Rabid atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Who says that solipsistic nihilism is wrong though? Other people cannot be proved and any truth outside of the tautological sense of absolute proof cannot be logically proved. Frankly, you have labeled something to be nihilistic, but is nihilism wrong? And if so then why? I mean, I don't see any of these people bringing up pure nihilism and therefore the liar's paradox, and I know that some view nihilism very differently than others. I was reading a book on philosophy by E. F. Schumacher where he argued that your rationalism was a form of nihilism by denying people the ability to higher questions, and I know that some apologists tend to agree with that. In fact, there is an entire school of Christian apologetic thought almost based upon the idea that pure rationalism is fulfilled in nihilism. I dunno, I really don't see the reason to call either side nihilistic as such attacks seem useless.

sorry I should have clarified I was more meaning the fact that Science has become more of a religion then a ways of providing unbalanced research. How it relates to this thread is I've noticed two types of athesists one that is anarchistic in views and the scientific atheist which seems to use science as a religion? I'm suggestting that there is no real objective truth cause most research variables as you suggest is based on the user's belief system which then makes it biased research which defeats the original intention of science much like the fanatics of any religion that due to their need to feel correct and usually goes against their religion's views.

Do you think science has become kind of a religion for certain atheists? Since as you stated above research outcomes are usually biased by the personal belief system of the researcher doesn't that mean there are no true facts as a fact should be unbiased and unchangable if it is a so called fact? Do you think facts can be proven without full undersanding of their broader topics? If so how much or do you think our limited knowledge of the world by the sometimes boxed in mentality of science is highly counterproductive to any research? or do you disagree with my assesment of us having limited knowledge of the world or believe its not really a factor in most cases? and finally feel free to tell me anywhere above you dissagree with me?

if you noticed everytime the label they gave me has changed. Often jf cited rules he broke which I brought up earlier its because as you stated above it can't be refuted but if you look at it instead of declaring well your right neither one of us can prove our views and they fail to answer my other questions because they are dependent on that declaration. Its a form of fanaticism I feel the same fanaticism that they hate in people who clutch onto religion.My initial problem and how I got involved in the thread was the personally attacking others instead of like witt has done shown evidence and stated their opinion on the matters... Also what is your personal take on the questions I asked above? if you would like to share your opinion?

well, for what I have seen, there is confusion sometimes between nihilists and the self-called spketics, as they seem more like debunkers actually. Also there have been a confusion between nihilism and anarchism, and I have seen arguments before here when the acused have been labeled as nihilist for 'questioning' authority. Although I don't get this nihilism philosophy that well, and probably that is why most people confuse the term with something else, but it appears to be something dangerous, I mean, does nihilism offer something positive to society? what is the purpose? nothing or there is one?


Can that be a practical way of living? or does not go beyond mere philosophy?

I see a big problem with amorality or moral nihilism.

Right, the skeptics are debunkers and they are angry at the skeptics for denying them the tools to debunk. Well, yeah, nihilism is just a term thrown around a lot to trash somebody for not accepting their ideas or authority. Religions call atheism nihilistic, atheists may even call theists nihilist, it is just nonsense though. Nihilism denies that society even matters. Nihilism denies purpose. Basically nihilism denies everything and this is believed by most philosophies to be inherently wrong.


Nihilism isn't a way of living. Moral nihilism is only a problem if we suppose the existence of morality, but morality does not have an existence which is logically necessary.

It is my impression that saying that morality does not exist, is like saying time does not exist, but time does exist, in physics time is one fundamental thing, in philosophy might not have any meaning.

The problem I see with moral nihilism is when it comes to people adhering to that way of thinking, when it comes to antisocial behaviour and psychopathy, making it seem like that kind of people would be very attracted to that philosphy, hence thinking of the danger of it.

My opinion is that it is just useless. I have never understood the entire issue of atheists arguing against theists, maybe vice versa a little but I don't see aggressive atheism as getting anything done. Honestly, I don't see why atheists don't just view religion as a preference or expression of desire more so than an evil act or something.

Yes. Science has become a statement of truth and identity for many of them. Very few atheists seem to examine the nature of morality closely enough to see that science does not provide for that element of their being and I think that this leads to a dogmatism as they assume right and wrong without recognizing the unknowable nature of it, or even that if they follow more fully with their ideas, that morality shouldn't exist.

There are facts, but we don't know what they are necessarily. There is truth but we don't know it necessarily.

I don't think things can be proven period. Every proof demands a foundational premise and I don't see any foundation that must necessarily exist. I mean, the only facts I would argue as being proven would be issues of logic and mathematics and in order to prove these we don't need physics or any related topic.

Science does what it can. The real problem with science is that people take it as a dogma rather than a useful tool. It too is subject to foundational premises and if these premises are good then science is good. If not then it is not. We can argue that science is more good than bad in epistemology, but we can't prove anything with it.

We have very limited knowledge and it is found throughout our lives. The best we can aim at is logic as everything else can have problems. Logic could too as we cannot prove logic to be true, but it is deeply and perhaps intrinsically bound to how we view the world.

Well, I can understand that position and sympathize with it. I believe morality exists and I believe that morality is necessary for man's existence, but I don't believe it is a physical necessity. We know time exists because we live it and travel through it. To deny it would be to deny reality. We only know morality through our conscience.

Which is why it is often used as a bad label. Nihilism is associated with those people. Nihilism itself has no problem with this or with being nihilistic.

Ok, so (using your type of loopy "logic") how do you KNOW time exists? How do you know what your experiencing is real? How can you varify it? Could this be all in our heads (time, I mean), like a dream state or a false reality or something? You can't prove otherwise (remember, I'm using your logic here).

Because change exists. Which I know because action exists, which I know because I think, and I know I think because I think. We can't go further back without attempting to disprove existence itself. So based upon thinking, we know of action, and based upon action, we know of change, and based upon change we know of the medium through which change occurs, which is time. If any of these are false then time may be false, however, these seem very firm foundations.

Oh, I don't. I only know my experiences are real, but not if what I experience is real.

Time? No, time can't be only be in our heads because our heads are in reality and time's basis is action and thinking, a verb is an action, so based upon our heads we can know that time outside our heads must exist because time is inside of our heads.

interesting viewpoint ... so your is there a title for your viewpoint ? and if so in your estimation how much do our viewpoints differ? It's really too logical to me and I don't see anything I dissagree with. Do you believe in religion, or science or are you Agnostic and think its a little mix of both that we can't understand because of our limited data (some consider it different but thats my viewpoint of agnosticism.) if the questions are too personal I understand.

My viewpoint? Probably not for my specific viewpoint. Our viewpoints differ somewhat as I simply view science as an epistemological framework and not a complete philosophy capable of challenging religion which means I don't care so much for the comparison of epistemologies because we have one idea which is all epistemology and another that focuses upon metaphysics and ethics with a few attachments to history. I am very rationalist so I am probably somewhat different from you philosophically. I tend to be religious with some respect for science but not the insane respect found from atheists. I tend to be a rationalist though, reason is above science and thus philosophy is above science, any other idea is ridiculous to me. We do have very limited data though and we try to assume in order to fill the gap and honestly I can understand the idea that we have limited data about the world. In fact, the idea that human beings have limited information and abilities makes me think of Austrian school economic ideas.

how so on the Austrian school economic ideas?

They partially emphasize that human societies have an information problem that is on some level unsolvable. Their argument against socialism is that we cannot get the information necessary to create a working socialist society so just the idea of limited information just gets me thinking on what I've read by some of their thinkers. It really does not relate a supreme amount to philosophy but it has some relation.

its interesting and does seem like it applies to my viewpoint on some of the topics brought up on this conversation.

That's not an attack on socialism in and of itself, it's an attack on varieties of socialism based on command economies. There are forms of socialism (generally those that emphasize co-ops) that have no problem with the market.