians generally respond to the Euthyphro dilemma that goodness is rooted in God's nature. No christian believes in moral nihilism, and moral nihilism is almost by definition non-theistic.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:05:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

How is that? Nihilism is a form of relativism, and for the most part i would say apathy. Christianity is heavily morally absolute. Now if someone wants to discuss the hypocracy of many Christians that is another discussion.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:53:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

Oh dear... that is actually priceless...wow... where to begin?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:55:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

So our 'objective moral values' derive from the word of the 'law giver'. And I thought you were meant to challenge the authority of that 'law giver', and yet you are affirming it...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:56:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:55:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

So our 'objective moral values' derive from the word of the 'law giver'. And I thought you were meant to challenge the authority of that 'law giver', and yet you are affirming it...

How can we even discuss this with him if he does not know what objective means?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:56:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:55:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

So our 'objective moral values' derive from the word of the 'law giver'. And I thought you were meant to challenge the authority of that 'law giver', and yet you are affirming it...

Its meant to show that christianity is not a subjective moral system so moral nihilism is irrelevent when discussing INTERNAL contradictions in christianity.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:58:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:56:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:55:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

So our 'objective moral values' derive from the word of the 'law giver'. And I thought you were meant to challenge the authority of that 'law giver', and yet you are affirming it...

Its meant to show that christianity is not a subjective moral system so moral nihilism is irrelevent when discussing INTERNAL contradictions in christianity.

Actually it is, but Christians get confused. Anyway we can't have this argument until someone educates you to the requisite level.

In Izbo land, what does objective mean to you? What would be an example of something that is objective?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 2:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:56:29 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:55:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

So our 'objective moral values' derive from the word of the 'law giver'. And I thought you were meant to challenge the authority of that 'law giver', and yet you are affirming it...

How can we even discuss this with him if he does not know what objective means?

He probably knows what subjective is, though....But we're talking about objective moral values anyway...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 3:02:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:59:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:56:29 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:55:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

So our 'objective moral values' derive from the word of the 'law giver'. And I thought you were meant to challenge the authority of that 'law giver', and yet you are affirming it...

How can we even discuss this with him if he does not know what objective means?

He probably knows what subjective is, though....But we're talking about objective moral values anyway...

I don't think he gets either term... hopefully he will look them up before posting again.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 3:16:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

Obviously the christian would not see it as such, but the root of the objection is that Christianity is anti-humanistic and anti-naturalistic (again, we're talking about Nietzsche's view here), and that this leads people to what he refers to as essentially an imaginary existence. If the fact of the imaginary existence is discovered, then there is a real danger that the individual assigns meaning only in the context of God (i.e. life is not meaningful on its own), or the individual cannot divorce the Christian lie of meaningful creation from the evidence, and gives up both Christianity and believing in meaningful existence.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 4:11:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 3:02:14 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:59:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:56:29 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:55:17 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:50:49 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:49:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 2:38:56 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Love to see how anyone can say that a absolute moral law giver, is anywhere near subjective individual morality?

I guess it depends how you define absolute, but otherwise a moral law giver tends to imply subjective morality.

Do you understand terms such as objective or subjective?

apparently you don't. One law giver means his word is how we get objective moral values.

So our 'objective moral values' derive from the word of the 'law giver'. And I thought you were meant to challenge the authority of that 'law giver', and yet you are affirming it...

How can we even discuss this with him if he does not know what objective means?

He probably knows what subjective is, though....But we're talking about objective moral values anyway...

I don't think he gets either term... hopefully he will look them up before posting again.

I don't think you grasp this, you people are not that bright it is clear. The moral law giver has set unchanging, unchangable set laws: ie objective moral laws.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 4:37:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 4:11:14 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I don't think you grasp this, you people are not that bright it is clear. The moral law giver has set unchanging, unchangable set laws: ie objective moral laws.

That's not what objective means. How can you be this arrogant and not know what objective means?

Do you believe that if the entire wold looked to you for moral laws that your morality would become objective?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 4:40:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm really thinking that izbo is just making stuff up as he goes along. First he says that murder is common sense morally wrong. Then, when that premise is refuted by us moral nihilists, he changes tactics and says it's wrong because of human survival. NOW he's changing it to say "Oh, we're doing it on Christian terms."

Honetly, izbo, quit changing and warping what you say to fit your view. I'd have no problem with the reasoning that you're arguing on Christian ground, but you should've said that from the beginning. Seems to me that you just don't know what you're talking about to be honest...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 4:49:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 4:40:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm really thinking that izbo is just making stuff up as he goes along. First he says that murder is common sense morally wrong. Then, when that premise is refuted by us moral nihilists, he changes tactics and says it's wrong because of human survival. NOW he's changing it to say "Oh, we're doing it on Christian terms."

Honetly, izbo, quit changing and warping what you say to fit your view. I'd have no problem with the reasoning that you're arguing on Christian ground, but you should've said that from the beginning. Seems to me that you just don't know what you're talking about to be honest...

I am a little embarrased for him to be honest...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 4:53:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I just really like the word Nihilism; and beleive that anyone who uses this, or engages in flaucinaucinihilipilification while referring to it as such automatically wins the argument.

The same goes for "Obfuscatory".
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 8:06:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 1:20:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
I think he just learned a new word in his intro to Philosophy class... pay it no heed.

Though there can be a fairly strong case made (IMO) that Nietzsche hated Christianity because he viewed it as a step towards nihilism...

Given that the Valuations in christianity were of Another.. and really of another who didn't even exist.. to Adopt christianity you'd have to Give Up those Real, meaningful, valuations which You have.

and to embrace the will of (that non-existent) god you'd have to give up and stomp out your own (actually existent) will.

now... christianity itself might Breed nihilism.. or Encourage it in people who grow up with it :/

but Noone who is Introduced to christianity would become convinced of Nihilism Through it..
Rather people who ALREADY struggle with nihilism/Self-rejection tend to Jump On Board with christianity b/c they can Fully reject themselves while deluding themselves that this process isn't as depressing as they found it without this Other Being's will to live through..

they can Fool themselves that they're Not nihilists!
Just like Saint Augustine the hippopotamus who struggled with Nihilism until god said to READ! the good book and he figured he'd Drop his own will (which he despised anyway) and Jump on God's so that he could hide his depression with religious fervour
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 8:13:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 8:06:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Given that the Valuations in christianity were of Another.. and really of another who didn't even exist.. to Adopt christianity you'd have to Give Up those Real, meaningful, valuations which You have.

and to embrace the will of (that non-existent) god you'd have to give up and stomp out your own (actually existent) will.

now... christianity itself might Breed nihilism.. or Encourage it in people who grow up with it :/

but Noone who is Introduced to christianity would become convinced of Nihilism Through it..
Rather people who ALREADY struggle with nihilism/Self-rejection tend to Jump On Board with christianity b/c they can Fully reject themselves while deluding themselves that this process isn't as depressing as they found it without this Other Being's will to live through..

they can Fool themselves that they're Not nihilists!
Just like Saint Augustine the hippopotamus who struggled with Nihilism until god said to READ! the good book and he figured he'd Drop his own will (which he despised anyway) and Jump on God's so that he could hide his depression with religious fervour

Really it's all summed up by Nietzsche in my Sig of the moment which I'll include for Posterity's sake 8)

It was suffering and incapacity that created all afterworlds...
Weariness that wants to reach the ultimate with one leap, one fatal leap, a poor ignorant weariness that does not want to want any more: this created all gods and afterworlds.

- Thus Spoke Zarathustra
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 8:17:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 12:19:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Christians generally respond to the Euthyphro dilemma that goodness is rooted in God's nature.

Do you mean they say "goodness" is defined through god's nature.. or that God happens to be such that he's "good" which is what it is of itself?

No christian believes in moral nihilism, and moral nihilism is almost by definition non-theistic.

no kidding.. I was suggesting that you could argue for Relativistic morality (which is considered Moral Nihilism) Even Given that God exists.

I was asking for the Reasoning behind supporting what God supports... if that reasoning is Lacking.. Objective Morality (even With God) is unsupported.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 8:18:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 4:37:42 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/6/2011 4:11:14 PM, izbo10 wrote:

I don't think you grasp this, you people are not that bright it is clear. The moral law giver has set unchanging, unchangable set laws: ie objective moral laws.

That's not what objective means. How can you be this arrogant and not know what objective means?

Do you believe that if the entire wold looked to you for moral laws that your morality would become objective?

Im actually embarrassed for you, you took what i said and warped it the way you want, what makes it objective is those moral codes are set and unchanging, please try to be intelligent just once.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.