Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[Guest]

I gather than in these quarters, my thread title is likely to be met with rolled eyes and hyperventilating dismissals pouring from flushed faces. So please don't take my word for it. Listen to this argument from Quentin Smith, one of atheism's most accomplished and popular apologists:

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/moral_realism_ ... _smith.htm

He has swallowed the full implications of his atheism. He accepts that moral truth, the kind we are used to anyway, isn't real or that, "Our emotional responses to acts or states of affairs we believe have positive or negative value occur when we are narrowly focused on “the here and now”, on the people we interact with or know about, ourselves, and the animals, plants and material things that surround us in our daily lives. In our daily lives, we believe actions are good or bad and that individuals have rights. These beliefs are false...Most of the time, we live in an illusion of meaningfulness and only some times, when we are philosophically reflective, are we aware of reality and the meaninglessness of our lives."

He is pointing out what Christian scholars have noted for years: that a godless, finite life when compared against the backdrop of an infinitely long universe is meaningless. That nothing you do matters. He shows how this flows from simply believing that things have value independent of personal opinion, that values can be aggregated, and that the future is limitless. He also tries to use this in an argument against God. I think he is mistaken here, essentially attacking a strawman, needlessly limited version of God, but please keep focus on his main argument.

[_Sam Harris]

And the point you were trying to make by first assuming how people would react to your screen name, and secondly by posting this tidbit is?

[_Who Knows]

[_A Light in the Darkness]

And the point you were trying to make by first assuming how people would react to your screen name, and secondly by posting this tidbit is?

I don't think you read what I said carefully. I said my thread title. The reason I expected, not assumed, that reaction is because it is the commonplace one on boards dominated by secular humanists, agnostics, atheist types, when someone suggests that their views demand one be a nihilist. The reason I posted what I did is to bring the argument to the fore of discussion by using a major atheist philosopher to make the argument himself.

I gather you are fixated on my screen name and the condescension you doubtless perceived in it. Possibly coupled with an innate lack of talent, this prejudice distorted your reading comprehension and caused you to attack my motives rather than respond to my point. Hilariously, this kinda shows that my expectation was spot on.

[_Blixa]

"hyperventilating dismissals pouring from flushed faces"?

Sound like you're the one with the innate prejudices and assumptions, D-bag. Why don't you congratulate yourself a bit more?

[_Runtu]

Look, I don't know you, but at least attempt to be polite. GIMR is recovering from a serious health issue, and you kind of proved her point by being condescending and rude.

Either way, the link you gave me keeps timing out, so much as I'd like to, I can't read the article and respond to it, so I'll have to go by what you wrote.

Seems to me that "moral truth" is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Moral at root denotes customary behaviors that societies have agreed on. Insisting that there's an a priori truth behind society's decisions is putting the horse before the cart, in my opinion. I suspect the definition of "meaning" is what underlies your perspective. Is it really a case of all or nothing? Total transcendent meaning, or nihilism? I tend to think not.

That said, I'm not an atheist.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

"hyperventilating dismissals pouring from flushed faces"?

Sound like you're the one with the innate prejudices and assumptions, D-bag. Why don't you congratulate yourself a bit more?

Continuing to attempt to derail my thread and call me names like "D-bag" only validates my expectation further.

[_Runtu]

"hyperventilating dismissals pouring from flushed faces"?

Sound like you're the one with the innate prejudices and assumptions, D-bag. Why don't you congratulate yourself a bit more?

Continuing to attempt to derail my thread and call me names like "D-bag" only validates my expectation further.

Uh, you kinda derailed it yourself by making rather snarky assumptions about us in the first line of the OP, so I'm not sure how anyone else could have derailed it.

If you want reasonable discussion, don't insult us right off the bat.

[_Analytics]

...a finite life when compared against the backdrop of an infinitely long universe is meaningless.

It seems to me that a finite life could have a ripple effect that could change things forever, which would give a finite life eternal significance.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you are right and a finite life when compared to an infinite universe is meaningless. Why is it correct to measure the significance of a finite life against an infinitely long universe? Why not measure the significance of our life against the things within our circle of influence?

For example, my life is meaningful to my wife and daughter. If my life is meaningful to real, sentient, human beings, then my life is in fact meaningful. Why should the abstract concept of an infinitely long universe take precedence over my family when evaluating whether or not my life has meaning?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Look, I don't know you, but at least attempt to be polite. GIMR is recovering from a serious health issue, and you kind of proved her point by being condescending and rude.

I had no idea that GIMR is recovering from a serious mental health issue. That better helps explain why she misread and attacked me. But it is rather unfair for you to then join in and say it is rude for me to respond by pointing out that I was misread and dismissed with an attack on my motives. I mean, are you recovering from a serious mental health issue too?

Seems to me that "moral truth" is kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

"Moral truth" means that moral statements are truth-apt: they are true or false regardless of people's opinions on them. You might deny this, but all that goes to show is that you deny moral truth. That a statement like, "Let's kill all Jews" isn't really right or wrong. The argument still stands for those who purport to believe in it.

Moral at root denotes customary behaviors that societies have agreed on.

So you are a moral relativist, possibly a contractarian. Fine. That doesn't address the argument here. Unfortunately, you haven't read that argument, since the link didn't work for you. If it helps, do a search for "MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM"