The Faith & Religion mega Thread

"arguments as a"

Originally Posted by Nbiser I am only going answer arguments that take my whole argument. You can pick the individual parts of my arguments to pieces quite easily. It is harder to take my arguments as a whole.

Dude, pretending that your "individual" points weren't addressed yesterday is not going to help you prove the existence of God. Especially if you're trying to prove it to us.

And no, an argument does not stand "as a whole" if its "individual parts" don't stand.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie Dude, those arguments are just laughable. Genuinely funny. There's no point bothering with any one word of them, as fun as it would be try. How... how can you even begin to think you can say how atheists view human life when it is manifestly apparent that its not correct?? The mind boggles... You're just nutty. I do quite like how to say "remember Romans whatever whatever" as if we are supposed to know your holy text ourselves. nice touch. Ha, good luck with that!

There is such a thing as laughing off what you can't disclaim. That would appear to be what you are doing.

I have read books that look at the atheist's point of view, and even some books by atheists.....so I should be qualified to know what I'm talking about.

All that I am asking for is that somebody out there take the time to answer my arguments in a logical manner. All that you are doing is making fun of them, not disproving them. It is similar to saying that something is wrong, and not proving that it is. I could go around all day saying that this is wrong, or good, and as long as I provide no evidence, I cannot prove that it is! Which is what you are doing; making fun of my arguments without proving that they are wrong.

And by the way, I take offense at being called a nut.....I consider it a personal attack. I attempt to refrain at attacking the people making arguments for atheism or any other topic, while only attacking their arguments and I expect the same treatment.

@dugan: I think that is perfectly reasonable to have my argument treated as a whole, not as single sentences. Why? Because the various parts of my argument rest on each other, and don't stand alone. Any good argument is that way.....with a sense of being a whole, and not many individual parts.

nbiser

Originally Posted by Nbiser I have read books that look at the atheist's point of view, and even some books by atheists.....so I should be qualified to know what I'm talking about.

Hah! "Books that look at the atheists's point of view... and even some books by atheists!" You've chosen not to reveal the titles of the "books that look at the atheist's point of view", which is a group distinct from "books by atheists", but given your reality-defying statements about "the atheist's point of view" I would question their accuracy.

I think that is perfectly reasonable to have my argument treated as a whole, not as single sentences. Why? Because the various parts of my argument rest on each other, and don't stand alone. Any good argument is that way.....with a sense of being a whole, and not many individual parts.

Exactly! That's why every part of your argument needs to stand individually for your "whole" argument to stand. And that's why it's completely valid to address the individual parts.

Since we started the discussion in the other thread, I will address your three questions, one at a time.
At first, your philosophical argument:

Sorry Tobi, you didn't address the issue. What is the ultimate authority behind "Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to you!" According to you, that was said by one piece of cosmic dust to another piece of cosmic dust, thus according to you don't have to obey it. You tell me: what is the authority keeping you from murdering for instance? Why is murder wrong?

The authorities keeping me from murdering people are:
- I. I have decided for myself to not murder people. Taking peoples life away is not something that I want to happen to me, so there is no reason for me to do it. If I want to leave a peaceful and happy life, as most people want to do, I have to start by myself with being peaceful. I can not expect others to be peacefully when I am not.
- Society. We have laws against murdering, that were established for the good of society, not to obey to some god. Richard Dawkins explains this better than me in the video linked by sycamorex.

Regarding the massive amount of murders caused by some atheists (you name Stalin, Hitler, ...), do we know if those people wouldn't have done the same atrocities if they were Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists or believers from another religion. Does there exist any evidence that links their Atheism to their atrocities? What about the atrocities done by believers or even commanded by the god of the Judeo-Christian religions:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

(King James Bible, 1.Samuel, 15:3)
Here god clearly orders his believers to do a genocide and they did it.
So how can this be an absolute morality?

Now to the point of the beginning of the Universe:

Since you know so much more about science than I do, you tell me. Where does the world as we know it come from? In short, I want to know what the ultimate source of the world and everything in it is.

Actually, no you don't want to know that, since you already know that it must have been your god. And honestly, for now the answer to that question is: We don't know yet. But we are constantly working on it and we get closer to the answer. If you really are interested in the question how a universe without a god could have formed I would recommend to read, for example, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing from Lawrence M. Krauss.

Now to your last point, the historicity of Jesus:

Yes, maybe they did know. But this doesn't mean that they made it up. There were hundreds of witnesses at the time who saw Christ, and the miracles that he performed. Josephus, one of the most recognized historians of the era, recognized Christ, and his death on the cross. Just as prophesied. All but one of these men died for what they wrote.....if they admitted that they lied, they would've have been saved, and even treated with great honor. However, they suffered cheerfully and willingly for what they wrote, never admitting that they lied, even when under torture. Once again, would you be willing to die for a lie that you said; even if you would be given pardon for confessing?"

Did Jesus really exist? From what we know from scientific research, Jesus existed and that he was baptized by John the Baptist. Scholars also agree that it can be held as fact that he was crucified, although they disagree about the reason for it. (if someone is interested on this topic, the Wikipedia article about this topic is a good start for it and gives you plenty of sources for further investigation).
What we don't know, however, is if he really has done the miracles described by his followers (you won't find those in non-Christian sources from that time, astonishingly they all mention the crucifixion or Jesus death, but not one mentions his resurrection), and the mere existence of a man/preacher/rabbi named Jesus says nothing about the existence of the Judeo-Christian god.

So why would people die for him? As you pointed out, Josephus wrote about Jesus and he mentioned also that some people thought that he was the Messiah. And that is the point, that is true for almost any true believer of any religion: People are willing to die for their believes. Take for example the crusaders, the Islamic suicide bombers or, as a very prominent example, Thich Quang Duc, who burnt himself alive (and after him 5 other monks did the same) to protest against the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam.
All these people were willing to die for the good of their different religion, so I must conclude that their readiness to die is no evidence for the truth of their religion or the existence of their god(s). After all people are/were also willing to die for their country, their political leaders, their political view and countless other things.

"good argument" lol (simply because you are born in to it)

By definition if it's arguable it's not "fact" so lots of argument together still wrong like your hole point of view. I am wrong a lot of the time as i am only human too...

Originally Posted by Nbiser Let us take a brief look at the stand point that the atheist has on life: he believes that there is no supreme all powerful being, no overriding power.......and if he carries out his belief to the logical end, there is no authority at all, everyone is a piece of cosmic dust, that will die eventually......and go into nothingness.

True, more or less.

Originally Posted by Nbiser If he carries out this reason to its obvious conclusion, there is no right or wrong, no sense of ethics; as a matter of fact, he would believe that there is nothing wrong with killing, raping, and destroying. In short, he believes that there is nothing wrong with killing 30 kids and adults in a school shooting.

Whoa! What? What about happiness? Family? Prosperity? Striving to make a better life for yourself and those you love? Doing what you enjoy? Enjoying the friendships you make and the people around you?

You obviously have a severely demented view of atheists and humanity in general if you think that the only thing keeping everybody in the world from raping and murdering each other is the fear of being punished by some supreme being.

Maybe it would help if you think of atheists like yourself. Same morals, same sense of right and wrong, same sense of obligation to your fellow neighbor. At least roughly, hopefully...though after reading some of your posts it seems that you have no morals, you just do what you think the book is telling you to do like a psychopath reading an instruction manual. Ignoring for a second what an incredibly dangerous situation that creates *cough* radical Muslim terrorists *cough*, let's move on.

The difference is that they choose to do those things because that's the type of life that THEY want for THEMSELVES, and they believe that these actions improve society as a whole and make the world a better place for them and their families...not because they're afraid that some supernatural being is going to torture them for eternity if they don't.

How is that so difficult for you to understand? Morality and ethics are not an invention of Christianity, they existed long before that book was ever written. How do you think humanity grew to the point of civilization, society, language (both spoken and written) and books at all, if everybody was just running around raping and murdering each other all the time?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Since we started the discussion in the other thread, I will address your three questions, one at a time. At first, your philosophical argument: The authorities keeping me from murdering people are: - I. I have decided for myself to not murder people. Taking peoples life away is not something that I want to happen to me, so there is no reason for me to do it. If I want to leave a peaceful and happy life, as most people want to do, I have to start by myself with being peaceful. I can not expect others to be peacefully when I am not. - Society. We have laws against murdering, that were established for the good of society, not to obey to some god. Richard Dawkins explains this better than me in the video linked by sycamorex.

You may have decided by yourself that you won't commit murder; however, as I said in my first post, not all atheist take their reasoning to its utmost conclusion and result. Some, like you, simply decide not to murder. Others, such as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. do.

As for your second reason, society: you claim that government keeps you from murdering. But what authority does that government rest on. On itself? According to you and other atheists, humans are merely a form of cosmic dust that will have a total and complete end sooner or later. As pieces of cosmic dust, what authority does the police officer, the lawmaker, or the president/premier/king have over you? They have none. They are only more pieces of cosmic dust. Atheists claim that we are only a higher order of animal, and that we are primates, just like the gorillas, monkeys, and orangutangs. Do they have governments? No. Do they have morals and ethics? No. If we are only primates (animals), we, like them, should have no authority. However, religion solves this issue! It gives an ultimate authority that resides higher than any government has authority.

And, if you continue to claim that they (governments) have authority over you, you have made them your god, and are worshiping them by obeying the standards of ethics that they set.

Regarding the massive amount of murders caused by some atheists (you name Stalin, Hitler, ...), do we know if those people wouldn't have done the same atrocities if they were Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists or believers from another religion. Does there exist any evidence that links their Atheism to their atrocities? What about the atrocities done by believers or even commanded by the god of the Judeo-Christian religionsKing James Bible, 1.Samuel, 15:3) Here god clearly orders his believers to do a genocide and they did it. So how can this be an absolute morality?

Yes, I can. Nietzsche and Trotsky were both atheist; Nietzsche was an athiestsical philosopher and Trotsky was a major force in the communist party.....and an atheist. Nietzsche said, " Elimination of the weak and defective, the first principle our philosophy. And we should help them to do it." Neitzche, The Anti Christ, sec 2.

Trotsky said, " We must leave behind the sanctity of human life."

Both of these men where atheist, one one was a big guy in the communist party who was one of the leaders in the Russian Revolution.

You imply the various crusades that Christians, Muslims etc. carried out. As far as the Christian crusades went, they were started by an apostate, heretic, power hungry, group of Popes who were attempting to gain power and influence by launching the crusades. Protestants never carried on crusades like the Papal led Roman Catholics did. When they fought a religious war it was almost always in self defense. Take the Huguenot wars and the wars that the covenanters waged for instance.

We can now take an in-depth look at the passage that you mentioned in 1 Samuel 15:3. The war that the Israelites fought in this instance was the result of a long standing war between Amalek and Israel that started when the Amaeliketes attacked Israel in the wilderness. However, the Amaeliketes didn't just attack the Israelite soldiers, they attacked the Israelite women and children (see Deuteronomy 25:18) The Amaeliketes tried to comit genocide on the Israelites at that time. And from then until the Israelites won, there was war between them. God made an example of the Amaeliketes as a warning to other nations; a warning to leave the people of God alone.

Now to the point of the beginning of the Universe:Actually, no you don't want to know that, since you already know that it must have been your god. And honestly, for now the answer to that question is: We don't know yet. But we are constantly working on it and we get closer to the answer. If you really are interested in the question how a universe without a god could have formed I would recommend to read, for example, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing from Lawrence M. Krauss.

I did want to know; because I wanted to know what you thought.

In this book, the author theorizes two things: the first is that 'nothing isn't nothing, nothing is something, therefore there is no nothing' or the equivalent of that. If I wanted to follow that reasoning through, one day when my bank account is empty, I will still write checks and use my debit card. And then when my bank charges me fees I will calmly explain to them that....."Nothing is something, therefore my bank account was not empty." I don't think that that explanation would work in the real day-to-day world. In the book, he also theorizes that the cosmos developed from a hot, dense, state. But that means that there was something! After all, heat is considered to be a concrete matter because we can feel it. Thus, his book makes no sense because it claims that that the universe developed from something, but yet from nothing, and that it developed from something, a hot dense state.

Now to your last point, the historicity of Jesus: Did Jesus really exist? From what we know from scientific research, Jesus existed and that he was baptized by John the Baptist. Scholars also agree that it can be held as fact that he was crucified, although they disagree about the reason for it. (if someone is interested on this topic, the Wikipedia article about this topic is a good start for it and gives you plenty of sources for further investigation). What we don't know, however, is if he really has done the miracles described by his followers (you won't find those in non-Christian sources from that time, astonishingly they all mention the crucifixion or Jesus death, but not one mentions his resurrection), and the mere existence of a man/preacher/rabbi named Jesus says nothing about the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. So why would people die for him? As you pointed out, Josephus wrote about Jesus and he mentioned also that some people thought that he was the Messiah. And that is the point, that is true for almost any true believer of any religion: People are willing to die for their believes. Take for example the crusaders, the Islamic suicide bombers or, as a very prominent example, Thich Quang Duc, who burnt himself alive (and after him 5 other monks did the same) to protest against the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam. All these people were willing to die for the good of their different religion, so I must conclude that their readiness to die is no evidence for the truth of their religion or the existence of their god(s). After all people are/were also willing to die for their country, their political leaders, their political view and countless other things.

Hold on! You changed the topic completely around. I wrote that in response to you implying that the writers of the Gospels were liars. In response I said that no liar would die for his lie, and that all but one of these men were martyred for what they wrote. You turned it around: the followers of other religions etc. are not the ones who made their false religions; they really don't know that they have been lied to, thus they are willing to die for what they believe. The writers of the Gospels, on the other hand, are those whom you are claiming lied. They died for what they taught, knowingly died.

Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll Whoa! What? What about happiness? Family? Prosperity? Striving to make a better life for yourself and those you love? Doing what you enjoy? Enjoying the friendships you make and the people around you?

Yes, I care about all of those things to. But what about the higher form of moral ethics that lies behind all that......what makes life worth living when, according to atheists, you only have 70 years or so on earth, and you will die, and become nothing but a pile of bones in the ground somewhere? If you have no higher purpose than life than to get and give pleasure, you should be highly depressed that you only have another 70 years or so to do that in, and then,, it is all over. I am sorry to have to put it so bluntly, but that is the truth.

You obviously have a severely demented view of atheists and humanity in general if you think that the only thing keeping everybody in the world from raping and murdering each other is the fear of being punished by some supreme being.

Yes, I have a highly demented view of myself, and all of the rest of humanity. Due to original sin we all have the seedlings of sin and guilt in our lives, we all are capable of committing murder. Myself inclusive. However, as a Christian, I am saved, and am a new man. I may still sin, but as I grow in the faith, I will sin less.

Maybe it would help if you look at it this way. Have you ever grown angry at someone for no good cause? I know I have. If so, you have committed murder in your heart because that is where anger sometimes leads, to murder. Only Christ can cleanse of these sins.

Maybe it would help if you think of atheists like yourself. Same morals, same sense of right and wrong, same sense of obligation to your fellow neighbor. At least roughly, hopefully...though after reading some of your posts it seems that you have no morals, you just do what you think the book is telling you to do like a psychopath reading an instruction manual. Ignoring for a second what an incredibly dangerous situation that creates *cough* radical Muslim terrorists *cough*, let's move on.

Yes, I do have morals. All morals, come from the law of God; as a matter of fact, you and I have all of the same morals! We both believe that it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc. I get mine from the law of God, and that is ultimately were you get yours.

The difference is that they choose to do those things because that's the type of life that THEY want for THEMSELVES, and they believe that these actions improve society as a whole and make the world a better place for them and their families...not because they're afraid that some supernatural being is going to torture them for eternity if they don't.

I don't just do things because I am afraid of being tortured in eternity. I do things because Christ died to save me from my sins, and, out of love for him, I don't want to murder! Why, because it would grieve him, and when I grieve him, I am grieved.

How is that so difficult for you to understand? Morality and ethics are not an invention of Christianity, they existed long before that book was ever written. How do you think humanity grew to the point of civilization, society, language (both spoken and written) and books at all, if everybody was just running around raping and murdering each other all the time?

Actually the the Judeo-Christian religion has existed since the beginning of the world, and Adam and Eve. The Judeo-Christian Religion was the groundwork for all that we have today.

