Atheist In A Foxhole

[Arising_uk]

Really? You're interested in philosophy, but you don't think rational consistency matters? I think many will beg to differ with you...including every other philosopher.

Not what I said, what I said was your idea that Atheists are rationally-inconsistent is nonsense.

Under Atheism, there can be objective facts, but no objective values. ...

Explain what you mean by objective? Particularly, show me your objective 'God'?

There can be made-up meanings, but no ultimate meanings. ...

Exactly but you belittle the idea of us being the meaning-makers because you have a Christian mentality that you are somehow less.

There can be people, but no true purpose to their existence.

What more true purpose is there than to give meaning and life?

And it was an Atheist who showed it...David Hume, as a matter of fact.

Notice he died an atheist as well, happy in his foxhole apparently.

You're making a common mistake. When someone says "Atheism cannot rationalize meaning," some people hear "Atheists don't believe in meaning."

My apologies, what do you mean by rationalise meaning?

I'm affirming both, because they don't contradict. Atheism has no meaning. Atheists feel the need of meaning, and make stuff up that they cannot rationalize from their Atheism. Both are true. Atheism is nihilistic, and Atheists are afraid to be nihilistic.

No we are not, it is that we accept that there is no external meaning that we understand that we are the meaning-givers. Something the theist conveniently forgets and then goes on to reify their thoughts and expects us to take this as fact.

You misread me. I said that Atheists steal their values inauthentically from creeds. Many of those creeds from which they steal their values are just as wrong as Atheism. For example, Humanism is clearly a faith-based wish, and no more -- one that Atheism has to deny, because it cannot accept that human beings are somehow "special" in this indifferent universe. ...

Not at all, we are, so far, pretty much unique. It is the theist who needs external confirmation of this and ironically it's because their belief tells them then are not upon their own. But lmao at the Christian talking about inauthentically stealing from other creeds.

Nevertheless, hypocritical Atheists often meld Humanism with Atheism in the vain hope of abating the sting of nihilism inherent in Atheism itself.

Ah! So apparently in this instance coincidence is not allowed is it?

Nothing hypocritical involved, not all atheists are humanists and the sting in nihilism is why, in most cases, Humanism arose.

No creed thinks every other is equivalent to itself. No creed thinks other creeds tell the same story. Ask anyone, including Atheists, if they think their creed is on parallel with, say, fire-worship or astrology, and of course they will say "No." So there's no surprise there.

See how you have Atheism as a creed when it suits you and not when it doesn't?

Anyway, what an Atheist "chooses" would only matter in a non-Atheistic universe. Otherwise, "choice" is also merely a happenstance, an accidental phenomenon of the universe.

Not so, doesn't matter if the options put before one are accidental, just that one has to choose.

Not so. An Atheist has no grounds for even saying what a "positive" behaviour would be. All behaviors are equal, given an Atheist universe. Thus, if an Atheist does anything we can call "good" it can only be by accident, or because he fails to follow through on the logic of his own ideology. But he cannot know why it is "good" that he does so. He has no grounds for morality.

Yes he does, the response he receives from others. A positive behaviour is one that he wishes to hold in the world and that is held in the world by others agreeing that he can hold it. Of course he can be like HQ and live as much as possible without others so all his behaviours will be positive.

Very touching. But I will not be able to care. And you will forget me very soon anyway. And then the universe will end in overwhelming cosmic silence forever.

Why would you care? You'll be dead.

The blanket you offer is too small. Our feet stick out at the bottom and our sides are exposed to the chill winds of cosmic indifference. You'll have to do much better if you want to keep us warm.

Not here to replace your 'father' blanket, just don't want you trying to smother me. By and large religion vanishes when material needs are met, it thrives when they aren't. It's why IS and fundamentalist Islam are not going away as they've stolen a leaf from old Christianity and are providing education and welfare to the poor and downtrodden in exchange for indoctrination, its pretty much giving fundamentalist Christianity a boost as it thrives upon feeling threatened as it's pretty much always ignored Jesus's message of peace and love. Me, I think them all barking.

[Arising_uk]

How does it escape your notice that some religions have caused absolutely no wars at all?

One's that have major followings?

How is it that Atheists are possessed of such blind hatred that they cannot see the differences between creeds?

Because creeds are just small religions and when they get big they become intolerant. Especially in the case of theistic creeds because they cannot suffer others to exist.

You yourself used ISIL as some sort of paradigmatic example of religion; but that religion, Islam is single-handedly responsible for 1/2 of the religious wars in history. And though that is still only 3.5 % of the wars that have been fought, it's the equivalent of every other religion and creed combined.

Who were they fighting?

I have yet to detect any Mennonite massacres, any Hassidic pogroms, any Baptist Inquisitions or any Mormon crusades...

For sure, you think they'll be big religions anytime soon?

And yet you think ISIL = all religions?

No, I think Islam a creed of Christianity and IS following the logical path of the Salifi.

What SOME bad religions may do, we cannot yet say. What Atheism already has done, we certainly CAN say. Last century, 148 million died in entirely non-religious wars. There is a 58% chance that the leader of any Atheist regime will kill a sizable portion of his populace. That's what we know about the compassions of Atheists.

None were killed in the name of Atheism. Still, like I say, I kinda look forward to this rise in religion you talk about as in the main it is the major theistic religions that are doing the recruiting and they logically cannot live together as, like you, think they have the 'One True 'God''' and this time they have advanced weaponry.

[henry quirk]

"...HQ and live as much as possible without others so all his behaviours will be positive."

All I'll say is: I do what I do, day to day, for reasons I suss out on my own.

That the universe doesn't give a shit about me or my reasons (that there is no moral dimension or absolute morality to rely on) is of no concern to me and has no bearing on what I do or why I do it.

Good, bad, positive, negative: pffftt!

I'm only concerned with *sane/insane, **profitable/unprofitable. I leave all the falderal (the nitpicking, shenanigans, and weighing of sparrow farts) to you philosopher types.









*sane, in context, means seeing, to the extent possible, the world as it is and acting, to the extent possible, accordingly (to self-preserve and -direct)...insane is seeing the world as it isn't and acting in keeping with that misperception.

**profit, in context, mean benefit, that which furthers one, that which preserves...un-profit is, of course, the opposite of profit (anti-profit).

[Dalek Prime]

Henry, I don't always agree with you, but when it comes to an understanding of where we fit into this universe, you're a breath of fresh air and sanity. You know which battles to fight, and what to throw on the compost heap.

IC, you are absolutely correct on Atheism and universal meaning, or a lack thereof. David Benatar wrote about just this in his criticism of Richard Dawkins, entitled The Optimism Delusion, the title being a direct jab at Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, though not from a theist's perspective, but from an antinatalist's. In Benatar's vein, I've never understood the optimism and meaning atheists find in existence, except in the personal and subjective, for without an absolute meaning, one merely makes it up as one goes along. Both theists and antinatalists understand this. But rarely, as in the case of HQ, do others.

[Immanuel Can]

Henry, I don't always agree with you, but when it comes to an understanding of where we fit into this universe, you're a breath of fresh air and sanity. You know which battles to fight, and what to throw on the compost heap.

IC, you are absolutely correct on Atheism and universal meaning, or a lack thereof. David Benatar wrote about just this in his criticism of Richard Dawkins, entitled The Optimism Delusion, the title being a direct jab at Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, though not from a theist's perspective, but from an antinatalist's. In Benatar's vein, I've never understood the optimism and meaning atheists find in existence, except in the personal and subjective, for without an absolute meaning, one merely makes it up as one goes along. Both theists and antinatalists understand this. But rarely, as in the case of HQ, do others.

I agree. I actually find myself having genuine respect for those few Atheists who are truly honest -- who are willing to live with the Nihilistic implications of their Atheism. It takes guts to swallow that bitter pill. My hat's off to them. On the other hand, the optimistic Atheist, the irrational Atheist, the one who takes false comfort in some extra creed illegitimately cobbled onto Atheism -- call it "Atheism Plus," if you will, or in many cases "Humanist Atheism," -- does not seem worthy of respect. There's something terribly cowardly about his skepticism, directed always outward and never to his own view, and a desperate dishonesty in his cringing embracing of false comfort.

So I'm quite happy with the former -- courage and consistency are always admirable, even if devoted a cause I happen to consider erroneous -- and number several among my friends. Our friendships are not contingent on their capitulation to my view, nor mine to theirs, and we meet over honest disagreement: honesty being the key point of meeting. So long as we are all committed to reason, consistency and truthfulness, there is no impediment there. Debate is actually a pleasure.

But what can one do with the dishonest Atheist, the believer in Atheism Plus? Such desperate self-deception or deliberate obfuscation as he exhibits leaves no opportunity for further discussion, because reason has totally left the building.

[Arising_uk]

... In Benatar's vein, I've never understood the optimism and meaning atheists find in existence, except in the personal and subjective, for without an absolute meaning, one merely makes it up as one goes along. ...

What do you find so pessimistic about the idea that we are meaning-givers?

[Arising_uk]

...
But what can one do with the dishonest Atheist, the believer in Atheism Plus? Such desperate self-deception or deliberate obfuscation as he exhibits leaves no opportunity for further discussion, because reason has totally left the building.

But it hasn't, if there is no 'God' or external being providing meaning to us and yet we do find meaning who do you think is providing it? What you wish is for the atheist to live the meaningless life you think you'd have if your 'God' did not exist as you cannot conceive of living without your comfort blanket. You think the nihilist should be miserable but I think the nihilist should rejoice as they are free to their reason to decide what makes their life meaningful and not the play-thing of some 'God's' whims.

[Dalek Prime]

... In Benatar's vein, I've never understood the optimism and meaning atheists find in existence, except in the personal and subjective, for without an absolute meaning, one merely makes it up as one goes along. ...

What do you find so pessimistic about the idea that we are meaning-givers?

Meaning takers. Hey, do what you want with it, Arising. I'm not stopping you. But know that your reply to IC is just a regurgitation of a Nietzschean theme of life-affirmation in the face of lack of true meaning, and I've never bought into that.

[Immanuel Can]

... if there is no 'God' or external being providing meaning to us and yet we do find meaning who do you think is providing it?

Oh, I see...You're mixing up the question, "Is it possible for an Atheist to convince himself of a 'meaning'?" and the question, "Does an actual 'meaning' exist?" They're different questions.

The answer to the former is "Of course: Atheist can convince themselves of anything they want -- that they can flap their arms and fly, or that black is white, or that the world is flat." But the answer the latter is "No, according to Atheism itself."

To duck this conclusion, some Atheists talk about "making meaning" in life. However, this has to be quite different from "finding meaning." For "finding" can only happen if the thing to be "found" already exists. In contrast, one can "make," or rather "make up" anything one wants to imagine, no matter how illusory or irrational.

Atheists can "make meaning." They cannot "find meaning." And that is by definition of their own non-belief in any entity capable of establishing a pre-existing, real meaning. Then the meaning they "make" stands only for them personally, lasts only as long as they do, and dies completely with them; for there is nothing but themselves to establish, continue or assert it after they are gone.

What no Atheist has been able to explain to me is how "made meaning" is any sort of advance on raw delusion. In fact, delusion is the very thing Atheist optimism seems inevitably to be. For both delusions and "made meanings" are mere sociological phenomena with no referent in reality, a sort of imaginary ephemera. They "exist" only in the imagination of the one cherishing them. And they fail to correspond to reality outside the individual's imagination.

But I thought Atheism was supposed to be a hard-nosed facing of "reality," a courageous "staring into the Abyss," a contempt for illusions, a proclamation of freedom from objective values, and a virile refusal of all "false consolations"? That's how they sell themselves, anyway. Yet I have not met one who does not, at the end of the day, fudge his Nihilism and cling to some consolation incompatible with this Atheism, because the Abyss is simply too dark for a human being to live with.

That's a telling criticism of Atheism, I think: it's only livable when it's inconsistent.

But the Atheist escape from meaningless raises another interesting question: if it's true that no such thing as "meaning" actually has a referent in external reality, how is it that we humans so universally seem to desire meaning? How is it even POSSIBLE to come to desire -- or even to conceive of -- an abstract concept so overwhelmingly necessary, yet that has no corresponding reality at all?

[henry quirk]

Of course, any one can assess me as they like, but I reject the idea I'm a nihilist, or nihilistic.

It may be a matter of definition.

I see nihilism as life-rejecting, while I 'live' (no matter how transitory or objectively meaningless it may be)...how can I do any other thing?

I live...I like living...I like moving through the world, impressing myself on it (as I can), navigating the immutables successfully...I like raising my nephew, want to see the man he'll become.

A lack of 'permanence' is no reason, in my view, to squat in the dirt and wait for the dying (or, to submit to imaginary people)...so what if I only have sixty, seventy, eighty, years of living (or, only five more minutes)? Make the best (and worst) of it, then take a dirt nap.

I see no cause for pessimism (or optimism). Just live, goddamnit and quit bellyachin' (you communitarians), quit dissecting everything (you philosophers).

If living is a game then here are the (Quirkian) rules (in no particular order):

1-Keep going as long as possible (the ground 'will' have you...make sure that event is as far away as possible).

2-Claim and defend yourself (no one else will as consistently, or fanatically, defend you as you yourself...own 'you' [as your first, best, property] or be owned...gate keep your head).

3-Do unto the other before he (or she) does unto you (and he [or she] will [try]).

4-Set your agenda(s) and alter them as it serves you (not the other guy or gal).

5-See the world 'as is' and act accordingly.

6-Where appropriate, be kind (why 'be kind'? Never hurts to do a good turn...generally costs little...sometimes bridge-building serves better than bridge-burning).

[henry quirk]

Oh yeah, almost forgot: fuck meaning.

I have 'me' (mobile, thinking, capable); I have the world (everything that's not 'me').

None of it has to 'mean' anything.

Just LIVE.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh yeah, almost forgot: fuck meaning.

I have 'me' (mobile, thinking, capable); I have the world (everything that's not 'me').

None of it has to 'mean' anything.

Just LIVE.

I can respect that. It squares very nicely, actually, with the Biblical injunction that if there is no God, we may as well just "eat, drink and be merry / For tomorrow, we die."

Seems reasonable.

[henry quirk]

"eat, drink and be merry (and, where necessary, kick ass)/ For tomorrow, we die."

[thedoc]

"eat, drink and be merry (and, where necessary, kick ass)/ For tomorrow, we die."

But bury them where they won't be found, at least till the day after tomorrow.

[Arising_uk]

All I'll say is: I do what I do, day to day, for reasons I suss out on my own.

Sure but I'd be hard pushed to believe that you'd think them negative or bad ones?

That the universe doesn't give a shit about me or my reasons (that there is no moral dimension or absolute morality to rely on) is of no concern to me and has no bearing on what I do or why I do it.

But you do believe that there is no absolute morality or external morality giver to rely on, yes?

Good, bad, positive, negative: pffftt!

I seriously doubt you'd be doing anything that you thought was bad and negative from your point of view?

I'm only concerned with *sane/insane, **profitable/unprofitable. I leave all the falderal (the nitpicking, shenanigans, and weighing of sparrow farts) to you philosopher types.

Still philosophical categories not matter which way you choose to cut it.