Moral Nihilism and what it truly means.

[modernnihilst]

I suggest you need to use the proper definitions that pertain to such a discussion.

the complete definition:
ab·so·lute

   /ˈæb

səˌlut, ˌæb

səˈlut/ Show Spelled[ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot] Show IPA
adjective 1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.

2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.

3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.

4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

all definitions void the absoluteness of morality because morals are subjective, flawed, and exceptions exist for them.

 

[Free]

the complete definition:
ab·so·lute

   /ˈæb

səˌlut, ˌæb

səˈlut/ Show Spelled[ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot] Show IPA
adjective 1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.

2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.

3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.

4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.

all definitions void the absoluteness of morality because morals are subjective, flawed, and exceptions exist for them.

Again, you need to use the definitions relevant to the discussion at hand or all discussion becomes meaningless. The generally accepted philosophical definition of "absolute" when speaking of morality, in the sense of "absolute morality," is that moral principles are true for all people, in all places, and at all times.

 

[modernnihilst]

Again, you need to use the definitions relevant to the discussion at hand or all discussion becomes meaningless. The generally accepted philosophical definition of "absolute" when speaking of morality, in the sense of "absolute morality," is that moral principles are true for all people, in all places, and at all times.

and again that definition voids the absoluteness of morality because of exceptions.:o

 

[Free]

and again that definition voids the absoluteness of morality because of exceptions.:o

No, actually, not at all. I don't have the time right now to get it into, but will try later tonight.

 

[modernnihilst]

No, actually, not at all. I don't have the time right now to get it into, but will try later tonight.

in the sense of "absolute morality," is that moral principles are true for all people, in all places, and at all times.

in terms of absolute morality, as given from your own definition, ALL people in ALL places at (and this is the big one) AT ALL TIMES. If an exception exists it fails to meet the ALL people places and times of that definition. Therefore morality can not be an absolute.

 

[Mike]

MN, the premise of your line of reasoning is inherently flawed. (Do you believe something can be inherently flawed? )

Absolute Morality is not saying that ALL things are absolute or given to us by God. It is saying that certain things are always true regardless of time and place. You say there are no absolute moralities because there are exceptions. There might be exceptions in a scope that encompasses a wide range of issues, but there are matters within that scope that are always wrong. Those are the moralities that have been impressed on humanity by God.

Take murder for example. I believe you agreed that slaughtering a 10 year old child who means no harm is wrong. Then you said that killing a child who straps a belt of bombs around his waist and means to take out a group of people is justifiable. There will be people who disagree and those who agree with the second scenario, but I believe across time and place, you will not find societies who disagree with the first. It is an absolute morality, even if the second scenario isn't. The second doesn't negate the first. And before you mention the Nazis again, I'll say again that this was a product of extreme propaganda forced upon some people of Nazi Germany.

My example is probably flawed, but I hope you get the point.

 

[modernnihilst]

MN, the premise of your line of reasoning is inherently flawed. (Do you believe something can be inherently flawed? )

Absolute Morality is not saying that ALL things are absolute or given to us by God. It is saying that certain things are always true regardless of time and place. You say there are no absolute moralities because there are exceptions. There might be exceptions in a scope that encompasses a wide range of issues, but there are matters within that scope that are always wrong. Those are the moralities that have been impressed on humanity by God.

Take murder for example. I believe you agreed that slaughtering a 10 year old child who means no harm is wrong. Then you said that killing a child who straps a belt of bombs around his waist and means to take out a group of people is justifiable. There will be people who disagree and those who agree with the second scenario, but I believe across time and place, you will not find societies who disagree with the first. It is an absolute morality, even if the second scenario isn't. The second doesn't negate the first. And before you mention the Nazis again, I'll say again that this was a product of extreme propaganda forced upon some people of Nazi Germany.

My example is probably flawed, but I hope you get the point.

to answer the first question as to anything being inherently flawed, yup man is inherently flawed.

to continue with the topic of murder(not child killing just in general) that is the point I wish to speak on. First murder is neither INHERENTLY right nor is it INHERENTLY wrong. This is something i think most people if they truly though about it or were placed in a TRUE life or death situation could agree with. The thing about morals is they apply to 100% of the time. There in lies the issue with morality. As to child killing lets see if I can phrase this correctly to end the argument. Child killing is still killing and covered by the same rules. As to right and wrong those are human inventions and based off perception. Take this statement for example: It is wrong to punch someone in the face. To you this may be a sensiable statement and be correct. However to a masochist this may not be the case. They may want it redefined to state that it is wrong to punch people in the face who do not like it. I used to fight professionally I personaly dont mind punching people or for that matter getting punched, however not something i want all the time. I would rewrite the statement as: You probably shouldnt punch random people in the face unless they deserve it(and I know I cant be the only person who has wanted to smack around that little snot at starbucks with the beret who takes 30 mins to order some coffee, with the half caf 3/4 cream bla bla bla. GET OUT OF MY WAY I WANT REGULAR COFFEE NOW!!! sorry what was i saying oh yea). One statement 3 views of correctness.

 

[Free]

First murder is neither INHERENTLY right nor is it INHERENTLY wrong. This is something i think most people if they truly though about it or were placed in a TRUE life or death situation could agree with.

On the contrary, murder is inherently wrong, whether one agrees or not, and I believe that the vast majority of people would agree, regardless of how much time was spent thinking about it. The only people who truly think murder is neither right nor wrong, those who have no conscience whatsoever, are sociopaths. If one cannot immediately feel some sense of wrongness about murder, pedophilia, cannibalism, slavery, genocide, etc., then that is an indicator that something is seriously off-balance.

 

[modernnihilst]

On the contrary, murder is inherently wrong, whether one agrees or not, and I believe that the vast majority of people would agree, regardless of how much time was spent thinking about it. The only people who truly think murder is neither right nor wrong, those who have no conscience whatsoever, are sociopaths. If one cannot immediately feel some sense of wrongness about murder, pedophilia, cannibalism, slavery, genocide, etc., then that is an indicator that something is seriously off-balance.

Murder in self defence is still murder. One could go assinine and state that eating meat is the murder of another living being. Canniblaism has been practiced by tribes since pre history, as well as in cases of extreme survival needs. Slavery.... this country(U.S.A.) has a long history of slavery. Genocide yup U.S.A. did that too(indians whole tribes wiped out). One can not apply modern sensiabilities to historical facts however as morality has changed with modern times. Pedophillia one could argue historically where 12 and 13 year old girls were married off to someone more than 2x thier age qualifies a practice still practiced in some parts of the world. Are these wrong? According to the times and locations no, today people like to think so.

 

[modernnihilst]

I have been putting thought into the questions posed by both sides(me and those kind enough to contribute to the conversation) and I believe I can sum up the Nihilistic point of view in such a fashion that its points could not be argued(one can hope). Imagine if you will a person who is a moral person. On a daily basis they live thier life by the Bible and its morals. One day while flying to Italy for a buisness trip the plane crashes in the mountains. He survives as well as one adult and 2 kids(it was a small plane). The other survivor as luck would have it is a survivalist. The survivalist realizes that the children(both of whom are hurt) would be detremental to the adults continued survival and wants to leave them behind. The moral person being moral disagree's the survivalist knowing that without eachother both adults will most likely die and consents to taking the kids. Several days pass and the kids condition worsens and the survivalist is unable to help them. Thier progress down the mountains is slowed due to the kids and thier meger supplys have run out. They are still several days from the base of the mountain and from thier mabye another day from the closest village. The survivalist again states that the children are slowing them down and because of having to feed them as well thier supplys are gone. The moral man finally admits defeat and agrees to leave the children. One week later they make it to the village. Both are near starvation and require several weeks in the hospital to recover from thier ordeal,the children they learn have died.

The point? Nihilism states that morals MAY work under normal circumstances, however to say that they always apply is foolishness. Under extreme duress many people would do exactly the oppisite of those morals if given no other choice except death. This is why I say morals are not absolute, I believe in certain things(yes Nihilists can believe), I also accept that under the proper conditions I may be forced to abandon those beliefs in order to continue my survival.

Again the point? That under the proper circumstances MOST people will abandon thier morals if it means thier continued survival. Therefore morals can not called absolute. Why? Because if you HONESTLY look at your morals there are some that given the right duress you would vacate to survive. Does that make them less valid? Nope. Just not absolute or inherent. Why? Bcause those words exclude an exception. Because something is not inherently wrong does not make it inherently right. In most cases most people would agree that what the two adults did is not the best idea. However under the circumstances most people would not hold what they did against the adults.

