Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

In a godless world, x is only the case if one insists on using the infinite universe as a backdrop.

Yes, but Smith adequately defends infinite space-time and this is the dominate view of contemporary science. Interesting that you have to reject established science to buttress your faith, given that this is an accusation often lobbed at believers.

The only way you can avoid the same problem in the theist world is by basically drawing an X and saying "and here is where a miracle happened".

It is convienent to dismiss what I said that way, isn't it? However, I was speaking about properties of God. It is no more miraculous than salts tendency to dissolve in water is miraculous. I suppose you could dismiss an explanation for the Ocean's saltiness by salts tendency to dissolve into solution as appealing to an ad hoc "miracle," but I think that just indicates more about how you argue than the argument itself.

You still have not addressed why this argument has any significance in determining the reality of the world around us.

Since I did not say it did, even explicitly saying that was a fundamentally different question on more than one occasion, I'm going to go ahead and conclude this a rhetorical technique of last restort. Yes, whether your beliefs entail nihilism is a separate question from whether your beliefs are true unless, of course, we can show that nihilism is false.

[_Analytics]

ALITD began the thread by claiming that atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists. To support this claim, he linked to an article that claims that everybody who believes in moral truth (and a few other specific things) must be nihilists.

It was pointed out that this reasoning also applies equally well to universes with God-beings, and thus if you accept Smith’s logic, theists who believe in moral truth must also be nihilists. ALITD claimed that this wasn’t true and that whether or not the reasoning applies to theists is beyond the scope of the thread. Thus we see that the official topic of the thread is the most flagrant special pleading imaginable.

For example:

L: If atheists don’t brush their teeth, they are more likely to get tooth decay! Here is a link that proves it!

A: Uh, that article says that everybody who doesn’t brush their teeth will get tooth decay; theists aren’t excluded.

L: Because of a special property of God, theists won’t get tooth decay. But that is outside of the scope of the thread!

ALITD began the thread with insults: “I gather than in these quarters, my thread title is likely to be met with rolled eyes and hyperventilating dismissals pouring from flushed faces.”

Despite of ALITD’s clear desire to volley insults rather than have a real discussion of philosophy, I made multiple substantive replies to the underlying argument and why I found it lacking. ALITD either ignored my posts or made frivolous and dismissive one-line replies.

He then complained

Why must everyone here impugn my motives rather than address my reasoning? ... I'm concerned with addressing head on whether it entails nihilism, as it is frequently the case that secularists will deny this.

[_guy sajer]

Seems to me that this is an empirical question. Is there any good (e.g., non-anecdotal) empirical evidence to suggest that atheists are systematically less moral than believers (or vice versa)?

This question does not at all concern whether atheists are more or less moral than believers. It concerns whether certain positions logically entail other positions. Whether or not atheists live the implications of their beliefs is, in fact, a separate question. In the very article in question, Smith basically admits to deluding himself with the falsehood that his life has meaning. So he clearly doesn't.

I disagree that the "logical implications" of my beliefs necessarily lead to this conclusion. I do not believe in God, but I am far from nihlilstic. Rather, I believe strongly in the importance and necessity or "morality"for both utilitarian and formalistic reasons.

Again, if one person argues that the logical implications of atheism necessarily leads to nihlism, that may be true according to their conceptual framework, but in my conceptual framework, it most certainly is not true.

You overlook the simple and obvious fact that people may believe in similar things but conceptualize them quite differently, leading to quite different "logical implications" of their beliefs.

Also, because some prominent atheist says something is by no means representative of atheists in general.

I never said otherwise. Did I? In fact, I listed explicitly the reason for posting reasoning, which was not this.

Yet you appear to be arguing that atheism necessarily leads to specific logical conclusions, so implicitly you are arguing that this guy's views are representative, even if you say otherwise elsewhere. (But this is a long thread, and I have not read everything in it, so I may be missing something.)

Why is this guy's opinion more valid than mine?

He's more learned in this subject than you are, which makes him more credible as an authority, I suppose. But that's neither here nor there. I wasn't saying he should be viewed right on the basis of his authority. I said I'd offer his argument to help prevent people from automatically dismissing it due to the perception that it is anti-atheist bigotry.

And your evidence for this conclusion is based on what specifically?

It is true that some atheists are nihlistic, but many, many others are not. It's silly to argue that atheism cannot lead logically to nihlism, depending on how one conceptualizes it, but it is equally silly to argue that atheism necessarily leads to nihlism.

[_silentkid]

Thanks for assuming my immaturity. I didn't say I don't believe in right or wrong. I said I'd rather be called a nihilist than believe in a biblical god whose own behavior and commandments to his people contradict every notion of right and wrong. Your original post was about nihilism, so my point was not off-topic. Further, you can provide no evidence for your assertion that "God, our father, helps us develop to realize our potential as far as our will allows." Thanks for your testimony. I find your philosophical meanderings boring.

First of all, I didn't assume anything. I made a conclusion based upon your post. Several of you have to brush up on what it means to assume. Second of all, the opening post was not "Nihilism: Discuss." The opening post is about how a specific worldview entails nihilism and an invintation to discuss an argument to that end. If you can't tell the difference beteween those two, that is a serious failing on your part. Third of all, I do not appreciate you using my thread as a flimsy pretext to attack religion. You have plenty of other oppurtunities to do that on this board; you don't need to derail my thread to accomplish your goal.

I apologize for making assumptions based on your assumptions. I apologize for derailing your thread. You are a light in my darkness. Carry on.

[_guy sajer]

Yes, a truly atheistic philosophy ultimately does result in nihilism.

Thank you for your honesty.

And implied here is that atheists who assert otherwise are not being honest?

[_guy sajer]

[Second of all, the opening post was not "Nihilism: Discuss." The opening post is about how a specific worldview entails nihilism and an invintation to discuss an argument to that end.

Please clarify for my benefit, are you arguing that

1. atheism necessarily entails nihilism, or
2. atheism can entail nihilism?

The numerous counterexamples to #1 are sufficient to disprove it, while #2 strikes me as obviously true.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I'm not sure if somebody else addressed this, but the flaw in the argument is in Smith's third premise, that future time is infinite. While it is true that the universe is spatiotemporally infinite, the time frame in which sentient life can exist is finite. Therefore, any morally good action that occurs from the time that living things became capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, up until the heat death of the universe, increases the aggregate moral good. The universe continues on forever, but there's nobody around to experience it.

[_Mister Scratch]

in regards to his "other" identity, he's already slinging the B word. (bigot)

I'm being called dishonest merely for not answering a battery of questions about my posting history on the internet. If that is not evidence of bigotry, then what is? The quicksilver leap to dishonesty simply because I am associated with the LDS faith and mentioned MAD once is about as clear of an example of obstinate prejudice as one can expect to have. It's so easy to ignore the faults of one's own tribe, isn't it Beastie?

Why won't you answer the "battery of questions", ALitD?

[_CaliforniaKid]

ALitD,

The premise of this thread is severely flawed. Here is Smith's argument:

The summary of my argument has three premises. My argument is

1. Necessarily, global moral realism is true.
2. Necessarily, aggregative value theory is true.
3. Contingently, it is true that future time is infinite.

Therefore,

4. Moral nihilism is contingently true.

Compare that with your thread title: "Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists." There are several problems with this title:

1) You neglect to note that your title is true only if the atheists believe also that aggregative value theory is true and that future time is infinite.
2) You use the imprecise term "moral truth" rather than the technical philosophical term "moral realism." I suspect that many people here would affirm a sort of socially-constructed "moral truth" but that they would have real problems with any kind of "moral realism." In fact, moral realism is a perspective rarely encountered among atheists. Most atheists are moral relativists who understand morality as social convention.
3) Smith does not restrict his argument to atheists. In his opinion, anyone (theist or otherwise) who affirms the three premises of his argument is a nihilist. Do you affirm the three premises of his argument, ALiD?

Smith in fact uses his argument for nihilism as evidence of God's non-existence (as you noted in the OP):

A second respect in which moral nihilism counts as a distinct “argument for God’s nonexistence” is that it implies that no creatures are moral agents. Somebody is a moral agent only if it makes a moral difference which action she chooses to perform. But it makes no moral difference, so theism is false.

You say in the OP that you "think he is mistaken here, essentially attacking a strawman, needlessly limited version of God." I presume you either mean either that 1) whether or not humans are moral agents has no implications for God's existence, or that 2) you do not affirm Smith's particular formulation of aggregative value theory. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this matter, but I have no desire to derail your thread. So whether you wish to pursue this line of thinking is up to you.

In sum,
1) Most atheists do not affirm Smith's premises, so his argument does not apply to them, and
2) Many theists do affirm Smith's premises, which means that if his argument is accepted then they are moral nihilists.

If moral nihilism is a fundamentally undesirable position (as you seem to believe it is) then Smith's argument is at least as damning for theists as for atheists (and probably much more so).

-CK

[_beastie]

Yes, but Smith adequately defends infinite space-time and this is the dominate view of contemporary science. Interesting that you have to reject established science to buttress your faith, given that this is an accusation often lobbed at believers.

Your condescension is misplaced. I am not rejecting established science. I am not claiming the universe is not infinite (although my readings have not given my the impression that case is settled). I am claiming that there is no valid reason to weigh the worth of human actions against the infinity of the universe. We are not infinite, and neither is the planet we inhabit. It would be far more logical to weigh human actions against the backdrop of human lives and the life of this planet. Of course, you resist such a reasonable exercise for obvious reasons.

It is convienent to dismiss what I said that way, isn't it? However, I was speaking about properties of God. It is no more miraculous than salts tendency to dissolve in water is miraculous. I suppose you could dismiss an explanation for the Ocean's saltiness by salts tendency to dissolve into solution as appealing to an ad hoc "miracle," but I think that just indicates more about how you argue than the argument itself.

"The properties of God". Yes, no doubt that finite, mortal human beings are fully able to expound upon the "properties of God". And then insist this be regarded as some sort of quasi scientific evidence....

You are still ignoring my previous post which specifically placed my comments about the inevitable nihilism within the backdrop of LDS theology. God was a man like us. Good LDSers will be gods one day, too. This is not the first plan of salvation to be unfolded - it has always been thus. God before God before God.... God after God after God after God....each God creating "his" own universe, peopling it with future gods, all going on to do the same thing... if weighed against this infinite backdrop of infinite and infinite universes then the actions of any given individual, or, indeed, any entire Godsystem is completely irrelevant in terms of the balance of the infinite universes. Your response? God, transcending these boundaries, has possible impact.

Yes, that is a stellar rebuttal, and it is no doubt our own prejudices and lack of intelligence that predisposes us to reject your impeccable logic.

Since I did not say it did, even explicitly saying that was a fundamentally different question on more than one occasion, I'm going to go ahead and conclude this a rhetorical technique of last restort. Yes, whether your beliefs entail nihilism is a separate question from whether your beliefs are true unless, of course, we can show that nihilism is false.

Well, by all means, proceed to show nihilism is false. We shall all refer back to your impeccable logic to remind ourselves that your own theism is not tainted by this same dilemma as you do so.