In our current society, spirituality has become obsolete to most

In our current society, spirituality has become obsolete to most.

Some people complain that we're becoming more nihilistic, but can anyone blame us?

Everything that we once believed was spiritual or magical has now been explained away by scientists and our observation, the mysticism of the world is gone, the illusion shattered.

All that's left is a cold world made up entirely of atoms and molecules reacting to each other, causing everything that happens to us, and causing everything that we do.

We are nothing more than a collection of lifeless atoms, and nothing we ever do will make us unaware of that fact again, nothing we ever do will make us as blissfully unaware as we were in societies prior.

How do we deal with this? Should we try to evolve past our need for purpose? Should we try to accept that we mean nothing? Should we all kill ourselves?

Perhaps this is dark, but I find it fascinating to think about how society may deteriorate if we continue going down this over-secular path, the path that observes everything until it is no longer worth observing.

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
twitter.com/AnonBabble

why isnt the world beautiful the way it is? what is wrong with the survival of the fittest view on life? how is it not a miracle that we are alive at all? you keep sitting at your computer and disparing that there isn't magic in the world around you, i am going to live my life in a way i find satisfying and fulfilling.

I am not letting this bother me constantly, this is merely a thought I had. Most of the time, I do go about my day, and this thought does not exist.

I am aware that there are many who still go through their lives without issues, and view the world as beautiful the way it is, but the number of people who view the world this way are dwindling, and I believe that the most prominent reason for this is that we are no longer spiritual in the more traditional sense.

Humans desire purpose, it is natural, and without purpose, without spirituality, most of us will become apathetic, and uncaring.

it's a harsh truth indeed

Find a different outlet for spirituality; I personally like hiking and camping- being surrounded by nature and all that. Embrace the nihilism, learn to accept it and move on with your life. Death is inevitable; and personally i would prefer no heaven or hell after it.

>baby's first day without religion: the post

The fact that there probably isn't an "objective purpose" shouldn't bother you at all. It means you're free to create your own meaning for your own life.

This is the kind of nonsense religious nuts like to try throwing at atheists. "Wahhh! Your worldview makes your life meaningless! You have no purpose given to you!" As if that's a fucking bad thing.

If we were in such a situation in any other area of life, people would be upset. If your college major was chosen for you by someone else; if your career was chosen for you by someone else; if your significant other was chosen for you by someone else, you'd be upset; and yet when faced with the prospect that THE PURPOSE OF YOUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE isn't predetermined for you, people want to be upset about it...

Your life is your own, pussy. Its meaning comes from you, and the people around you who value you. Don't be so sad to be free of your chains.

the mysteries of physics and math are a lot more fascinating than some sky god magic wine bullshit.

quit bitching.

Oh wow! How has no one ever thought of this before!? You just solved the age old question of the human condition!
Who would have thought out of all the places this would happen on Sup Forums?

I would rather live in reality than a world of fiction.

why tho

>implying I made this up myself

This kind of shit has been around for a little while, user. It's not anyone's fault but yours if you don't want to take the time to go looking. There's also the fact that - as I said - the kind of things I said will make you upset if you're religious.

The religious like to make people believe that there can be no fulfillment, connection with the universe, or appreciation of subjectivity without their dogma. Learning this is bullshit is one of the essential steps in truly doing away with religion.

Nihilism is true but it makes you want to kill yourself. And you have only 1 life, so fuck nihilism. Just try your best until you die. Make that only chance you've got worth.

Nihilism and secularity aren't products of scientific progress. Many prolific scientists were and are spiritual. I don't think religion and science are mutually exclusive. For example one could consider evolution the method by which a higher power produced people.

