The belief that your existence is the result of random events, and insignificant when considering the scope of the universe, leads to arrogance... Not the belief that the entire damn universe was created for you, and that you were forged in the image of an omnipotent being as part of some grand plan. Right, got it.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Existentialism, Absurdism, and Nihilism are very closely related ideologies, the difference mostly being in the perspective they're looked at from.
If you believe there is no grand purpose behind your existence, but that your existence and actions still have meaning through your feelings and decisions and internal psychology then that's something I can respect.
If you believe there is literally no meaning or point to anything you do or ever do then that is way too defeatist of a philosophy for me to respect.
I'd say the literal difference is mostly semantics, it really boils down to whether or not you value existence, regardless of the fact that it's pointless.
Nihilism is negative because its social implications, not because of its stance on "meaning." It definitely has nothing to do with arrogance or fear of worthlessness, though; those fears are the fears of the religious, like Beni said.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
I'd say the literal difference is mostly semantics, it really boils down to whether or not you value existence, regardless of the fact that it's pointless.Nihilism is negative because its social implications, not because of its stance on meaning.
Originally posted by NewGuy01Right, nihilism is to accept a sense of worthlessness, religion is to try and fill that existential hole with imaginary self worth.
Nihilism is negative because its social implications, not because of its stance on "meaning." It definitely has nothing to do with arrogance or fear of worthlessness, though; those fears are the fears of the religious, like Beni said.
Originally posted by BeniboyblingNever thought of it that way.
Right, nihilism is to accept a sense of worthlessness, religion is to try and fill that existential hole with imaginary self worth.
I always thought it meant either self-pity 'cause nothing you do in life lasts or considering everyone else worthless.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
@DMB's deleted line: Well, I can do that too, but my intention was to discuss the necessity of divine meaning to human happiness, or (from my pov) lack of thereof.
And I reject the notion that all religious people are frightened arrogant douchebags in much the same way that I reject the notion that all atheists have no moral values or valuing of existence.
Interesting. Sure, it's plenty agreeable that there are a ton of Christians who aren't arrogant douchebags. I'm not so sure about your other statement, though; are there Christians who aren't afraid of living in an indifferent universe? Of an absence of purpose, objective good and evil, and their all-loving, always present father? I wonder about that.
@Sas
In the words of George Carlin. "People want to know there's someone, some benevolent being out there that will give a shit about them after they die."
Or something like that. Truth is, there aren't any christian folks who aren't afraid about there being no god or heaven.
At least in my experience of speaking with Religious peeps.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
People's philosophical outlooks can largely determine their emotional state and behavior so I'd say it's important.
True. But it is not always that character defining is it?
For example, and this is a general characterization mind you so don't take it too seriously. An atheist could be an incredibly giving person, selfless and just almost saint like. While someone who believes in a certain religion could be a murderer, rapist, etc.
A philosophical outlook doesn't make a person good or bad. There are several factors to consider, don't you think?