What's the strongest argument for atheism?

[ZenRaiden]

I have seen it talked about and discussed from many different angles.

Sure, but when I hear Christians interpret the bible it sounds like they are just making shit up, that is what ever feels good to their ego sensibilities, and whatever seems OK to their limited minds.

So there is a guy called Jesus. He is very important. Getting what he says wrong would be a sin. Because if you get it wrong you will do things Jesus did not want you to do.
It could be as little as some 12 century priest taking a liberty in translation and you are doomed to do something wrong that Jesus never said or wanted.

Even different versions of bible can be understood differently.

Never mind the fact so many things in bible have lairs of coded meaning.
Which probably made sense in the old days.
Today people make up their own version of bible ergo what is literal and what is symbolic.
Almost to the point its cultural appropriation of modern humans.

About obeying God and knowing his ways.

See I don't actually people have the ability to do this. They barely know what Jesus said. If we distill it down to what Jesus said, its actually very few things.
Of which many are interpreted willy nilly.

At the base is a story about leading a morally good life.

Many Christians don't really lead morally good life.
They live very modern and arbitrary life, with few rigid rules imposed on them.
Of which even the ones they follow slavishly they don't really understand.

To really lead morally good life you need to understand the world a little and know what is better and what is not so good.

I know most of what is inside it.

Most Christians know the bible the same way they know the constitution.
Not at all.
The few people who do know the bible cannot even explain what it means.

They just read the phrases and tell you how great the book is, but you cannot really tell what to do.

Life is complicated. Since Jesus time it got way more complicated.
Social norms got complicated.
Our lives are also longer, and we have different priorities.
We also have medicine and science.
Overall the level of intelligence we have would blow Jesus time peoples heads off.
These people had no clue about anything.

All this said, Jesus was a person whos word was recorded and written down in a bunch of writings, that were frequently altered doctored and changed on whims of popes and believers.

So this means its very much possible that what Jesus meant and said and lived might be so different from bible that it would be like taking random sample of posts on this forum, and making a self help book about it.

 

[Old Things]

Bible was written many years after Jesus. Or at least that is the claim.

Many? Do you think 30 years is "many"? It's not for history during that time. It's actually really fricken early.

How much artistic liberty was taken with what Jesus said is also in question.

Even if that is the case, we still have the minimal facts that show Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Black Rose]

So there is a guy called Jesus. He is very important. Getting what he says wrong would be a sin. Because if you get it wrong you will do things Jesus did not want you to do.

I think the thing is that we try and ask God what to do and not ourselves.

We can make mistakes so the best thing to do is ask for help in understanding.

I do not believe that we are supposed to be perfect but that we always return to doing our best and that this will help us become closer to God.

If we distill it down to what Jesus said, its actually very few things.

True, I think that Jesus was showing us in his words that we need to rethink our ways in relation to what is good because we need to truly reflect on it not just follow some set of rules.

To really lead morally good life you need to understand the world a little and know what is better and what is not so good.

I agree, I believe it takes patience to do what is right. So I believe we need to understand the world more or we make mistakes.

They just read the phrases and tell you how great the book is, but you cannot really tell what to do.

Everyone is looking at it from life experience. It is a good thing to read the book I believe because I can grow as an individual from it. I cannot tell people what to do personally but I can give advice on how I view it and why I have those views. I believe the individual has the ability to grow and mature.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think the thing is that we try and ask God what to do and not ourselves.

We can make mistakes so the best thing to do is ask for help in understanding.

I do not believe that we are supposed to be perfect but that we always return to doing our best and that this will help us become closer to God.

My main point was the basis of your God is on a book. That book, has been translated countless times. I don't care what people believe. What I am talking about is the veracity of claim Jesus says = bible says.

True, I think that Jesus was showing us in his words that we need to rethink our ways in relation to what is good because we need to truly reflect on it not just follow some set of rules.

Yes, but does Jesus = bible, the assumption people say that is the case. I merely pointed out that there are countless things that go wrong in translating, or passing down knowledge. The main issue here is not what Jesus said, we know what he said in the bible, the main issue is if the bible is verifiable to a degree where we can claim bible has truth with absolute certainty.
Think of it this way. Newton Wrote something about math. What he wrote is written in exact scientific language, in a language we understand.
Nowdays people cannot even agree on meaning or whether something was literal or abstract and symbolic in bible. Id hazard a guess there is some information loss then.

