Sure: the undeniable conclusion of atheism is that in the end, nothing matters. No matter what happens in this life, it will all become pointless eventually. All memories, all experiences, all knowledge will be erased, for everyone. The approach of the atheist is to be stoic in the face of this hard truth- to act as if life matters, to act as if concepts like truth and love and nobility have meaning. But if the atheist is to be truly consistent in logic, he or she must realize that "life purpose" is a personal construct and nothing more, a self created illusion designed to create fulfillment in life. So I should probably have qualified my statement to say that a consistent atheist is ultimately a nihilist, because he or she must recognize that ultimately all pain and pleasure and purpose have no meaning. This is not to say that the consistent atheist will adopt said philosophy in their approach to real life- only that they must acknowledge its existence underneath the bed. The ironic thing is, it completely cancels out the intellectually superior kick, because the truly consistent atheist recognizes that he / she is intentionally self deluded in pursuit of life's ideals, and that there is thus little point in criticizing others for being self deluded in different ways. There is a delicious irony in believing that nothing ultimately matters because, when taken to the final conclusion, the belief system is forced to collapse in on itself.
I recommend those names I previously listed. I'd recommend that you begin with a brief overview of what pomo is and the history of it. A summary of some sort. After the summary, if you're still interested, here's the order I recommend. Foucault Derrida Barthes Deleuze Baudrillard
Yeah, it's kind of complicated. I don't blame you for not being able to make heads or tails of it from a distance. I had to really dig in to make sense of it too. Funny how that applies to a lot of things though.
I agree with the last 80% of your above paragraph, but what you said that I questioned was this: >The broader lesson here is that it makes no more sense >to say Christianity intrinsically supports mass murder than >it does to say communism supports mass murder or that >democracy supports mass murder And my question still stands unanswered. The 'road map' to christianity DOES instrinsically support mass murder (yeah, even more so in the new testament). To support your above comparison you need to find the instruction manual to the democratic philosophy that intrinsically supports mass murder. Waiting. JB
Undeniable conclusion?? Based on WHAT? This is nothing more than a mere empty assertion on your part. I asked you earlier, and you failed to reply: Do you believe that something cant hold value simply because it ceases to exist in the future? Do you really think NOTHING MATTERS simple because there is an END? Not making any sense here. By your logic, its OK to kill your souless pets NOW, because they will die in the end anyway, and they will simply be gone, so IT DOESNT MATTER. As an atheist, its ok for me to murder anyone, because it doesnt MATTER, since its all coming to an end anyway. Could you get any more absurd dark??? peace axeman
LOL.... that was NOT an explanation...it was a cop out. From a distance? Your talking to an ex-theist. Oh I know.... it doesnt make sense because I never "figured it out", only dark did. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight Dude.... I could ask 100 religious leaders and wouldn't get anywhere close to a consensus. Stop grandstanding. Fact is.... the bible gives us a bloody example to follow, period. peace axeman
What's your definition of Christianity? I would define it as following Christ and following the teachings of Christ. And Christ supports and teaches mass murder how exactly? Re the democratic instruction book, since we're talking ancient times lets look at ancient Rome. When Roman citizens supported the empire's military efforts to overtake a neighboring nation and wipe out all who would oppose them in the name of conquest and tribute, what would you call that other than democratic justification of mass murder for a desirable end? And in modern times, when Japan did the same thing to China with the support of Japanese citizens, what would you call that? Same thing, no? If China eventually decides to decimate Taiwan and force them to acquiesce via bloodshed, will there be any difference there? How about Slobodan Milosevic, who had the full support of his people? Again, my point is not that it's in the "democratic instruction manual." It's in the people, and brutality can express itself democratically just as easily as it can through religion.
You're absolutely right axe, it is absurd- and that's exactly why atheism is absurd. If we're all going to oblivion, and what happens here and now will be wiped out from existence, then yes, there is no rhyme or reason to what you do or who you do it to. Like Gekko says, you and Mother Theresa and Hitler are all going to the same place, and once you get there and everyone you ever came into contact with gets there, what happened while you existed won't have any meaning, for anyone, period. So yes, I think maybe you're starting to see the ramifications of what you believe for the first time. If there is no ultimate purpose, then the only short term purpose is self fulfillment, and all ends justify all means. Everything else is bullshit. I'd love to hear how you can justify thinking anything actually matters if we are all going to cease existing and have all memories obliterated. Again, this is the end result of YOUR belief, not mine. I'm just trying to take you down the path a little further. Gotta fly but I'll respond tomorrow.