Thread: Any Atheists Here..?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I think the inclination towards thoughts like existential nihilism is quite a rational one… Living by a meaningless life is much more gratifying and useful than some seem to think.

That's not nihilism then, it's just existentialism. As I understand it existentialism means life has no meaning so we must create our own, nihilism means life has no meaning so all is worthless and we might as well just die or do as much damage as possible before we go since nothing matters. I see nihilism as very depressive and amoral, while existentialism is just a sense of responsibility that we need to create meaning.

Originally Posted by StephL

So are you saying that you used to have a high degree of moral passion, a burning desire to be your very best? And now you "only" strive to be a better person?

I am a bit confused as to why you quoted "ONLY". It seems you are pointing to a change that you noticed. I certainly didn't mean to give that impression. I was trying to make a that point that my desire to be a better person, in all the ways I mentioned, hadn't changed at any point in my life. Further to the point and probably worth mentioning, I don't believe that my particular moral code came from being a Christian and it wasn't until after I walked away from faith that was I able to see that. But really, the end result of me trying to be a better version of myself manifested exactly in the same way in both of these contrasted points, but they were rationalized for completely different reasons; where once I did it because "it's what god expected of me" and now it's because "it's the right thing to do in a functional society". The net gain/loss is 0.

Originally Posted by StephL

I have to say that the fact that it makes you more angry to witness suffering is actually a good thing in my view!!
And it is a bad thing about religion, leading you have blind faith that ultimately all is good! Believing that all of it would be in god's plan doesn't motivate one to change the world for the better, it doesn't! It also doesn't motivate people to free themselves from oppression and exploitation - it tends to lead to sheepish acceptance of whatever god has put upon you in the hope for a better deal in the afterlife. But that's a cheat - not a deal!!
Getting angry and upset about senseless suffering and cruelty and misery and whatnot is maybe not measurably productive in our cases - in the sense of running out and actually doing something about it - but it could and might!

I don't believe that it can be said that Christians just lay down and accept suffering as god's plan. That was my own bullshit that I was admitting to. Christians, in particular, do quite a bit to try and ease suffering in the world. However, in the face of failure they are pretty quick to invoke the "god's will" argument to, IMO, sugar coat the hopelessness they see right in front of them. It is a win-win proposition in their thought processes, but the reality is that it changes nothing - the suffering is either relieved by their actions or perpetuates because of the failure. The invocation of the god's will argument is really irrelevant.

I also don't agree that me getting more upset with suffering is necessarily a "good" thing. I pretty much stand by and watch just as helplessly as I did back then. However, my remark was more an acknowledgement that I did lose something in my deconversion... an excuse. And the reason it doesn't "lessen" me, in my own view of myself anyway, was because I didn't really translate the witnessing of said suffering into any kind of action action in either case. So again... the net gain/loss here was 0.

Originally Posted by StephL

Oh well - yeah. Christopher Hitchens went as far as stating that no - he wouldn't want all religion to disappear from the face of the planet because he likes debating religious people so much. Approximately - I believe I could find it in the "Four Horsemen" video...
But there are two sides to it - it might be the sole point of an "atheistic exhibitionist" going to such a public debate, but if it "works" - that's fair enough for me. I really do feel that there is more to it than going off on one's own perceived intellectual superiority in the minds of those, who make it "work", though. I feel genuine concern in many of these people, including Hitchens of course. Take Richard Dawkins, who yes, has a tendency to get arrogant once in a while - but I really believe he means well for humanity by what he is doing primarily. Good examples for this are Sam Harris and Bill Nye - doing it in a bit humbler of a style.
But I do enjoy a good old bashing, too, even while being aware that it might well be contra-productive, I'm only human...

Certainly. But this is why I was really careful to mention that it has a lot to do with the goal. Hitchens had an amazing intellect for many things and could wield that knowledge at the drop of a hat. But, I also recognize that he turned a lot of believers off and he was dismissed before he even opened his mouth. So I don't really see the point unless you are an atheist who likes a good shaming (no judgements if that's you). But to what end? Entertainment? If so... fair enough.

Originally Posted by StephL

Ah - but this is somewhat flawed in my view - religion is religion but secularism is just the absence of something. Meaning you have all the human nastiness you always have minus religion's specific share of it. That can't be more harmful than all human nastiness plus religion. Except you claim that religion keeps people from acting even more nasty. But Christians at least by name and in high places have been throwing atom-bombs, torturing people, invading other countries, you name it - it just doesn't seem to work that way...

Don't make me take out the dictionary! Secularism is not just the absences of "something"; it is something with the absence of religion specifically. To that, I'll restate my point... the probability of suffering to occur because of a secular reason, as opposed to a religious one, is more likely. This doesn't, in any way, let religion off the hook; after all, suffering is suffering. However, I feel it is too simple to claim that because some population is religious in an eschatological sense, it is more likely a society (or even better... you) will suffer because of it. I can see why you believe this. But I don't think the numbers are on the side of this belief, IMO.

Also, you mentioned the Jihadists. It is pretty easy to say that this issue is rooted in religion alone. But from what I understand, these issues are incredibly political as well. However, it gets messy in my mind because I am hard pressed to separate the political arm of Islam from the religious arm. This is a kind of "uniqueness" that I see in that religion, at least as far as how the Jihadists are exercising their belief. So I suppose you could assert that someone suffering in a terrorist attack is because of that religious ideal, but I am not too quick to make that assertion for many reasons that not within the scope of this discussion. I'll leave it at that.

I purposely didn't answer all the points you brought up. Originally, I did. But man... it was way too f'ing long and I thought my answers to not be relevant to this specific discussion. I am not looking to get banned.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

That's not nihilism then, it's just existentialism. As I understand it existentialism means life has no meaning so we must create our own, nihilism means life has no meaning so all is worthless and we might as well just die or do as much damage as possible before we go since nothing matters. I see nihilism as very depressive and amoral, while existentialism is just a sense of responsibility that we need to create meaning.

I don't think I've ever heard a nihilist described as desiring wanton destruction before death. Wouldn't it be that the act of destruction be meaningless, so why bother? I can see the path to that logic though.

That's why I said 'might as well' - I believe according to nihilism morality is completely artificial and constructed, so destruction is no more wrong than anything else. I didn't mean to imply that nihilists are all destruction oriented or driven toward it. So it's basically existentialism with the added element of 'who gives a fuck - everything goes'.

I was with you. I get it. But it was the first time I've seen it used that way. I think you were spot on.

I was just trying to find a way to characterize nihilism as different from existentialism, maybe I slightly overdid it. But I see there's also a category specifically called existential nihilism… geeze, so complicated!! I guess that's what Dutch was talking about. I suppose if I really cared I'd look up how that's different from normal existentialism..

That picture pisses me off.

Atheist here.

Originally Posted by Meskhetyw

"_Human life is worthless. Everyone has his own world where he only matters. Only thing that stops me from crime is the law, not empathy (even though empathy still does stop me a little since it is in my human nature)."

Would you mind clarifying this statement? I am not going to debate you, I just want to know what you mean. "Crime" refers to law, so do you actually mean immoral? If so, I have always thought the opposite and this is why I believe in freedom. I do not need mass approval (or despotism) for me to decide what is moral and what is not. I have my moral sense, reason, and strength of character for that.

With regard to humans being machines or spiritual beings; I don't even look at things in this manner. I see what I see, and it is wondrous and curious. Science shows us what it can using it's methods, and we have philosophy for the rest, but "belief" is a problem in any realm. We can always entertain a philosophical idea, but to decide is a mistake in my opinion, and it is important to understand what science "actually says" (facts) and what it does not (what we extrapolate or assume). I am as against religion as I am against the idea that everything is "just this" or "just that" as if these things were insignificant. I think this a reaction derived from disappointment in things not being what people originally want them to be, so now everything is assumed to have lost it's mystery. Not so, in my opinion.

All of this is meant respectfully (and hastily, unfortunately).

I understand what you mean. What I meant by my statement is that morals don't exist in our nature, only our community teaches us morals. What we have is a sense of empathy instead. Let's say a person was never raised by any moral code, so he would steal and not feel guilt. Valuing other people's lives, as cruel as it may sound, is not much of a human nature. In our nature, we would kill to get food and not starve. Again, morals are taught to us, and we get used to them as good so much that our reward system rewards us when being good.

As for the second point, I know that our perception of the world is limited. We do not see everything there is, but it is pretty much clear that we operate solely by our brains, and if we should clone a person, the clone would be as human as any other human.
So I would say life is insignificant technically, but what is significance? Significance is what means to us. Knowing the "just this" isn't making it insignificant, because it still means a lot to us and does make us happy(if it is something nice).
Seeing the technicality of things doesn't make them any less significant.

Also what dutchraptor said is true, but I still thing that completely leaning toward the understanding that life is meaningless and there is no cause or whatever is a good thing. It will help us understand the value of our lives, and if anything, make us see that happiness is a direct reward system, not some mystical thing, thus opening doors to inducing happiness easily.

"
That's why I said 'might as well' - I believe according to nihilism morality is completely artificial and constructed, so destruction is no more wrong than anything else. I didn't mean to imply that nihilists are all destruction oriented or driven toward it. So it's basically existentialism with the added element of 'who gives a fuck - everything goes'."

Yup, I do believe that life is meaningless, but still believe that this shouldn't stop me from being happy. On the contrary, now I can understand happiness and the technicality of it so I can induce it easily.
Also yes, I do believe that moral codes are made by humans, not a human nature.
Still, I wouldn't kill someone just for fun because the law would punish me, and my empathy would stop me too (empathy is a human nature)

Well said Louai. I mostly agree, but I do think that some element of morality exists in not only human nature but animal nature as well (ok I know, it's the same thing really - you know what I mean!) You don't see animals being immoral - they don't kill for fun or for no reason at all, only for food or in defense. They form societies and use herd protocol to protect the weak. Not all animals, but I suppose it depends on what kind we're talking about. Probably the prey animals do this more than predators, which have more of a let them sink or swim attitude.

It seems like morality is necessary for groups to survive and thrive - animals as well as humans. I'd even go farther and say that the whole idea of forming groups is for greater protection and increased power - of the group and of most of the individuals. So to form a group is itself a sort of moral act - 'we can all do better if we stay together and treat each other well'. Because if a group does't have some kind of moral code then it won't last long as a group. Altruism is necessary to form and maintain a functional group and altruism is the root of morality.

And it seems very clear that having to create meaning for our own lives makes people responsible for their own actions and choices. Unless of course they choose to be completely nihilistic and just say to hell with everybody else. (those would be the psychopaths or just plain selfish bastards).

True Dark matters. We do have in our nature a certain extent of morals, necessary for us to form a solid society. Still, not as much as we think. We did develop this attribute, but we are still mainly individualists(right word?). Every person cares only for his own good, and frankly follows these morals just so the group he is in would strive, for his own good. But let's say, for example, we take a person out of this group and make him make a choice. Either he died, or all the rest of his group does. Unless he believes in the illusion of a hero, he would choose his own survival, even though his death is better for the group. In the end, everyone hold a moral code just on the surface so his group would strive, which is beneficial for him.

Now I am not saying to ditch morals. On the contrary, I think everyone should follow them, so that everyone wins. I'm just saying that morals are mostly human made, and we all are not but selfish and care about our own benefits.

I'd say moral code is hardwired into us, but the specifics can change from place to place and group to group.

And don't forget - originally when humans weren't the absolute masters of the world and needed to band together to survive the cave bears and the winters, society was a very different thing. Moral codes and responsibilities were extremely strict - disobey them and die or face severe punishment. Groups were small then and had to struggle for survival on a daily basis often. Gradually as we made progress toward mastering the world (building secure cities, better weapons, electricity, medicine, etc) and no longer needed to fight to just survive, and as our groups got bigger and bigger, we began to face different problems and no longer faced the same ones we originally did. Rather than a fierce pride in the group, people began to develop a resentment of crowding and being treated as a faceless cog in the machine, kids could no longer directly see the need for adherence to group needs, and started to get increasingly unruly with no ill consequences aside from parents grounding them or whatever. It seems clear to me that living in huge cities filled with modern conveniences has bred a very different type of society and person, and that we've completely lost touch with early societies, except maybe in some small remote areas. Much of the ennui and apathy people suffer from now isn't related to living in a natural world the way we used to, but to overcrowding and easy living without needing to fear natural predators or the power of nature itself for the most part (except for the really big natural disasters).

I think these factors partly explain what you seem to be referring to as 'human nature'. I believe it's more like corrupted human nature, but that corruption is normal daily life for most people.

Yes exactly!
Even though we originally had more strict moral codes, we lost them now, or they are weaker now, because they aren't as important now as they were before.
So when looking at it now, it seems too weak to be considered hard wired into us. Maybe it was before, but now it isn't. We adapt to changes.

MMmmm… I still don't quite agree with that. I think we still have moral codes, but they're just not the same codes our ancestors had. Our problems and conditions are very different from anything they could even imagine, and as conditions change so do morals. They've evolved, but I don't think they've gone away. It's just that in today's society there's no longer a need for such strict morality - individuals can live alone now (as long as they're part of a larger society) and survive, which couldn't happen in primitive times. And the pressure of modern society have twisted morality for many people. Ennui and lax society and lax parenting create people who see nothing wrong with committing various crimes. Plus weird social pressures like needing to belong to a gang, or religions that attack other religions, or countries that attack other countries etc…

So again, I think what you're seeing as lack of morals is actually a direct result of the pressures of modern corrupted society creating twisted people. It seems like people with low or no morals get that from somewhere - parents or the segment of society they grew up in, or childhood abuse or something. Ordinary people who grow up in good society (relatively) normally have good morals themselves I think.

Are you a murderer or some other type of violent criminal (I don't really expect you to tell me if you are )? If so it's most likely because of something that happened to you or some conditions you went through - not just because whatever. If people in general were completely amoral, society would fall apart almost immediately. And if you're basically a moral person, how can you say you think people aren't moral?

Lol no I'm not a criminal, nor have I been abused or anything.
It's just weird that when you realize life is meaningless in the end, and morals aren't life rules, you just don't care about them anymore.

I would say quite the opposite than you, morals aren't destroyed, creating non moral people, but people are born moral to a certain extent(to an extent needed only for society's good), and are taught the rest.

Morals like killing without reason do exist within our nature, but most of our morals that we know today are taught morals. For example, teenage sex is bad. While it is bad, it was never a hardwired moral. Killing for food is another example. Stealing too.

I'm not saying we are born without morals, I'm just saying that the morals we are born with are the basic morals, the basic ones(like killing without reason is bad), but the rest of the morals are taught to us.

So, I can't kill someone without reason, but I can kill someone if I need the food(basic instinctive moral)

And, I can't kill someone without reason, nor for food if I need the food(taught moral)

So, if I have these taught morals, I would feel bad for killing for food, but if I only have my basic instinctive morals, I wouldn't hesitate on killing for food.

Frankly, when you realize that most of your morals are taught to you, the you wouldn't feel bad about breaking those taught morals.

I personally, though, would still follow these taught morals, because if I don't, I would receive punishment for my actions. Also if the community I'm in is generally strongly moral, then me following my taught moral code would benefit me, because it would benefit the whole community.

I agree with you that even our natural instinctive morals can be broken due to how our society raised us, but I also must agree that most of our current morals are taught to us, so we would have a strong society.

In the end, teenage sex forbidding for example, was never a moral that we naturally have.

Sweet Jeeesus!!
Super warm welcome Meskhetyw and SinisterDezz first of all - and otherwise I really have a lot to catch up on - thank you guys!!

:sleepysteph:

More replies to you guys are to come later!!
I even didn't read everything yet - I will just put my replies in different parts for the sake of clarity and staying with one subject per post. If this is not wanted - go ahead and merge the posts, whoever does not want it!

@dutchraptor, Darkmatters and balban:

Weell - for me existential nihilism is what you had under existentialism, Darkmatters. I had a conversation with Linkzelda a while back, about how we both had grappled with nihilism but in the end we both do subsume ourselves under the existential nihilist label. I might look for it - he has the terms and definitions down very well. I was actually planning to sooner or later bring these terms up myself, but I didn't really feel like biting yesterday in answer to LouaiB. Because it's quite complicated, but looking into Wikipedia's top paragraphs - you get what I had thought:

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning. The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create his or her own subjective "meaning" or "purpose". Of all types of nihilism, existential nihilism gets the most literary and philosophical attention.

Existentialism is a term applied to the work of certain late 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.

Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to have been the first existentialist philosopher, though he did not use the term existentialism. He proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely ("authentically"). Existentialism became popular in the years following World War II, and strongly influenced many disciplines besides philosophy, including theology, drama, art, literature, and psychology.

Although nihilism and existentialism are distinct philosophies, they are often confused with one another. A primary cause of confusion is that Friedrich Nietzsche is an important philosopher in both fields, but also the existentialist insistence on the inherent meaninglessness of the world. Existentialist philosophers often stress the importance of Angst as signifying the absolute lack of any objective ground for action, a move that is often reduced to a moral or an existential nihilism. A pervasive theme in the works of existentialist philosophy, however, is to persist through encounters with the absurd, as seen in Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus ("One must imagine Sisyphus happy"), and it is only very rarely that existentialist philosophers dismiss morality or one's self-created meaning: Kierkegaard regained a sort of morality in the religious (although he wouldn't himself agree that it was ethical; the religious suspends the ethical), and Sartre's final words in Being and Nothingness are "All these questions, which refer us to a pure and not an accessory (or impure) reflection, can find their reply only on the ethical plane. We shall devote to them a future work."

Nihilism is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.
Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws. Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction, among others, have been identified by commentators as "nihilistic" at various times in various contexts.

Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been ascribed to time periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch, and some Christian theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity and many aspects of modernity represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of their theistic doctrine entails nihilism.

So you can have nihilism outside of existentialism - negating the possibility of personal meaning generation, or even negating the existence of reality right-out. You can also have Existentialism without Nihilism, which would be just starting out with analysing the world by looking at a human being, this feeling of disorientation, the "existential attitude" of there being no objective meaning discernible to existence, but that you can do something about it - and the negation of morality seems to be usually not included. If I understand correctly, you can even be religious and an existentialist? It also reads to me as if existential nihilism is an actual philosophical theory, while existentialism is rather a historically bound umbrella term...

Without looking up deconstruction and futurism - might it not have been the former movement which brought about the bad reputation for nihilism - maybe what "Doctor P" talks about? And they didn't even call themselves that? But this is pure conjecture here...
I guess information like the following gave you this idea of a nihilistic "Destroy! Kill!! Kill!!" attitude, Darkmatters. I wasn't aware of the historical dimensions. This comes from a Yahoo answering site, written by said "Doctor P":

Existentialist writing both reacts against the view that the universe is a closed, coherent, intelligible system, and finds the resulting contingency a cause for lamentation. In the face of an indifferent universe we are thrown back upon our own freedom. Acting authentically becomes acting in the light of the open space of possibilities that the world allows. Different writers who united in stressing the importance of these themes nevertheless developed very different ethical and metaphysical systems as a consequence. In Heidegger existentialism turns into scholastic ontology; in Sartre into a dramatic exploration of moments of choice and stress; in the theologians Barth, Tillich, and Bultmann it becomes a device for reinventing the relationships between people and God. Existentialism never took firm root outside continental Europe, and many philosophers have voiced mistrust of particular existentialist concerns, for example with being and non-being, or with the libertarian flavour of its analysis of free will.

Nihilism was given its name by Ivan Turgenev in his novel Fathers and Sons (1861). Nihilism stressed the need to destroy existing economic and social institutions, whatever the projected nature of the better order for which the destruction was to prepare. Nihilists were not without constructive programs, but agreement on these was not essential to the immediate objective, destruction. Direct action, such as assassination and arson, was characteristic. Such acts were not necessarily directed by any central authority. Small groups and even individuals were encouraged to plan and execute terroristic acts independently. The assassination of Czar Alexander II was one result of such terrorist activities. The constructive programs published by nihilists include the establishing of a parliamentary government; the programs were on the whole moderate in comparison with the revolutionary measures of 1917. Nihilism was too diffuse and negative to persist as a movement and gradually gave way to other philosophies of revolt; it remained, however, an element in later Russian thought.

What this seems to suggest is that nihilistic destruction of prevalent structures was done with the notion of "betterment" in mind..? Hm. Well - but the philosophy is not the movement. Systematic nihilist demolition doesn't seem to be a topic any more - and I really would like to know how they defined this "betterment".

Again - for me being an existential nihilist means that I ultimately don't believe in objective meaning inherent in anything or anybody.
But it also means that I can and will almost automatically construct my own subjective meanings according to my human nature and get on with it.

One more:

Nihilism: Do whatever you want because nothing matters. Nihilist believe there is no "meaning" in life because there is no objective truth in the world.

Existentialism: Do whatever you want because it matters to you. Existentialists know that there is no objective truth in world, so instead of saying there is no purpose, they make their own purposes to do whatever they want.

Basically, existentialism are concerned about finding a meaning while nihilism denies that there is a meaning.

Hm, hm - how could you possibly want something before applying some sort of meaning to it first, though? So yeah - I need both labels together.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Lol no I'm not a criminal, nor have I been abused or anything.
It's just weird that when you realize life is meaningless in the end, and morals aren't life rules, you just don't care about them anymore.

Ok, I don't think you really get what I'm saying yet. See. if this was really true - if you really believed "when you realize life is meaningless in the end, and morals aren't life rules, you just don't care about them anymore." - then you would be a horrible person all the time, in whatever ways you think you could get away with.Not killing or breaking into houses probably, because I doubt you'd want to go to jail, but you'd freely take advantage of people without feeling bad about it. In fact if what you're saying is really true, everybody would be like that. But most people most of the time are very decent. Personally I feel terrible if I try to take advantage of people - I have a conscience. I believe most people do.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

In the end, teenage sex forbidding for example, was never a moral that we naturally have.

I'm going to skip the rest for now and just cover this. Prohibition against teenage sex is another new(er) thing that happened because of changes in our society. Way back in caveman days the tribal elders didn't live past the ripe old age of 25 - and not many of them apparently made it that far! Plus, factor in the idea that humans were struggling to survive, there was no such thing as overpopulation, in fact people probably died all the time and tribes needed to pop out as many babies as possible to help ensure survival of the tribe. So it seems everybody capable of doing the nasty would be getting sweaty together, making the beast with two backs, hopping on the good foot and doing the bad thing etc. NOT having sex as soon as you're old enough to physically do it might have been seen as immoral!

Now think about the ways our growing society has changed since then - with better more secure dwellings/towns etc and farming and bigger groups of people living together rather than fighting the small tribes on each of the surrounding hills, people started living longer and the tribe dying out overnight wasn't such a threat anymore. Go forward to the present day - average life expectancy is now much much higher - like 80 years old! Kids are educated now, they go to school until their late teens or beyond if they go to college. Basically childhood got extended when life expectancy rose and life became safer. Now we know that the brain doesn't finish growing until sometime in the early to mid 20's, and the last part to develop fully is the neocortex, the smartest part. What this means is kids make bad choices. I don't know if the brain finished growing sooner when we were cavemen or anything, but we basically didn't have the choice of waiting until 18 to have sex - most people were dead before they were 18! No such problem now, plus there's overcrowding etc - it really doesn't make sense now for adolescents to be having kids, but it did back then. Changing morals reflect changing conditions.

And here's what I was trying to say before, in slightly different terms - in modern times we have a lot of mental/emotional problems that I don't think were very prevalent in the past - personality disorders like narcissism, sociopaths and psychopaths, people getting twisted by the pressures typical only to modern society. These are the people who don't seem to have any morals - the ones who kill or set houses on fire or whatever for no apparent reason.

I don't know anybody with no morals, and I doubt you do either. You need to really think about yourself and your family and friends when you talk about these things - does what you're saying really reflect the people you know?

The rest of my post is very crucial.
To sum it up, I do believe everyone has morals, but most of the morals we have today are taught to us to fit the modern day life, as you said.

What I meant by not caring about morals anymore, I meant the taught morals, not our basic morals.

Conscience is a very muliable thing. We can add to it what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' , other than it's basic sac of instinctive morals.

Tl;dr : everyone has morals, but most of our morals nowadays are taught to us to fit the modern day societies. When I understand that life is meaningless, I stop caring about these new taught morals, and I'll eventually overcome than, not like the naggy instinctive morals (like killing for no reason is bad).

I don't mean to be just arguing with you, but this is a good discussion, and it's making me think this through in ways I haven't really done before, though I've always kind of been vaguely aware of it. You're making me develop my ideas more, and I thank you for that.

I instinctively feel that morals are flexible, as I've been saying. They change with time, place and society. What's moral to one group in one time is immoral or morally neutral to other groups or in other times or places. This does not make morals meaningless or random - yes, they are created by society, but they reflect the very real needs of that society at that time.

Oh I agree of course with what you say about the basic unchanging morals - there are just a handful - no unnecessary killing hurting or stealing etc. These are pretty universal, though definitions of what's 'necessary killing' etc change.

Where we differ seems to be with the more flexible morals built on top of those basic ones. You feel that they're random and meaningless and people don't care about them. I say they're flexible and change to reflect changes in our situation, but are still meaningful and necessary, and that most people respect them most of the time. Oh sure, there are people - say kids at school who are bullies etc - these are mostly narcissists or psychopaths created by abuse. There are a lot of them in modern society. Or people with alcohol or drug problems. None of these can be simply called "people with no morals" - what they are is broken people, suffering mental or emotional damage.

Another aspect that we haven't discussed yet - people will often do horrible things if there's enough motive for them. Steal money or whatever. But this has always been true - the fact that people considered morals to be objective before didn't stop that kind of behavior. So you can't say it's because they realized morals are artificial or whatever. With strong enough motive people will break their moral code - some more easily than others. But I honestly don't see how understanding that morality is relative causes people to ignore their moral code.

You are absolutely right, Darkmatters.

I actually didn't mean that the flexible gained morals are meaningless like that. I only meant it philosophically, following the philosophical rule that life is meaningless.

Of course all morals are important for us and our society, though what I argue about is that these flexible learned morals are done just for each person's own benefit, because everyone knows that a stronger society means a better life for them. So people are moral for their own benefit in mind only. Evidence to this is that if provided enough motive, or personal benefit, the individual would brake a moral code.
In the end, we have morals and follow them for our own benefit.

I love your statement about broken people. Truly psychological issues can effect morals.

Heh - actually I was starting to come around a little bit toward what you've been saying. After I said that last part: "people will often do horrible things if there's enough motive for them. Steal money or whatever. But this has always been true - the fact that people considered morals to be objective before didn't stop that kind of behavior. So you can't say it's because they realized morals are artificial or whatever." I realized that people in the past obviously figured out that morals are relative - even though the philosophy of the time didn't say that yet. Yes, before philosophers figured out existentialism or nihilism, people were living it.

And now I've been thinking about it too much and I have tunnel vision - I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. Time for beddy-bye..

Oh but a huge thank you to Steph for digging up all that info!! i used to know most of that in the past - heck, I've read Camus - something abut Sisyphus but my memory fails me now. It's just that none of it stuck long term.

I think the lesson to take away from this - I'm an Existentialist and Louai is a Nihilist. Or are we both Ex-Nihils? Oh my aching head…

I'm not completely nihilist, I do create my own meaning to my life, which is to enjoy it as much as I can before hitting my grave

Just to be clear here, I believe that:

_Life has no meaning
_we might as well live it happily before we die
_there are 2 kinds of morals, instinctive basic morals, and morals we learn so we can adapt to our society
_morals can be overlooked if the result if beneficial to us, we are complete selfish creatures basically, whether basic morals or gained learned morals(though the latter is easier to overlook)
_understanding that life is meaningless makes us more vulnerable to braking our gained morals more easily if motivated to, because we understand that these gained morals aren't hardwired natural morals, but ones we learned.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I instinctively feel that morals are flexible, as I've been saying. They change with time, place and society. What's moral to one group in one time is immoral or morally neutral to other groups or in other times or places. This does not make morals meaningless or random - yes, they are created by society, but they reflect the very real needs of that society at that time.