Originally Posted by Nbiser Actually the the Judeo-Christian religion has existed since the beginning of the world, and Adam and Eve. The Judeo-Christian Religion was the groundwork for all that we have today.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please put your Bible aside for a while and read some books on comparative mythology and history.

Originally Posted by Nbiser You may have decided by yourself that you won't commit murder; however, as I said in my first post, not all atheist take their reasoning to its utmost conclusion and result. Some, like you, simply decide not to murder. Others, such as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al. do.

And Christians (regardless which flavor) and members of other religions have done also, so what is the difference?

As for your second reason, society: you claim that government keeps you from murdering. But what authority does that government rest on. On itself? According to you and other atheists, humans are merely a form of cosmic dust that will have a total and complete end sooner or later. As pieces of cosmic dust, what authority does the police officer, the lawmaker, or the president/premier/king have over you? They have none. They are only more pieces of cosmic dust. Atheists claim that we are only a higher order of animal, and that we are primates, just like the gorillas, monkeys, and orangutangs. Do they have governments? No. Do they have morals and ethics? No. If we are only primates (animals), we, like them, should have no authority. However, religion solves this issue! It gives an ultimate authority that resides higher than any government has authority. And, if you continue to claim that they (governments) have authority over you, you have made them your god, and are worshiping them by obeying the standards of ethics that they set.

What authority does the government rest on? The authority that is given to them by their people. And it are the people that set the morality and ethics the government has to defend. Can be seen very nicely in the USA, where more and more states allow same sex marriage and legalize Marihuana.
And yes, humans are nothing more than cosmic dust (I personally prefer the word stardust, sounds more poetic), we are animals, but we are probably the most evolved animals on this planet, with highly complicated social structures. There is no reason for us to behave like our nearest relatives, the apes, they have different social structures than we have, much more primitive. Although, sometimes there seems to be not much difference between the other apes and us (especially when you look at teenagers).
Religion may have been helpful in the past, to make it easier to keep the early civilizations together, but nowadays, at least IMHO, religion is not necessary anymore and more often than not it is religion that prevents that people live peaceful together (look alone at your insults against Catholics, which by the way will not be further tolerated, since there are members here that are Catholics and insulting them is a no-go).

Yes, I can. Nietzsche and Trotsky were both atheist; Nietzsche was an athiestsical philosopher and Trotsky was a major force in the communist party.....and an atheist. Nietzsche said, " Elimination of the weak and defective, the first principle our philosophy. And we should help them to do it." Neitzche, The Anti Christ, sec 2. Trotsky said, " We must leave behind the sanctity of human life." Both of these men where atheist, one one was a big guy in the communist party who was one of the leaders in the Russian Revolution.

And that proves what Trotsky and Nietzsche have said, but not that the actions of Stalin or whichever dictator you accuse to be an Atheist were caused by Atheism.

You imply the various crusades that Christians, Muslims etc. carried out. As far as the Christian crusades went, they were started by an apostate, heretic, power hungry, group of Popes who were attempting to gain power and influence by launching the crusades. Protestants never carried on crusades like the Papal led Roman Catholics did. When they fought a religious war it was almost always in self defense. Take the Huguenot wars and the wars that the covenanters waged for instance.

If you look at the European wars of religion you will see that the Protestants were not as innocent as you want to depict them here, take for example actions like the Iconoclastic Fury (less violent in the Netherlands, but many people died in these attacks in France). This looks neither like self defense, nor like some sort of higher morality.

We can now take an in-depth look at the passage that you mentioned in 1 Samuel 15:3. The war that the Israelites fought in this instance was the result of a long standing war between Amalek and Israel that started when the Amaeliketes attacked Israel in the wilderness. However, the Amaeliketes didn't just attack the Israelite soldiers, they attacked the Israelite women and children (see Deuteronomy 25:18) The Amaeliketes tried to comit genocide on the Israelites at that time. And from then until the Israelites won, there was war between them. God made an example of the Amaeliketes as a warning to other nations; a warning to leave the people of God alone.

The total extinction of another nation, as a warning to other nations. And where is the higher morality that you claim manifested in such actions? Actually, this is exactly the same behavior that you link to criminals like Stalin and Pol Pot. You seem to have a double standard here.

In this book, the author theorizes two things: the first is that 'nothing isn't nothing, nothing is something, therefore there is no nothing' or the equivalent of that. If I wanted to follow that reasoning through, one day when my bank account is empty, I will still write checks and use my debit card. And then when my bank charges me fees I will calmly explain to them that....."Nothing is something, therefore my bank account was not empty." I don't think that that explanation would work in the real day-to-day world. In the book, he also theorizes that the cosmos developed from a hot, dense, state. But that means that there was something! After all, heat is considered to be a concrete matter because we can feel it. Thus, his book makes no sense because it claims that that the universe developed from something, but yet from nothing, and that it developed from something, a hot dense state.

Have you read the book or only the summary? I assume that it was only the summary, but anyways, if you read the book you will see that these explanations work in the real day-to-day world, because they are based on observations that are made in the day to day world, and you will see that there actually are no contradictions.

Hold on! You changed the topic completely around. I wrote that in response to you implying that the writers of the Gospels were liars. In response I said that no liar would die for his lie, and that all but one of these men were martyred for what they wrote. You turned it around: the followers of other religions etc. are not the ones who made their false religions; they really don't know that they have been lied to, thus they are willing to die for what they believe. The writers of the Gospels, on the other hand, are those whom you are claiming lied. They died for what they taught, knowingly died.

I have never claimed that the writers of the Gospels were liars, I said that they were well aware of those prophecies and may have adapted their writings to those prophecies. This can have the reason that they were liars, but it doen't have to. As I stated, these people believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that may have led to unintentional tampering of the truth, based on the wishes of these people that Jesus was the predicted Messiah. After all, from what we know, the Gospels were written long after Jesus' death and at least for John it is unlikely that he ever has seen Jesus alive. And if they believe what they have written, regardless if this believe is based on truth or wishful thinking, they will die for it.

This was not directed at me, but I will give an answer to that nonetheless:

Actually the the Judeo-Christian religion has existed since the beginning of the world, and Adam and Eve. The Judeo-Christian Religion was the groundwork for all that we have today.

You really should learn something about the history of your religion. There are religions that are much older than the Judeo-Christian religion and from what we know this monotheistic religion developed from an older polytheistic religion, in which Jahwe, the Judeo-Christian god, was only one of many (and he was not the nicest one, easy to see if you read the Old Testament, not someone I would base my morals on).

Seeing that you seem to be a young earth creationist I doubt that anything what I say will make any difference, so I will stop my participation in this discussion right here.

I am unclear on how the "you are nothing but a piece of cosmic dust" -> "take that reasoning to its utmost conclusion" -> COMMIT MURDER logic is really supposed to work.



Nbiser has repeatedly pointed out Stalin and Pol Pot as examples of men who have followed this chain of logic "to its utmost conclusion". Obviously neither Stalin nor Pol Pot justified their actions by pointing out that humans were pieces of cosmic dust. So these examples don't really work. Of course, these two individuals are also recognized as criminals and condemned by (AFAIK) all atheists, so they don't work as examples of "the atheist philosophy".

Originally Posted by suicidaleggroll You obviously have a severely demented view of atheists and humanity in general if you think that the only thing keeping everybody in the world from raping and murdering each other is the fear of being punished by some supreme being.

Blindly religious(born in to extremism) people don't see how they create demons more than most(.) Nbiser puts too much (*) for me ta want to read...(especially because*∞*)

Originally Posted by Nbiser Originally Posted by dugan "the atheist philosophy".

Which one? Don't reply to that plz, it's also infinity debateabel...

here n there ++ "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to" dugan & suicidaleggroll "again."

on the side @grammar lovers++ from Q\A: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4983482

This is LQ and the official language here is indeed English, as you can read in the LQ Rules.

thought it was HTML(+++) n awesomeness

I think Nbiser confuses atheism with nihilism:

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. ...

that's 1 source and definition in still infinitely changing.∞..

A "nihilist" believing in or creating destruction doesn't make sense to me even tho it happens...

We all change as we grow and defense ((=s) ps grammar❤'s if someone said hay that's not easily translatable to many languages then i could understand +watch the parentheses>) equals borders but edu: Anything!(And it pays for itself!)