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=-1]the belief that there is no universal truth or underlying reality that undergirds moral values; that ultimately existence is meaningless. From the Latin "nihil" or "nothing".

[/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.

 

[The_Ace]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. With that belief how can you believe there is a meaning of life or an ultimate reason for life or the universe.

 

[1337_Byte]

I don't see why you can't, just because you don't believe in god, doesn't mean you think everything is pointless. In fact it makes life better sometimes, because you just live life and never have to worry about following certain religious rules and other things. Many athiests I know believe in some kind of afterlife or reincarnation.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. With that belief how can you believe there is a meaning of life or an ultimate reason for life or the universe.

There is no ultimate meaning to life prescribed to us, but, while we're alive, we can create our own meaning.

 

[mcnuggetman]

There is no ultimate meaning to life prescribed to us, but, while we're alive, we can create our own meaning.

yes there is no ultimate meaning to life but there is meaning and it is to feel your and others emotion nil.athistism is just a was of expressing an emotion of the meaningof life, (anger pain ect.) because you fear the unknow ande we want to prove that wrong so, all those religons are is emotion opinions based off of biast peoples poinion and no facts

 

[The_Ace]

There is no ultimate meaning to life prescribed to us, but, while we're alive, we can create our own meaning.

Yes, but then to those who suffered and died to make other people's lives better really never got anything good back to themselves.

That means Jesus, Confusius, Gandi, Muhammed, and all the other messiahs or similar (depending what you actually believe in) all died for no reason, because they never actually got to live happily themselves.

 

[dwarfzilla15]

According to evolution, our goal in life is to reproduce. Of course, that isn't really a reason for a species as self-aware as we.

 

[insausage68]

I don't see why you can't, just because you don't believe in god, doesn't mean you think everything is pointless. In fact it makes life better sometimes, because you just live life and never have to worry about following certain religious rules and other things. Many athiests I know believe in some kind of afterlife or reincarnation.

But if there is no god, and we have nothing to answer to, then there really isnt much of a meaning to life. Then, everything would be pointless. You may impact the world at some point, but if life was pointless, why would you even want to be remembered. And if there was no god, how on earth are we going to be "reincarnated"? If we just happened to come into being, how off would it be that we would come back in the first place? That's just irrational.

 

But if there is no god, and we have nothing to answer to, then there really isnt much of a meaning to life. Then, everything would be pointless. You may impact the world at some point, but if life was pointless, why would you even want to be remembered.

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.

 

[Music Makes Me Pwn]

Your meanings, and actions are subjected to your conscience. Something or someone controls that, its a known fact. You will feel remorse if you do something bad, and you will feel good if you do something good. Ever noticed that? Try killing someone, then look at his or her family in sorrow, and how will that make you feel?

 

Your meanings, and actions are subjected to your conscience. Something or someone controls that, its a known fact. You will feel remorse if you do something bad, and you will feel good if you do something good. Ever noticed that? Try killing someone, then look at his or her family in sorrow, and how will that make you feel?

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?

 

[BlackHand]

I don't think it's fair to generalize religion with "is that there is a magical being in the sky looking out for them."
Thats only in Greek and Roman mythology, and that wasn't even a religion...But that probably wasn't meant literally...
Actually, Atheism is more similar to Nihilism than you think. Atheism is actually the practice of ignorance. While it may initially sound like it's only anti-Christian, anti-Islam, and everything else that claims a superior being, it actually attacks other philosophies as well, which is the same as Nihilism.

 

[insausage68]

And the purpose of your existence, to exist.

That.....makes no sense. Why on earth would someone just want to exist? Is living worth living just to live? There isn't much purpose in meerly existing. If you are living to live, what if you die? Then everything you "lived" for is worthless. Why even live or exist in the first place? If you live for yourself, then living isn't even worth it.

 

That.....makes no sense. Why on earth would someone just want to exist?

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

Is living worth living just to live? There isn't much purpose in meerly existing.

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.

If you are living to live, what if you die?

Then you have succeeded in living.

Then everything you "lived" for is worthless.

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.

Why even live or exist in the first place? If you live for yourself, then living isn't even worth it.

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.

 

[insausage68]

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.

Immoral? Immoral by your standards. You may be right in your own context, but by my standards, your values hold little to no meaning. Your state of mind leaves nothing to be desired out of life. The phrase "existence exists" is true, but it doesnt really mean anything. Of course existence exists, but what does that have to do with anything at all?

[/QUOTE]The only way one may live is for one's self. Any other course of action is death; and death is immoral.[QUOTE/] But, according to you, death accomplishes living, and living is the purpose of existence. So, if this is true, then existing is immoral.

 

Immoral? Immoral by your standards. You may be right in your own context, but by my standards, your values hold little to no meaning.

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

Your state of mind leaves nothing to be desired out of life. The phrase "existence exists" is true, but it doesnt really mean anything. Of course existence exists, but what does that have to do with anything at all?

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.

Existence exists is an axiom which states that there is something, as opposed to nothing. At the core of every thought is the observation that "I am aware of something". The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious. Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence exists. To exist, an existent (an entity that exists) must have a particular identity. A thing cannot exist without existing as something, otherwise it would be nothing and it would not exist. In the statement "something exists", the something refers to the axiom of identity and the exists refers to the axiom of existence. They cannot be separated and are like two sides of the same coin or two ways of understanding the same axiom.

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

But, according to you, death accomplishes living, and living is the purpose of existence. So, if this is true, then existing is immoral.

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.

 

[insausage68]

If you believe what you are saying, then where do you plan to go when you die? Do you simply plan to no longer exist? Or do have have another deeply rooted belief system for this as well?

You leave only 2 seperate choices for life. Selflessness and selfishness may be character qualities, but I really dont think they determine your life. Mind you, they may give different lifestyles. And in your case, you take selflessnes and selfishness to an extreme. You can be selfish is some situations and selfless in others. You dont have to chose one for your entire being. Chosing to live is not selfish or selfless. You are applying these words far too harshly.

Also, I just read the first actual topic post by you. Are you trying to convey Atheism in the thread?

 

If you believe what you are saying, then where do you plan to go when you die? Do you simply plan to no longer exist? Or do have have another deeply rooted belief system for this as well?

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.

You leave only 2 seperate choices for life. Selflessness and selfishness may be character qualities, but I really dont think they determine your life. Mind you, they may give different lifestyles.

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?

And in your case, you take selflessnes and selfishness to an extreme.

They only ever exist in totality.

You can be selfish is some situations and selfless in others. You dont have to chose one for your entire being. Chosing to live is not selfish or selfless. You are applying these words far too harshly.

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.

Also, I just read the first actual topic post by you. Are you trying to convey Atheism in the thread?

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.

 

[insausage68]

The way you are explaining everything you say leaves no room for anything else. You talk as if you know everything, this is false. If you are simply relying on science, you will never understand anything at all. According to natural science, when you die, you die. How are you supposed to know what happens? You yourself are not all-knowing. You can try to use science to depict reality, but in reality, you have no idea about anything.

By using mere science to depict all of life and life's purpose you are missing the main point entirely. The main point is, you arent supposed to know. You cannot and will not be able to comprehend everyhting. I dont care what kind of science you use.

You say religion is false? How do you plan to prove this? With science? Science may prove physical laws and abilities, but beyond that, it is useless. The is no point in arguing that you are correct, because by your mental view, everything you say can be correct. I know you will come up with something to say Im being irrational or immoral, but I dont really care. You cannot prove you points with your argument. You are talking in circles and long-winded sentences that are correct by only your truth system.

Thinking you are correct is fine with me, it's your life. But you cannot call my or anyone else's beliefs wrong, because yours is no more wrong than an atheist's or a nihilist's views.

You cannot live life just to live it. Simple as that. If you do not live for a higher purpose than just existing, then you are wating your time.

So, lets go, prove me wrong again.(im sure you will find some way to, dont let me down)

 

Contradictions layered on contradictions.

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

The way you are explaining everything you say leaves no room for anything else. You talk as if you know everything,

this is false.

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.

If you are simply relying on science, you will never understand anything at all.

Science of course is defined as:

science
• noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.
[SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

- 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:

If you are simply relying on a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject, then you will never understand anything at all.

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.

According to natural science, when you die, you die. How are you supposed to know what happens? You yourself are not all-knowing. You can try to use science to depict reality, but in reality, you have no idea about anything.

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.

By using mere science to depict all of life and life's purpose you are missing the main point entirely. The main point is, you arent supposed to know.

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?

You cannot and will not be able to comprehend everyhting. I dont care what kind of science you use.

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

You say religion is false? How do you plan to prove this? With science? Science may prove physical laws and abilities, but beyond that, it is useless.

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.

The is no point in arguing that you are correct, because by your mental view, everything you say can be correct. I know you will come up with something to say Im being irrational or immoral, but I dont really care. You cannot prove you points with your argument. You are talking in circles and long-winded sentences that are correct by only your truth system.

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.

Thinking you are correct is fine with me, it's your life. But you cannot call my or anyone else's beliefs wrong, because yours is no more wrong than an atheist's or a nihilist's views.

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.

You cannot live life just to live it. Simple as that. If you do not live for a higher purpose than just existing, then you are wating your time.

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.

So, lets go, prove me wrong again.(im sure you will find some way to, dont let me down)

The cry of the irrational.

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- "There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- "You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged