Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism and Nihilism

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

I think because they don't believe an internal source can provide meaning, that it must be imposed from outside.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:49:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

I think because they don't believe an internal source can provide meaning, that it must be imposed from outside.

Usually, but get this, they don't seem to follow their own logic to its bitter end.

If for something to have OBJECTIVE value/meaning it must come from "outside" so too speak, then "God" doesn't have any objective value/meaning.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:59:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

Well, if nobody created us, then nobody meant for us to be here. There was no intention behind our existence. So the universe can't have a purpose if there's no God.

Morality is about what we're supposed to do and what we're supposed to avoid doing. That seems to me to indicate purpose. There can't be a way we're supposed to act if there's nobody who means for us to act that way.

Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all. Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to. If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

While we are here, I suppose you could say it matters to us, but that's relativism. If our purpose, importance, and oughtness all depends on our own preferences and desires, then that's just relativism. We don't have any objective purpose or value in the sense of getting our purpose and value from something that transcends cultures and stands outside of us. All of us created things are sort of on equal footing. So maybe one person cares that we're here and another doesn't, and maybe a third person wishes we weren't here. Without there being a God who meant for us to be here, there's no objectively true answer to the question, "Does it matter whether we're here or not?"

I don't think there's any inconsistency between being a moral nihilist and a moral relativist. Both deny that existence of any objective purpose, meaning, value, or moral obligations. Relativists just add that we nevertheless value things ourselves, place importance in things, set goals for ourselves, impose expectations on people, etc., which niihilists don't deny.

So I think if there's no God, then moral nihilism would be the way to go. And you could be a relativist, too.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 7:59:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:52:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:49:07 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

I think because they don't believe an internal source can provide meaning, that it must be imposed from outside.

Usually, but get this, they don't seem to follow their own logic to its bitter end.

If for something to have OBJECTIVE value/meaning it must come from "outside" so too speak, then "God" doesn't have any objective value/meaning.

I never really thought about that. This is a good point...

Meaning could even be embedded in the universe (like Paul Davies believes) without need for any imposing from outside the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:59:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

Well, if nobody created us, then nobody meant for us to be here.

Fair enough.

There was no intention behind our existence.

Fair enough.

So the universe can't have a purpose if there's no God.

This does not follow.


Morality is about what we're supposed to do and what we're supposed to avoid doing. That seems to me to indicate purpose. There can't be a way we're supposed to act if there's nobody who means for us to act that way.

This does not follow either.


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all.

This is your opinion.

Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to.

This is your opinion.

If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

This is your opinion.

While we are here, I suppose you could say it matters to us, but that's relativism. If our purpose, importance, and oughtness all depends on our own preferences and desires, then that's just relativism. We don't have any objective purpose or value in the sense of getting our purpose and value from something that transcends cultures and stands outside of us. All of us created things are sort of on equal footing. So maybe one person cares that we're here and another doesn't, and maybe a third person wishes we weren't here. Without there being a God who meant for us to be here, there's no objectively true answer to the question, "Does it matter whether we're here or not?"

I don't think there's any inconsistency between being a moral nihilist and a moral relativist. Both deny that existence of any objective purpose, meaning, value, or moral obligations. Relativists just add that we nevertheless value things ourselves, place importance in things, set goals for ourselves, impose expectations on people, etc., which niihilists don't deny.

So I think if there's no God, then moral nihilism would be the way to go. And you could be a relativist, too.

I was not talking about morality. We can be "about something" without it having to be about morality. Nothing you said followed, and seemed to just be bare assertions based on your presuppositions.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:59:28 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

Well, if nobody created us, then nobody meant for us to be here. There was no intention behind our existence. So the universe can't have a purpose if there's no God.

Morality is about what we're supposed to do and what we're supposed to avoid doing. That seems to me to indicate purpose. There can't be a way we're supposed to act if there's nobody who means for us to act that way.

Well, there is a somebody who means for us to act that way. In fact, there are many somebodies who mean for us to act that way. Over 6 billion.


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all. Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to. If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

It matters to us. And that's all that matters.


While we are here, I suppose you could say it matters to us, but that's relativism. If our purpose, importance, and oughtness all depends on our own preferences and desires, then that's just relativism. We don't have any objective purpose or value in the sense of getting our purpose and value from something that transcends cultures and stands outside of us. All of us created things are sort of on equal footing. So maybe one person cares that we're here and another doesn't, and maybe a third person wishes we weren't here. Without there being a God who meant for us to be here, there's no objectively true answer to the question, "Does it matter whether we're here or not?"

You say that's "just relativism" as if relativism doesn't count.


I don't think there's any inconsistency between being a moral nihilist and a moral relativist. Both deny that existence of any objective purpose, meaning, value, or moral obligations. Relativists just add that we nevertheless value things ourselves, place importance in things, set goals for ourselves, impose expectations on people, etc., which niihilists don't deny.

So I think if there's no God, then moral nihilism would be the way to go. And you could be a relativist, too.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:11:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Purpose is 100% abstract.

The purpose of a watch is to tell time. But the purpose of the battery that powers that watch is not to tell time. It has no purpose, nor does the metal. Purpose comes from what conscious beings use it for, only. Which means, before consciousness existed, there is no purpose. Also, since consciousness does not self-serve (in this sense only), it has no purpose.

I could stop there, but since this society is so intrenched in the belief of God, I must address this matter. God has no purpose when He is by himself, so He decided to make some mutual purposefulness by making other conscious beings and subjecting them to freewill. So now everyone has a purpose and everyone is happy. Maybe.
0x5f3759df
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:14:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
See this the thinking that pisses me off.

We are told that if God doesn't exist then there is no objective meaning, purpose blah blah blah, we all die, it goes black and that's it, so its all pointless.

But now if we take the exact same world such as ours, say there is a person who exists outside of it, suddenly all that pointless crap magically becomes OBJECTIVELY meaningful.........

Just adding a person who exists outside of the universe doesn't magically make the pointless meaningful.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:14:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
See this the thinking that pisses me off.

We are told that if God doesn't exist then there is no objective meaning, purpose blah blah blah, we all die, it goes black and that's it, so its all pointless.

This commits the fallacy of presupposition. They have no good reason why God is needed for objective purpose, they just suppose it and hope we do not question the faulty reasoning of bare assertions.


But now if we take the exact same world such as ours, say there is a person who exists outside of it, suddenly all that pointless crap magically becomes OBJECTIVELY meaningful.........

Just adding a person who exists outside of the universe doesn't magically make the pointless meaningful.

They assume purpose cannot exist without consciousness. This is not justified. Purpose just means the reason for why something is done. Why can't something happen for a reason without any personal being? The claim that it cannot seems to be a non-sequitur.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:25:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

Usually we mean Strong Atheism when we say just Atheism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:25:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:25:21 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/30/2013 7:40:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Why do Theists believe that if Atheism is true, the universe is about nothing? Most Atheists do believe that there is no ultimate point to reality, but that doesn't mean the Atheist is committed to this. Also, consciousness can play a significant role in the universe and not be looked at as non-vital in an Atheistic worldview as well.

Usually we mean Strong Atheism when we say just Atheism.

This has nothing to do with my post lol
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:30:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well if there's no way to derive any meaning from an objective stand-point, then the very least we have is the meaning we create.

There may be no objective meaning for me to be alive, but there is none for me to die either. I want to live, so it's settled, I'll live. But beyond that, I do hold the diversity of existence in high esteem, even in a slightly sacred way. If I stop existing, my concept will disappear from existence, becoming nothing. All nothing is the same, but there's diversity in existence. This seems to give a sort of value, in different ways.

It's easy to see why people would equate the two though. It's like having a king create laws, then one day saying, "nahh, the laws are silly, make your own". People would wonder why they needed to. Maybe that's a bad example... lol

Even with God though, it doesn't give life any meaning. Maybe the concept of meaning can't be applied in such a way. We have to find things in life which we value highly, give reasons for it (what ever kind you favour) and then life towards it. God is sort of used as a magical "get-out-of-jail-free card". How does something that seems impossible to create, or for us to understand? God. How can existence come into being? God. What is the meaning of life? God. It's similar to saying you have an argument against something, and instead of presenting the argument, presenting the name of the argument. In itself, it doesn't carry much, if any, weight.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:40:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all.

This is your opinion.

Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to.

This is your opinion.

If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

This is your opinion.

Why do people say things like this? Of course it's my opinion! I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't my opinion. That strikes me as being a banal non-response. I might as well respond to it by saying, "That's your opinion."
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:41:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I was not talking about morality. We can be "about something" without it having to be about morality. Nothing you said followed, and seemed to just be bare assertions based on your presuppositions.

What do you mean by "about something"? I thought I knew what you meant, but I guess I was wrong.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:42:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:41:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I was not talking about morality. We can be "about something" without it having to be about morality. Nothing you said followed, and seemed to just be bare assertions based on your presuppositions.

What do you mean by "about something"? I thought I knew what you meant, but I guess I was wrong.

Maybe values and purpose? I don't know.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:47:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:40:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all.

This is your opinion.

Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to.

This is your opinion.

If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

This is your opinion.

Why do people say things like this? Of course it's my opinion! I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't my opinion. That strikes me as being a banal non-response. I might as well respond to it by saying, "That's your opinion."

You did not say it was your opinion (when you said "it seems" it inferred a prima facie statement), you stated it as fact. This makes your response above a non-response.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:47:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:40:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all.

This is your opinion.

Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to.

This is your opinion.

If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

This is your opinion.

Why do people say things like this? Of course it's my opinion! I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't my opinion. That strikes me as being a banal non-response. I might as well respond to it by saying, "That's your opinion."

You did not say it was your opinion (when you said "it seems" it inferred a prima facie statement), you stated it as fact. This makes your response above a non-response.

There's no difference in me thinking X is true and it being my opinion that X is true.
That is unless you mean something different by "opinion" than I took you to mean. What did you mean?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:53:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:51:26 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:47:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:40:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all.

This is your opinion.

Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to.

This is your opinion.

If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

This is your opinion.

Why do people say things like this? Of course it's my opinion! I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't my opinion. That strikes me as being a banal non-response. I might as well respond to it by saying, "That's your opinion."

You did not say it was your opinion (when you said "it seems" it inferred a prima facie statement), you stated it as fact. This makes your response above a non-response.

There's no difference in me thinking X is true and it being my opinion that X is true.
That is unless you mean something different by "opinion" than I took you to mean. What did you mean?

I sense a great thread derailment coming.

Get back to topic at hand ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:53:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I sense a great thread derailment coming.

Get back to topic at hand ?

Not a chance in North Korea.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:55:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:54:36 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:53:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I sense a great thread derailment coming.

Get back to topic at hand ?

Not a chance in North Korea.

North Korea doesn't have objective valve unless God exists.......and we are back on topic.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:57:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:41:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I was not talking about morality. We can be "about something" without it having to be about morality. Nothing you said followed, and seemed to just be bare assertions based on your presuppositions.

What do you mean by "about something"? I thought I knew what you meant, but I guess I was wrong.

I was claiming that there are ways for consciousness to be fundamental to the universe, different than everything else, and playing a significant role with an ultimate meaning of reality without appealing to a God. This Atheistic view is not necessary, as I see no reason not to think that we are just a "freak of nature", which is why we are so different and small in a large universe, along with thinking we do not belong here, and humans are just a bizarre cosmic accident. Both views (significance and meaning/ no significance and meaning) I think are fine under Atheism. However, Theists seem to only think one of those views pertains to Atheism. I wasn't speaking on moral nihilism. Consciousness could have a universal reason or purpose, even if moral relativism was true and moral realism was false. Just because consciousness is fundamental wouldn't mean morality was fundamental necessarily.

In a nut shell, I just think some Theists build this little picture of what an Atheist has to be. I do not think it is justified.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:58:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:55:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:54:36 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:53:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

I sense a great thread derailment coming.

Get back to topic at hand ?

Not a chance in North Korea.

North Korea doesn't have objective valve unless God exists.......and we are back on topic.

North Korea is Hell, their leader is the anti-Christ, so where the North Korea is Jesus at? He's supposed to be taking that guy out.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:51:26 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:47:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:40:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all.

This is your opinion.

Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to.

This is your opinion.

If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

This is your opinion.

Why do people say things like this? Of course it's my opinion! I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't my opinion. That strikes me as being a banal non-response. I might as well respond to it by saying, "That's your opinion."

You did not say it was your opinion (when you said "it seems" it inferred a prima facie statement), you stated it as fact. This makes your response above a non-response.

There's no difference in me thinking X is true and it being my opinion that X is true.
That is unless you mean something different by "opinion" than I took you to mean. What did you mean?

I thought you were trying to make factual claims. My apologies for being mistaken.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:57:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:41:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I was not talking about morality. We can be "about something" without it having to be about morality. Nothing you said followed, and seemed to just be bare assertions based on your presuppositions.

What do you mean by "about something"? I thought I knew what you meant, but I guess I was wrong.

I was claiming that there are ways for consciousness to be fundamental to the universe, different than everything else, and playing a significant role with an ultimate meaning of reality without appealing to a God. This Atheistic view is not necessary, as I see no reason not to think that we are just a "freak of nature",

which is why we are so different and small in a large universe,

"lower bound of the (possibly infinite) radius of the universe, if it is a 3-sphere, according to one estimate using the WMAP data at 95% confidence.[23] It equivalently implies that there are at minimum 21 particle horizon-sized volumes in the universe." - Factor: 10^27 meters.

"Planck length; typical scale of hypothetical loop quantum gravity or size of a hypothetical string and of branes; according to string theory lengths smaller than this do not make any physical sense.[2] (But see recent evidence to the contrary.) Quantum foam is thought to exist at this level." - Factor: 10^-35.

"Average height of a human" - Factor: 10^0.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Are we big, or small... hmm?

along with thinking we do not belong here, and humans are just a bizarre cosmic accident. Both views (significance and meaning/ no significance and meaning) I think are fine under Atheism. However, Theists seem to only think one of those views pertains to Atheism. I wasn't speaking on moral nihilism. Consciousness could have a universal reason or purpose, even if moral relativism was true and moral realism was false. Just because consciousness is fundamental wouldn't mean morality was fundamental necessarily.

In a nut shell, I just think some Theists build this little picture of what an Atheist has to be. I do not think it is justified.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:11:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:05:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:57:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:41:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I was not talking about morality. We can be "about something" without it having to be about morality. Nothing you said followed, and seemed to just be bare assertions based on your presuppositions.

What do you mean by "about something"? I thought I knew what you meant, but I guess I was wrong.

I was claiming that there are ways for consciousness to be fundamental to the universe, different than everything else, and playing a significant role with an ultimate meaning of reality without appealing to a God. This Atheistic view is not necessary, as I see no reason not to think that we are just a "freak of nature",

which is why we are so different and small in a large universe,

"lower bound of the (possibly infinite) radius of the universe, if it is a 3-sphere, according to one estimate using the WMAP data at 95% confidence.[23] It equivalently implies that there are at minimum 21 particle horizon-sized volumes in the universe." - Factor: 10^27 meters.

"Planck length; typical scale of hypothetical loop quantum gravity or size of a hypothetical string and of branes; according to string theory lengths smaller than this do not make any physical sense.[2] (But see recent evidence to the contrary.) Quantum foam is thought to exist at this level." - Factor: 10^-35.

"Average height of a human" - Factor: 10^0.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Are we big, or small... hmm?

along with thinking we do not belong here, and humans are just a bizarre cosmic accident. Both views (significance and meaning/ no significance and meaning) I think are fine under Atheism. However, Theists seem to only think one of those views pertains to Atheism. I wasn't speaking on moral nihilism. Consciousness could have a universal reason or purpose, even if moral relativism was true and moral realism was false. Just because consciousness is fundamental wouldn't mean morality was fundamental necessarily.

In a nut shell, I just think some Theists build this little picture of what an Atheist has to be. I do not think it is justified.

I am sorry, but I do not follow. Could you explain your point a little further please?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:14:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:59:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:51:26 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:47:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:40:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Without a God, it doesn't seem to me that it matters that we exist at all.

This is your opinion.

Nothing matters unless there's somebody it matters to.

This is your opinion.

If there's no God, and all live eventually ceases to exist, it won't matter that we were ever here.

This is your opinion.

Why do people say things like this? Of course it's my opinion! I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't my opinion. That strikes me as being a banal non-response. I might as well respond to it by saying, "That's your opinion."

You did not say it was your opinion (when you said "it seems" it inferred a prima facie statement), you stated it as fact. This makes your response above a non-response.

There's no difference in me thinking X is true and it being my opinion that X is true.
That is unless you mean something different by "opinion" than I took you to mean. What did you mean?

I thought you were trying to make factual claims. My apologies for being mistaken.

To be fair, I believe philo was saying that when you say "X is a fact", fundamentally it's still true that the statement "In my opinion, X is a fact" is true. All statements coming from a speaker not speaking for another on the nature of something are, technically, "opinion". I think you're taking "opinion" to mean "Subjectively, I think X", and he's saying he finds "That's your opinion" a non-answer because technically it's always true.

So it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're trying to respond with "You think that based on nothing more than opinion, but he takes issue because the "nothing more than" wasn't stated, and so therefore you stated an obvious truth.

Seems a difference between colloquial and formal uses of "opinion", perhaps.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:16:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:11:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 9:05:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:57:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:41:39 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/30/2013 8:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I was not talking about morality. We can be "about something" without it having to be about morality. Nothing you said followed, and seemed to just be bare assertions based on your presuppositions.

What do you mean by "about something"? I thought I knew what you meant, but I guess I was wrong.

I was claiming that there are ways for consciousness to be fundamental to the universe, different than everything else, and playing a significant role with an ultimate meaning of reality without appealing to a God. This Atheistic view is not necessary, as I see no reason not to think that we are just a "freak of nature",

which is why we are so different and small in a large universe,

"lower bound of the (possibly infinite) radius of the universe, if it is a 3-sphere, according to one estimate using the WMAP data at 95% confidence.[23] It equivalently implies that there are at minimum 21 particle horizon-sized volumes in the universe." - Factor: 10^27 meters.

"Planck length; typical scale of hypothetical loop quantum gravity or size of a hypothetical string and of branes; according to string theory lengths smaller than this do not make any physical sense.[2] (But see recent evidence to the contrary.) Quantum foam is thought to exist at this level." - Factor: 10^-35.

"Average height of a human" - Factor: 10^0.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Are we big, or small... hmm?

along with thinking we do not belong here, and humans are just a bizarre cosmic accident. Both views (significance and meaning/ no significance and meaning) I think are fine under Atheism. However, Theists seem to only think one of those views pertains to Atheism. I wasn't speaking on moral nihilism. Consciousness could have a universal reason or purpose, even if moral relativism was true and moral realism was false. Just because consciousness is fundamental wouldn't mean morality was fundamental necessarily.

In a nut shell, I just think some Theists build this little picture of what an Atheist has to be. I do not think it is justified.

I am sorry, but I do not follow. Could you explain your point a little further please?

Compared to the universe we might be small, but, we're 27 orders smaller than the universe, and 35 orders bigger than Plank length, so... Maybe we're big?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 9:18:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 9:14:06 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

To be fair, I believe philo was saying that when you say "X is a fact", fundamentally it's still true that the statement "In my opinion, X is a fact" is true. All statements coming from a speaker not speaking for another on the nature of something are, technically, "opinion". I think you're taking "opinion" to mean "Subjectively, I think X", and he's saying he finds "That's your opinion" a non-answer because technically it's always true.

So it seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're trying to respond with "You think that based on nothing more than opinion, but he takes issue because the "nothing more than" wasn't stated, and so therefore you stated an obvious truth.

Seems a difference between colloquial and formal uses of "opinion", perhaps.

I need to learn to speak smart.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!