Secularism is coming from two major factors

The first being the fact that the state wants to abolish religious values thay conflict with it's agenda. In order for those at the top to become more powerful they have to dissolve belief systems that say there is a higher power than them that neither they nor their subordinates should disobey. By abolishing religion the state engineers it's ability to be worshipped. Think the cults of personality around Hitler, Stalin, etc
Secondly ,it comes the fact that governments across the western and developed world are forcing people of different faiths to cohabitate. The only way they are able to coexist peacefully is by being seperated from their convictions. If no one adheres to the fundamental values of their faith they have no beliefs that cause conflict with others. Again, this is in order to dissolve religious convictions and promote worship of the state in it's place. Secularism enables the state to force people of different faiths to act against their convictions.
For example, the government forcing Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. Forcing Catholic pharmacists to give out birth control. Or for people of various faiths to fund practices their religions forbid such as abortion via taxation. The government has essentially forced people to abandon their cultural values and tolerate things their religions forbid. In truth secularism is state enforced atheism. The government allows people to adhere to their faith so long as they don't practice it.
This is done in the name of coexisting with other religious groups. But, the religions don't truly coexist because they aren't allowed to act upon their convictions.

(1/?)

What you got ain't nothing new, boy.

People in fringe cultures in the 70s - proper nudist cult scream therapy stuff - discovered techniques for peeling away the layers from people that society had put on. They found out that after you lift the last layer, and look on what a person is underneath, you find ...

... nothing.

Initially, it was quite a disappointment. But eventually, people realised it was a positive, and was strangely liberating. Whatever religion or values or pursuits or conflicts or anything you thought was important turns out to be, well, nothing. We are completely free. There is nothing we 'need' to be or do.

>implying I wasn't being sarcastic

Why do you think people are afraid of death in both a practical and an abstract sense? Death without an afterlife means the end. If it truly is the end, then it takes away all objective significance of everything. Thus nothing has true value. It doesn't matter whether a person is born or not. It doesn't matter whether that potential person is killed at any given age. Everyone's existence is of no significance whatsoever. Your sad miserable life is as meaningless as a spark of dust that roamed the universe 10 billion years ago.

This thought is the most frightful thing most people can think of. This can be seen throughout the history of mankind. All art is about eros (passion) and thanatos (death).

>lifeless atoms capable of producing life
>the mysticism of the world is gone

This is where the nihilism comes in. Because people are seperated from their religions and their cultural values. What do they have left? Nothing but vapid consumerism, celebrity worship, pop culture, and vice. Nihilism is a side effect of the governments effort to eradicate value systems that conflict with it's own agenda. Secularism is the means by which this is achieved, along with multiculturalism. People are forced to give up their religious, ethnic, and cultural identities for the sake of "getting along". This basically makes it so the only socially acceptable loyalties one can have to be to the market and the government. It's intentional. In the process all people are left with is hedonism, consumerism, and nihilism.

>one could consider evolution the method by which a higher power produced people

Translation: whatever science discovers, lazy religion can co-opt it...
The advantage of having a completely unfalsifiable and poorly defined entity to defend.

Contrary to what delusional religious people would like to think, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive.

They both ultimately deal with same thing: concrete objective claims.

Science, however, does this with predictive models and empiricism.

Religion does it with anecdotal evidence, unfalsifiable personal experience, and blind faith.

It's possible to believe in both, IF you compartmentalize and don't consider religious claims with the same level of scrutiny you would a scientific claim. That's called being intellectually dishonest.

Science and religion are two completely incompatible paradigms. If you believe otherwise, you misunderstand at least one of them.

That's capitalism for ya

This is the most cliche thing I've heard all day. Did you copy paste from Facebook?

No, nothing would have an "objective value", but "value" only exist in the presence of consciousness. If the end of the universe comes and there's no more life anywhere in the cosmos, then there'll be nothing to be sad about. "Sad" and "happy" will be meaningless.

Purpose only makes sense while we're around. What may be before or after it is irrelevant.

It's also socialism. Socialism and capitalism are both materialism.

It ought to be cliche, but OP's post proves it isn't. As I said to someone else here, nothing I said there is original, and I didn't mean it to be. It's basic shit for people who've done any measure of serious thought about this kind of shit post-religion, yet it's still apparently unknown to many people.

I never argued the contrary. Still though, this doesn't give people much of anything. Most people seem to have an inherent longing for cosmic significance.

Two very different kinds of materialism.

Materialism, as in, everything is composed of matter is substantial to Marxism.

Materialism, as in, the over-production of commercial material is substantial to capitalism.

We're made from the guts of dead great stars and have the capacity to contemplate our own existence and the universe we exist within.

I'd say that's pretty fuckin significant. That it isn't eternal shouldn't take away from that.

>They both ultimately deal with same thing: concrete objective claims.

No, science deals with objective claims. Religion deals with belief. Belief exists in absence of sufficient evidence. Science deals with providing evidence to support objective claims.

(Not OP) What if you find life boring? Or you feel as if you have discovered enough to satisfy your curiosity, and have nothing left to look forward to?
I can't finish any game because I lose interest in it. The furthest I get into books these days is about halfway, and then I lose interest. It's not that the game or the plot is bad, it's just that my curiosity is satisfied. What should I do?

Yes, it SHOULDN'T, but sadly it does.

We agreed that we have no objective ("cosmic") significance, yet you bring up a point that we are a part of this "mystical chain of events in the universe", and that we are from the guts of the dead GREAT stars.

The way you're describing the reality seems to yearn for mythology. You mention stars. These enormous sphere's of burning gas that seem as eternal to us. Interesting language from an user who just said there is nothing wrong with death being final.

I'm not trying to diss you out or anything. But I've noticed over the years that people have a tendency to start uttering about something other than subjects themselves when discussing the fear of death. For example, "We are a part of the progress of humanity!" or "Our children will carry on our genes, so in a way, we will live through them." If death and its effect of diminish all cosmic significance isn't the most frightful thing known to man, why does everyone have such a hard time talking about it?

>science deals with objective claims. Religion deals with belief.

Literal nonsense.

>Belief exists in absence of sufficient evidence.

lol no. Only if there's no good reason for that belief. I BELIEVE in gravity, and you BELIEVE in a god. Only one of us has good reason to believe what we believe...

"Belief" is a redundancy for things we think are true. Whether that belief is true and justified is another question.

What I think you meant to say here is "faith" exists in absence of sufficient evidence, and I would agree... I also think it's hilarious you think that's a good thing.

"Faith" is the excuse people give when they have no good reason to believe what they believe.

Philosophy 101, user. Look up "justified true belief".

Are you American? Have you read other than American literature? Have you read academically significant works of fiction?

If you answer all of these, I might be able to help you.

I would recommend reading more epistemology if you think Plato is still relevant.

>Two very different kinds of materialism.

No. Socialism and capitalism hinge on material wealth being the source of happines

>Materialism, as in, everything is composed of matter is substantial to Marxism.

No, that has nothing to do with Marxism. The means of production being the rightful property of the people is Marxism. The means of production are labor and tools. It's materialism.

>Materialism, as in, the over-production of commercial material is substantial to capitalism.

Over-production isn't a goal of capitalism. If anything capitalists believe the market should produce as many goods as consumers are willing to buy and producers are willing to make.

They are both materialism. They fail to address spirituality, purpose, and morality. They both induce nihilism and rely on secularism to exist.

Yes and no. I was being and live in America, but I am Hungarian by blood and culture. I've read Hungarian literature, some Russian literature, and a handful of American classics.
I only used books as an example. The same thing happens to hobbies for me. I pick it up, it's fun and exciting, then the shine wears off, and my curiosity is satisfied.

The reason I called the stars our components come from "great" was actually more of an objective one. Only the largest of stars can sustain the kind of fusion and generate the kind of high-energy explosion sufficient to make the elements needed for life as we know it. Most stars aren't big enough. Thus, we come from dead GREAT stars, not the smaller ones of average size...

Also, even if I did want to embellish my language concerning the cosmos, how would that at all take away from anything else I've said? Should we not give grand meaning to whatever we want to? We are, after all, the meaning-givers.

I would recommend coming up with an argument if you want to give meaningful contribution to this discussion.

I was born*

I fucking hate words that end with "ism"

You are wrong. Read Marx's "The German Ideology", if you're interested in Marxism and socialism. The book sheds light on the goals of socialism. And I agree on the note that over-production isn't a goal.

what about jism?

Kek

I agree completely. All I'm saying is that it isn't enough for the vast majority of people, since they, or rather "we", yearn for significance and meaning from outside of ourselves.

I'm Finnish, our languages are related. I think maja (hut) and koti (home) are both words in your language as well.

Anyways, if you lose interest in books, films, music that you accompany yourself with, maybe you should seek "better" art. If you get bored over Dostojevski, Tolstoi, Tarkovski and Tsaikovski, maybe art isn't for you. Art isn't for me either tbh.

If this is the case, then you should seek fulfillment in other things, such as social relations (politics, friends, family) and perhaps romance.

The tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB has been shown to be incomplete. There are cases of JTB that do not qualify as cases of knowledge. JTB, therefore, is not sufficient for knowledge. Cases like that — known as Gettier-cases[5] — arise because neither the possession of evidence nor origination in reliable faculties is sufficient for ensuring that a belief is not true merely because of luck. Consider the well-known case of barn-facades: Henry drives through a rural area in which what appear to be barns are, with the exception of just one, mere barn facades. From the road Henry is driving on, these facades look exactly like real barns. Henry happens to be looking at the one and only real barn in the area and believes that there's a barn over there. Henry's belief is justified, according to TK, because Henry's visual experience justifies his belief. According to NTK, his belief is justified because Henry's belief originates in a reliable cognitive process: vision. Yet Henry's belief is plausibly viewed as being true merely because of luck. Had Henry noticed one of the barn-facades instead, he would also have believed that there's a barn over there. There is, therefore, broad agreement among epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge.[6]

source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#JTB

>lol no. Only if there's no good reason for that belief. I BELIEVE in gravity, and you BELIEVE in a god. Only one of us has good reason to believe what we believe...

Semantics.

>"Belief" is a redundancy for things we think are true. Whether that belief is true and justified is another question.

Semantics

What I think you meant to say here is "faith" exists in absence of sufficient evidence, and I would agree... I also think it's hilarious you think that's a good thing.

The OP is addressing how society has devolved into nihilism in absence of faith. Both OP and I can agree nihilism isn't positive.

>"Faith" is the excuse people give when they have no good reason to believe what they believe.

The definition of faith is belief in absence of evidence. Sometimes it's healthy, sometimes it's not. Having faith that peolle like you without having the ability to read the minds of others can inspire confidence. Having faith that the next day will be good without having the ability to see the future can inspire optimism.

>Philosophy 101, user. Look up "justified true belief"

No thanks.

You are wrong. Read Marx's "The German Ideology", if you're interested in Marxism and socialism. The book sheds light on the goals of socialism. And I agree on the note that over-production isn't a goal.

Explain to me how I'm wrong. Apparently you've read this book. Tell me exactly what in this book points to me being wrong.

Books were just an example. My problem is, is that my curiosity gets satisfied, and then I have no further motivation to pursue whatever it is I was doing, be it reading a book, learning a new hobby, or even communicating with someone.
I find myself attracted to politics, but when I start getting into it, I find myself getting stressed as well. So, I try to avoid it. The friends I have are growing distant, mainly because I no longer find friendship all that interesting. As for family, well, they've always been distant.
I'm not trying to shoot down your suggestions or anything, it's just that I don't seem to enjoy anything anymore. When I came to the realization that there is nothing after this life, as said earlier in this thread by someone else, everything lost meaning. I'm a very logical person, and so I need a purpose or objective. Unfortunately,I haven't been able to find anything yet that satisfies that need. Thanks for the suggestions though.

No belief other than "I exist as a conscious entity" can ever said to be true knowledge. Of course there are levels of confidence to which we can give certain beliefs. But to say religious belief is anywhere near as rational as belief in scientific claims is asinine.

Become an ubermencsch, 16 year old atheist.
Reevaluate yourself and stop being dismissive towards things you rejected so much in your life. It is there that you will find what you've been missing out. Or kill yourself.

Survival of the fittest.

>Semantics.

Do you know what that word means, user? I don't think you do. The only one misusing semantics here is you, for equating "belief" with "faith".

>Sometimes it's healthy, sometimes it's not. Having faith that peolle like you without having the ability to read the minds of others can inspire confidence. Having faith that the next day will be good without having the ability to see the future can inspire optimism.

Having justified confidence in other people is very different from a completely unjustified belief in deities. Also, don't go making even more semantic errors by equating "faith" with "hope". It's alright to have optimistic hope tomorrow will go well, or that you'll win the lottery, but to have "faith" in them is plain delusion.

I think you need to define your terms better.

It's been years since I read it. But to my recollection Marx begins the book with an extensive critique of Hegel and some "pseudo-materialist" whose materialism was more idealistic. After this Marx explains his point on materialism and the dialectical progress of history. Communism/socialism is described near the end of the book where Marx explains how work is in the essence of man, and how capitalism deplores man of this essence in the pursuit of capital. Socialism's goal, to Marx, is a society where a man can be a woodsman by dawn, a fisherman at day, and a poet at night. A society where everyone can fulfill their dreams, I reckon.

Now I obviously can't give you citation's since I don't even own the book. But it's worth a read if you're into philosophy and what-not.

You sound like a like-minded fellow.

If you are satisfied by reading only half of a literary masterpiece, your curiosity is set at too low. Have you read aesthetics or something of that sort that could help arouse your wider curiosity?

I agree. My point was only to note that Plato's JTB is no longer considered apt nor relevant in epistemology.

I think something like it ought to be used up to the point of conscious existence. Of course we have to make at least one assumption after that but there are still more or less reasonable ways to go about discerning concrete objectivity.

Don't get me wrong, on paper, communism is something every nation should aspire for. Even the origin of it's name speaks of it's focus on the happiness and quality of life for the community.

Unfortunately it hinges itself on the inherent good of humanity, especially it's leaders. And that is why Communism will never succeed.

Well I never argued the contrary. I was simply describing Marxism. Though, I do also happen to believe that a communist utopia is possible.

Perhaps. I'm going to leave it to the epistemologists though.

>Do you know what that word means, user? I don't think you do. The only one misusing semantics here is you, for equating "belief" with "faith"

Belief and faith are synonyms.

"be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"

You're just arguing semantics.

>Having justified confidence in other people is very different from a completely unjustified belief in deities. Also, don't go making even more semantic errors by equating "faith" with "hope". It's alright to have optimistic hope tomorrow will go well, or that you'll win the lottery, but to have "faith" in them is plain delusion.

Faith and hope are synonyms. You're just arguing semantics. No you don't need to justify a belief with evidence.

>I think you need to define your terms better.

I think arguing semantics is a waste of my time and yours.

Why are you two so hostile at each other? You're discussing epistemology and the philosophy of language while being arrogant twats belittling each other.

>Belief and faith are synonyms

My fucking ass they are. Is this the new religious tactic concerning "faith"? To just claim it means exactly the same thing as "belief" in general? Horse shit. All you're doing is making "belief" so vague as to be meaningless.

Isn't it funny how people only ever use "faith" when asked why they believe something they have no good reason to believe? Do you ever hear scientists say they have "faith" in Quantum Field Theory or General Relativity? No. Because they don't need to say "I believe because (I believe)", they have legitimate reasons to give...

>Faith and hope are synonyms. You're just arguing semantics.

No, you're arguing semantics, user. And poorly. I just gave you an example of why "faith" and "hope" can't be synonyms. Did you not read it? "Hope" that you'll win the lottery isn't at all the same to having "faith" that you'll win the lottery... If all you're gonna do from here on out is use terrible semantics arguments to justify your belief in the unjustifiable, you might as well just leave the thread and kys.

>I think arguing semantics is a waste of my time and yours.

And yet it's all you keep doing...

>Here's a vague description of a book I totally read years ago that I don't even own. Just trust me it totally proves you wrong.

Not buying it. Disprove my claim that Marxism/Socialism/Communism are materialism.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

"Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation."

Materialism is in the definition.

The only way I could possibly conceive a Communist society succeeding in the slightest just at the start is if it we had a world government.

Once again, this would require a truly just individual or group of individuals. Even then I would expect it to start going downhill even just a decade after it starts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and more than a few good men have fallen prey to this over the course of history.

I can't give it too much flak though, I can't say capitalism or any other form of governing has proven itself superior.

Show me belittling anyone or saying anything angry or vulgar.

Not the guy you're arguing with but it seems apparent to me that "materialist" in that context means the more "only values material possessions" kind of definition and not the "magic doesn't exist" definition.

Well excuse me for not remembering the book by heart. And that was my entire point to begin with that Marxism is based on Marx's materialist view... I just argued that materialism has two very different meanings.

Marx's materialist interpretation of historical events is indeed of the, as you put it, "magic doesn't exist" kind of materialism. Marx's view was a rival to Hegel's idealist interpretation of history.

>Isn't it funny how people only ever use "faith" when asked why they believe something they have no good reason to believe? Do you ever hear scientists say they have "faith" in Quantum Field Theory or General Relativity? No. Because they don't need to say "I believe because (I believe)", they have legitimate reasons to give....

Are you a quantum physicist? Have you personally observed subatomic particles behavinf according to the principles that their theories describe?

If not, you have faith that they are being honest with you. You believe what they are saying is true. You have no good reason to believe what they say other than the fact that they are authority figures. That society addresses them as smart individuals. That there is social consensus that what they say is true. Are these good reasons? To me they sounds like the same reasons people believe what religious leaders say.

>No, you're arguing semantics, user. And poorly. I just gave you an example of why "faith" and "hope" can't be synonyms. Did you not read it? "

"faith
fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him""

You're wrong. They can be synonyms.

The difference is that scientific institutions such as universities ALL have consensus on certain theories. Literally everyone is free to study the theories and try to prove them to be false.

>you have faith that they are being honest with you. You believe what they are saying is true. You have no good reason to believe what they say other than the fact that they are authority figures.

Wrong, dumbass. I have reasonable confidence what they're telling me is true because what they're telling me WORKS. We can actually MAKE things with the scientific understanding they work to figure out. When you build a plane based on science, it flies. When you build a car based on science, you can drive it. When you build a toaster based on science, it'll fucking toast.

Show me a diagram of a plane we can build just based on religious "faith" and THEN I'll concede your point.

>You're wrong. They can be synonyms.

No, you're wrong, they can't be. I actually explained my position on the topic with examples and arguments. All you gave as a rebuttal was a definition from a dictionary.

Let me explain something to you, user. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they describe common usage. Common usage which is, in your case, completely irrational and fucking stupid, as I already explained.

Come back with an argument supporting your autistic nonsense and maybe we can move forward from there.

And either definition is still materialism. Marxism is a form of materialism. Capitalism is a form of materialism. Both are materialism. "Magic doesn't exist" materialism leads to crippling nihilism. "Material wealth is the source of prosperity and happiness" materialism leads to crippling nihilism.

You didn't prove me wrong.

Embrace our civilizational decay, for it will usher in a new era beyond our lifetime that both mirrors and improves upon the greatest occurrences of our generation. I'm fairly certain history is cyclical because I'm the dirty milk of human waste completely shaped. It was founded with the madness that I was crazy and built my feces. During the wedding ceremony the native Christ is a child beggar, a pedophile Beginning of the ritual singing! Nine months later, irrefutable, the acatematic skull of the anatomical skull faced with a stinking fever fever go back to the mother and smear the Congoid ruin of the village of dust.

>"Magic doesn't exist" materialism leads to crippling nihilism.

Again, not the guy you're arguing with but...

Says who? Plenty of atheists around living plenty happy and productive lives. This sounds like some kind of horse shit scare tactic used by religious nuts when "muh traditions" are in their death throes.

But you do see how utterly important it is to distinct those two meanings of materialism from one another?