IF, and thats a big one, you were to find yourself in a situation where MOST people would have abandonded thier morals and do not do so. One could then say that FOR THEM that moral(the one tested in the situation) is an absolute. But to say so for the rest of the people in the world is silly.

In regards to right and wrong. Nihilists refrain from judgement. Right and wrong are human creations. Man is as previously stated is inherently flawed. Right and wrong change as socities change. For example: about 200 years ago in the U.S. it was acceptable and right for a landowner to own slaves. Today this is not only a crime, but wrong by todays standards. The point? What is "right" today may not be tomorrow. A Nihilist may not agree with a persons words or actions but refrains from judgement of right or wrong. Instead they may say something like "I disagree with your position" or "I do not support those actions". Just because we dont see things as right or wrong does not mean we automatically support them.

 

[Mike]

MN, I really hate to burst your bubble, but...

That's a common hypothetical ethical scenario. Most of the time, I've heard it played out as an island that's running out of food and resources. So much for "women & children first"!

So, I'm afraid you haven't closed the case yet. Nice try though.

When you plop people into a situation where their lives are in peril, hypothetical or real, you're going to have some that do things that go against a truth that they know to be good deep down inside. That doesn't make their decision noble or even lukewarm. The fact that they (in your scenario) struggled as long as they could, put their lives in increasing danger, and held out this option until they felt there was no other choice, says right there that they new it was the wrong thing to do. In their minds, they reasoned that the benefits outweighed the losses, so they did what they felt they had to do. It was kinda the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.

You would be hard-pressed to find a culture that would cheer on the surviving adults as they lasted out the journey and left the children behind. In literature, this is called a tragedy (why is that?)We wince, because it is highly unfavorable (why is that?). Because something in our heart is telling us this was not good. There is your Absolute Truth.

 

[modernnihilst]

MN, I really hate to burst your bubble, but...

That's a common hypothetical ethical scenario. Most of the time, I've heard it played out as an island that's running out of food and resources. So much for "women & children first"!

So, I'm afraid you haven't closed the case yet. Nice try though.

When you plop people into a situation where their lives are in peril, hypothetical or real, you're going to have some that do things that go against a truth that they know to be good deep down inside. That doesn't make their decision noble or even lukewarm. The fact that they (in your scenario) struggled as long as they could, put their lives in increasing danger, and held out this option until they felt there was no other choice, says right there that they new it was the wrong thing to do. In their minds, they reasoned that the benefits outweighed the losses, so they did what they felt they had to do. It was kinda the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.

You would be hard-pressed to find a culture that would cheer on the surviving adults as they lasted out the journey and left the children behind. In literature, this is called a tragedy (why is that?)We wince, because it is highly unfavorable (why is that?). Because something in our heart is telling us this was not good. There is your Absolute Truth.

One could also say that it is survival of the fittest. But the subject was not the correctness of thier actions, more of an example to show that MOST(thats the key word) people given the proper circumstances will abandon thier morals when confronted with a true life or death situation. Would any civilation "cheer on the surviving adults" as you put it. Most likely not. Would some people in most socities "understand but not approve" there could be an argument on that point. The issue I take with an absolute morality is by definition is it applys to all people all the time in all places/circumstances. If you were to say to me that for you morals were absolute(and only in refering to yourself) I could not argue that point, because my brain works properly. BUT to state that morals are absolutly absolute is incorrect.

 

[Mike]

One could also say that it is survival of the fittest. But the subject was not the correctness of thier actions, more of an example to show that MOST(thats the key word) people given the proper circumstances will abandon thier morals when confronted with a true life or death situation. Would any civilation "cheer on the surviving adults" as you put it. Most likely not. Would some people in most socities "understand but not approve" there could be an argument on that point. The issue I take with an absolute morality is by definition is it applys to all people all the time in all places/circumstances. If you were to say to me that for you morals were absolute(and only in refering to yourself) I could not argue that point, because my brain works properly. BUT to state that morals are absolutly absolute is incorrect.

MN, it seems you keep making the same flaw, but I love you, man! Survival of the fittest would be if they all fought against each other, until one came out the winner. Now, keep this in mind, throughout the post. "abandon their morals" When you say they are an exception because they abandon their morals under such extraordinary circumstances, I want you to think about what you said. "their morals"!!! That's key!

People make mistakes all the time. I get frustrated and blurt out a word now and then that I wish I didn't. It rarely happens, but it does. What is still key here, even if you want to make it a minor side plot, is the reluctance to leave the children behind. It doesn't matter what they did, because people fail to do what they should do every day! That doesn't have anything to do with "morals". What does have to do with morals is their impressed feeling that this is only something to do as a last-ditch effort for some to survive. They held out as long as they could. They struggled with the decision. If it were not morally wrong for them, why would this be so difficult to do? The earlier they ditched them, the greater chance of making it to safety. The longer they postponed ditching them, the less likely they would make it to safety.

So they held out until all reluctantly agreed that they had to do it.

Absolute Morals are not exceptions people will make. Their actions aren't the moral issue. It is the acknowledgment that something is amiss with this decision. Their circumstances were bad and getting worse, but they still struggled over it, because they wanted to avoid doing it. THEY WANTED TO AVOID DOING SOMETHING THAT FEELS WRONG. <--- There is your Absolute Moral again!!

I hope you understand what I'm saying, because you aren't focusing on the thing you should be focusing on when deeming whether an Absolute Morality was in play.

 

[modernnihilst]

MN, it seems you keep making the same flaw, but I love you, man! Survival of the fittest would be if they all fought against each other, until one came out the winner. Now, keep this in mind, throughout the post. "abandon their morals" When you say they are an exception because they abandon their morals under such extraordinary circumstances, I want you to think about what you said. "their morals"!!! That's key!

People make mistakes all the time. I get frustrated and blurt out a word now and then that I wish I didn't. It rarely happens, but it does. What is still key here, even if you want to make it a minor side plot, is the reluctance to leave the children behind. It doesn't matter what they did, because people fail to do what they should do every day! That doesn't have anything to do with "morals". What does have to do with morals is their impressed feeling that this is only something to do as a last-ditch effort for some to survive. They held out as long as they could. They struggled with the decision. If it were not morally wrong for them, why would this be so difficult to do? The earlier they ditched them, the greater chance of making it to safety. The longer they postponed ditching them, the less likely they would make it to safety.

So they held out until all reluctantly agreed that they had to do it.

Absolute Morals are not exceptions people will make. Their actions aren't the moral issue. It is the acknowledgment that something is amiss with this decision. Their circumstances were bad and getting worse, but they still struggled over it, because they wanted to avoid doing it. THEY WANTED TO AVOID DOING SOMETHING THAT FEELS WRONG. <--- There is your Absolute Moral again!!

I hope you understand what I'm saying, because you aren't focusing on the thing you should be focusing on when deeming whether an Absolute Morality was in play.

The only "they" in that story was the moral person. The survivalist suggested leaving the kids in the first place. There are two points I was trying to make 1. The word choice that people use when describing "thier morals" is incorrect. Absolute and Inherent, are almost interchangeable with the word Always(in this case) If an exception can be found something can not be said to always happen. Can it? 2. When Man is involved it is virtually impossiable for something to be an absolute. Because humans are inherently imperfect.

In regards to your "Absolute Moral" I have questions to the validity of that statement as a "moral". Would i label it as common sence, the answer is yup. Moral.... meh not so much. It is kinda like the old joke: Guy walks into his doctors office and says "Doc it hurts when I do this" the doctor replys "Then dont do that". Silly, yes. Moral, no.

But again I state when someone refers to THIER MORALS(key word there is thier). Not even a nihilist can argue that point because they are refering to ONLY themselves. When people apply morals to society is where morals can not be said to be absolute. To quote Tommy Lee Jones in the movie Men in Black "A person is smart, People are dumb, panicy, dangerous animals." This can be used to explain morality thusly: An individual may(or may not) have morals. But to state that All people in All places at All times live by THE SAME MORALS is functionally incorrect. We(humanity) may all have our own personal morals, but to say that they are the same or for the same reasons is delusional. Morals are based off either beliefs or personal experience, and no two people share the exact same of either.

ps. I dont know why but this one amuses me for some reason I need to find a thread I can use this in sometime.

 

[Mike]

So you're getting your world view from "Men in Black"?

Remember, your story is hypothetical. Can you say certain cultures would have NO PROBLEM with someone immediately abandoning the children the moment they became a minor inconvenience? I'd disagree with that.

Then you seem to change your take and say this isn't a moral, but "common sense". That's your world view speaking again. What about how cultures throughout world history would (as adults) jump into a rushing river to save an unrelated child. Certainly, not every person would do that, but cultures support that decision. Putting one's life at risk to save another unrelated person... from a secular world view, not much common sense in that. I submit that we are Given this selfless instinct.

 

[modernnihilst]

So you're getting your world view from "Men in Black"?

Remember, your story is hypothetical. Can you say certain cultures would have NO PROBLEM with someone immediately abandoning the children the moment they became a minor inconvenience? I'd disagree with that.

Then you seem to change your take and say this isn't a moral, but "common sense". That's your world view speaking again. What about how cultures throughout world history would (as adults) jump into a rushing river to save an unrelated child. Certainly, not every person would do that, but cultures support that decision. Putting one's life at risk to save another unrelated person... from a secular world view, not much common sense in that. I submit that we are Given this selfless instinct.

Ah but you are under the assumption that i believe cultures, and by extension society to be correct in thier judgements of right and wrong. Regarding my hypothetical situation, that story could also be seen as an analogy between the 2 different ways we view the world(we being you and I of course). Where as I could describe my self as the "survivalist" logical, cold in this situation, but eventually correct. I would feel safe thinking of you as the "moral man" trusting in your heart to do what you see as the "right or moral" thing. In this instance the moral man failed in thier attempt to save the children as well. Did this situation state at any time right or wrong? Nope. Why? Because for a moral person it was a no win situation. For the survivalist it was not a question for them(nor would it be for me) survive by any means needed.

I submit that for me(and me only) morals arent absolute. However I also submit that for you Mr. Moral Man that morals are absolute( I wont even bother with the situations since I dont truly know how you would respond). I am willing to walk to the middle, are you?

P.S. I really need to not try to make points after work I say the silliest things. Men in Black?!?!?! REALLY WHAT WAS I THINKING

 

[Mike]

MN, I'm sorry, but you're completely twisting this around! First of all, I didn't assume that you believe cultures are right in the way they feel. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you (or I) think about what humanity agrees on. What matters, as it pertains to Absolute Morality, is that humanity as a whole, believes one way about something. First you said there was no AM, because there are always exceptions. Exceptions, person by person, doesn't impact AM. Then, you said what you said here. And that doesn't matter either.

Your hypothetical scenario is make believe, so there's no way to say who was right. Perhaps they all would have made it to their goal. We have no way of knowing if the "logical" survivalist was right, because it never happened. It's unsettling to me that you would agree with the notion of letting the children die early on, before they presumably posed a great threat to the survival of them all. Very unsettling, indeed, that you would be so quick to leave children to die. But, that's another matter.

I don't expect to convince you that in fact God is the Moral Authority, but you should at least give up this dead-end stance you have that there are not morals which are shared by humanity as a whole. You basically admitted as much in this last post when you said in effect, "Okay, maybe they would agree, but I don't think they're right.".

I loved the Men in Black movies, BTW! :yes

 

[modernnihilst]

MN, I'm sorry, but you're completely twisting this around! First of all, I didn't assume that you believe cultures are right in the way they feel. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you (or I) think about what humanity agrees on. What matters, as it pertains to Absolute Morality, is that humanity as a whole, believes one way about something. First you said there was no AM, because there are always exceptions. Exceptions, person by person, doesn't impact AM. Then, you said what you said here. And that doesn't matter either.

Your hypothetical scenario is make believe, so there's no way to say who was right. Perhaps they all would have made it to their goal. We have no way of knowing if the "logical" survivalist was right, because it never happened. It's unsettling to me that you would agree with the notion of letting the children die early on, before they presumably posed a great threat to the survival of them all. Very unsettling, indeed, that you would be so quick to leave children to die. But, that's another matter.

I don't expect to convince you that in fact God is the Moral Authority, but you should at least give up this dead-end stance you have that there are not morals which are shared by humanity as a whole. You basically admitted as much in this last post when you said in effect, "Okay, maybe they would agree, but I don't think they're right.".

