Nihilism (1 Viewer)

[Phoenix Fury]

Are you implying that it is an inbuilt part of the human condition to identify such acts as (rightfully) wrong? Can you suggest a reason why this may be the case?

Its a really interesting debate. Philosophy is great, I'm like addicted to it haha.

I think it may be possible that we have a few certain morals inbuilt into us for the reason of promoting harmony, thus allowing us to grow and flourish as a species and further ourselves without the constraints of attacking each other without reason and stuff. Of course people act against this and do unwarrantedly negatively impact on others, the real question is do they see it as wrong?

I do maintain the belief that a mentally stable person can't kill/maim someone without reason and find that to be 'not wrong', however perhaps they can and that could just be how I see things.

I am not dedicated to the 'inbuilt morals' idea and offer it merely as a possibility.

This is an interesting debate and I am liking everyones input, hearing conflicting views to make me better understand something is always good .

 

[Name_Taken]

I do maintain the belief that a mentally stable person can't kill/maim someone without reason and find that to be 'not wrong', however perhaps they can and that could just be how I see things.

I think, a lot of the time people who kill others, think that they are in the right, and have "good" reasons, from their own perspective.

From ours, it may look like they are definately in the wrong, but I really doubt that most murders are carried out by people without something to gain from it.

 

[lolokay]

Nihilism, to me, is an active process whereby you subvert any previously held judgements about things (it's similar in that sense to skepticism and zen, and would include not holding a moral view) and instead just view things as-they-are. So, it's not so much an end-point (eg. life is meaningless, so I can do whatever I want and it doesn't matter!) as it is a means to an ends, i.e. seeing things more clearly, more free from delusion.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

I think, a lot of the time people who kill others, think that they are in the right, and have "good" reasons, from their own perspective.

From ours, it may look like they are definately in the wrong, but I really doubt that most murders are carried out by people without something to gain from it.

You are definitely right there.
I'm just wondering now, whether morals and 'right/wrong' are within us or are a result of the laws and what society judges as misdemeanors and such. I'm starting to think perhaps it really is just the society we live in that defines our morals through the implementation of law.

 

[lolokay]

You are definitely right there.
I'm just wondering now, whether morals and 'right/wrong' are within us or are a result of the laws and what society judges as misdemeanors and such. I'm starting to think perhaps it really is just the society we live in that defines our morals through the implementation of law.

are the views within us, as in a result of instincts/evolution? well yeah, that's partly the case
are the views largely influenced by social factors? well yeah, of course

 

[Phoenix Fury]

^Makes sense

 

[Cookie182]

Athiests could be said to be just as evil at violently enforcing their own beliefs upon others.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, just to name a few. Saddam may have hid beheind his religion, but the fabuolous four I just mentioned were just as guilty of hiding, not behiend God, but behiend no God.

Fucking retart.

Hitler for one was a Catholic.

To make statements that he was an atheist is ridiculous. He held a strong belief in god which can be referenced with his speeches and book which talks of the "creator".

It can be postulated that a signficant reason for his Jewish prejudices arose from him holding the belief that the Jews killed Jesus, a popular belief held by one of his Austrian idols growing up.

(Though of course not the only reason to be fair...anti-semitism has many roots particularly in the late 19th century Germany).

 

[Name_Taken]

Fucking retart.

Rofl learn to spell.

Hitler for one was a Catholic.

I now take it back. Hitler is redundant as an example; however both Stalin and Mao were athiest, the point still stands.

 

[philphie]

Rofl learn to spell.



I now take it back. Hitler is redundant as an example; however both Stalin and Mao were athiest, the point still stands.

Spanish Inquisition

 

[shuttle_bus5]

I bet jesus was a bit of a Nihilist.
But seriously when you think about christianity, it is a bit far fetched isn't it?

You are worshiping a cosmic Jewish zombie who is his own father, who can give you eternal life if you symbolically eat his blood and flesh and telepathically tell him that he is your master.
If you do that he will remove this evil spirit that is deep within your soul that everybody in humanity has within them.
Because, this naked woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat the fruit off of a magical tree.

 

[Ethanescence]

But it does.
Survival is simply advancing your own life for as long as possible, by any means necessary. That's self-interest at it's most pure form.

But this is not true in all instances. Since the mechanism for evolution is survival via natural selection, not all survival is dependent on the success of the individual. It also depends highly on the survival of the species as a group or a whole.

This would be likened to parents adopting a child (which also occurs in nature in several animal species) as its own. A child or young animal in the wild often cannot survive or mature to propagate successfully without the aid of adequate parental care (such as being supplied with food, water and teaching the child or young animal vital life/survival skills). Often this is not relevant to self-interest, and instead is a by-product of the evolution processes to ensure the survival of the species.

Psychological tests in several areas have shown correlations between reactions of adults to photos of children and babies. One such study implicated that if a discarded wallet has a picture of a child and/or baby inside of it, it has a higher rate of being returned or turned into the proper authorities compared to wallets placed in similar areas with just a photo of an adult or significant other. This is most probably because evolution ensures the survival of the species (not always the individual) and therefore children are seen as a priority to be protected as they essentially ensure the survival of the species, otherwise the individual would always choose to keep the wallet and the cash out of self-interest.

If self-interest was the sole influence upon morality and ethics, this anomaly would not exist.

 

[moll.]

Rofl learn to spell.



I now take it back. Hitler is redundant as an example; however both Stalin and Mao were athiest, the point still stands.

Again, why is religion coming up in this thread?

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed their victims in the name of communism, not of atheism. Believe it or not, atheism is not a central, nor even necessary, tenant of communism. You're twisting the facts and stating that because there is a relationship between atheism and communism, and another between communist dictators and genocide that therefore there is a link between atheism and genocide.
It's roughly equivelant to saying that because there is a link between turban-wearing and extremist Islam and another link between extremist Islam and terrorist attacks that Osama must therefore like killing Americans because they don't wear turbans. Or that because there is a link between the Hebrew alphabet and Judaism and another link between anti-Semitism and Judaism, Jew-haters must just dislike the Hebrew alphabet. You're being an idiot and, whatsmore, you're not even being subtle about it.

 

[Name_Taken]

Again, why is religion coming up in this thread?

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed their victims in the name of communism, not of atheism. Believe it or not, atheism is not a central, nor even necessary, tenant of communism. You're twisting the facts and stating that because there is a relationship between atheism and communism, and another between communist dictators and genocide that therefore there is a link between atheism and genocide.
It's roughly equivelant to saying that because there is a link between turban-wearing and extremist Islam and another link between extremist Islam and terrorist attacks that Osama must therefore like killing Americans because they don't wear turbans. Or that because there is a link between the Hebrew alphabet and Judaism and another link between anti-Semitism and Judaism, Jew-haters must just dislike the Hebrew alphabet. You're being an idiot and, whatsmore, you're not even being subtle about it.

Because both Stalin and Mao banned religion and actively persecuted people who believed in it.

Its a response to people saying that religion is bad because crazy people force their beliefs on people who follow different Gods or who don't believe. Just as harmful consequences occur when people who don't believe start violently forcing this belief onto others.

Religion/athiesm are not evil by themselves, nor is making an arguement about why you believe in them, violently forcing others to believe/not believe however is, and throughout history both religious people and non-religious people have been guilty of this.

 

[Ethanescence]

Because both Stalin and Mao banned religion and actively persecuted people who believed in it.

Its a response to people saying that religion is bad because crazy people force their beliefs on people who follow different Gods or who don't believe. Just as harmful consequences occur when people who don't believe start violently forcing this belief onto others.

Religion/athiesm are not bad, nor is making an arguement about why you believe in them, violently forcing others to believe/not believe however is, and throughout history both religious people and non-religious people have been guilty of this.

Christianity is different from atheism, because in Christianity people force their beliefs on others mostly because the Bible itself promotes followers to proselytize non-believers and heathens. Atheism is not the same, as while some atheists may force their lack of belief and irreligious attitude upon others, these actions are not encouraged by any official atheistic text.

Christianity and many other religions are inherently flawed because the religious texts from which these faiths are based upon encourage and promote these harmful acts to some degree, while the acts committed by atheists are solely applicable to individual's own personal stance and not some universal atheistic guideline.

 

[Name_Taken]

Christianity is different from atheism, because in Christianity people force their beliefs on others mostly because the Bible itself promotes followers to proselytize non-believers and heathens. Atheism is not the same, as while some atheists may force their lack of belief and irreligious attitude upon others, these actions are not encouraged by any official atheistic text.

Christianity and many other religions are inherently flawed because the religious texts from which these faiths are based upon encourage and promote these harmful acts to some degree, while the acts committed by atheists are solely applicable to individual's own personal stance and not some universal atheistic guideline.

Yes but promoting a religion or faith is not the same as forcing someone to follow it.

It is possible to be Christian, promote your religion to others, but still respect their choice on whether or not to believe themselves.

You don't force people to go to Church, or to pray to a God they don't believe in. Knocking on your front door and handing out flyers is not infringing on your rights to follow a different religion or to not believe in God if you so choose. It is possible to hold your own beliefs and allow others to have theirs and coexist peacefully in the same community.

I'm saying that both athiests and religious people in the past have been guilty of making the mistake of denying each other the freedom to believe in w/e it is they want to.

 

[Ethanescence]

Yes but promoting a religion or faith is not the same as forcing someone to follow it.

It is possible to be Christian, promote your religion to others, but still respect their choice on whether or not to believe themselves.

You don't force people to go to Church, or to pray to a God they don't believe in. It is possible to hold your own beliefs and allow others to have theirs and coexist peacefully in the same community.

I'm saying that both athiests and religious people in the past have been guilty of making the mistake of denying each other the freedom to believe in w/e it is they want to.

Yes, I agree with you there.

But on other accounts, such as stoning adulterers, homosexuals, people who work on the sabbath, etc - you can't deny that Bible promotes this barbaric behavior to some extent.

 

[Name_Taken]

Yes, I agree with you there.

But on other accounts, such as stoning adulterers, homosexuals, people who work on the sabbath, etc - you can't deny that Bible promotes this barbaric behavior to some extent.

Thats all Old Testament (I'm not denying its in there), Christians follow primarily the New Testament (when something is mentioned in both the OT and NT).

Christ clarified much of the OT "rules" during His time on Earth, for example, telling a crowd of people about to stone an adulterer "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" etc so any Christian (who follows the NT which they sorta have to by default) would say that stonning someone for being gay or w/e is in fact wrong, despite what the OT said.

 

[Riet]

Stalin and Mao banned religion so that the people instead would worship them. Whether they were personally religious or not is a different matter.

 

[lolokay]

Nihilist is pretty cool

 

[Name_Taken]

Stalin and Mao banned religion so that the people instead would worship them. Whether they were personally religious or not is a different matter.

Likewise I could argue that things like the crusades were arranged by the then leaders of religion and state to advance their own personal interests, and merely hid under a false religious cause to claim legitimacy.