Everyone is looking at it from life experience. It is a good thing to read the book I believe because I can grow as an individual from it. I cannot tell people what to do personally but I can give advice on how I view it and why I have those views. I believe the individual has the ability to grow and mature.

Lets say I read Jordan Peterson Maps of meaning and I decide to live by his book instead of some bible.

Whats the difference?

 

[Black Rose]

does Jesus = bible

It would be the best place to start.

I was only trying to encourage @EndogenousRebel to read the book.

I would say that if you are ignorant of what is in the book you cannot make proper assessments. And people make assumptions about the bible without reading it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

bible without reading it.

People who read it, are experts who know exactly what is says, only problem is these experts never agree what it says.

If there is one thing that we can agree on then that bible can be interpreted and it has been interpreted always differently.

It also comes down to such question if we had known what Jesus said would we all agree on how to follow his teachings.

Kind of like today we don't always follow or interpret laws and regulations properly.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I find the activity in itself rewarding usually, more than the outcome.

Even if I wanted to look at the outcome though, learning an ancient language is so much more applicable, and gives so much more leverage than learning a book.

If I'm learning an ancient language, then the outcome is that I can now understand an ancient language. Once I understand the language I can understand a much broader corpsus of the other people who understand that language.

If I read the bible, then the outcome is that I finished a book. The contents of which are basically proto-sociopolitical philosophy from centuries ago.

I've read much of the Tao-te-ching with multiple interpretations in English. It's very interesting to imagine a world where people would spread such knowledge. Is it because they found it valuable or because it was the best they had?

The thing is that, when we have original documents, there is apriori going to be a gap between what was intended or not.

 

[Black Rose]

If I read the bible, then the outcome is that I finished a book. The contents of which are basically proto-sociopolitical philosophy from centuries ago.

Yes, so many things Jesus said refer back to the history of David, Moses, and all sorts of people commonly known at that time. It is a cultural thing where you are following something related to who you are supposed to be in that culture.

The thing is that, when we have original documents, there is apriori going to be a gap between what was intended or not.

Any Language is different from another language. So yes we need to understand what was intended and understood in the context of those times and places they arose. An example is that paleo-Hebrew looks like Egyptian hieroglyphs. So translations are tricky to exert as mostly we would need to understand the symbolism.

What I think though is that as we look at what early Christians did was to make things as plain as possible. The Romans had Greek and Latin and Christianity even made it to China early on.

Xi'an Stele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So what happened was not so secret that we do not know what they were saying or what the message was. Only we do know that the ones who were closest to Jesus, the ones who had access to him, they are documented in how they lived and died and who they talked to where they went.

It would be important to know why they traveled so far and why they communicated with people of different languages because if they only wanted to keep Jesus a secret then they would not go so far as they did to tell people what they saw happened.

I believe that the source of what was going on is most important but also that these people wanted everyone to know what had happened.

 

[ZenRaiden]

back to the history of David, Moses, and all sorts of people commonly known at that time. It is a cultural thing where you are following something related to who you are supposed to be in that culture.

Only problem is their life had constraints we don't have. I never had to deal with war, poverty, or famine. I never had to deal with psychopatic leaders trying to extinguish my people, nor did any of us ever live in feudal society. I don't work or eat or even do anything in similar way MOses and David does, other than the general way I relate to all humanity being a bipedal hominid with omnivore tendencies and big head. Their culture is very much unlike the one we have today.

Christians did was to make things as plain as possible.

Scholars still argue about coded messages in bible. They literally had passages that were referring to various things like historical events, important people, coded to be hidden from people who could read the bible and were persecuting Christians. So not really, they were hiding things in bible.

So what happened was not so secret that we do not know what they were saying or what the message was. Only we do know that the ones who were closest to Jesus, the ones who had access to him, they are documented in how they lived and died and who they talked to where they went.

We know a lot about Jesus, but it reads like a big synopsys, his life reads like a CV with occasional value system.

Jesus a secret then they would not go so far as they did to tell people what they saw happened.

No different from spreading any movement today, that wants to influence people.
The commies did it, the nazis did it, the buddhist did it, confucius did it. Humans love to share knowledge its our natural tendency.

I believe that the source of what was going on is most important but also that these people wanted everyone to know what had happened.

A kid wants to know everyone to know too. Question is what is the take away.

 

[Black Rose]

what is the take away.

Jesus was very nonconformist, so much of what he said had to do with doing the right thing even if you were being told by others that the priests were in charge and you had to follow their rules. Basically, it is an expansion of consciousness to go beyond just being a robotic slave to the current system of morality.

People often say: it is between me and God. That means if another person is judging what you do they may be incorrect. It is like with the woman who was a prostitute, "he who is without sin cast the first stone". So many times people will try and break your conscience of what is right and wrong but God wants us to reconsider. God wants us to know that we can be wrong so we should not condemn people who we see as bad for some arbitrary reasons.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Jesus was very nonconformist,

OK, but why?

right thing even if you were being told by others that the priests were in charge and you had to follow their rules.

If someone wants me to follow rules then I am better off following them only to conform to get slack or is there some reason why I follow?

Basically, it is an expansion of consciousness to go beyond just being a robotic slave to the current system of morality.

What does this mean?

be incorrect

Lots of peoples judgements are dumb and incorrect that comes from experience, I never had to read a bible to know that. I make mistakes you do to, its common sense really after a point in life.

"he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I never understood the problem with prostitutes, but its mostly Christians that have issues with promiscuity, although its the men that cause prostitution.
We should stone men.

not condemn people who we see as bad for some arbitrary reasons.

I don't try to judge people or condemn them, but is this exclusive to Jesus?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You do realize that the original New Testament was written in Greek and not Latin, right?

The old testament was likely Hebrew or some proto-hebrew. Is it not interesting that someone with cross-cultural tendencies basically gave others to access the word of someone else's religion?

I do, but I also am not interested in the biases they may have had. These people were literate in ancient times, in 2 languages no less, probably carried with them a lot of biases that may not reflect the population at large.

I'm curious what your preferred edition is. I personally want to know what it is people back then were looking at, because that contains the ideas that actually influence today.

 

[Old Things]

I'm curious what your preferred edition is. I personally want to know what it is people back then were looking at, because that contains the ideas that actually influence today.

Edition? Do you mean a translation of the Bible? I like the CSB personally. It is hard to capture every nuance when you are translating from one language to another. But the main meaning of the text is pretty straightforward forward like 90% of the time (if not more often).

 

[Old Things]

@EndogenousRebel,

You could go all out with commentaries and lexicons and stuff on Church history and all that with things like Accordance Bible software or Logos. You literally do not need to know the language to have a very good idea of what what written in the original language.

Here's a microscopic look at what I have access to with Accordance Bible Software.

 

[Old Things]

@ZenRaiden,

You do realize that there are PERIPHERALS that Christians disagree on but the core message of Christianity is the same across the board, right?

 

[ZenRaiden]

You do realize that there are PERIPHERALS that Christians disagree on but the core message of Christianity is the same across the board, right?

I was asking what the take away is, not whether people agree on stuff, but fundamentally what people agree on might not necessarily mean the same thing for everyone. We can agree that red color is red, does not mean everyone will wear red.

Most importantly what I said still stands, people disagree on stuff. Also people do disagree on lots of fundamental things.

They disagree on fairly larger part of fundamental things.

So if people agree Christ is the dude and the dude is God, that alone is cool.

What else people agree on?

 

[Old Things]

So if people agree Christ is the dude and the dude is God, that alone is cool.

What else people agree on?

That's a good start. I would also add things like the resurrection, the trinity the Bible is God's Word, etc. There are people who disagree with these things that call themselves Christians, but all the real Christians say they are not in the group.

Deity, Death, and Resurrection are the core things to believe in Christianity. You could say everything else flows out of that.

I like Dr. Habermas' bull's eye analogy.



Or you could get Gavin Ortlund's book "Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage".

 

[Black Rose]

I don't try to judge people or condemn them, but is this exclusive to Jesus?

Simply people did this all the time in the legal system and Jesus was the one who made it possible to question that dogmatic spiritual system that spread to the whole world just about. The impact was huge. He made it possible to see meek people as deserving of God's love as anyone else not just people who were holier than thou and people with power. I would say that without Jesus we would still be stoning and crucifying people in the league system.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Deity, Death, and Resurrection are the core things to believe in Christianity. You could say everything else flows out of that.

Seems according to video, its all about getting into heaven.

Simply people did this all the time in the legal system and Jesus was the one who made it possible to question that dogmatic spiritual system that spread to the whole world just about. The impact was huge. He made it possible to see meek people as deserving of God's love as anyone else not just people who were holier than thou and people with power. I would say that without Jesus we would still be stoning and crucifying people in the league system.

Jesus might have challenged status quo.
So when I challenge status quo am I like Jesus?

 

[Old Things]

Deity, Death, and Resurrection are the core things to believe in Christianity. You could say everything else flows out of that.

Seems according to video, its all about getting into heaven.

Yes? That's kinda a core thing to Christianity. Thanks for checking out the video though!

Simply people did this all the time in the legal system and Jesus was the one who made it possible to question that dogmatic spiritual system that spread to the whole world just about. The impact was huge. He made it possible to see meek people as deserving of God's love as anyone else not just people who were holier than thou and people with power. I would say that without Jesus we would still be stoning and crucifying people in the league system.

Jesus might have challenged status quo.
So when I challenge status quo am I like Jesus?

No one is like Jesus unless you see another person claiming to be God and rising from the dead.

 

[Black Rose]

Simply people did this all the time in the legal system and Jesus was the one who made it possible to question that dogmatic spiritual system that spread to the whole world just about. The impact was huge. He made it possible to see meek people as deserving of God's love as anyone else not just people who were holier than thou and people with power. I would say that without Jesus we would still be stoning and crucifying people in the league system.

Jesus might have challenged status quo.
So when I challenge status quo am I like Jesus?

In the bible, it says to follow his example.

Help the people who are in need with love.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The Bible is in line for things I want to study. Certainly not top 10, and with that language barrier, it's gonna be a while.

There are philosophical works today that are a great deal more intriguing to me. Things that were written by very intelligent/educated people, much like the Bible probably was for it's time.

For example: Process philosophy is something I look forward to reading, but the source material directly from these individual thinkers includes mathematicians who are from the 60s and didn't think about how dense they were writing for commercial appeal.

Religion comes with it a fanaticism, that I try to empathize with as seen in my counter thread.

These are interesting questions that humanity is posing with spiritual religious cultural memes. Science (empiricism) is an inherently incomplete process that is never finished. It doesn't intend to address these metaphysical questions, because having the answer to them would require beyond human comprehension (ATM).

If we only replied on empiricism, we may very well harm our prospects, but it is very good at predicting the future, which I don't think is necessarily what religion seeks to do.

It's pretty funny though, that when human get a little more certainty in their lives, they slowly starr straying away from organize religion. js

 

[birdsnestfern]

Pretty good arguments here…

 

[ZenRaiden]

Pretty good arguments here…

They are not arguments, they are counter factuals or whatever they are called, and they are wrong mostly.

biology does not disprove adam and eve, infact biology proves that there are being in the past that we share genetic code with, although they are not the biblical versions of adam and eve they are genetic equivalent, although merely reconstructed hypothetical.

Statistics don't necessarily disprove prayer. Provided the prayer is not something outlandish psychologically focusing on something can help, this was proven by buddhism and other things. You can actually attract reality you want. Definitely more than 50 50 chance if you just think about it more.

Again physics disproves the 6000 year old Earth, but Id cut some slack to ancient people they were not exactly good with geological timing, or measuring time without atomic clocks or any real way to measure time other than using stars and sun.
That said its actually astronomy that disproves young Earth as we could infer that Earth is old form the stars. People just did not have the sense of proportion of time, even today understanding that Earth is 4 + billion years old is hard to grasp by human mind.

Geology can actually prove floods, but what it really proves is that people witnessed a major flood of the region several times over. Obviously the uneducated people in those times had very little idea how that works, but they were not lying, there were major civilization ending floods, its something we might have soon again.

Neurology did not prove that soul does not exists. What it did prove is that we know very little about humans, and we ought to learn more.

Anthropology proves that humans always had God and spirit ideas, be it now or 120 000 years ago, and some even go to say that Chimps have sense of some ritualistic behavior and superstition.
Its very likely that we creatures of conscious minds need that who knows.

My whole point is these facts counter the literal interpretation of bible, but were the Christians a little smarter they just update their program to fit the 21st century and it would not be all that crappy religion. But Christians don't like the truth.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

it's like this thread, but as a live debate

 

[ZenRaiden]

In the bible, it says to follow his example.

Help the people who are in need with love.

Would you say this is unique or exclusive to Christians?

 

[Black Rose]

In the bible, it says to follow his example.

Help the people who are in need with love.

Would you say this is unique or exclusive to Christians?

Western culture was most influenced by Christianity.

That is why if you are not going to read the bible,

I do not see why you would not if you wish to understand its influence.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Western culture was most influenced by Christianity.

That is why if you are not going to read the bible,

I do not see why you would not if you wish to understand its influence.

Which bible is the right bible?
I also don't like Pope is hiding some OG texts and keeping them secret.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Western culture was most influenced by Christianity.

 

[Old Things]

Which bible is the right bible?

Most translations are fine to use. Just read the same verses from different translations and see which one you like best. Most of them are different because they have a different goal and/or focus for how they translate the Bible, but if the translation is consistent (and they generally are) this is not that big of a deal. It's not as good as reading the original language as @EndogenousRebel points out, but you can cross-reference different translations. And if you cross-reference and they all basically say the same thing, then you can be very very confident that that is what it actually means. I like the CSB because it tends to be middle ground between word for word and thought for thought even though you can get it with a Strongs and the language is very simple.

 

[Old Things]

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Which bible is the right bible?

In Matthew 25:46 Jesus spoke in a single sentence of everlasting (aionios) punishment and of life eternal (aionios). Since the righteous will be given eternal, or everlasting, life, many theologians believe the punishing of the wicked must last as long as the life given to the righteous. But this cannot be reconciled with the statement that those cast into the lake of fire perish—they are killed. As explained elsewhere, they suffer death—the second death (Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6, Revelation 14:1-20; Revelation 21:8).

A plain and simple meaning of Matthew 25:46 that fits with the rest of the Bible is that the wicked are cast into a fire that annihilates them—renders them forever extinct. The resulting punishment of being cast into the aionios fire is a one-time event. It is a permanent punishment, the results of which will remain forever—that is, eternal death. It is not ongoing punishing that continues forever without end. This is the only explanation that agrees with the rest of the Scriptures.

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-too...he-bible-speak-of-hellfire-that-lasts-forever

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Since the righteous will be given eternal, or everlasting, life, many theologians believe the punishing of the wicked must last as long as the life given to the righteous.

the implication that even eternal life ends is pretty metal though, with a specific interpretation.

 

[Old Things]

Which bible is the right bible?

In Matthew 25:46 Jesus spoke in a single sentence of everlasting (aionios) punishment and of life eternal (aionios). Since the righteous will be given eternal, or everlasting, life, many theologians believe the punishing of the wicked must last as long as the life given to the righteous. But this cannot be reconciled with the statement that those cast into the lake of fire perish—they are killed. As explained elsewhere, they suffer death—the second death (Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6, Revelation 14:1-20; Revelation 21:8).

A plain and simple meaning of Matthew 25:46 that fits with the rest of the Bible is that the wicked are cast into a fire that annihilates them—renders them forever extinct. The resulting punishment of being cast into the aionios fire is a one-time event. It is a permanent punishment, the results of which will remain forever—that is, eternal death. It is not ongoing punishing that continues forever without end. This is the only explanation that agrees with the rest of the Scriptures.

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-too...he-bible-speak-of-hellfire-that-lasts-forever

I am personally agnostic about this issue. I think it could either be annihilation or ECT. There are other verses such as where it says,

Revelation 14:9-12
"And another, a third angel, followed them and spoke with a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he will also drink the wine of God’s wrath, which is poured full strength into the cup of his anger. He will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the sight of the holy angels and in the sight of the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or anyone who receives the mark of its name. This calls for endurance from the saints, who keep God’s commands and their faith in Jesus.”"
(Emphasis mine)

 

[Old Things]

Since the righteous will be given eternal, or everlasting, life, many theologians believe the punishing of the wicked must last as long as the life given to the righteous.

the implication that even eternal life ends is pretty metal though, with a specific interpretation.

Yeah, that is a very strange view and I have only come across it from people that are not really what I would consider orthodox Christians.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

the implication that even eternal life ends is pretty metal though, with a specific interpretation.

new heaven and new earth

 

[sushi]

A brief history of Stephen Hawking’s atheism

One reason Hawking’s atheism was less well-known was he seemed to fudge the question of God’s existence for years.

www.usatoday.com

 

[sushi]

atheism is just philosphical nilism

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

atheism is just philosphical nilism

nope


the two are completely uncorrelated

 

[Old Things]

atheism is just philosphical nilism

nope


the two are completely uncorrelated

Just curious but who else besides skeptics and atheists subscribe to nihilism?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Nihilism is in the same philosophical boat as pessimism and cynism. The ideas come from very inspirational people, but most people who are today cynical, nihilistic, and pessimistic are obnoxious.

I'm basically saying these ideas haven't had much new air since their progenitors, thus the public perception is kinda embarrassing.

It's indisputable that humans construct meaning, that does not mean that meaning has no utility, but to say it's not "real", is a different claim, that I don't see nihilist winning ever, because they sound stupid when they use words, that they apparently don't think mean anything. I suppose they have a lot in common with a brick wall.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Just curious but who else besides skeptics and atheists subscribe to nihilism?

do you think it would be fair to say that someone who is suicidal is a de facto nihilist ?

 

[Old Things]

Just curious but who else besides skeptics and atheists subscribe to nihilism?

do you think it would be fair to say that someone who is suicidal is a de facto nihilist ?

No. Nihilism is a philosophical position. Those who are suicidal is an emotional issue.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No. Nihilism is a philosophical position. Those who are suicidal is an emotional issue.

“Nihilism” is often used as a weapon, or as an insult, for assaulting the Bad Tribes. We hold these Truths sacred because they prove the Cosmic Plan. The Bad Tribes deny them and insist on some meaningless nonsense instead. They don’t really believe in anything!

Christian apologetics often equates atheism with nihilism. Nihilism is mistaken and harmful, so this is a strong emotional argument for Christianity, even if it has no logical validity.1 Loss of Christian faith is a common route into nihilism, giving the argument greater plausibility. However, although most nihilists are atheists, most atheists are not nihilists. On average, they see just as much meaning as religious people, but perceive it as self-produced, as opposed to divinely produced.2

Nihilism is black magic | Meaningness

Nihilism has a taboo allure of forbidden power—because everyone knows eternalism is wrong.

meaningness.com

 

[Old Things]

No. Nihilism is a philosophical position. Those who are suicidal is an emotional issue.

“Nihilism” is often used as a weapon, or as an insult, for assaulting the Bad Tribes. We hold these Truths sacred because they prove the Cosmic Plan. The Bad Tribes deny them and insist on some meaningless nonsense instead. They don’t really believe in anything!

Christian apologetics often equates atheism with nihilism. Nihilism is mistaken and harmful, so this is a strong emotional argument for Christianity, even if it has no logical validity.1 Loss of Christian faith is a common route into nihilism, giving the argument greater plausibility. However, although most nihilists are atheists, most atheists are not nihilists. On average, they see just as much meaning as religious people, but perceive it as self-produced, as opposed to divinely produced.2

Nihilism is black magic | Meaningness

Nihilism has a taboo allure of forbidden power—because everyone knows eternalism is wrong.

meaningness.com

I am aware of all that. But you said yourself most nihilists are atheists. Why? Because in some sense that is the logical conclusion of atheism. In an atheistic worldview, there is no ultimate purpose. Life itself is just a product of chance so we have no reason to prioritize life, or even our own species other than "I am this species," which ultimately does not matter in atheism. It is about ultimacy, not zooming in with a microscope and knowing your life has meaning. Most people understand that their life has meaning. But this meaning does not ultimately exist in atheism. When all is said and done, the universe will experience a heat death and so none of our actions will have any lasting meaning in atheism.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Nihilism is very powerful message.

 

[Old Things]

Nihilism is very powerful message.

It's a message of despair IMO. There is no such thing as hope in Nihilism.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

A spiritual nihilist sounds like a cool person to hang out with. Like, are you a sociopath or a compassionate empath? Idk, lets find out.

 

[Old Things]

A spiritual nihilist sounds like a cool person to hang out with. Like, are you a sociopath or a compassionate empath? Idk, lets find out.

Somehow we got on the topic of Nihilism, which is fine. But IDK who you are addressing here. Are you addressing me and asking me if I am a sociopath or a compassionate person? I am higher in compassion, but I am also assertive.

 

[ZenRaiden]

It's a message of despair IMO. There is no such thing as hope in Nihilism.

I believe Nietzsche was right in that men will outgrow their limitations one day, not sure when. In that sense he was extremely optimistic.

In sense of seeking power and will I think he was bit too optimistic, as will to power, alone does not imply virtue.