In defense of nihilism

Bravo!Don't change a word without payment.

Bet he never got a POTM nomination, though--and his critics were harsh.

You didn't mention his Special Purpose.

Ah, but there is a similar pleasure...right here and now. Atheists can enjoy a Garden of Earthly Delights free of the shadows of sin, guilt, and damnation.OTOH, even if atheists are wrong about there being an afterlife, they could still discover that all this sin and damnation nonsense is, well, nonsense, and the deity doesn't give a fig leaf for it: wouldn't the believers be steamed if they found atheists sittin' pretty right beside them in paradise?Or how about if the believers discovered they have it exactly backwards, and a hedonist, fun-loving deity wants no part of them? The Bacchus Hypothesis.I'll see if I can come up with some more atheistic fantasies. I bet robin would be good at that, too.

What makes you think I think atheists don't feel guilt? Being short-term avid and long-term stupid, or hurtful, is not in my catalog of earthly delights. I especially like that one. That's a bit overrated, I think: cold comfort in the cold night. Just try. That's all that Bacchus asks of us.

Gee, I miss the snake.Otherwise I like it much, though I think you're a bit easy on the old man.I see Faith asserts that God was not "incredibly angry": IIRC, Faith has argued the necessity of God's wrath elsewhere, and if original sin didn't make him wrathful, what would? "Incredibly angry" seems like a fair paraphrase of wrathful.I don't have my KJV here in the office, but I seem to recall that he was pretty po'd...they were "driven" from the Garden, the brandishment of a flaming sword barred their return, they were told to expect to live miserably and die, etc.Was that just mild irritation?

Thanks for the KJV text, Faith. Yes, flicking his cute little air-tasting tongue, too.I have always liked snakes. It's a shame that mythopoeic literatures like the Edenic story have helped to justify the persecution of animals that do us a great deal of good. Of course, I prefer to hold human ignorance responsible rather than a deity's calm, rational curse upon an innocent creature. If the snake is simply Satan in disguise, what sense does it make to punish snakes?Besides, if the snake is responsible for making wives desire their husbands, he should be greatly esteemed by husbands everywhere.The Garden? To me, it is a mish-mash of myth that did no harm until it was enshrined as revealed truth by a power-wielding priestly caste to justify the subjugation of woman and the hard lives of exploited peasants.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-30-2005 12:17 PM

Judges do the sentencing not the State; they are usually pretty ticked off in proportion to the offense--in my limited experience, of course .So what makes God wrathful, iano? You, too, have argued the rightness and necessity of a wrathful God. If He wasn't wrathful in Eden, at the time of our Fall, when was He?

I grant there are some sound ethical guidelines in the Bible; Christ's injunctions on love and kindness are more than sound. Like the Edenic story's roots in Sumerian mythology, there is nothing philosophically new in the Bible, including claims of divinity and resurrection, or even eating the consecrated blood and flesh of the God.But the impact of Christianity has been--to put it mildly--a mixed blessing to the West: intolerance, torture, crusades, political oppression of other religions and even other Christian sects. I think we owe more to the Greeks than to the Bible for our Western notions of human dignity, and more to the brave women of the past several centuries for improved conditions for women in the West, improvements largely condemned and resisted by Christian ecclesiastical authorities and congregants alike.Even if we hypothetically grant the existence of Mr. Bones, there seems to have been no need of his efforts to make the world suspicious of Christian actions and motives.As for abuse of animals, please feel free to visit my By their fruits shall ye know them thread. I'd be interested in your take on what the Christian profiteers are doing to the natural world.I know you're busy elsewhere at EvC (and I am now sincerely trying to stay out of the way there, despite my lack of humility ), but do drop in sometime.

MEGO with dogma and doctrine, iano.Whether or not the biblical God's anger is like mine, it is manifestly anger.And love is not the term I would use for punishing one's son for the sins of others.

As my gramps would say, iano, that assertion is bare-nekkid as a jaybird.Buddhist monks not only claim to possess peace of mind, but can demonstrate it on fMRI scans which show the brain centers and activities associated with calmness and happiness lit up like...well, like a Christmas tree.Many other religions besides Christianity promise an idyllic afterlife: no exclusivity there.Further, contemplating my atoms recycling through flora and fauna for millenia gives me considerable peace of mind. As the songwriter (whose name I forget--Greg Brown, maybe?) says, I rarely worry; waste of time and energy: when challenges arise, I deal with them as best I can. As I frequently remind my younger friends, next year we will all have a brand new set of problems--don't attach yourself unduly to this year's crop.I have seen no sign among the purported Christians within my experience of any peace of mind beyond the average. From the angst and anger I witness on forums like this one, they fret a great deal.Now cover up that bare-nekkid assertion, son, you're embarrassing the ladies.

Hi again, iano. You got me there: I do believe the mind is generated by the brain.I base this on the incontrovertible fact that the mind-state consistently reflects changes in the brain-state across many observed subjects in predictable ways--also on the fact that when in my rowdy youth, I landed a good right hook to the braincase of an interlocutor, his mind shut down.Coincidence? I don't think so... Nope, Christianity has no claim to uniqueness in that regard: all major religions tell you what to believe and/or how to act to gain their Deity's grace; nor is the yardstick of certainty a novelty to Christianity--just ask the Iman or the Hindi.BTW, I mentioned Buddhist monks primarily because Buddhism qualifies more as a philosophical system and discipline than a religion, yet their claim to promote peace of mind has at least some evidential support. I see no evidence for a Christian propensity to peace of mind in historical or medical records.Am I at peace with the unknown? Yes, indeed: there is no fear where you think there ought to be.

Certainly there is something rather than nothing; but there is no evidence that any choice was made.

I truly have no idea what you mean here, though I would point out that "I am" depends on consciousness, which, as I pointed out, can be suspended with a sound right hook--on a good day, even a straight left jab.I also know that a skilled neurosurgeon with a fine electrical probe can elicit or obliterate (depending on voltage) pretty much all known cognitive functions.The brain generates the mind. If you have a better candidate, I'm all ears for evidence. The Hindi is as certain of Krishna as you are of Christ; or, in other words, he insists on his certainty as strenuously as you do on yours. He seems quite as sincere and, to me, is just as unpersuasive. From my perspective that presents no problem: even if I consider only those self-proclaimed Christians with the greatest apparent peace of mind to be real Christians, and those with the least, not, I see no sign that their peace surpasses anyone else's, let alone my understanding, regardless of the comparison faith or lack of it. And apparently you've never enjoyed peace of mind without the psychological support of religious beliefs--perhaps my peace of mind surpasses your understanding. My backyard chop-shop one-off, running full-throated on clear air and unadulterated natural fuels, may run rings around your Fazer.I know the discussion continues here about the proper definition of nihilism, and that's fine, though I will note that if definitions don't occur at the beginning of a discussion, they rarely manage to clarify it later.But robin's observation--that the universe appears to be without apparent purpose or meaning--rings true to me. Purpose and meaning--and, yes, honor--are ours to create. You have created yours, and I, mine. I feel knowing that my purpose and honor, my tenderness and love, are freely created and embraced by me makes them precious and meaningful in a way that an external source could not.I understand that you believe I am certainly wrong, and that my error, if uncorrected, will cause me eternal torment; I believe I am right, but agree I may be wrong: I am no champion of certainty.But in any case I would not worship a being that torments others forever for their errors, and so I am content to follow where my mind and heart lead me.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-05-2005 09:55 PM

Long ago and far away, my reading of the Bible seemed to suggest that the key question was an acceptance of God, not whether or not God existed. Lucifer, for example, certainly knew God existed, as did the other fallen angels, but chose to defy rather than worship. Adam, Abraham, Job, John, Peter and Paul did not have to decide whether God existed based on an extensively amended and emended text and the dubious behaviors and testimonies of those who claim to believe.An exercise of free will makes sense in the context of deciding whether or not to worship, but not in the context of belief about existence.As the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and the evolution of political philosphy made it more possible not to believe, by both examining the natural world and by emancipating the individual from oppression by believers, the focus seems to have shifted: from freely willed worship to freely willed belief in the absence of any compelling evidence.What could God do? Oh, I dunno: have believers heal a few thousand dying children, maybe; send Gabriel down to prevent a few million slaughtered innocents...little things like that.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-12-2005 11:32 AM