Oh I agree of course with what you say about the basic unchanging morals - there are just a handful - no unnecessary killing hurting or stealing etc. These are pretty universal, though definitions of what's 'necessary killing' etc change.

I would like to observe something trying to integrate a little bit more the recent comments into the main topic, which could reflect how harmful and contradictory the religious belief can be:

It was about something that happened around 500 years ago, when some Spanish merchants got to what now is called the Americas (Actually they got to the center first, expanded to the south and after that, came the destruction of the north) During those times, there was a moral code followed by the natives which was summed up in three basic rules: Don't steal, don't lie and don't laze. Those were their basic rules which formed the base of their society. When the catholic belief got there, it tried to impose their own 10 rules (including that one that asks people to love somebody, Is it possible to ask to feel something for somebody you don't know? I mean, Would that give a positive result?).

They didn't see that the upcoming society respected their own rules and sometimes they seemed repugnant to the locals, for example, they wanted to teach people to honour their parents, however they asked them to bury their bodies when they died, thing that was aberrant for the local people. They said, you won't kill but they killed people, including babies to feed their dogs. They asked not to steal, but they took what didn't belong to them, etc.

What happens, when two societies, with different values, try to integrate their almost similar basic moral rules through an imposed religion? That's one more reason why I don't take religion seriously.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Heh - actually I was starting to come around a little bit toward what you've been saying. After I said that last part: "people will often do horrible things if there's enough motive for them. Steal money or whatever. But this has always been true - the fact that people considered morals to be objective before didn't stop that kind of behavior. So you can't say it's because they realized morals are artificial or whatever." I realized that people in the past obviously figured out that morals are relative - even though the philosophy of the time didn't say that yet. Yes, before philosophers figured out existentialism or nihilism, people were living it. :lol

Actually both of them are true.
Being nihilist helps a person overlook taught morals more easily, and motive also helps someone overlook his morals.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

And here's what I was trying to say before, in slightly different terms - in modern times we have a lot of mental/emotional problems that I don't think were very prevalent in the past - personality disorders like narcissism, sociopaths and psychopaths, people getting twisted by the pressures typical only to modern society. These are the people who don't seem to have any morals - the ones who kill or set houses on fire or whatever for no apparent reason.

Out of all the insightful things that you've said, Darkmatters, this is the only comment with which I have an objection. Is this something that you have evidence for or is it something that you've worked through logically? I'm not comfortable with claiming that the noted disorders are MORE prevalent in modern society. And I am not sure if you are implying that modern society is somehow the causation of the increased expression of these disorders.

Originally Posted by balban

Is this something that you have evidence for or is it something that you've worked through logically? I'm not comfortable with claiming that the noted disorders are MORE prevalent in modern society. And I am not sure if you are implying that modern society is somehow the causation of the increased expression of these disorders.

One facet of Darkmatter's claim which can not be proven conclusively would be in regard to wether or not psychiatric disorders were as prevalent in antiquity versus our modern society. I believe underlining "or is it something that you've worked through logically" from Balban's posts above highlights that Darkmatters may have simply presumed the existence of psychiatric illnesses (;of which I do not object him doing) because it is logically consistent to presume that these various mental illnesses existed in the past. We must acknowledge that this is speculation however - and perhaps this is why Balban objected Darkmatter's claim.

Originally Posted by balban

And I am not sure if you are implying that modern society is somehow the causation of the increased expression of these disorders.

If we postulate the increased expression of psychiatric disorders in our modern society then I believe we should take into consideration the exponential complexity of our 21st century society versus the much more simplistic past. Darkmatters- "people getting twisted by the pressure typical only to modern society"

This wikipedia link should prove itself useful -
Causes of mental disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia