Atheism not equal to Nihilism

I felt like writing a short article on this, because it bugs me.

Atheism is presented as a rational argument but it usually coupled with an irrational philosophy: Nihilism. It is important to understand this when talking to people about the rational universe (I.e. a universe void of mystical unknowable entities.)

Nihilism:

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/glossary.stm

Above is as good a definition as any, for the purpose of this article.

[/SIZE]An important thing to understand about religion is that it always comes with a philosophy and ultimately a set of moral values. A religion can be thought of as an irrational premise, or set of beliefs, on which one builds and justifies a philosophy.

When you put forward Atheism to a religious person you need to consider carefully what you saying. If the person walks away thinking existence is ultimately meaningless you've failed. They were better off with the religion. What you've done is convinced them of nihilism.

Atheism is a return to rational roots of existence. Nihilism is a complete lack of philosophy. When you advocate the former you must be careful to also reject the latter. Explain that rational philosophies exist, objective morality exists, and existence is not meaningless. Point them toward Realism, or if you like, Objectivism or Libertarianism. Free them from irrationality, do not bury them deeper.

For those of you I've lost with the above let me try break this down into very simple terms below.

When we think about things: the world, the universe, reality, ourselves, we think in a certain way. The 'way' of thinking is the foundation of all of our thought, and hence it is very important to get it right. A religion gives people a 'way' of thinking about things. This 'way' is that there is a magical being in the sky looking out for them. Obviously this is irrational and you should tell them so. But in doing so ensure they aren't left with no 'way' to look at the universe. If, after you have convinced them what they believe is wrong, they cannot see another way is right, they are left with nothing.

To have no 'way' to look at yourself, the universe, and reality, is to have no philosophy. Or, more specifically, is to hold that existence is essentially meaningless; in other words Nihilism.

Realism is the philosophy that reality exists external to your consciousness, and continues to exist whether you are there to observe it or not.

If you cannot convince someone of Realism, then DO NOT divorce them from their religion. Nihilism is far worse than any religion.

 

Your life still has meaning and your existence still has purpose, just as it always has.

The meaning of life is understood to be the 'reason' you are here. That reason is simple and obvious: You are here to live. Procreation, on behalf of your parents, is what created you. The reason for procreation is to create life. You were created in order that you may live. The meaning of your life, therefore, is to live. And the purpose of your existence, to exist.

See my thread on the meaning of life for more depth.

 

Lol, what a stupid premise. Who or 'what' controls my conscience? Why does it need control? What is its purpose, if it is able to be controlled? Why does the controller not simply directly control me and do away with the conscience?

Do sets of rules imply someone to enforce them? Am I going to get arrested by the physics police for not obeying the law of gravity?

 

For the sake of existence. Existence is moral. I love existence. I love myself. I love my philosophy.

All the purpose in the world. People have children for the sake of having children; for the sake of creating life. Life is created for the sake of itself, and no other justification or meaning is needed.

Then you have succeeded in living.

Worthless to whom? You are dead; you no longer exist, so you cannot value anything anylonger, this much is true. But to those who are still alive (your children, your family, your friends, and the rest of the world) the achievements and qualities of your life still hold value.

You clearly believe selfishness to be immoral. You are incorrect.

Existence is moral. Existence requires survival. Survival requires selfishness. Selfishness is, by extension, moral. The only way one may live is for one's self. Any other course of action is death; and death is immoral.

To live you MUST live for yourself and no other man. To live for another is sacrificial. It is self-destructive. It is immoral. To ask any other man to live for you is immoral, as you are asking him to lay down his life on your account. Every man is an end in himself. Existence exists. No further justification is needed.

 

Then you believe death to be moral. 'Live' by your morals and die then.

My philosophy leaves EVERYTHING to be desired from life. There are no limitations on the way one may live, other than those imposed by reality. You are your own ultimate master. Each and every decision is yours, and yours alone, to make.

Existence exists is an axiom. It has everything to do with everything.

- http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_ExistenceExists.html

No, death does not accomplish living. Living accomplishes living: To die is to have lived, however. Even though you failed to continue living, you at least did live, at some point, which is an achievement even in light of the end of your existence. In other words your existence counted for something because you existed.

Boy you sure are a nihilist. If you really believe what you say then why aren't you dead? If you never live for yourself, but only for the life of other people, then how do you feed yourself? Why do you sleep, eat or drink? Your philosophy is the philosophy of death. Either live by it, and die, or shut up.

 

LOL, whats this about planning? You do not control reality, son. You can manipulate reality, but only by playing by her rules. The laws of physics; the law of identity. You must accept the primacy of existence.

Dying is necessarily ceasing to exist. They are not separate concepts; they are the same. You cannot 'plan to go somewhere' when you die. How can something, or someone, that does not exist be somewhere or go somewhere? The act of being, or going, necessarily requires the subject to first exist.

This is not a belief system. This is an objective rational analysis of reality. It is an understanding of reality. One must UNDERSTAND reality; One cannot invent their own reality. And if one were to try one would quickly discover that reality does not go away when you close your eyes. Metaphysical justice would beat you silly.

The above two statements are in contradiction. If the quality of your character does not determine your life then how does it result in different lifestyles?

They only ever exist in totality.

To pick arbitrarily between selfishness and selflessness is to live irrationally. If a shop keeper were to give free stuff away to random people at random intervals of time with no incentive to make money on those products (through promotion or whatever) he would quickly go bankrupt. There can be no middle ground between selfishness and selflessness, life and death, water and poison.

My purpose is to highlight the difference between Atheism and Nihilism. I absolutely disagree with Nihilism. I also disagree with all religions of all types; and all irrational beliefs.

It is high time humans stopped fooling themselves about the nature of reality and accepted it for what it is: real. Reality is real; existence exists. The only way to flourish in life is to accept the primacy of existence. Accept that in order to manipulate reality, you must play by the rules of reality, and that, ultimately, anything which isn't real is of no consequence.

The age of shivering in caves is supposed to be over. This is supposed to be the age of enlightenment. We have science: Science is the first step. Now we must understand that everything is science. Everything is to be understood in its factual manner. (Politics, social systems, society, this planet, the universe, thought, understanding, identity, existence, life, etc.) Understood by the manner in which it exists in reality. There is no unknowable: Reality is rational. Reality IS rational. Anything which is rational is understandable. Reality can be understood; and understanding reality should be a goal of every man.

 

Contradictions layered on contradictions.

I speak with certainty because I have sound rational arguments, based on axiomatic roots, to prove the assertions I make.

Your statement certainly is false.
Incidentally, the above is an ad hominem argument (an argument to the man); it is syllogistically invalid. It is not the man you must argue against but the arguments he makes.

Science of course is defined as:

- http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/science?view=uk

Using definition #2 (as it best fits the context you used) your argument is as follows:

Which is a solid contradiction. Understanding presupposes knowledge. Without a systematic body of knowledge, there can be no understanding. So to advocate that understanding is possible without knowledge is to state a fallacy.

Science is the study of reality. We do not 'use science to depict reality'. (Perhaps some pseudo scientists might.) Real scientists build understanding of the real world -- of reality -- through experiments and studies.

Given that science is the study of reality: You have once again made a self contradictory statement. I don't need to be all knowing to know one aspect of reality. And using an understanding of reality to predict reality is much more valid than any other process of prediction.

Who says I am not supposed to know? Is it your god? If hes so scary and powerful and such why does he not simply come down here and tell me off for being the naughty little atheist I am?

This is opinion. Unless you have some evidence to back it up I suggest you refrain from stating it in future.

With philosophy; with metaphysics. The same way so many people have already. But really, we don't need to disprove it. You already disprove it yourself: Religion requires faith. The study of reality requires none. Any set of arguments that require faith require you to accept premises without proof. Premises you would normally reject. Premises such as: god is all knowing and all powerful. All we need to is reject your irrational premises and your whole religion (and its arguments) crumbles. There is no way to protect what you cannot prove.

My arguments are correct by an objective system of truth called rationality. You may have heard of it. The truth value of a statement is how well it conforms to reality. It is not a subjective measure, it is objective.

Incorrect. Your beliefs are wrong. How do I know? Because they don't conform to reality. Epistemological schools of thought are not all equally valid. In fact there is only one valid school of thought: objectivist epistemology. All other 'methods' of 'knowing' are false. This can be tested and proven objectively by measuring the capacity to which sets of 'knowledge' conform to reality, after being learned through different understandings of knowledge. Obviously the knowledge learned by the scientist, through the scientific method, is more valid than the 'knowledge' learned by the religious fanatic after starving himself for a month, sitting in a wet cave.

Theres that opinion again. Remember what I said about making statements which have no way to be disproved, and therefore cannot be fact.

It is your opinion that I cannot live my life just live. It is frankly obvious that one can. Plenty of atheists out there live much better lives than those who are religious.

You are the one wasting your time, dear boy. You have a mere 80 years on this planet and you'll spend every Sunday in church. I'll spend my Sundays sleeping in.

The cry of the irrational.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged