First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Do you have a Nihilist view on life?
7285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

n_n303 wrote:


ohpooey wrote:


n_n303 wrote:

yes, i dont believe in shit like god, fate, soul mates, or destiny. -- that is what it means right?? o.o. Unless i understood it wrong
and why do i have a feeling this is a duplicate..or atleast should go into the E.D section?


You're like Miss Forum queen. =)
You're always the first to post and usually it's commenting on the thread's topic and how it may be a duplicate. Why don't you concentrate a little more ontopic. =]


i do. are you blind? look at the bold.
first thing i did was reply to the thread.


Hah. Sorry I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm not very good at recognizing sarcasam. Anyway, I was, like the observer I am, just noticing things. :\
8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

Regulus133 wrote:


krnsoldierofGod wrote:

#1 just bear with me and imagine if someone from your family has been blinded scince that horrible accident he or she had, and some guy came and healed that person. Would you believe then? If you don't then your one of the arrogant people I mentioned who can't accept that fact that there is a higher being than them.

#2 I don't really get what you mean by "we're here for some reason independent of life itself" For me not knowing why there is a reason for life doesn't really affect me much because I have faith and I don't need reasons to justify my faith. Also, every church teaches it the same as long as they teach from the same Bible

#3 this was just an opinion that I strongly believe is true



#1: False. Just because science can't explain something now doesn't mean it never can. If I saw someone perform a genuine miracle, all I'd believe is that the person performed a miracle. It does not imply that everything he says is true. So if he called himself the son of God, I would need more than miracles to prove it to me. Besides, even if he were the son of God, I would have to wonder: which God? Christianity isn't the only religion of miracles. It's about standards for proof, not arrogance.

#2: It's not about the idea being bad or implying that you need reasons to justify your faith (though you do to be taken seriously), it's just about applying the label 'nihilistic' to common Christianity. It doesn't have to be a bad thing if you don't want it to be; just drop the negativity you associate with nihilism. You don't have to be an atheist to be a nihilist in this sense. By the way, you are demonstrably incorrect in saying that every church teaches the same thing. I used to be Christian, and I experienced different interpretations in different churches that used the same Bible. It is, unfortunately, text, so it is subject to different analysis.

#3: Again, backing up your opinion is what counts, not stating it.




#1 well your one of those people who can't accept the fact even tho its smushed across your face i guess
#2 tell me what interpretations did you hear?
#3 I'm just saying its only an opinion of mine and if I were to explain it to you the discussion would just go around in a circle

1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

krnsoldierofGod wrote:

#1 well your one of those people who can't accept the fact even tho its smushed across your face i guess
#2 tell me what interpretations did you hear?
#3 I'm just saying its only an opinion of mine and if I were to explain it to you the discussion would just go around in a circle


#1: Um... you asked me to imagine a situation. Imagining something is not proof that something exists. Furthermore, what I said is true: there is no necessary connection between what we might perceive to be miracles and the "son of God." You're not too bright if your standard for knowledge is imagination, and you're pretty naive if you would believe in something with so little evidence.
#2: There are many interpretations, since the Bible is text. There is no need to detail them - just think of the different denominations, i.e. Baptists vs. Free Methodists. Besides, the point wasn't to note interpretations, it was to define Christianity as somewhat nihilistic. That is all.
#3: I think we can abandon this point now...

8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

Regulus133 wrote:


krnsoldierofGod wrote:

#1 well your one of those people who can't accept the fact even tho its smushed across your face i guess
#2 tell me what interpretations did you hear?
#3 I'm just saying its only an opinion of mine and if I were to explain it to you the discussion would just go around in a circle


#1: Um... you asked me to imagine a situation. Imagining something is not proof that something exists. Furthermore, what I said is true: there is no necessary connection between what we might perceive to be miracles and the "son of God." You're not too bright if your standard for knowledge is imagination, and you're pretty naive if you would believe in something with so little evidence.
#2: There are many interpretations, since the Bible is text. There is no need to detail them - just think of the different denominations, i.e. Baptists vs. Free Methodists. Besides, the point wasn't to note interpretations, it was to define Christianity as somewhat nihilistic. That is all.
#3: I think we can abandon this point now...



#1 What else can we use scince Jesus is long gone and there were no video tapes back then

#2 if christians were nihilistic, they are basically saying that God is wrong. God told them specifically what is bad. If people think that killing or murdering is moral then i don't know what you are but your definately not Christian
7809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

shibole wrote:


saranghaefromangel wrote:
i believe that Buddha and God exists.

Which Buddha are you talking about and in what way does he exist? (Just wondering, because the historical Buddha is said to neither exist nor not exist.)


=>Siddhartha Gautama <= dunno if anyone knows his name, but yeah, he was the founder of Buddhism. i believe that he's up there in 'heaven' watching over us, taking care of the people who do good deeds. but i recently read an article saying that he doesn't exist anymore O.O
Posted 2/20/08

saranghaefromangel wrote:
=>Siddhartha Gautama <= dunno if anyone knows his name, but yeah, he was the founder of Buddhism. i believe that he's up there in 'heaven' watching over us, taking care of the people who do good deeds. but i recently read an article saying that he doesn't exist anymore O.O

According to what I know, that would be considered "wrong view" in Buddhism (to think that the historical Buddha is in a heaven of some sort.)

Pure Land Buddhists believe there is a totally different Buddha currently living in a heaven-like realm called the Pure Land in the West, but that's a totally different being (Amitaba/Amitofo) from the historical Buddha.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

krnsoldierofGod wrote:

#1 What else can we use scince Jesus is long gone and there were no video tapes back then

#2 if christians were nihilistic, they are basically saying that God is wrong. God told them specifically what is bad. If people think that killing or murdering is moral then i don't know what you are but your definately not Christian


#1: Exactly. I have no reason to believe that anyone did the things the Bible says. It is not ignorant of me to not believe when there's no evidence, otherwise I could call you ignorant for not believing in Krishna or Moby Dick or an invisible caterpillar on my head.

#2: That is not the case. I'm talking about Nietzsche's use of nihilism regarding Christianity that makes this life a test rather than a real life. We cannot affirm our freedom, our wills, our desires if we are following rules that supposedly (it is not even proven) lead to a better afterlife. This is not the nihilism that says there are no absolutes, but the nihilism that makes life almost pointless. Yes, there is a point to it in Christianity, but basically only in terms of the afterlife.

I don't think we're getting anywhere, so... let's drop it.
8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

Regulus133 wrote:


krnsoldierofGod wrote:

#1 What else can we use scince Jesus is long gone and there were no video tapes back then

#2 if christians were nihilistic, they are basically saying that God is wrong. God told them specifically what is bad. If people think that killing or murdering is moral then i don't know what you are but your definately not Christian


#1: Exactly. I have no reason to believe that anyone did the things the Bible says. It is not ignorant of me to not believe when there's no evidence, otherwise I could call you ignorant for not believing in Krishna or Moby Dick or an invisible caterpillar on my head.

#2: That is not the case. I'm talking about Nietzsche's use of nihilism regarding Christianity that makes this life a test rather than a real life. We cannot affirm our freedom, our wills, our desires if we are following rules that supposedly (it is not even proven) lead to a better afterlife. This is not the nihilism that says there are no absolutes, but the nihilism that makes life almost pointless. Yes, there is a point to it in Christianity, but basically only in terms of the afterlife.

I don't think we're getting anywhere, so... let's drop it.


#1 hm if moby dick grew legs and started healing the disabled maybe I'd stop and listen to him

#2 you forget God gave us free will
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/20/08
It's called Extended Discussion for a reason

*cleans useless posts
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

krnsoldierofGod wrote:

#1 hm if moby dick grew legs and started healing the disabled maybe I'd stop and listen to him

#2 you forget God gave us free will


*sigh*

#1: That's not the point. You haven't proven that Jesus actually did heal the disabled, so there's no reason for me to believe he did.

#2: I may disagree with that, but I'm not forgetting it in my discussion. It doesn't change anything because, free will or not, certain actions (usually of a "selfish" nature; that is, actions that affirm the self) have punishments.

1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

shibole wrote:

I don't think the "group purpose" is any more objective than the individually declared purpose.


Right, the idea is that there isn't an objective purpose except within a context.


I would go slightly beyond this and say that God also matters in that many people attribute some of their mental phenomenon to God (for example, people saying "God told me to <whatever>"). So it's possible that there are certain "spiritual" mental processes which some number of people attribute to God, while others attribute them to "insight" or something else.


And this is still a way that the concept influences people. If I phrased it differently than this (I'm too lazy to check and I've already deleted my own quote in this response), I was in error in the expression rather than the understanding of the idea.


Well, stress/suffering is a product of impermanence/change. Since basically everything except a few things like space-time and nibbana are subject to change, that would make stress an absolute. The elimination of stress would be an absolute goal then, but not everyone will have that as their goal. The goal exists and would be absolute though. So "no action is objectively preferable to any other" would be false, making Buddhism not nihilistic. Even beings who don't want to totally end stress typically would want to reduce it by becoming rich, etc.


That's within a context, though. Some people may not wish to eliminate stress, so that goal would not be an absolute desire.


That may be a bit of a misconception about Buddhism. Laypeople aren't supposed to be severing all attachments, and people can find drive in something other than craving I think, but maybe not. I'm not that familiar with Nietzsche though.


There seems to be a good chance that you know more about it than I do, though I was taught by a self-proclaimed Buddhist. Nevertheless, why aren't they "supposed to be" (we'll ignore the imperative nature of this phrasing) severing attachments? Doesn't that help lead to a kind of mindset where one can abandon all attachments and (I guess) enter nirvana/become free?
8000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / california
Offline
Posted 2/20/08

Regulus133 wrote:


krnsoldierofGod wrote:

#1 hm if moby dick grew legs and started healing the disabled maybe I'd stop and listen to him

#2 you forget God gave us free will


*sigh*

#1: That's not the point. You haven't proven that Jesus actually did heal the disabled, so there's no reason for me to believe he did.

#2: I may disagree with that, but I'm not forgetting it in my discussion. It doesn't change anything because, free will or not, certain actions (usually of a "selfish" nature; that is, actions that affirm the self) have punishments.



1# if you were to see it would you believe?

#2 does nihilism mean that your supposed to have punishments?
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2/21/08
I think you have a better chance of "winning" if you post up that one picture with the little boy running down a track and a quote about arguing on the internet again, krnsoldierofGod.

:D

"A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. "

I think there are objective values and thus objective morals (assuming being moral is conforming to accepted values). Let's follow my train of thought. Something objective is something that can last without any interference, i.e. clouds are formed from water vapor, humans give birth only to humans, etc. So, as most concepts of value and morality are purely human constructs, they would be destroyed and non-existant were we to die out, thus making them subjective. Correct?

I'd say, not entirely.

These are objective values laid out by James Rachels.

a) Caring for children is necessary.
c) Prohibition of murder is necessary.
b) Communicating truthfully is necessary.

These three values, and the moral obligation to conform to them, can be applied to any and all societies. I think it could reasonably be argued that you could apply them to animals as well, i.e. non-human societies (this includes aliens, etc). Why?

If a society weren't to care for it's children, they would invariably die out and no longer exist. That societies do exist means it follows that they care for their children. Similarly, if there was no prohibition on murder, a society would be unable to exist (forming smaller groups or families that trust each other not to murder each other is considered a society -- doesn't have to be an entire village or city). Communicating truthfully is most applicable to humans, 'cause animals don't really have the mental capacity or urge to lie (as far as I know), but this is necessary for any civilized society to exist and advance.

In conclusion, these are all objective moral values that all cultures follow regardless of other details. Even were all humans to die out, these values would still retain their truth and applicability in any other sort of society that follows, be it animal or alien. Otherwise, there would be no life to apply them to.

Oh, and I do think that we also have an objective purpose in life. And that is, simply to live. Animals without much intelligence do it, plants do it, we do it. Our bodies struggle to remain alive even were we to try and kill ourselves. Again, as per my argument above, this is an objective purpose because it can be applied to all and any living things, as though it were fact.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/21/08

DKangN3 wrote:

I think you have a better chance of "winning" if you post up that one picture with the little boy running down a track and a quote about arguing on the internet again, krnsoldierofGod.

:D



And the internets are awarded to you, sir.


"A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history."


Nietzsche's stance is more complex than supporting or not supporting it. He feels that religion destroys our sense of freedom and, more importantly, convinces us that this life is a means to the end of the afterlife. He is obviously critical of nihilism in this sense. However, he values the idea of abandoning absolutes so that we can reach a point where we can basically forge our own paths.


I think there are objective values and thus objective morals (assuming being moral is conforming to accepted values). Let's follow my train of thought. Something objective is something that can last without any interference, i.e. clouds are formed from water vapor, humans give birth only to humans, etc. So, as most concepts of value and morality are purely human constructs, they would be destroyed and non-existant were we to die out, thus making them subjective. Correct?

I'd say, not entirely.



"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that '2 and 2 make 4.'" (Wikipedia on Objectivity)

apply to:

"life is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value" from the start of the thread.

So I'm arguing more along the lines of meaning, purpose, and value than comprehensible truth, since I'm not entirely certain what is meant by a life without it. Maybe it's facing the fact that the things you mentioned are not absolute truths, at least not in a way that we can know, i.e. a human could give birth to a lizard. This flies against my own ideas, but, as I said, I'm not even going into the truth aspect.


These are objective values laid out by James Rachels.

a) Caring for children is necessary.
c) Prohibition of murder is necessary.
b) Communicating truthfully is necessary.

These three values, and the moral obligation to conform to them, can be applied to any and all societies. I think it could reasonably be argued that you could apply them to animals as well, i.e. non-human societies (this includes aliens, etc). Why?

If a society weren't to care for it's children, they would invariably die out and no longer exist. That societies do exist means it follows that they care for their children. Similarly, if there was no prohibition on murder, a society would be unable to exist (forming smaller groups or families that trust each other not to murder each other is considered a society -- doesn't have to be an entire village or city). Communicating truthfully is most applicable to humans, 'cause animals don't really have the mental capacity or urge to lie (as far as I know), but this is necessary for any civilized society to exist and advance.

In conclusion, these are all objective moral values that all cultures follow regardless of other details. Even were all humans to die out, these values would still retain their truth and applicability in any other sort of society that follows, be it animal or alien. Otherwise, there would be no life to apply them to.


You're placing it within a context: society. There is no necessity to care for children, prohibit murder, or communicate truthfully in and of themselves, but they are obviously important for society.


Oh, and I do think that we also have an objective purpose in life. And that is, simply to live. Animals without much intelligence do it, plants do it, we do it. Our bodies struggle to remain alive even were we to try and kill ourselves. Again, as per my argument above, this is an objective purpose because it can be applied to all and any living things, as though it were fact.


Well, that's your opinion. Just because it is "natural" to do something does not mean it satisfies the notion of an objective purpose. Here again you are (understandably) placing it within the context of desiring life or something similar. Besides, suicide is an option that is taken at times.

So, at this point, you might be asking: what constitutes an objective/absolute rule outside of context? I suppose the answer would be that such a rule is impossible because we can choose to not follow them.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/21/08

krnsoldierofGod wrote:

1# if you were to see it would you believe?

#2 does nihilism mean that your supposed to have punishments?


#1: If I saw it, I'd be skeptical because miracles are suspicious events in the first place. But let's assume I could be certain that they were, in fact, miracles. In that case, I'd believe that the person before me caused them or was in some way involved in their occurrence, but not necessarily that he is the son of God. Just because you can perform miracles doesn't mean you can't lie, and the ability to perform miracles does not imply in any way that one is the son of God. I'm not sure what my standards for belief would be, but I am certain that this is not enough by any means.

#2: All right, I'll try re-phrasing. Nietzsche beliefs Christianity is nihilistic because it more or less turns our current life into a means to the end of the afterlife. We no longer fully affirm our existence - no longer engage in our inherent freedom - because of these absolute rules. So a religion can accept absolute truths but still be nihilistic in this sense.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.