In defense of nihilism

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

The Biblical god, Jehovah, punishes evil and when he does it's very effective for change and erradication of evil when reformation fails.

---

If it were effective, why is there still evil? If one buys into the Christian claims, god did an awful lot of smiting and yet nothing has changed and no evil was eradicated.Contrast this to the theology of some other religions: You stick around, beating yourself up over and over until you finally figure out that the only reason you're getting beaten up is because you are doing it to yourself. Once you stop trying to force things, you get to move on and become one with the universe.

quote:

---

Were it not so, the world would've perished milleniums ago like evidently what what was about to happen the first time before the flood.

---

There was no flood, though.And you're treading dangerously close to Pascal's Wager. Really, threatening people with damnation and death if they don't straighten up and fly right? That's supposed to make the world a better place? What is that if not the instillation of fear and resentment?By your logic, it isn't nihilism that promotes fear (as demonstrated above). It's Christianity. Nihilism can easily lead one to conclude that the way to enlightenment is through the abandonment of fear whereas Christianity uses fear as a tool to oppress the individual.The nihilist finds peace through mastery of himself from within. Christianity imposes peace through threat of violence and terror from without.This is the way to win over "no code" nihilists how?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I'm not so sure there is such a thing as "peace of mind." One has to face that fact. Christianity promotes fear, but it also promotes hope. So those emotions tend to cancel each other out.

But then your understanding is incorrect. There is no unified nihilist code, though any particular nihilist might have a very strict code. It might even be written down. But what difference does it make if it is written when it can be interpreted in different ways? And indeed how objective could it be if it has so many different interpretations?How did the protestants make the world a better place? I seem to remember quite a number of horrible things under protestants as well. You would be wrong. I disagree with this concept and feel very sorry that you feel it is a good thing. It is a recipe for oppression and dictatorships. Cultures yes, religions no. I understand what you are driving at though. They are more about self control and virtues than domination/submission to set laws. ??? Salem witch trials, slavery, oppression of native americans and other minorities... Can I point out that the first immigrants and many others over the course of our nation's history have been Xian? I'm not sure that there are more coming from nihilist societies than Xian ones. I might also note that they came here to enjoy a higher standard of living in a more prosperous nation that promised they could live according to their own values, and not that they had to become Xians. Uh, I said the first ones in power. The ones being persecuted by the Romans were not the first ones in power. By definition they would not be in power. Very cheesy to say "nihilized" the code. Looks to me like they Xianized it to me.In any case, the point is that an objective written code did not stop them from changing the rules to something else... right? If an objective written code could not due that, then how was that any better than not having any specified code in the first place? Actually I didn't call you a liar. I said it appeared you were lying. This is what you said... The founders, though mostly of Xian descent, had vastly different value systems and some heavily disputed Xian dogma. Though many local "early govts" within the US had religious components, the founders specifically worked to remove this from the govt they created to remove the problems such components had caused.They never established a land of the "blessed". And they definitely did not use the Bible to form any of the govt structures, Their code book? Jefferson chopped up the Bible to create his own and Paine renounced it altogether while Washington refused some of the most common customs and dogma.You have been made aware of this before. Yet you continue to state such things as above as if they have not been challenged with factual evidence. Do you not remember the challenges?Can you tell me what factual basis you have for any of those claims? ???????? What is the first commandment?If freedom of religion and treating others as self is so important then how come fundies are so against churches allowing gays, as well as gay marriage? So people who follow an objective written code can "nihilize" them? How is that possible, and how does that not make the original code any better than no code? Its the good folks of any kind of moral code who fight for real freedom, desire to work, desire free enterprise, and work toward prosperity which create that in our nation. I have seen those who follow the Bible fight these things as much as support them. Those that support them have received my (a nihilist's) support. You are attempting to discredit me and people like me.If your argument is that there have been more Xians than nihilists involved with these good works within this nation, I might agree. I don't know for sure, but that seems likely given the demographics of our nation. That does not suggest that more Xians as a percentage of Xians than nihilists as nihilists do good work. And those subscribing to a biblical moral code NOT proven to be good for society, do NOT benefit society.That is why it is a tautology. They have also come from nations ruled by Xian tyrants or other religious oppressors. They come to a nation where the majority HAPPEN to be influenced by biblical precepts, though of many different natures. They come to a nation where the govt is not influenced by any religious precepts and (theoretically) commited to supporting their own.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not any more I don't... Rather than cancel out, there is a movement from a position of fear-although malfunction seems to me to be a better word - in which fear nestles (the non-Christians position) to to a position of hope (the Christians position). This is not blind hope - more like the way a child with loving parents looks forward with hope to Christmas morning.Of course there are non-Christians who don't malfunction in the sense that everything seems rosy most of the time. But given that they cannot know how they are meant to function they have nothing objective (other than worlds values) to measure their well functioning against. So they cannot know if they are functioning correctly."it is normal to have a primeval fear of death" they might say. But this is malfunction compared to a Christian who has no need to fear (and may indeed look forward to) death. The non-Christian may look forward to death but not in the sense that there is anything better to look forward to but simply to not exist as that is deemded better than existance

I'm defining "peace of mind" as not worrying. Now I have never known anyone, believer or non-believer, who didn't worry. The human animal might be defined as "the being that worries."

I suppose your right in a sense.Imagine however that you, like me, were someone for whom total financial security has yet to be attained. The level of worry will vary in intensity depending on the situation with regard to employment, mortage arrears, back to school expenses etc, level of Christmas bonus etc. But it will always raise its headWhen the Christian worries he is like a person who has spent their life in the above situation but who has now won the lotto. Force of habit means that they forget momemtarily that they have nothing more to worry about financially and the go back to the habits of a lifetime.Then they remember that in fact the are lotto winners and that they have in fact nothing to worry about. This process of living this reality - "don't worry" - all the time is one which Christians must learn. Paul wrote (sitting in a jail cell)"For I have learned the secret of contentment in any situation. When I live with God"Whereas the level of worry in a non-Christian is a complete function of the circumstances of their life, the Christian, as a function of how much he is prepared to listen and learn, is on a path towards a life of less and less worry. He has won the lotto - he must now remember that he has won the lotto. And the biggest worry of all, fear of the unknown in Death - can become no worry at all."Oh death where is your sting, Oh grave where is your victory?"Consistant with the characteristices one would expect of a loving father, God goes through a lot of trouble to assuage a believers natural habit of worrying and fearing. He tells us to 'fear not' all of 366 times. That's once for every day of the week - including leap years

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.

I wonder what gramps would have said about your bare-neckked assertion that the mind resides in places where the fMRI doth shine. In order to measure peace of mind, one would presumably have to have some knowledge of where it is. They wouldn't be much in the way of religions if they didn't. But all of them ask you to do this that and the other in order to get this idyllic afterlife. And they won't tell you how you can know if you've managed to hop over whatever height they set the bar at. You might reach enlightenment, but you might have to go around on the wheel of life a few more times. As what, well that isn't specified and you cannot know. Peace with the complete unknown? Hmmm. Or maybe when the god of the weighing scales tallies your deeds up you'll find out that the bad actually outweighs the good and it ain't gonna be 70 beautiful women attending to your every need. Peace...hmmmChristianity is unique in that it offers to let you know now where you are going for sure. No messing about the worry while-u-wait offered by Religion

Of course whether or not Christianity or any other religion brings one peace of mind or not is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not it's true. If it's true, it's the most important matter in the world. If it's untrue, it's total rubbish.

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.

Hi robinrohan, I think this is because the word denotes nothingness.I think that there are really 2 camps those who believe there is a reason for existance and those who do not. Maybe, but perhaps we are energy manifesting a mind that can precieve the universe and the purpose of this is still not understood.Existance may be a matter of concequence, but it is undeniable that the choice between there being something and there being nothing has been made.The word nihlism is nothingness, arbitrary, absurd, without reason. If this is the case then why is there something?Stephan Hawking once said something to the effect that the big question of how the universe came into being is really not the issue, rather why does the universe bother with existing at all.I believe that the meaning of life is existance. To survive, to exist to be.I salute all nihlist for they're intellectual bravery.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Paul put it in even stronger terms... He wasn't in any doubt about it and this verse shouldn't be read that he was in any doubt. But he makes the point you make. Christianity (or any other belief system) if true, is the most significant thing a person can make a decision about. That can equally be said of atheistic beliefs.Thus: get your belief system straight in your head then live accordingly. If for example a person was absolutely sure that nihilism was the was way it was then they can go about their lives sure in the knowledge that whatever they do has no ultimate meaning and they are completely free (in so far as society will permit them) to do what they want.The problem I suppose with nihilism or athiesm or materialism or existentialism or with the worlds Religions - is that none offer the person any degree of certainty that the track they are on is absolutely true. They all offer partial proofs of that which lies at the core of them. Neither scienctific theory or sense-making religious doctrine are proofs in and of themselves. For the person who decides they need a bit more than that, none of these will truly satisfy.And it is precisely this aspect that forms the great strength of Christianity. It is this which makes it unique. Sure there is the bible - but that can be argued hither and thither with about as much concrete conclusion as the debate about Evolution. But one thing is reasonably agreed upon. And that is that God steps into a persons life. There is too much evidence to deny this claim the bible makes:You're no dummy Robin. In order for you to truly believe, God would have to overcome all the phsycological, emotional, rational and reasonable objections you could raise. He would have to give you proof of his existance of an order that makes you sure. So sure that all your objections would evaporate like morning dew. Read Paul on the road to Damascus. On his way to round up Christians for jail or killing. In a couple of seconds it's... "Yes Lord" He doesn't sound like a guy who remained to be convinced. And that is reaction of all who come face-to-face (so to speak) with God in the bible. They all fall flat on their faces.Is it true? Well if it is, then fall-on-your-face levels of proof would be necessary. Only Christianity claims to offer this.Think about it an you'll see that of all the myriad of belief systems open to a person, this one is the only one that offers thatThis one is the only one where you have no positive part to play in your salvation.This is the only one where God means to have a personal, one to one relationship with you. Think about the others. The don't talk of personal gods. Those gods are remote. You may worship, pray, do good deeds and all the rest. But you do not relate to them. And they do not relate to you.This is the only one where God promises that if he once comes in he will never leave. Ever. No matter what you do.And the only problem is that folk won't let him in. Its a oft-used if incorrect (in context) verse but it kind of says it all. Revelation 3:20 - Jesus talking"Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone should open the door then I will come in a dine with him and he with me"Like I say, this verse is not intended for the non-believer it is for the believer. What needs to be removed is the implication that you do something to get into this relationship. You don't. Well maybe in a kind of a way. All you have to do is want him. And if you do, it will only be an infitesimal fraction of how much he wants you. Remember this prayer. I prayed it once.Lord I don't want you
I don't even want to want you
But I want to want to want youHe knows you think your far away. I was that far away the moment before I believed. But he doesn't mind how far you think you are. He is right there. He is that big. He loves you that much.

Perhaps my use of the term is eccentric. One definition of "nihilism" is the belief in tearing down the existing order of society. I certainly have no desire to do that.One of the arguments made by some posters, such as iano, is that I am being inconsistent in maintaining a moral code and using words like "dishonorable," and then calling myself a "nihilist." But here we must make a distinction between our feelings and the logic of any moral code. I certainly have moral feelings, and my code is conventional, but I also know that there is no ground for this code logically. As Holmes has pointed out, it's really a matter of personal taste. A code is pragmatic, but it won't stand up to any kind of logical examination. Nonetheless, moral codes cannot be avoided.

I got into a discussion before and was told that there is no mind without cognitive function. I felt (and it never got to a conclusion to the contrary) that cognitive function are consequences of the mind. If you start disconnecting cognitive function all that happens is that cognitive statements (which may be measured) such as:"I am happy" reduces simply to"I am..."I am is not reliant on any cognitive function we can measure. How do you get a person to say "I am not" afterall. The juries out for want of a way to test for it ( call it "abiogensis problematics") Maybe Christian based Religions do so but Christianity doesn't. Christianity says believe. But it doesn't for one moment say that the belief is a blind belief. Blind belief is illogical and irrational. One cannot truly believe what one has no absolute proof for. Christianity offers that. If you don't have it you cannot be sure sure. You may be a Christian then but if you want to be sure you are then God needs to prove himself to you in some incontrovertible way. A way that leaves no doubt. The others do NOT offer certainty We get back into the problem of how one can ascertain who is and isn't a Christian in order to measure 'peace levels' I would suggest that someone calling themselves a Christian should be taken with a pinch of salt. That this makes evaluating them on a scientific basis somewhat problematic there is no excuse to fiddle the experiment in order to get a result. Another problem here with definition. The peace on offer is a "peace which surpasses all understanding" I used to be very content with my old Suzuki 200. But then I had no reason not to be. It would have taken a spin on a Fazer 1000 to get me to realise what I was missing.As with morals, in order to evaluate peace in any quantitive way one would have to have some absolute standard of peace against which to measure a individuals level of peace.You may be riding a Suzuki 200 peace. And it might suit you perfectly. You can't miss what you've never had though.This message has been edited by iano, 05-Dec-2005 10:27 PM

If I could rephrase. I would say that your inate humanity outweighs your adherence to a life philosophy. Following the consequences of nihilism to their logical conclusions would I suggest, lead to insanity. Something about humans tends towards life and health in amonsgt the ability to self-destruct.It could be that we have evolved this way or it could be the scent of something God-given. Either way, only the most persistant and single-minded nihilist would cut the thread that keeps them from plummeting into the abyss.I think less that it is inconsistant for a nihilist to adhere to a moral standard and more that it is sensible. If nihilism is true then it's whatever floats your boat. No one else can point to anything objective to show you that you should do otherwise.Like, sanity is fun