Almost nothing is true.

We are nihilists, Lebowski. We believe in NAAAZHING!

I dismiss your philosophy as boring.

Existence is meaningless, but it's meaningless that existence is meaningless. Have a nice day! Tomorrow, I come back and cut off your johnson.

If nothing is true, then the statement you said "nothing is true" is in fact true, hence you just created a paradox, and since you can't solve a paradox there is no reason to discuss it, so shut up.

"NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING."
-Flipper

I thought that was "So long and thanks for all the fish".

There's really a lot more to nihilism than the blanket statement, "nothing is true". I'm more of an existential nihilist, so I understand life to have no inherent or objective meaning. However, as we are beings capable of abstract thought, there seems no reason to deny subjective meaning within one's own life. Nihilism is freedom- if the meaning of your life is to find true love, or live a generous and friendly life, or build the biggest toothpick castle in the world, then you can do that thing regardless of what the 'right' meaning is.

In the abstract; whatever makes you happy is the right thing to do, even if it isn't what you 'should' do.

If life has no higher meaning, then the only meaning left is the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest. There is no love or friendship, there is no happiness. There is only the strong seizing what they want. Do you want to live in that world?

If there is no meaning, then there is no ethics. There is nothing "wrong" with anything.

dipplayer, that analysis says far more about the way YOU think than the way nihilists do. You're a sick bastard.

LOL
No, it's the logical conclusion. If there is no higher meaning, but each person has to make their own, how then do you justify punishing the Charles Manson, who says his meaning is murder? How do you punish the guy whose meaning is killing and eating people, like Jeff Dahmer? Yes, there will be plenty of decent people who will choose to make good things out of their lives. But without something higher than self-will, how is there any way to curb those whose self-will is warped?

That is very short sighted dipplayer, and also ignores all of history.

We are all better off working together, as can be seen by the civilization we have put together, regardless of whether there is a higher meaning.

Yes, the logical conclusion is what he said. If nothing is true, then there must be no right or wrong.

As an example, look at what is happening in Africa, yet again. The higher meaning has yet again caused Muslims and Christians to kill one another. That higher meaning also hasn't stopped your survival of the fittest that is the way of life over there.

If I and the people around me work together to create a better living environment, we will all profit. Working together is a selfish act. I make my life better by helping others and if they have brains, they do the same.

@dipplayer: I don't justify punishing murderers. I just do it.

There's your rule by the strong, then, AWB. No thanks. I prefer the Rule of Law.

Alderian, the civilization we have is thanks to people who believed in something higher than their own self-will. Sure, each person pursuing their own selfish ends often leads to a common good--that is the whole basis of a free market society, after all. But who gets to define what is better? Any society has to have principles or ideas around which it is based. American society is based on ideas of liberty, equality, etc. These ideas give our society higher meaning, something that unites us all. But what happens when a portion of society/humanity chooses some other idea for their basis, such as what happened in the US Civil War? There, a huge portion of the nation chose to make racial slavery a centerpiece of their societal principles. Was that wrong? Why? They were all working together? Was Lincoln wrong to fight them? Why?

I contend that Lincoln and the Union chose ideas which were higher and better than those in the South (and I'm a Tennessee man). What makes those ideas higher and better? They are nearer to the true, real ideas, the ideas of God.

@dipplayer: Does law justify punishment? If so, then what justifies law?

Law is based on the idea that there is Order, and Meaning. That there are things that are True, and Good. All laws in early societies were considered to have come from the Gods. Even our secular societies of today have their laws based on certain ideas, of Justice, Equality, Freedom, etc.

So what does it matter if I punish a murderer because "Justice" or punish a murderer because it's practical to make an example out of them?

What happens when a band of murderers gets together and has you killed, as an example to the community that you don't mess with them?

Without a concept of Justice, or of Law & Order, what is there to prevent that?

What is there to prevent that WITH those concepts?

Sure, it can happen. But people will see it as WRONG. As against the natural, right order of things. They will have a reason to fight it. Otherwise, their self-interest might have them just go along with it, or even join it.

What about the people who join the murderous mob on principle, not out of self-interest?

Then we get into the question of which principles are true and right, as I mentioned in my Civil War example above.

No we don't. We kill people who disagree with us so they can't say they're right anymore.

nothing, abyss, darkness forever
end of debate, we all lose

And I don't want to live in that world, AWB. I don't want to live in a world where might makes right. And you shouldn't either.

"Want" has nothing to do with it.

Sure it does. You can choose which version of reality you prefer to believe in. The one where there is goodness, truth, love, and God. Or the one where there is only nature and death, where the strong eat the weak, and life is nasty and brutish.

I believe in a world where the Holocaust happened. I believe in a genocide in East Timor that the New York Times ignored at the behest of the State Department. I believe in the Armenian Genocide. I believe in the Trail of Tears. I believe in the Salem Witch Trials. I believe that a GOP spokesman called for his supporters to throw acid in female Democratic legislators' faces.

I believe that the very country I live in actually had to fight a war to hold itself together because half of it thought slavery was compatible with democracy. I believe THAT sentiment isn't as dead as people think it is.

I believe that God, as you understand him, does not exist. I believe that the name of God is invoked to justify hate and oppression, and that God's "love" is the "love" of an abusive relationship. I believe that God - the mind-virus that actually exists, not the divine creator that doesn't - has called for and received blood sacrifices, and continues to do so. I believe that invoking God's name in such a way is a violation of the original intent of the Third Commandment.

I believe that if I told people to kill, maim, and rape in God's name, they would do it.

I believe that God is antithetical to human empathy, and that human empathy is the only way to create a more just world.

You've judged God, and found Him wanting. That's fine; many others have done the same.

AverageWhiteBoy, if most of your beliefs are permitted and even encouraged by the establishment in the country where you live, you should be worried. On the other hand, if you hold beliefs that shouldn't be said out loud because of peer pressure, you can congratulate yourself.

Or, to be more concrete, believing in a world where the Holocaust happened is worth jack shit.

I like the story related by Plantinga who went to see a solipsist/nihilist colleague who believed that nothing existed outside of one's own mind. Needless to say there wasn't much common ground, although the conversation remained perfectly polite. On his way out Plantinga mentioned to one of the PhD students what a nice chap their professor was. ''Ah yes'' replied the student, ''we all take care of him very well because if he goes then so do the rest of us!''

Lol, that's a good one. But the Red King from Alice was first.

This debate seems to be about wishful thinking rather than what is true or not.

This is a debate?

" I don't want to live in a world where might makes right. And you shouldn't either."

But that is the world we live in.

It is a fallen world, where might appears to prevail, but that doesn't make it right. Because there are transcendental things.

"You can choose which version of reality you prefer to believe in. "

Fantasies aren't real.

You're denying yourself so much of life. How can you deny dragons, fairies, magic, and love?

The real world is inspiring enough.

Because it is full of magic.

"A comfortable falsehood will always win out over an uncomfortable truth." -- Anton Szandor LaVey

Pointles idiotic "debate" by the very nature of the discussion. The topic basically admis the the Nihlists are not nihlists....otherwise thee would be no debate.