I loved the Men in Black movies, BTW! :yes

The issue with saying that "humanity as a whole" shares certain morals is that there exceptions they mabye small in numbers where the rest of socitey thinks thier sniffing crack or something, take nambla for instance... preferably to a deep pit and bury them, wait what was i saying...OH YEA, they dont see anything wrong with pedophillia, does this make them right? Uh no. They are (arguably) part of humanity. One could argue that there goes the "humanity as a whole" argument(in fact I think thats what I've been doing). The truth of the matter lies here that for each moral you(or anyone) brings up there is going to be a group that disagrees with it. Now the question becomes who's wrong? Is it society or the dissenters? Me honestly I dont care either way. Hence Nihilist .

However I do have a question for ya. Aside from our differences in beliefs do you believe me to be a bad person? If not then a second question. What does it honestly matter what I believe?

P.S. Mike you are an intresting guy and I dont care what religion you follow I would argue with you anyday

 

[Mike]

The issue with saying that "humanity as a whole" shares certain morals is that there exceptions they mabye small in numbers where the rest of socitey thinks thier sniffing crack or something, take nambla for instance... preferably to a deep pit and bury them, wait what was i saying...OH YEA, they dont see anything wrong with pedophillia, does this make them right? Uh no. They are (arguably) part of humanity. One could argue that there goes the "humanity as a whole" argument(in fact I think thats what I've been doing). The truth of the matter lies here that for each moral you(or anyone) brings up there is going to be a group that disagrees with it. Now the question becomes who's wrong? Is it society or the dissenters? Me honestly I dont care either way. Hence Nihilist .

MN, you're going to make me hurt myself!

It doesn't matter if individuals throughout the world descent from a moral shared by all societies! It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter! Whether they are insane or quite normal, it just doesn't matter! When I say "humanity as a whole", I mean societies and cultures throughout the world in general. There will always be exceptions; individuals who disagree with them, but the fact that they are intrinsically agreed upon, regardless of place and time by virtually every culture, shows there is the such a thing as Absolute Morality.

However I do have a question for ya. Aside from our differences in beliefs do you believe me to be a bad person? If not then a second question. What does it honestly matter what I believe?

No, I don't believe you are a bad person at all in secular terms. From a Created POV, we're both sinful; both in need of a Savior. Why does it matter what you think? Because I see such a decent person in you, I just hate to think that you believe your existence is as meaningless as you apparently do. And since you identify yourself so much as a nihilist, I pray that your willingness to consider such a thing as Absolute Truth will lead to Greater Truths. It might just be your gateway to faith. I certainly don't have any confidence that my arguments will bring you to faith, although that would be great. Right here, I'd just love to take the small step toward Absolute Morality.

P.S. Mike you are an intresting guy and I dont care what religion you follow I would argue with you anyday

You're first rate, and I enjoy our debates, even though they make me hit my head against the wall! Stop making me hit my head against the wall!

 

[modernnihilst]

MN, you're going to make me hurt myself!

It doesn't matter if individuals throughout the world descent from a moral shared by all societies! It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter! Whether they are insane or quite normal, it just doesn't matter! When I say "humanity as a whole", I mean societies and cultures throughout the world in general. There will always be exceptions; individuals who disagree with them, but the fact that they are intrinsically agreed upon, regardless of place and time by virtually every culture, shows there is the such a thing as Absolute Morality.



No, I don't believe you are a bad person at all in secular terms. From a Created POV, we're both sinful; both in need of a Savior. Why does it matter what you think? Because I see such a decent person in you, I just hate to think that you believe your existence is as meaningless as you apparently do. And since you identify yourself so much as a nihilist, I pray that your willingness to consider such a thing as Absolute Truth will lead to Greater Truths. It might just be your gateway to faith. I certainly don't have any confidence that my arguments will bring you to faith, although that would be great. Right here, I'd just love to take the small step toward Absolute Morality.



You're first rate, and I enjoy our debates, even though they make me hit my head against the wall! Stop making me hit my head against the wall!

ok how bout you change absolute for most I can agree with most I'm just literal with words like absolute and inherently. To say most people are against murder..... let me think..... nope cant argue with that(still dont care either way just cant argue with it) ? I thought we were more like:fight



btw I view Nihilism as a way to search for truth without being encumbered by morals(THE REASON I R ONE).