User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Atheists and theists

Atheists and theists are both deluded. The existential nihilist is the only one with his or her head out of their ass. Unfortunately, there are atheists who realize this but still stick to their fantasies. The atheist is not with out their version of the deity. They call it Reason or Rationality. They think they will live on through advances in medicine. Atheists also have their own theology, known as Philosophy and Science. A lot of good any of this does when you're on your death bed. People always talk bad about Hitler, but he was right. People call him a monster or unethical. First off, what is being"unethical". This is a solecism. Secondly, you cannot present an ethical case against him with out a logical fallacy thrown in there. Unless, Hitler did not have a logical reason for exterminating his enemies? I don't know, seems that a logical case could be made. This is a hell of a lot better than the passive-aggressive types on the TAE. They talk a lot shit but in reality they haven't the balls to back it up. Oh, let me push my button, so the guy on the line cannot speak. OOH, you got 'em. Despite your trivial attempts to use reason and logic for your world views, both the theist and atheists can use logical reasoning to do what ever they please. Logic is non-ethical. I could easily form a logically valid argument to kill the human race. All you have in response is, "well, you could try, but we'd kill you". That is a logical fallacy. Maybe I'd like to see you try.

Just curious whether you use any technology, like, oh, the computer, electricity, central heating. Be sure and credit rationality and science for their fruits: technology, that you take for granted.

Are you serious? Non sequitur much? Where do I ever imply that I take it for granted. It is surprising to have an atheist (well, not so much) seem to implicate that I should kowtow to science and rationality for all the benefits it has provided me. Do you think before you speak or type? This is why atheists are really no different than theists. Both positions are mind-numbingly dogmatic about their positions and at times willfully ignorant of other points of view, especially when it conflicts with their beliefs. Yeah, atheism is a belief too. You assume that everyone you talk to on this forum that differs in opinion with you is a Christian. So much for the critical thinking. I am NOT Christian. Either pull that balding head out of your rectum or get someone who thinks before they respond.

Don, what does that have to do with what Doug said? It sounds like he should be worshipping science and rationality as a god. Why don't you address the problem he addressed? I do not understand why atheists try to separate their worldview from nihilism win in fact it is inherent in the atheistic world view. I have read your other posts on this subject and all you do is a sort of hand wave, as if that negates it's validity as a position. I think what he was trying to point out is that both theists and atheists are just as enchanted by this world, so they have to come up with ways to keep enchanted. God is replaced with Reason and Nature, religion with science and philosophy, etc. I should realize by now not to expect too much in a response, but one could hope.

Why should atheists "worship rationality and science as a god"? We don't assume that these things have any kind of consciousness or intelligence on their own. It is *us*, who give this things meaning. If we worshiped rationality and science as you say, we would be worshiping ourselves as "gods". But that would be stupid. Instead we view rationality and science as our tools to understand reality in a way that serves our desires and needs as humans. Now you might say that in this case you are worshiping your own desires. But how can one worship something that is changing over time? We merely seek to fulfill our own desires, we don't worship them. If someone *worships* his or her own desires, it is a psychiatric disorder. Look at this:

There is a huge difference between trying to fulfill your own desires and worshiping them.

I agree with you that logic is not inherently ethical. Ethics is driven in part by compassion, which is a human trait, but perhaps not a logical one.

I agree with you that there is no ultimate meaning. We make our own.

I brought up scientists and technologists because these are people by and large who make contributions to humanity because it gives their life meaning. I pointed out technology because even a nihilist has to admit his life is better because of their efforts.

Flipping it around, I can't think of any way that nihilism makes the world better. It's an intellectual dead end, much like solopsism. I don't see any benefit to it. Maybe I'm wrong.

At another level, if nihilists don't have any meaning in their lives, I feel sorry for them. Maybe therapy would help. Sitting around and complaining about reason and science seems kind of a sad way to live.

Can you maybe explain why nihilism is somehow beneficial?

My response would be that logically valid arguments are irrelevant in attempting to establish anything. You must make a logically SOUND argument to exterminate the human race. And you're better off attempting to make a logically COGENT argument for exterminating the human race. I'd like to see your attempts. I'd also like to see you attempt to support Hitler's actions through logic. A man has few, if any, enemies at birth, so you first have to support the actions that got him enemies, before you support the extermination of his enemies. Existential nihilist = life is meaningless, right? Atheists are entirely capable of being existential nihilists. In order to justify my continued existence however, I find something that has value to me. For example, pointing out that someone who wants to talk about logic and fallacies doesn't understand the difference between valid and sound arguments or realize that atheism and nihilism are entirely compatible.

Hitler's actions are logical. Hitler wanted power without opposition. Therefore he made sure the opposition was removed. He messed up by invading Russia during winter. You confuse logic with ethics. You could make a logical case for anything, for example belief in a god. Also, do not confuse logic with critical thinking. Logic does not state what we ought to do and the subject that is suppose to, that is ethics appeals to fallacies. So, what have you then?

The conclusion to the argument that he claimed he could make was indeed an "ought" statement: Based upon (premises) Hitler should have exterminated his enemies. - Or do you have a different interpretation of his claim that "a case could be made that Hitler had logical reason for exterminating his enemies"? I see no way around Hitler having to consider all of his information (premises) and then deciding what he ought to do (conclusion).

You didn't even provide an argument. Effectively, all you did was explain Hitler's actions.

As I see it, the only mistake I made was claiming he COULD make a logically valid/strong argument for exterminating Jews or attempting to take over the world, or anything else. As you say, logic, doesn't (normally) deal with this.

Deontic logic does deal with imperatives (oughts), but requires starting from a set of standards. What is supported depends on the standards of those reaching the conclusion.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup