In defense of nihilism

This very website shows how it is possible for people to believe whatever they want regardless of the evidence. Randman and Faith are just two of many posters here who chose to be willfully ignorant no matter what the facts are. The problem with God(s) is there isn't any evidence of his/their existence and people still feel strongly about it. If God(s) was to make his/their presence known and verifiable it would not in any way interfere with our free will (if such a thing even exists). Saying that having evidence/knowledge of something somehow interferes will our free will would be like saying being shown that 1 + 1 = 2 would interfere with our free will about math.

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

But without knowledge of math you are entitled to think 1+1=345 if you like. With no evidence no one can contradict you. Without absolute proof, your view is a valid as any other. As soon as the knowledge comes you have no free will anymore. You must believe that 1+1=2. You could claim otherwise if you like but you would know the truth. 1+1=2. No choice. Your life becomes governed by that very knowledge that you have. It is ordered and controlled by it. You are as captive, whether you like it or not, to the fact that 1+1=2 as you would be if God turned up. You would have to believe. No free will involved. You don't mean the one about Evolution is a FACT do you? Surely Randman and Faith argue on the basis that others here do: all this stuff is theory not fact. it may be orthodoxy and it may have more evidence pointing in one direction than in another. But fact this stuff is not - as the more scientific members here are happy enough to point out. The more humble would accept that they base their conclusions on faith in those presenting the various cases - not being in themselves at all capable of knowing and proving for themselves 1+1 fashion, whether this stuff is actually accurate.Alternative faiths, not wilful ignorance is the way I see it

But why should that matter? You seem to be suggesting that whether or not one believes that God exists is a moral test, and if you don't believe you fail the test. Some test! God hides himself away and we are supposed to guess one way or the other.

The question was addressed to Robinihilists who don't believe God exists at all. Romans 1 describes the gospel being required by both Gentiles (athiests, materialists, existentialist, dualists, pantheists etc) and, in Romans 2,(anyone who believes in God but who thinks that their position before God is determined by what they do/how they behave: a God in their own image and likeness if you will).God has never proven himself to people at large in a way that didn't let them disbelieve. Sure they didn't believe Jesus was God even though he performed miracles. You would imagine people in those days were in as much of a position to know a smelling dead person being brought back to life was as miraculous as we would now. Assuming you could organise the event in such a way as to disallow any chance of it being written off as a stunt: The worlds top 1000 doctors and surgeons certifying the children as truly suffering from terminal illnesses etc - then what would you achieve? Any person who witnessed the event would have to believe. They might even get the wrong end of the stick and believe enough to start reading the bible and get to thinking they have to work for their salvation. That would be a bigger disaster than leaving it as it is.There is nothing like the hopelessness of honest nihilism to bring a man to his knees.

There is really little point in arguing about these things. God is not playing any games. There is plenty of evidence but it's not of the sort you all demand. I was also unable to appreciate the physical natural evidence at one time. Our dead spirits since the Fall in Eden make it difficult-to-impossible, though there are some blessed souls who do see God in nature.God is Spirit and we must apprehend Him spiritually. That requires the regeneration of our spiritual faculty. That's something you can ask Him to give you by the way. {AbE: Better to ask that He give you faith in Jesus Christ though, I think on afterthought.}Because of our blindness God gave us the testimony of eyewitnesses, lots of them, made sure their experiences were written down. Now everybody complains that this, that, or the other makes it impossible for them to believe these eyewitnesses, and argue their case against them no end. Well, sorry, you insist on your own view of it all instead of believing what the witnesses say, which makes you responsible for your own rejection of it in the end.At least with Christians, nobody's "believing whatever they want." It's quite specific, not at all so arbitary as you are pretending it is. I believe those eyewitnesses and that's the case with Christians in general.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-12-2005 12:56 PM

