1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

Tired of being a nihilist

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Deleted Account, May 6, 2019.

  1. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    I've never claimed that atheists have no morals. What's undeniable, however, is that atheist morality is relative. There is no "universal agreement" on what constitutes morality. You think killing innocent people is evil. ISIS soldiers think killing innocent people is Allah's will. One of you is wrong.

    And let's not fall victim to the tyranny of a majority. If 98% of people in my state decided to steal my property, that wouldn't make it morally right. Morality is based on principle, not on consensus.

    The Bible says as much. It says the law has been "written on the hearts" of all mankind, their "conscience bearing witness." Even atheists, deep down, know good from evil. But to even have that kind of distinction, you need an absolute goodness to compare things to, otherwise "good" and "evil" just become matters of opinion. That's the kind of relativistic morality that atheists must contend with.

    In your comments, you've spoken of morality, decency, kindness, and respect. But if life has no meaning, then these words are absolutely meaningless. If life had no meaning, you wouldn't be here claiming it had no meaning.

    It breaks down like this:
    • For you to say "life has no meaning," you have to believe that making the comment is meaningful ... that it's a worthwhile thing to do.
    • If your comment is meaningful, then so is your existence, because it's your existence that made your comment possible.
    • If your existence has meaning, then life has meaning.
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  2. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    (emphasis added)

    You're trying to have it both ways. Here, you've just said, "it really is a matter of opinion I guess as people make up their own mind." That means you think morality is subjective. But in an earlier comment, you said:

    (emphasis added)

    When you speak of "obvious core fundamentals", you're talking about things that aren't objective (or at least, shouldn't be). Rape, for instance, is wrong, full stop--no matter what anyone says, and no matter what the circumstances are. But if rape is objectively wrong in all circumstances, then there must be an objective standard of morality for it to be declared as such.

    In other words, you have to have some kind of standard to cast judgment on anything. In order to declare something pretty or ugly, you have to have some kind of standard you're referencing. In order to declare something as loud or quiet, it needs to be loud or quiet compared to something else. "Hot" and "cold" are only hot and cold depending on your reference point. You have to have a standard.

    Here's a fair question: suppose someone approached you and said, "my life has no meaning. I'm thinking of killing myself, since there's nothing greater to live for." Would you say "you're right, knock yourself out", or would you challenge that person to believe they have a purpose in life, even if they might not know what that purpose is?
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  3. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    Could you please explain how you understand the difference between purpose and meaning?

    How can a person with no sense of meaning have a sense of purpose?

    See, for me, those are interchangeable ideas. They're basically the same. So for you to say, "if you have a purpose in life, you don't need to search for meaning" totally makes sense. If I have a red Porsche, I don't need to search for a red Porsche. If I have the truth, I don't need to search for the truth.

    The Bible says, "seek and you will find." The entire goal in seeking is the finding part. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest searching just for the sake of searching--no, we search so we can find.

    So if you've found "purpose", how is that any different from finding "meaning?" Could it be that someone who is "searching for meaning" is just searching for their purpose in life?
     
  4. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    You're not really comparing it to anything. And that's the problem. Without a standard, every moral argument you make is subjective, and if someone came along and said, "to hell with your argument, that's just your opinion," you'd have no grounds to say they were wrong.
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  5. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    Even kids have to be taught right from wrong. They have to be taught to share. They have to be taught not to hit one another. Hitting and being selfish? Those things come naturally. When you're taught that hitting is wrong, you grow up and naturally understand that assault is wrong, too. You were taught it, even though you "just know".

    I'm attempting to get you to see your own inconsistency. It isn't about "I'm right and you're wrong". It's about the fact that you're stating a belief in one sentence, and then saying things that contradict it in another sentence. You say that morality is basically just subjective opinion ... but that everyone should share core fundamental beliefs. You say that life has no transcendent meaning, but then speak about your life purpose. You say don't believe in an objective standard of morality, but still use terms like "decency", "good", "respect", etc., with no standard to compare them against.

    It's totally your right to dismiss anything and everything I've said here. What you choose to believe makes no difference to me, personally. Of course, I want you to believe that life has objective meaning, I want you to believe in objective truth, I want you to believe in Jesus, but in the end, all I can do is challenge you to consider your inconsistencies.

    If you don't think you're being inconsistent, well, okay then.
     
    Jwarrior77 and drac16 like this.
  6. Imnatty7

    Imnatty7 Fapstronaut

    60
    74
    18
    lmao I was like lmao
     
  7. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    It's fine if that's your philosophy, but you must recognize--at least, if you want to be intellectually honest--that if you choose to believe morality is subjective, then you have no grounds to tell ISIS soldiers, white supremacists, rapists, or pedophiles that they are morally wrong for the things they do. If you believe in subjective morality, you can say "I don't like the things they do", but you can't actually call them wrong.

    If you insist morality is subjective, fine. But don't then immediately turn around and judge people because their actions don't align with the standard you've made up in your head.
     
  8. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    It's not about you, specifically. I'm on a crusade to call people out on their inconsistencies, no matter who they are.

    It's not hypocritical to judge people for being inconsistent when I am being consistent.

    Meaning, purpose, and morality aren't that far off from one another. They are all philosophical in nature. "Meaning" and "purpose" have a lot to do with rightness and wrongness. If someone came to you and said, "My meaning and purpose in life is to take advantage of others in the pursuit of making my own existence as rich and comfortable as possible." What would you say to them? Suddenly meaning and morality seem very intertwined.
     
  9. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    Can you give me a biblical example of this? Then I'll be able to better respond to your comments.
     
  10. Well if one takes Genesis literally then one minute incest is morally permissible and the next minute, in Leviticus, it's not.
     
  11. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    That assumes a few things. It assumes that incest was only forbidden on moral grounds, because God decided "it was bad". It's possible that incest didn't become inherently dangerous (birth defects and what not) until after the first generation of Adam & Eve's offspring. I admit I haven't done a lot of thinking on this issue, as my faith doesn't rise and fall on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    But let's get to your points:

    Well, if morality were truly subjective, what right would God have to judge anyone for not living up to a standard that's always shifting? That seems far more unfair than punishment for a standard that's laid out for the world to see. Morality under God is objective, absolutely. But God changes laws all the time, morality still intact.

    (It's worth noting that from a Christian perspective, God's intention was never for man to live up to the perfect moral standard. The point of the law was to illustrate that it was impossible for anyone to live up to it ... to show people the depth of their own sin and their need for a savior. As far as the Bible is concerned, the only people who truly get punished for their sin (in an eternal sense) are those who haven't been forgiven of it. Scripture is clear--living up to the law will not save you, because man is not saved by the law, but by grace. I'm not trying to convince you of this, mind you--but this is a summary of the Christian view).

    Judaic tradition has 613 laws. God narrowed them down to 10 with Moses. Jesus consolidated them into two. Morality never changed. The laws did, but fundamental morality didn't.

    It certainly raises some questions. I'd also add our ability to think philosophically, to even pontificate about morality and meaning. As well as our ability to create beauty and works of art. I often think our capacity for creativity is the most direct representation of man being "created in the image of God," the ultimate Creator.
     
    Woodcutter74 and jk243 like this.
  12. OK fine. I'll forget about it.
    Why would a God need to change absolute moral laws? If they're absolute that means that they wouldn't need to be changed and would always be right in every situation and circumstance. Also absolute morality is dangerous since it means that one wouldn't for example be able to kill someone in self defense since killing would always be wrong no matter the circumstances.
    Well if the laws keep changing then that wouldn't make them absolute...
    Hmmm, maybe IDK.
     
  13. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    First off, the Bible doesn't say killing is wrong. It says murder is wrong.

    Here, I'll put it back to you--if "absolute morality" is so dangerous, can you present me with a circumstance where rape would be okay? Or is it wrong in all circumstances, no matter what?

    And you're using the term "absolute moral laws." Not all of God's laws are moral in nature. Now, following them may certainly be a moral endeavor, but that doesn't mean the laws themselves are all based in morality. There were plenty of laws in Judaic law that were based on the public health practices of their day--changing those kinds of laws doesn't change underlying morality.

    To my knowledge, no one is claiming that they are. God can be absolute without his laws being absolute.
     
    Woodcutter74 and need4realchg like this.
  14. You know what? This whole thing went way offtopic so I'm gonna let the debate rest. It was good speaking to you and I learned a lot so thanks for that.
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  15. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    I was just following the conversation wherever it led to. Nice chatting with you though!
     
    Jwarrior77 and Deleted Account like this.
  16. TimeToQuitNow

    TimeToQuitNow Fapstronaut

    So stop being a nihilist
     
    Jwarrior77 and jk243 like this.
  17. lolos

    lolos Fapstronaut

    Do some shit that's hard, but rewarding.
     
  18. wheelgauge

    wheelgauge Fapstronaut

    146
    363
    63
    I completely agree with what you're saying! This is a point of view that few people seem to notice.
     
    Woodcutter74 likes this.
  19. Why do you think nihilism is bad?

    I think it's awesome! Since nothing really matters, we can do whatever makes us happy! In fact, because of nihilism we are left with only two choices in life: To be happy or not to be happy. I know, why be happy since there's no meaning to it?

    Well, let me tell you why: Being unhappy sucks.

    There is no deeper meaning to life. Life on earth is just a nice coincidence in my opinion. There might or might not be life on other planets. But why the hell would anyone care?

    The meaning of life? No meaning to it.

    Being happy is a everyday decision. Being unhappy is a decision as well. The good part comes now:

    It is 100% up to you.

    Fuck your boss, your miserable friends, anyone and/or anything that makes you feel bad.

    I know it's a tough topic, since whatever you, as a nihilist, say is right. But do you want to know why you like being right? Because being right is fun! When you look at life in a nihilistic way, you are always right! So since you're always right, you should always be happy!

    Why aren't you then?
     
  20. jk243

    jk243 Fapstronaut

    410
    1,459
    123
    There is difference between kill someone and defend himself sir.
     

Share This Page