Your video, Optimistic Nihilism - Kurzgesagt, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Marvel's upcoming The Defenders series, is Dr. Strange related (at least in the comics) and steongly tied to Marvel's Lovecraftian side, namely The Nameless One and his entities. Dr. Strange comics are very very Lovecraft driven. You could say The Infinity Gauntlet is Lovecraftian in it's nihilism themes, the concept of gaining all the pwoers of a god, and the fact that it is the cosmic beigs who fight Thanos, NOT the useless human superheros who become pawns and tortured by Thanos. I mean, just read a lot of comics written by Jim Starlin and you may encounter these horrors

Galactus and the Silver Surfer are ALSO a horrific, biological, cosmic horror story. Norrin Radd, a human like being from a humanlike world was called to by a dark entity and he helped feed that entity with the dezteuction of his homeworld and then SERVES and is augmented by Galactus....

Marvel's Celestials? Especially The Dreaming Celestial, Tiamut, awoken to judge earth.

Doesn't Netflix have Dagon and Necronomicron: Book of the Dead? I looove John Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy and The Mist RULES! Frank Darabont has also made many a Stephen King flick (Shawshank especially).

Off the top of my head, I would say HP Lovecraft isn't simply about madness driving horrors, it's biological horror, rather than supernatural. So almost anything by David Cronenberg, a lot of Japanese and Korean film, such as Akira, Uzemaki, The Ring movies, (which is based upon a Japanese folklore, but in modern times became biological horror, the Ring is actually a hybrid biological, technological virus), etc.

Also, the Matthew McCant-spell-his-last-name's True Detective breeches the Lovecraftian realm on a subtle and then not so subtle way in the end, such as the concept of "black stars" in a constant daytime of white background. I would say it's pre-Lovecraftian mythos from authors in the 1800s writing nihilistic almost biological horror, more just heavy uncomfortable writing. I can't recall the primary author who inspired Lovecraft beyond Bram Stoker's The Lair of the White Worm.

Anyway. I love horror, thrillers, suspense, nihilism, pulp and gothic literature.

Goddamn, that is infuriating.

You know that the system is broken when anarchy or flat-out nihilism seem like bright shiny options in comparison...

Yeah...I find the nihilism bit more debilitating than the delusion bit. I find it too overwhelming to make a choice about where to invest my precious time when I am quite so aware that it is so utterly finite. It might help to have a glimpse of the your future (or lack thereof) rushing up to meet you occasionally, but truthfully I am happier person when it is not dominating my thoughts and I have space in my head to laugh and love and other words beginning with l (or not).

SPEAK ENGLISH OR DIE

Yellow Machinegun anyone? They don't always wear the school girl thing, but the first album I owned of theirs featured them wearing schoolgirl outfits and SCREAMING!

This ain't new or news. Lamer, poppier version of something that's been around for more than 20 years.

My wife works in fashion, designs for Urban Outfitters, PacSun, Roxy, Quicksilver, etc. etc. Your girlfriend or wife probably owns either a handbag or an article of clothing designed by her. The styles and trends that are in take us all the way back to Cramps/Misfits/Rocky Horror fashion sense, amalgamated with '90s nihilism and modern pop (often hip hop, but in the case here, J Pop) trends.

Nothing new is happening and that makes it SOOOOOO much easier to anticipate the trends and succeed in making people think something "new" is on the horizon. lol

Lyrics (found the translation on this site, which is definitely worth visiting to learn more about the group) are below. I've removed the original Japanese and Romanji transcriptions so that it is easier to read:

Title:
え・い・り・あ・ん
e i ri a n
A - L - I - E - N

Words and lyrics by Maximum the Ryo-kun

Flattering government
Deceiptful presentation
Fabricated details
Danger enterprise

Praise and censure creed
Jumbled up truth
All of Japan deploring
Has nihilism come?

Self-contradiction, loop of complaints
Fall into dilemma, many cases of depression
Swarming around rights, self-important men in suits
Coveting usury, some group or other

Self-interest slave loaded with empty arguments
Money disappears as vain expenses
Embracing distrust, discord arises
Standing idly on the side, discover indignation


Ego? Freedom? LOL. / Fart stench, sinister / “Why don’t you…?” Selfish
Ego? Freedom? LOL. / Fart stench, sinister / “Why don’t you…?” Selfish

Save me!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Throw it away!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Take it off! Treatment is yet to come!!
Save me!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Throw it away!! Treatment is yet to come!! / Take it off! Treatment is yet to come!!

Twenty years old, head to the election!!
The elected official will not be allowed into office!

A judge determintes eligible voters / Discretely and delicately / Straight to the future
Believe in the Force...Jedi
Believe in the Force...Jedi
Believe in the Force! Era!!

“I get it I get it I get it! You idiots!”
“Later Later Later I’ll e-mail you later”
“Your whiny whiny whining is noisy, idiot! Stop going out of your way to be so annoying”

“Chopper, go! Futoshi!”*
*Translator’s note: Futoshi is MTH’s bassist

Brother rescue
Brother let’s go
We are brothers, WE!!
You’re my brother, YOU!!

Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm
Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm
Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm
Cunning dependence / More frozen / Next season / Revived rhythm

Booing, at you! A touch of abusive language! Booing! At that! STOP! Conspiracy!
Booing, at you! A touch of abusive language! Booing! At that! Prevent! Conspiracy!

Whose ally??? Whose ally???
Only your way of life cannot be taken by anyone

Vaaaaaaaaaa!!! Vaaaaaaaa!!! GO!!!

Every day meaning scrutiny / Every day meaning scrutiny / Every day meaning scrutiny

Alien, alien, kidnap me like in a movie...
Alien, alien, I am no match for eternity


STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
*Translator’s note: Winny was a p2p pirating software like napster that was very popular in Japan but isn’t really used anymore. In an interview, Ryo-kun (who does hate when his music is pirated, I think) was asked why he used such an old reference, he mentioned that he wanted to have a catchy “STOP” phrase where other stuff like “STOP NUKES” could be replaced.

STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!

STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!! STOP WINNY!

STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!
STOP! STOP WINNY UPLOAD!!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP THE WINNY!

STOP STOP! STOP STOP!
STOP STOP! STOP STOP!
STOP STOP WINNY!

STOP STOP WINNY!

PV spoken ending:

D: We will not forgive use of WINNY under any circumstances! Anything but WINNY!

N: People aren’t even using WINNY these days. And there are plenty of other things we have to say “STOP!” to. So there’s no point in raising your voice like that. All the kids have left.

D: But, we can’t allow any more uploads...

N: No, I know, but look at the one kid left, about to cry.

D: (to kid) You think so too, don’t you?

N: No no no! She definitely has no idea. And now the last kid has left. You hate WINNY too, don’t you? I said, no one uses WINNY anymore.
Look at you, over there looking like Mitsue (Daisuke’s mom)...

D: What?!

N: Get that Mitsue look off your face.

N: It's one thing to talk bad about me...!

End

Until all that dark shit you have been suppressing finally overwhelms your armour of contempt and you either:

A. Have such a cripplingly dark and nihilistic episode of backed up depression you finally kill yourself.

B. Break all the way through to a state of catatonic schizophrenia and need to to institutionalised.

or

C. Snap the other way and go on a self righteous violent rampage (think "Falling down" on a smaller scale)

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche


"The abyss" (of the futility at the core of the human condition) will never be your friend. Embracing it will only blind you to the entropy you are now helping to facilitate.


I'm a student of Epistemology (philosophy) and I'm absolutely no stranger to nihilism. It's a crucible anyone that wants to understand "reality/truth" has to go through. But its only 50% of the equation and offers only futility and darkness.

The other side is simple: if there is no God or ultimate truth then we ourselves are as Gods because we can choose our own purpose and reality (to a point mind!). Life can be virtually anything you want it to be.


Now on some level what you have quoted/suggested there would fall into this category, you would be making a positive choice to define your own reality. However the reality you are defining is a mirror to the abyss you are trying to escape, it is akin to trying to fight a monster. You will surely become/have become the monster you are fighting.

How do you think the monsters that make one feel so depressed in the 1st place come into being? They were staring into "the abyss" too!



Do you just want the depression to go away for a while? Or do you want to replace it with something beautiful instead? (or was this whole thing a Joke that I missed?)


Philosophy/pshychobabble aside what you are describing there basically = shunting all your negativity onto others around you. "If I take out all my shit on other people I don't feel so bad".

This seems like a less than ideal solution and is basically what one of my best friends does when he feels down. When he does so it makes me and others that know him seriously question why we put up with him.

I have nothing but sympathy for people that feel that "special darkness", but taking it out on others is not something I'm willing to tolerate from people I know. It's the main reason half of us are in this mess in the 1st place. People who don't give a fuck how the things they say and do will affect those around them, are pretty hard to keep giving a fuck about . "An eye for an eye will blind the world"

Do you know what I did to (mostly) destroy depression? Saying whatever the fuck occurs to me. That's why NOTHING anyone will ever say to the contrary of my way of being will ever affect me. Because fuck all. And fuck you.

That makes me happy Fuck you.

Oooooooooooooohhhhh -- dildo cocksucker shit fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

YOU.

I didn't even need to watch this lame piece of shit because post-nihilism means fuck you. But in SUCH a positive way. It's really just the sensitivity of assholes that used to depress me. And then fuck you.

Once I realized fuck you I became a better, more happy person. It's like reaching enlightenment except it's fuck you. No more anxiety. No more depression. Just fuck you.

- An excerpt from the Zen of Nihilism

Man, whenever I think of the woes of the lower-middle income, middle-aged straight white American man, I think of Sam Kinison and Ed O'Neil. They might not represent the same suffering as the rest of the fucks on this miserable planet, but the perks of their demographic do not outweigh the absolute nihilism of this way of being.

The middle ground of being everyone's bitch and not having a platform to ethically state your woes. Black man has a bigger dick, Asians are smarter than you, Hispanics breed faster, foreigners believe you're a moron, children are disgusted by you, young adults mock you, women think you're pathetic, homosexuals demand they suffer more, and everything you do is meaningless consumerism and menial labor leading to the happiness of everyone else but yourself.

And you're forced to salute a flag and think God every day for your happiness. I love you big brother as the bullet passes through your fucking head. A bullet through your fucking head.

MY EARS! I'm going to hell because of you, she devil! GAH! I practiced celibacy and was home schooled to avoid any auditory temptations but now I'm ruined. Raped. Ear RAPED. Fucked in the ears.

And now I have no choice but to become the beast I always feared. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK ME JESUS

Souls! Feed me souls! BLlaefoiugrbsrgbsgrubs -- and now I transform into my final form to destroy the sanctity of life and shatter the world. Laying siege to all holy lands! Nothing is sacred, all life is to be extinguished, and suffering will be endless. ENDLESS!!!!!

Millions, billions, trillions, untold time passes; dimensions crossed, the very meaning of ALL unraveled and laid forth, meaningless. Meaningless! All conflict, all freedoms, all philosophy is now folly; unnecessary as a multiuniversal nihilism cascades across the boundaries of consciousness. The godheads destroyed, their corpses rotting the core beyond ALL.

Blackness.

Void.

Nirvana crumbles and the enlightened turned against the balance. Yahweh screams in horror, corrupted and turned into a tentacle demon to rape its devoted followers. Ra's phallus goes limp. Baal is ground into an all beef hamburger patty. Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha warp into a single form, becoming the Eye of Saron. The reptilians of earth devolve into alligators, and the greys become monkeys.

There is no shelter because there is only horror. For all eternity, in all realities.

Sorry, that's just my interpretation of the reporter's reaction.

He means GOD, the maker of science. Or the scientific method. One of those -- or both, but in a hippy, anti-anti-transhumanist "ehhhh it's all in my head right why i needs ta explain it I LOVE IPHONES and I'm over it and death makes nihilism plausibly romantic."

That.

God is clearly not a static foundation on which humanity bases their morals. Any cursory examination of Christian history shows that interpretations of what a Godly foundation for a life advicates have varied wildly at least from era to era, if not person to person.

There has not only overriding agreement of right and wrong between Christians throughout the ages, but also between cultures regardless of religion. Every culture has basically the same laws; don't lie, don't cheat, don't kill, don't steal etc. This is pointing to the fact that God didn't just tell us what is moral and immoral in the bible, He wrote it on our hearts. However, you are right in that actions speak louder than words. If you want to look at Christian history, it's very plain that calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a moral person. Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruits, and a lot of Christian fruit in history has been rotten. There has also been quite a bit of good fruit as well. However, you can't pin down whether God gave a moral law to the actions of sinful human beings when the bible actually predicts the massive apostasy and moral inconsistency that you are describing. Take a look at Matthew 24, for instance.

Is there a foundation for static morality without a God to give it to you? Of course there isn't. And again I'll ask where or when we were guaranteed any such thing.

Well, it seems you agree with Ravi after all. This is exactly his point, and mine. There is no foundation for morality (or meaning, etc) without God and therefore atheism is incoherent. Atheism leads to nihilism which is inconsistent with your own experience.

But lets say that we do deserve such certainty, it still begs the question of why this foundation for morality of yours seems to have a curiously diverse array of outcomes in terms of moral norms over the millennia.

It has a diverse array of outcomes because human nature is corrupt and we can only imperfectly follow Gods laws. It also has nothing to do with what we deserve, but what is true.

Oh wait, I forgot. Your take on this whole thing is actually the only correct one, because of a personal relevation from God - of course. I guess we can now ignore all those other people who felt they had the same thing, because they just weren't lucky enough to benefit from the secure foundation of morality you have found.

It's not my take, it's what Jesus taught us:

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So your argument is with Jesus and not with me. You ask Him whether this is true or not.

And yes, spending 20 minutes detailing how Hitler and Stalin may have used certain limited aspects of atheistic thought processes to reach conclusions that are clearly not necessary outcomes of such premises, not by a long shot, and then using that to discredit an entire world view - is indeed Reducto ad Hitlerum in every possible sense of the term.

As TheGenk said, that's weak man.

Hitler is debatable but Stalins regime was atheistic at its core and that isn't debatable. Atheism wasn't peripheral to it, it was the foundation. Stalin brutally imposed atheism on the populace, and killed millions of Christians who refused to deny Christ. Don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept.[4][5]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognised its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[2][6]

Honestly, it's not that all news is bullshit, it's that most (all?) news outlets commit the same fallacious and detrimental information practices as always will happen in any system when experience is posited as "truth".

In the business world we are almost always working to change our perspective on how data flows and how best to store and distribute info; setting our educational bias aside when need be. One particular failed practice that does NOT get enough high level analyzing due to the nature of the bias in which the problem itself creates: Information siloing.

In this case, we have the American people silo'd (and if we don't have them silo'd, we actively seek to silo these "undecided" minds) as either liberal D or conservative R. Once you're silo'd, you now have the ability to be fed limited information, based upon limited experience, as the Truth. This is called a hook. A hook is exactly what you think it means and is not bad of itself, because hooks exist in all systems for better or for worse. Otherwise birds of a feather would not flock together. (They flock together because of hooks in their code and the world aka science around them which helps facilitate that hook.)

Now that the hook is in, we have separate news organizations that cater to the data bias you signed up for. You're a human with a blank slate, so don't you dare argue that your opinion is anything but inconsistent, even after education; because you assume that the patterns of existence taught as theoretical and scientifically posited "truth" scale in a reality based upon butterfly flaps of causation. Just accept it: You are fallible and the defects are inherent at every step of our civilization. (Algorithms of usefulness to engineers are only useful if they lessen the load on the user, otherwise we'd all be typing 1s and 0s; so the logic of simplicity suggests our systems are fucked and holding to them is an anarchy unto itself, where ultimate complexity becomes entropy -- LESSEN THE COMPLEXITY. That should be a rule for all government and economy.)

Liberals claim they cater to all sides and conservatives complain that if it wasn't for Fox, there would be no objectivity in the news. This further complicates the matter, but is itself a red herring because it's an argument that essentially says "YOU MUST GET YOUR NEWS FROM A MAJOR NETWORK." If you actually believe that these media giants are the end all be all to gaining information from the "truest" perspective possible, you are a dummy and you need to WAKE UP.

If you never made a thought pattern along these lines, you also need to wake up but I'm not mad at you. Information that deviates from a human's factory defaults (early family and life experiences in the form of fear induced bias) is difficult to objectively analyze. I fault you not, but your call to awaken is noted and will be remembered at the end of all (if you believe in any sort of karmic ending, Christians included). If you don't believe this, then your inability to rule the boundaries of your mind in the present is damning enough. Fuck you. And fuck your offspring. Subjective fear consume thee as your desperate and once nurturing stride for survival is abstracted into selfish, power seeking nihilism.

Information siloing creates tribal knowledge (which is information held by a select group, and then touted as negative patterns like nationalism and corporate thuggery), and tribal knowledge creates boundaries based upon a skewed perception of what the truth is; which in turn, creates subjective and often intangible competition within a system that should be making strides to improve its process via iteration.

MUD SLING AWAY. Or join me in narrowing the argument to its lowest common denominators and then objectively analyzing the system, starting at a generic starting point and building up to a truer understanding.

Overall, this is how I summarize your arguments: (A) Life without God is meaningless, and (B) a meaningless life would sometimes be difficult to tolerate, therefore (C) God exists. We pretty much agree on A, and we do agree on B, but C does not follow from A and B. You can correctly conclude that (C) life without God would be difficult to tolerate at times. So? That still doesn’t mean that God exists. I believe that God doesn’t exist, so I conclude from A and B that life is difficult to tolerate at times. Which is true.

My overarching point is to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance inherent in your position. While you have correctly concluded that life without God is meaningless, and I commend you for being intellectually honest to admit this, the point is that you certainly will not live that way. You will actually live as a Christian does, believing that human beings have value and dignity, and that there are good things we should do and bad things we shouldn't do. The problem is, in a meaningless Universe, you have no rational justification for any of these things. You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress. You have nowhere to stake a claim, and this is why your atheism becomes a sinkhole which is pulling you down directly into nihilism. In the end, a bag of stardust has no rational justification for morality, or any kind of value. If you are an atheist/agnostic you have to admit you have no value, no dignity, and no basis for good or evil.

Fair point. They may not have ever had the philosophical conversation with themselves about whether their lives have meaning, so it never occurred to them to be upset about it. I agree that it could be a very difficult thing to face, and I think that’s why the human species developed a proclivity for religion. Elsewhere here I’ve suggested we developed metaphysical faith because we’re intelligent and inquisitive, and it freed our minds from the obvious nagging questions of our existence with a one-stop catch-all answer: “Because God”. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense. If believing you have a purpose in the grand scheme of things makes you feel better and gives a higher community bond, then it conveys higher survivability to you and your genes. It may be (or once have been) helpful for us to believe that a god exists (any god/gods, mind you, or even a non-deity-based faith system like Buddhism), but this still is not an indication that any god exists.

People worship because they're made to worship. Go around this Earth and you will find people worshiping all manner of Gods and created things, the sun the moon and the stars, celebrity, money, power, themselves. 1 Romans says that God has made Himself evident to people in the things He has made. So, rather than people worshiping because they wanted to avoid meaninglessness, they worship because it the most natural thing for them to do which matches their experience. People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

I’m going to be blunt here: you don’t have a clue what depression is. You’re starting with your conclusion, and applying it to whatever pop psychology you’ve picked up. You’re like a North Korean telling me what democracy is, and concluding that Kim Jong Un therefore is the greatest person on Earth. I know what depression is for me, for my family members and my friends who have suffered from it, and I have done private research on it beyond that. Reducing depression to the factor of “hope” is incorrect, and presuming to know something because you’ve got Yahweh on your side is arrogant. You don’t know us, you don’t understand our condition, so please don’t assume to speak for us. You can guess, and you can ask me, and I’ll tell you what I feel, what I have experienced, and what I have learned. Then if it fits your argument, you can let me know.

I can speak on depression because I used to be depressed. I know what it is like, and having come out of it, I am qualified to speak on what I can clearly see as being the number one issue; hopelessness. A person who depressed is carrying burdens in their life which tell them that tomorrow will not be better than today, in fact it will probably be worse. People who are depressed often times see no reason to carry on at all. This could be for a number of reasons; living situation, health, low self-esteem, loneliness, finances, abuse, or perhaps all of the above. In the end, it all boils down to a lack of hope that whatever they are depressed about will ever change or get better, or that it would matter if it did. People who have hope are happy and not depressed.

Your first sentences are close enough I’ll just agree. The last one is your own fantasy straight out of nowhere. That aside, so what? We’re close to killing ourselves. I don’t know if humanity will survive another 100 years. I hope it does, but I can’t know. It’s hard to face, and very frustrating to watch our so-called leaders (who all leverage claimed faith in God, mind you) pissing it all away for money and power. No other age has had to face the possibility of the destruction of civilization. It’s hard. You said your point was that there’s nobody in the driver’s seat. I agree. What’s your point? How do you figure Yahweh’s “in the driver’s seat”?

So, I suppose the point is that it is hopeless. Not only is a life without God meaningless, but if this world is not under the sovereign control of God, it is doomed to destruction. This is what I mean when I have said in the past that in all of our history human beings have made absolutely no progress what so ever. All of the knowledge in the world doesn't count for anything if you don't have the wisdom to use it. All of our learning is simply hubris when you take a look at the condition of the world today. It is actually more wicked at this time than any other time in history. I believe God is in absolute control because He has shown me this is true. I'll give you an example:

One time I had to hitchhike across country. This was just before I became a Christian and I wasn't sure about Jesus. I was kind of scared having never really hitchhiked before, so I prayed and said: "Jesus, if you are the Son of God, and I need to know you, please help me through this. I can't do it on my own so I am going to trust you to help me". After I prayed this prayer, everything was lined up for me as if it was programmed. Money, food and rides all came to me at the right time in the right place. For instance, I would meet someone in one spot and they would help me, and then 800 miles away in a different state on a different day I would meet them again. This happened to me 3 times. Two of them I met in the same place within 20 minutes apart, and they both were met in different states many hundreds of miles away. The timing of all of this was practically impossible. Only God could have arranged me to keep meeting the same people when they were going in opposite directions across the country and on different routes, at the same time. Even if they were going in the same routes and directions it would still be improbable. Not to mention they were in small windows of time where I was in the right place at the right time to see them.

Separate from those people, let’s imagine there’s a group of people who feel they’re experiencing the same bliss you feel in your numinous experiences, but they feel it only when they hurt or kill people. Now, I’m asserting that these people probably don’t exist, but if they did, people behaving according to the principles of what’s “good” (which I’ll get to later) would have to restrain them from hurting other people, and with a heavy heart, would probably imprison them. And while they were in prison, compassionate people on the outside might be researching ways to help the inmates self-realize – within the limits of their confinement, like they do in the Swedish penal system.

Actually, one of the defining characteristics of being a psychopath is the ruthless manipulation of others for pleasure and short term gain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

You can say your bliss is better and more noble than their bliss but you would have no justification in doing so. There is actually no reason in your worldview to say that psychopaths aren't normal and you are abnormal.

The reason we’re having this conversation, or at least the reason I am, is because we both already have a sense that some things are right and other things are wrong. That is primary. We both agree that we have this sense, and that for us it feels important to follow it. So for me, the fact that I have this feeling that some actions are good and others aren’t is all the “ought” I need. I don’t need anybody’s permission or orders. I ought to do things that I feel are good things to do. So, whether my conscience comes from human DNA (my position) or from an external entity (your position) doesn’t matter because we have both already decided to follow it, and so has just about every human on Earth.

Yes, we both have that sense, but the difference is you have no basis for saying your sense of right and wrong is any better than the psychopath, or that yours should be preferred. If someone feels it right to hurt and steal from you, who are you to tell them that they ought not to do that? According to what you've said here, that would make you a hypocrite.

There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead.

You say this with certainly but I think you have to recognize that this is your hope. I wonder where this hope comes from? Since you've never been dead before to see what happens, what makes you so sure about it? Could this information about life after death exist in the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of things that you don't know?

What I want to do at any given time is what feels good to me, and that’s the same with almost everyone, in spite of what religions teach people about their wicked “fallen” souls and how not to trust themselves (except when they paradoxically teach us to trust ourselves).

You're absolutely right about that. The scripture says when there is no King every man does what is right in his own eyes. It also says that there is a way that seems right to man, but the end of its ways is death. Also, interestingly, this philosophy matches the only rule of Satanism "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"

Christianity teaches that we should trust in God with all of our heart and lean not on our own understanding.

I don’t feel I’m wasting any time navigating any landscape. I hardly think about morality at all, since to me, it’s quite easy. Jesus knew it; he just claimed that his father had made it up. I think it’s human nature. It gives me immense joy to see people in love getting married. That extends identically to same-sex people too. See? It’s not complex. Taking what I can when I can in the malevolent sense feels awful, and I don’t want to do that.

Right, but not doing things because they make you feel bad isn't the question. Unless there is an absolute morality, these are just chemical reactions in your brain. Your mind is deluding you into thinking something is bad by secreting a certain chemical which makes you feel guilty when you steal, and secreting a certain chemical that makes you feel good when you don't do it. These things aren't really bad, they are just how your brain evolved. So, why be a slave to chemicals? I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

I agree completely (except where you said I think it’s out of ignorance or automatic function, which I didn’t say). You say it’s about people getting carried away or being enticed. What I was explaining is when that happens and why. It’s not relevant anyway. People are the only ones who can be held responsible for their own actions, and they should be, but not because they are bad people who need to be punished, but because their behaviour hurt someone and as a member of society, they need to understand this, make amends, and hopefully change their behaviour moving forward.

What makes someone a bad person?

But I would have had to already accept Yahweh to think that’s true. And I don’t, so it’s not. Nothing in me tells me that the bible is a holy book or that following it has anything to do with what is good, so I don’t need to follow any religious dogma.

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

It involves accepting one assertion: Harris’ definition of “bad”. If you accept that, and you accept that “good” is its opposite, then moving away from something bad must be good. I think your problem with my argument is that there’s no argument for a metaphysical morality. That’s because I don’t believe in one. As I said above, this whole conversation, for me, is based on our shared feeling that there are right and wrong things. That’s it. If I kick someone’s dog, no matter who they are or what their religion, they’re going to know without consulting any authority that I did a horrible thing. I don’t really know why, and I don’t care. I do know that humans share this sense, and I’m keen to live with respect to it.

Well, there you go. You have no justification for right and wrong, and you admit that. You don't know why, and you don't care, so you go by your feelings. This is the cognitive dissonance I was talking about at the beginning of the post. You know intellectually that a meaningless Universes gives you no basis for morality, but you don't live that way. You live as a Christian does, judging what is good and evil and acting as if life has meaning and value when you know that it doesn't. You are fooling yourself into ascribing meaning to what you know are just chemical reactions in your brain. There is analogy made to the brain being like a soda can..you shake it up and it starts fizzing, which is just like the chemical reaction in our brains. One is fizzing morally and the other is fizzing immorally. What's the difference?

Your atheism leaves you in the position of not being able to tell me that something like child rape is absolutely wrong. In your world, there is no such thing, and if everyone thought it was right, it would be.

Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

God wrote His commandments on our hearts, which is the reason your feelings tell you what is right and wrong. It's very easy for everyone to understand Gods laws because we already know them. The problem is that people suppress the truth about God, and so people are deceived about what is good and evil are just doing what is right in their own eyes. I didn't understand growing up that fornication was wrong because society said it was okay, but now that the deception has been lifted my heart is in agreement with it. I know that is wrong, not just because Gods law says it is, but because it is written upon my heart.

First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

We have the freedom to obey or disobey God. The one thing God will never do is make you obey Him. In that sense, you have to determine whether you will do what is good or evil.

Second, you can’t possibly make the argument that “better for people” and “makes the world worse” are arbitrary concepts. They’re not perfectly defined, but that doesn’t mean arbitrary. As for the torturing babies example, according to Harris’ morality, it’s bad because babies are people, and torture causes misery. Where’s the ambiguity?

The ambiguity comes in when you assert these things with no rational justification. You admitted earlier that you have no ultimate justification for right and wrong, so why do you think Harris somehow does?

Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

This is really an argument from incredulity. I'm sure no one pictured an entire society could be convinced that killing millions of jews is a good thing, but it happened. People can and have agreed to do some extremely wicked things. The point is that if morality is based upon what people agree on, and people can potentially agree on anything, then you have a moral system that could call the same thing good or evil depending on what the opinion was at that time. That is no basis for morality.

But yours does. Whatever else you address, please answer this: I believe –and forgive me if I’m putting words into your mouth– somewhere on the Sift you agreed that if God commanded you to do something people think is horrible (like torture an infant/rape your own son/etc.), that you would do it. Is that true to say? If so, then by your own witness and a test you came up with, it’s your system that allows for the possibility of absolutely any vile act, and it’s time for it to go.

I don't recall saying this. There is the divine command theory which states that whatever God commands is ethically good. For instance, although God commanded us not to kill, He used the Israelites to judge the Canaanites after giving them 450 years to repent. This though was a unique situation because God ruled the Israelites directly as His own kingdom. The only other example I can think of is Abraham and Issac, and of course God didn't want Abraham to kill Issac.

These days, though, we're under a new covenant, and Gods Spirit dwells within His people. There is no example of God telling us to do anything contrary to His word in the NT, and therefore I see no basis for agreeing that I would either.

If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

If this were true, there would be no need for courts, judges, prisons, or police officers. There are also laws which may make some people miserable but are necessary for the greater good.

True. Your point?

"a conscience precludes the need for an external set of laws."

The point is, without enforcement a person is free to violate their conscience as freely and as often as they choose without any consequences. A conscience doesn't preclude the need for an external set of laws because most people willfully ignore their own conscience.

It’s not arbitrarily invented. Religion is. I must be misunderstanding you. By my reading, your argument is that the connection between reducing people’s misery and doing good is arbitrary. Is that right? You don’t think that wanting to help people who are suffering is normal and good? If you agree that there is a connection between the two, that’s all you need. If you don’t agree, then your morality system really sucks, and I don’t know who I’m talking to.

Christianity wasn't arbitrarily invented, it is revealed truth. I've also already covered this throughout the reply. According to you, unless you appeal to an authority, you have no basis for right and wrong, and neither you or Harris have any authority to appeal to in a meaningless Universe. You're content to just follow your feelings and not think about it, which I pointed it is cognitive dissonance.

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. That is the proof that God exists in the middle of all of this. You are living like a Christian while denying God with your atheism. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning". That would be the same as me saying that God exists because He exists. It is a viciously circular argument that you would never accept from me. I can point to a transcendent God who reveals truth, and tells us what is right and wrong, and is the source for the uniformity in nature. I can justify these things, but you cannot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/29/half-german-teens-dont-know-hitler-dictator_n_ 1636593.html

I take it you didn’t read the article yourself. There’s no mention of Americans, anyone of college age, nor anyone who can’t identify Hitler. It’s about German high school students who didn’t know that Hitler was a dictator, etc. Please take better care with your arguments. It’s disrespectful and a waste of my time.

Sorry. I can't remember what I was thinking of, or if I wasn't just confusing one thing for another. Perhaps I was thinking of this:

http://videosift.com/video/Ray-Comfort-Teaches-about-Adolf-Hitler

>> ^messenger:

stuff