6 ms·
> There's nothing deeper to uncover. For me, at least, you're coming at it from the other direction. I'm not really asking "why" in the "how did this come to
by ergothus 8y ago
> There's nothing deeper to uncover.
For me, at least, you're coming at it from the other direction.
I'm not really asking "why" in the "how did this come to be" - the answer to that is rather self obvious. I'm asking "why" in the "is this objectively actually correct? Is this how I want things to be?" - which have no answer, but the effort of trying to find one can uncover plenty of deeper ideas.
- dpark 8y agoThere is no meaningful answer to your question. For religious individuals, the answer is dogmatic (and generally yes, humans have value above all else except God(s)). For atheists, the answer is logically a vacuous no, because all of existence is without meaning.
- ergothus 8y ago>> which have no answer > There is no meaningful answer to your question Didn't I say that? Didn't I point out that the ATTEMPT to answer was valuable? >> Is this how I want things to be? > because all of existence is without meaning Atheists don't have be nihilists.
- dpark 8y agoI’d love to see a meaningful argument to the contrary. Near as I can tell atheism implies nihilism and the extent an atheist disagrees is decided entirely by how convincingly they can lie to themselves.
- mfoy_ 8y agoAtheism only implies nihilism if you subscribe to the concept that values are objective and morality is universal, which begs the question of who determines values and what is morally "good" and how.
- dpark 8y agoSo you assert that an atheist can find meaning by following their subjective values and morality, correct? This seems entirely circular and equivalent to saying that atheists can find meaning by valuing the things that they value. How does an atheist hold subjective morals and values without those morals and values essentially being arbitrary?
- mfoy_ 8y agoWhat's wrong with them being arbitrary?
- dpark 8y agoIn what way are arbitrary values meaningful?
- mfoy_ 8y agoDefine "meaningful". You seem to have a really big chicken-and-egg problem here... you want morality to be universal. The problem is, "ethics", "morality", and "values" are all human constructs. We created them, we define them, we discuss them ad nauseum. They are as varied as we are. I don't think that makes them "meaningless".
- dpark 8y agoI don’t have a chicken and egg problem. The chicken and egg problem arises from an attempt to pull meaning out of an arbitrary universe. You say in different words that things are meaningful only because we believe they are. That’s fine if it helps you but it’s also circular and rather solipsistic. Your stance is also literally nihilistic: “a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truth”.
- mfoy_ 8y agoSee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19048897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19048897