I'm an Atheist/Nihilist, ask me anyting

[ctrlaltdelete]

Probably been asked, but, how can you guarantee 100% that there is no deity?

It's like schrodingers cat.

It's both alive and dead at the same time.

Like there is a god and there is no god, at the same time. We can never be sure either way. So, in some way, they are both true. And both wrong. And picking one over the other is not based on logic or fact, and therefore is just preference.

 

[bushman505]

Do you care about anything????

 

[The Diplomat]

Substitute any proposition for that one. Why waste time making up fantasy things and trying to disprove them?

Can you 100% guarantee that there are no other life forms in the universe?

It's like schrodingers cat.

It's both alive and dead at the same time.

Like there is a god and there is no god, at the same time. We can never be sure either way. So, in some way, they are both true. And both wrong. And picking one over the other is not based on logic or fact, and therefore is just preference.

Aye. I *think* there isn't a God, but I couldn't prove it so I won't say for certainty.

 

[ctrlaltdelete]

Can you 100% guarantee that there are no other life forms in the universe?

Aye. I *think* there isn't a God, but I couldn't prove it so I won't say for certainty.

Right on. Believing in god probably helps a lot of people out, especially in dark times. I

 

[Fawlty]

Can you 100% guarantee that there are no other life forms in the universe?

Just pretend I responded, and then type what you were already going to type.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

If you dont believe in anything without proof of existence, let me ask you, have you traveled around the globe in one shot? If not, do you believe it is flat disk? The only other proof is people telling you, and pictures which can be forged. Religions are also just people telling you, and some memorabilia which can be forged.

 

[TheGreatA]

I disagree about Melkor's prideful nature a bit. While he does sort of rhyme with Satan- he wants to be God- his problems are that he lusts for the secret fire, and his own music is monotonous, violent beating like drums- discordant with the other "angels."

After describing that he is the most powerful and talented: "He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness...but being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren."

Then Melkor's music is described as discordant and he has the music battle with God, who humiliates him:

"Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger." Later, "he thought to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subjects and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills."

He is the way he is because that is how God made him. Eru Ilúvatar is directly responsible for the actions of Melkor, who is of Eru's own mind. The discordant mind of God, in my interpretation. That the sum of God's mind is greater than its parts (the angels). The lust to be God, the discordance with the gentler parts of God's mind. Melkor shouldn't even be blamed, at least not now, in the beginning of creation. He might have to accept some blame, in a sense, by the time he seduces the Maia sea master Ossë, to work against the angel of the sea, Ulmo. Because at that point he's not merely being discordant (leveling mountains, flooding the lands, etc)- he's bending the wills to his own as their master.

Satan on the other hand was created essentially perfectly and fell, while Melkor was created fallen. I thought it was a tidy trick by Tolkein, that the mind of God itself, when split into its constituent parts, was flawed. Kind of like how Saruman the White became the discordant white- his robe became all colors.

I don't think this differs from the base story of Satan/Lucifer though.

Take the Yazidi account, for example:

Yazidi accounts of creation differ from that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They believe that God first created Tawûsê Melek from his own illumination (Ronahî) and the other six archangels were created later. God ordered Tawûsê Melek not to bow to other beings. Then God created the other archangels and ordered them to bring him dust (Ax) from the Earth (Erd) and build the body of Adam. Then God gave life to Adam from his own breath and instructed all archangels to bow to Adam. The archangels obeyed except for Tawûsê Melek. In answer to God, Tawûsê Melek replied,

How can I submit to another being! I am from your illumination while Adam is made of dust.

Then God praised him and made him the leader of all angels and his deputy on the Earth. (This likely furthers what some see as a connection to the Islamic Shaitan, as according to the Quran, Shaitan refused to bow to the newly created Adam at God’s command, though in this case it is seen as being a sign of Shaitan’s sinful pride.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melek_Taus

Of course, Yazidis don't actually consider Melek to be "evil", but the narrative is very similar to the stories of Lucifer/Shaitan in Christianity/Islam.

Based on a narration from Abd Allah ibn Abbas Iblis was an angel created from fire, which made him special among the angels,[43] although some scholars added, there were also other angels created from fire among his tribe. According to this tradition, he was the most knowledgeable angel and called "Jinn" because he and his kind were superior to the lower angels of light, and therefore mostly invisible to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_(Islam)#Iblis_as_Angel

In the Islamic accounts, the Devil (Iblis) is again created special from the others.

In Christianity, the Devil is depicted more vaguely. But I'd wager that Tolkien was knowledgeable on the origin myths of Satan, beyond Christian accounts, and decided to incorporate the story of his "fall" into his story, including the idea that he, of all, was made special.

 

[Fawlty]

I don't think this differs from the base story of Satan/Lucifer though.

Take the Yazidi account, for example:

Yazidi accounts of creation differ from that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They believe that God first created Tawûsê Melek from his own illumination (Ronahî) and the other six archangels were created later. God ordered Tawûsê Melek not to bow to other beings. Then God created the other archangels and ordered them to bring him dust (Ax) from the Earth (Erd) and build the body of Adam. Then God gave life to Adam from his own breath and instructed all archangels to bow to Adam. The archangels obeyed except for Tawûsê Melek. In answer to God, Tawûsê Melek replied,

How can I submit to another being! I am from your illumination while Adam is made of dust.

Then God praised him and made him the leader of all angels and his deputy on the Earth. (This likely furthers what some see as a connection to the Islamic Shaitan, as according to the Quran, Shaitan refused to bow to the newly created Adam at God’s command, though in this case it is seen as being a sign of Shaitan’s sinful pride.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melek_Taus

Of course, Yazidis don't actually consider Melek to be "evil", but the narrative is very similar to the stories of Lucifer/Shaitan in Christianity/Islam.

Based on a narration from Abd Allah ibn Abbas Iblis was an angel created from fire, which made him special among the angels,[43] although some scholars added, there were also other angels created from fire among his tribe. According to this tradition, he was the most knowledgeable angel and called "Jinn" because he and his kind were superior to the lower angels of light, and therefore mostly invisible to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_(Islam)#Iblis_as_Angel

In the Islamic accounts, the Devil (Iblis) is again created special from the others.

In Christianity, the Devil is depicted more vaguely. But I'd wager that Tolkien was knowledgeable on the origin myths of Satan, beyond Christian accounts, and decided to incorporate the story of his "fall" into his story, including the idea that he, of all, was made special.

True, there's no denying that it's a take on the Satan story. I think the variation w/Melkor is very significant because of the direct link between his nature and God. We don't have a fall that is somehow the result of Melkor making free decisions, but instead from the moment he springs from God's mind, he's a problem. He never has glory or a chance to show his promise, and he doesn't fail an assignment or betray some commandment. He's immediately in that fallen state.

 

[TheGreatA]

True, there's no denying that it's a take on the Satan story. I think the variation w/Melkor is very significant because of the direct link between his nature and God. We don't have a fall that is somehow the result of Melkor making free decisions, but instead from the moment he springs from God's mind, he's a problem. He never has glory or a chance to show his promise, and he doesn't fail an assignment or betray some commandment. He's immediately in that fallen state.

There is no sympathy thrown Melkor's way, or towards any of his creations, that is for sure. They are deemed as inherently evil (and thus, somehow less responsible for their evil) as anything can be. But I think part of that may be because Tolkien never got to flesh out his ideas on that subject. We ought to remember that the stories of Silmarillion are mere compilations of his work, by his son. Not necessarily a finished product that he himself would've put out.

"Sauron" is perhaps the more interesting antagonist of the series, as he was created "good", a spiritual manifestation of orderliness and craftsmanship, but this "goodness" was twisted into evil purposes, as he comes to want to dominate the will of all creatures in order to establish perfect order.

 

[deltapapha]

Thanks for taking the time to source that out, and I'm familiar with that letter & studying Tolkein currently.

I think it's a mistake to link Tolkein too closely with Lewis, and I don't agree with a lot of the interpretation of Tolkein's work, because it assumes too much about his intentions from too few of his letters. I'd be happy to discuss The Silmarillion, and how Tolkein framed his religious universe. As he notes himself, and I read his work the same way, he was careful to remove "Christian" stuff from his creation myth. This can mean a lot of things, and he clearly meant at least to say that his faith inspired him. However, what I see no evidence of is attempting to marry paganism and Christianity.

His essay "On Fairy Stories" states that "The road to Fairyland is not the road to Heaven, nor even to Hell" as he explains the natural state of his characters and his fantasy world, which he contrasts with the reader, who he deems to be supernatural. That's a puzzle with several possible solutions, and I think the worst one is that he's reviving the old northern pagans to rev up the Jesus.

If paganism is indeed one of Tolkein's themes, he does a poor job of it by way of his creator Eru, who made Arda (middle earth) for his angels to play out his music. Even evil, represented by discordance, is explicitly part of Eru's harmony. The universe is ultimately without free will and good & evil. The classical problem of evil, when attempted in Tolkein's universe, is solved in its own formulation like so:

God is omni-harmonious
The world is full of music

On the other hand, there is a lot of depth and spirit to nature and a pantheon, and there is no Christ, which all seems rather pagan, but the worshipped aspect of nature being light, or "secret fire" which is literally the light, literally the good in hearts, and also the literal core of the planet. So it goes far beyond sun worship. The trees aren't thought to be imbued with a spirit that a person can commune with, but are actual conscious creatures. There isn't a belief in them being conscious, there is the fact of it. And that is to be understood not as supernatural, but natural. It's not quite hitting that pagan note. It is sharing in some of the spirit, though.

My own speculation is that Tolkein privately thought his own god to be a damn sight better than the Christian god. I don't think Tolkein was happy at all with the ambiguous arrangements of good & evil and free will, theologically, and sought to improve upon them by making them explicit facts, which also happens to provide one hell of a plot device.

a lot I could respond, but just wanted to agree that I don't think Tolkien was attempting to marry paganism and Christianity in the sense of a syncretism. I think he even said somewhere that he was concerned at some point that his work could be co-opted to support a move in a paganistic direction and saw that as dangerous, echoing the aforementioned letter. Particularly with regard to the neo-Paganism that had begun bubbling up effervescently in the 50s and 60s a la Wicca or Marion Zimmer Bradley. I actually view Tolkien's work to some degree as preempting and deflating much of the efficacy of the new pure Paganism. Sort of heading it off at the pass and neutralizing a great deal of its appeal. I don't mean that paganism strictly speaking or interest in it was "new", just the "formal" versions that were emerging by the later half of the 20th century.

As for Tolkien's Christianity, I don't think it is disputed among his biographers that he was unambiguously orthodox (as in not heterodox) and traditionalist Roman Catholic in his Christian beliefs. Lewis and of course especially Charles Williams were far more heterodox in their Christianity than Tolkien.

There are some finer points I need to hone on the value that Tolkien saw in certain pagan elements before I could comment on it more authoritatively. But I see no reason to believe at this point that Lewis and Tolkien's thinking in this regard did not intersect to a significant degree. Although there are obviously significant points where their thinking did not intersect.

 

[Tycho]

Regarding nihilism aspect, morality is man-made and evolves over time.

I'm more interested in this part. So do you think morality is a contract where we agree to abide by certain rules out of necessity?

If you could get away with it, would you rape/murder someone to gain something for yourself in society?

 

[deltapapha]

While Tolkien's stories were certainly an attempt to reconcile his Christian faith with his pagan inspiration, I would say that it is too strong to say that they were specifically "Christian" myths (a view that to me, to an extent, seems to be motivated by the desire for Christians to "own" his works). It appears that he was consciously more motivated by the prospect of creating an "Anglo-Saxon" or "English" myth, in the absence of one that appealed to him.

Lewis, on the other hand, was more heavy-handed in using Christian allegories in his work, which Tolkien was critical of.

https://www.thoughtco.com/c-s-lewis-and-j-r-r-tolkien-christian-theology-249783

From a 1951 letter:

“I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its ‘faerie’ is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story-the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our ‘air’ (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and, while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be ‘high’, purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry. I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.”

yeah Tolkien was a more sophisticated and sublime in his symbolism, even if perhaps his raw prose skills were not as good as Lewis's. But Tolkien doesn't leave very much to mere suggestiveness with sentences like: "There is evil afoot in Isengard. The West is no longer safe." In an age of tawdry mottos, my own personal soul-rousing refrain is that very straightforward admonition. And there are many more not so subliminal such sentences elsewhere in Tolkien's work.

I have read all of Tolkien's letters through at least once and that one from 1951 is pretty fantastic.

By the way (and this is for you too @Fawlty), I happen to think that that Bradley J Birzer is a bit of a blowhard lacking a certain scholarly clinicality and not the most reliable source for Tolkien scholarship. But he does hit on some valuable insights at times and he very much share's Tolkien's outlook regarding Isengard.

So Amazon is making a Lord of the Rings TV series. Sounds exciting, I just hope they can find a Frodo that doesn't look like a 12 year old androgynous boy. I liked Elijah Wood in some other work but his Frodo was one right creepy looking wee folk.

Frodo should look more on the order of something like this (but just a hint more youthful although not much. Frodo was NOT a ficking boy):

NOT Mr rape-face:

Elijah f-ing Wood pretty much ruined one-third of The Lord of the Rings film for me.

As for the Hobbit films. About 20% was really well-done and worthy of the subject. The other 80% was utter shit. They dug Tolkien up out of his plot in Wolvercote, defiled his bones and buried him again.

 

[Alphafail]

"I'm an Atheist/Nihilist, give me attention."

 

[deltapapha]

I was a fan of Tolkien's work when I was younger, of course. It is, in many ways a modern reconstruction of pagan myths. There are stories he wrote which are essentially translated versions of Finno-Ugric myths, fit within Tolkien's own framework.

Reading Kalevala is not an easy task because "old Finnish" was essentially a poem language, which is hard to translate without losing context, and is difficult enough for even a modern-day Finn to properly understand. It is not really a work that one can truly appreciate at an early age, or in many cases, any age. On the other hand, Tolkien's works are more accessible to a person of any age, and contain many of the same elements. One can gain a rough understanding of pagan European "hero ideals" and morality from reading his work. I could cite many examples but that would probably be considered a hi-jacking of this thread.

In reality the Christianity of centuries ago, in these lands, wasn't merely the moral tell-tale about the adventures of a Middle Eastern man that it now is, but rather a large framework consisting of morals and standards and institutions that everyone operated under, which fused together Germanic, Roman and Semitic tradition, in a way which allowed this "pagan virility" to discipline itself, under the societal structure of southern civilizations.

Even those who look to paganism with rose-tinted glasses, ought to understand that the conversion to Christianity was a necessary phenomenon. I don't exactly consider myself an expert of Nietzsche's work (although I have a general understanding of his ideas), but it is my understanding that he also acknowledged the "disciplinary" effect of Christianity, on the "pagan" European.

Curiously, the final story of Kalevala describes the departure of Väinämöinen (the pagan hero), at the behest of "fatherless boy" (Christianity), with a promise of his return.

Many Finnish poems are incredibly epic from the perspective of extreme individualism/self-empowerment/anti-collectivism (to whomever those ideals may appeal), and it is a shame that it is near impossible to translate them in any meaningful way whatsoever.

great post! I just read it again.

Post-modern emasculated Christianity simply does not know what to do with these words ascribed to Jesus in the book of Revelation in the first century A.D.:

"To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’--just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give that one the morning star. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

But if you look at the history of Christianity all the way to the mid 20th century when the nuclear age began (which in a way is kind of the real end of the iron-age as a ruling principle), Christianity conquered the whole world (in a manner of speaking).

As a preterist and postmillennialist (eschatologically) it is very difficult for me not to view Revelation 2:26-27 as having been fulfilled. The question is what will become of the world and Christianity in the new eon kicked off with a bang in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[Mark Cutting]

It's not. Life is what you make it. You don't remember what it was like before you were born, you won't either after you die.

Look at these beautiful words from Carl Sagan's wife after he passed away:

“When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/50...sband-10538-died-because-he-was-so-famous-and

That made me tear up. Asshole.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

I'm friendly and will not bite. There are two types of Atheism:

Implicit (unknowledgeable about thology, like a child who is a default atheist).

and

Explicit. I am the explicit type (knowingly reject stories about mythology/theology). I reject it due to logic and critical thinking.

Quick point about agnosticism: we are all agnostic. Meaning we don't know and cannot know whether god exists. But we can be theistic agnostics (believe deities exists) or atheistic agnostics (believe here are no deities).

Regarding nihilism aspect, morality is man-made and evolves over time.

I'm happy to discuss and will site references. Most of what I posted here is from a great book I read a while ago that turned me into an Atheist called: Atheism a Case Against God by George H. Smith. I read many years ago. I went through all the steps: denial, anger, acceptance and now full critical thinking and happiness that life can have value without cultural fairytales.

No fair, you said was a Satanist the other day.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

...........

 

[CauseImbetta]

If morality is man made, then isn' the individual free to create his own morality?

Yes. But you have to balance personal morality with social cohesion.

We all though slavery and stoning for adultery was ok, as there were written down by an unknown author in the bible. Now, as time passes and we progress, this morality evolved and is no longer moral.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I'm friendly and will not bite. There are two types of Atheism:

Implicit (unknowledgeable about thology, like a child who is a default atheist).

and

Explicit. I am the explicit type (knowingly reject stories about mythology/theology). I reject it due to logic and critical thinking.

Quick point about agnosticism: we are all agnostic. Meaning we don't know and cannot know whether god exists. But we can be theistic agnostics (believe deities exists) or atheistic agnostics (believe here are no deities).

Regarding nihilism aspect, morality is man-made and evolves over time.

I'm happy to discuss and will site references. Most of what I posted here is from a great book I read a while ago that turned me into an Atheist called: Atheism a Case Against God by George H. Smith. I read many years ago. I went through all the steps: denial, anger, acceptance and now full critical thinking and happiness that life can have value without cultural fairytales.

Atheist/Nihlist?

Doesn't that just mean that you're a depressed atheist? My question would be why you so sad hommie?

 

[superpunch]

Why do you believe there is no god when you can't prove that there is no god?

Wouldn't it then make sense to be an agnostic?

You're just as dumb as the theists because you have faith-based beliefs.