As I have said before, and as a stunt-miracle would demonstrate, the onus would be on God to be the one to do the revealing before anyone can believe anything. It is not a moral test. Morals have nothing to do with it. God doesn't expect a person to guess either. Guessing is as useless as is believing without evidence. And only God can provide evidence sufficient to let the person believe. It is when the workings of 1+1=2 are made plain that a person comes to believe that is the case. Belief is a consequence of something God does to the person - not the person trying to work it up in themselves.Believing without proof (that satisfies self - if no one else) is not belief. It is irrational.As I have also stated before. God does the drawing of a person to himself in a way that is not evidently him. But there is enough of him about it that the person can recoil from it or accept it.Example: iano the non-Christian is in a bar. He's feeling good and has a few pints on. He's out on the search for a woman for the night. Any port in a storm so to speak and he ain't feeling fussy. There she is: sitting at the bar alone, eyes getting a bit glazed from the spirits shes drinking. Not great but not bad either. Nice figure anyway.A bit of chat then back to her place. She tells me of her splitting with her boyfriend 2 weeks ago. She doesn't normally go to bars alone but she felt so lonely she thought she'd go crazy sitting in another Saturday night. She starts crying and I take the opportunity to comfort her.One part of me says 'fair game' Her problems are her own - I've mine too. She is a lonely adult and I am a lonely adult and if she choses to go to bars and get drunk and.... then hey! There ain't no law against it is there?The other part thinks "I really shouldn't". If she wakes up tomorrow beside me shes going to be more upset than she already is - even though at this moment it's comfort she wants. Its the distress she is in that has her looking for it in the wrong way. It appears there is a law against it. The law of my conscience.There is no law/there is a law. The choice is mine alone. One could say this is a moral decision but it is not the correctness of the decision that counts in essence, it is the assent to the fact that there is a right and wrong and irrespective of what the law or society says, we place more value on that within. To highlight the point that it is not about moral decision I would argue that even if we make the wrong decision but suffer the pain of guilt from knowing we have done wrong, we have served the same purpose: assent to right and wrong.Either carrying out the right action or acknowledging in our hearts the wrong action and wishing we hadn't done it achieves the same result. Every answer to the string of these we face is an potential incremental acknowledgement that Gods laws are good. And its our sucessess and acknowledged (to self) failures regarding his law that he uses to draw us. We can move away, we can be drawn closer, we can hold where we are.His law isn't him however, it is just the means whereby he can stay necessarily remote (and thus not interfere directly with free will) yet execute his call on all men sufficient unto salvation or damnation.

So you don't have to believe in God to go to heaven?

Well then according to your only ignorant people have free will and the more knowledge you have the less free you are. Not just that but all science is declared null and void by those two, they are just don't see it. One doesn't just to pick and choose which parts of science they deem to be correct, they have to either disprove the parts they don't like or grudgingly admit that it appears to be correct, until it can be proven otherwise.

It works both ways. The evos here pick and choose which parts of the Bible or any evidence for God they deem to be correct, and in some cases there's none at all they are willing to bless with their approbation. There's plenty of evidence for God in both nature and the Bible, so as usual it comes down to whether Science trumps God or God trumps Science. Your arrogance in calling those ignorant who believe God trumps Science shows only that you identify with those who are currently in power.

I would call it reason triumphing over ignorance and superstition.It's not arrogant to say that the Earth looks like it's ~6 billion years old based on what we've observed.

Of course you would, but it's just the conviction one has who is on the current politically correct side as I said. Since God certainly does trump Science and the ToE is wrong, it is you who are ignorant and will someday know it. No, but calling ignorant those who consider "what it looks like" to be merely a massive delusion is arrogant.Works both ways is the point, as I said.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-12-2005 03:42 PM

Listen it is impossible to carry on with someone who wouldn't believe the scientific evidence if it reached up and slapped them in the face. You may remain willfully ignorant if you want to and I reserve the right to call people ignorant if they refuse to to open their eyes to the observable facts. Notice I said observable, anyone can see them. They don't have to have any special mystical belief system or join any secrect club or society. They only have to observe and test what they observe in a scientific manner.

=================================================================
***THIS IS A PARODY. PLEASE READ BOTH THE QUOTED PARAGRAPH AND MINE***
================================================================= Listen it is impossible to carry on with someone who wouldn't believe the Bible if God did a miracle before their very eyes. You may remain wilfully ignorant if you want to and I reserve the right to call people ignorant if they refuse to open their eyes to the readily available eyewitness evidence of 4000 years of history. Notice I said readily available. Anybody can see it. They don't have to have any special mystical belief system or join any secret club or society. They only have to read what is written by trustworthy people who have been believed by thousands of other trustworthy people.Told you, it works both ways.=================================================================
***THIS IS A PARODY. PLEASE READ BOTH THE QUOTED PARAGRAPH AND MINE***
=================================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-13-2005 11:18 AM

Listen BLIND Faith, if god wants to do a miracle before me that bring it the fuck on! That is the whole point here! If god truly existed then he/she/it/they would be so obvious that no-one could deny it. Instead this god(s) of yours and others hides from rational review like a cockroach from the light!The bible is a work written by man in a simpler time to explain the strange and scary world. Grow up and be an adult in the 21st century!