Atheism=Nihilism?

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309707829' post='2262628']
And look how did that turned out for him...[/quote] He became one of the most famous philosophers of the 19th century?

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309707829' post='2262628']
I wasn't arguing against moral nihilism, I was explaining why I believe moral relativism is the only logical consequence of atheism (something that a few other posters on this thread disagreed with, or at least used terminology that was inconsistent with their world views).[/quote] Even if that's true, and I don't know if it is, is that supposed to be a problem?

[stevil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309762836' post='2262906']
Stevil, did someone respond to answer why you got the tag? I saw that even MrCatholicCat (atheist) was given the tag as well and either dUSt didn't see that I'm also an atheist or...something. I still think it's weird and inappropriate.
[/quote]
Another community member explained it a bit by saying that it is to avoid a situation where a person might feel that I am qualified to talk for the church. He disagreed with it because he could see my world view was Atheist.
But I have had no explanation from dUSt.

I have disagreed directly with dUSt a couple of times now, maybe that prompted it?
I'm sure you will get tagged with something at some point.
You are not in a hurry are you?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309763778' post='2262910']
Another community member explained it a bit by saying that it is to avoid a situation where a person might feel that I am qualified to talk for the church. He disagreed with it because he could see my world view was Atheist.
But I have had no explanation from dUSt.

I have disagreed directly with dUSt a couple of times now, maybe that prompted it?
I'm sure you will get tagged with something at some point.
You are not in a hurry are you?
[/quote]

That's probably it then and I'd bet that I'll get the tag soon as well. Oh well.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Sorry, but I haven't read this thread and so this may not be pertinent to the actual discussion. The title of this thread caught my eye as I was just reading the following essay (by [url="http://www.amazon.com/David-Bentley-Hart/e/B001JRTRC0/"]David Bentley Hart[/url]), which may be interesting to some.


[url="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/christ-and-nothing-28"][i]Christ and Nothing[/i][/url]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309350459' post='2260194']Just because a lot of atheists are not nihilists does not mean that the logical consequences of atheism are not nihilism.[/quote]When most people use the word "logic", I fear it usually means "[i]the way I think[/i]". While atheism does not embrace any one ethical perspective, making it easier to embrace whatever the individual wants, that doesn't necessarily conclude in extreme nihilism and amoral behavior. You haven't logically shown this to be the case at least.[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309350459' post='2260194']It is. There's no way around that. The most intelligent atheists embraced this (like Nietzsche) while your garden-variety atheist of 2011 lack a rudimentary understanding of philosophy and fail to make the connection (like Dawkins). Here's why: purpose requires intentionality. If the world began intentionally (as theists believe) then there is the possiblity of a purpose to our existence (I say possibility because deists would argue otherwise). If, however, there is no intentionality behind the existence of our universe (as atheists believe) then there cannot possibly be any greater meaning.[/quote]Nihilism does not necessarily mean lack of meaning or values, merely that those meanings and values are arbitrarily arrived at. Argumentatively, there is less meaning and value in a religion, that is usually only focused on "[i]god[/i]", than secular philosophies.

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309350459' post='2260194']Moral relativism is also a logical consequence of atheism. Stevil stated that atheists don't believe in moral objectivity but "that doesn't mean they don't try to be good people". Do I even need to bother pointing out the contradiction in that statement? "Good" doesn't really exist, but it's still something that we're aiming for? When "the good" has no basis in objective reality then its reduced down to one's own personal preferences. It becomes an empty word signifying whatever we find most pleasing or acceptable. Jeffrey Dahmer could describe himself as a good person under those circumstances. [/quote]Most atheists I know do accept there is an objective morality, but that doesn't mean religion, in fact I have seen it more clearly argued that religion lacks moral objectivity. Regardless if there is a god or not. Since the whole "divine command" model of ethics is basically an appeal to authority, tradition, or ignorance. All of these are informal logic fallacies. Consider it this way, does you're god arbitrarily decide right or wrong, good or bad, holy and evil, true and false? If you say yes, you just admitted you're religious morality is nihilistic, because its arbitrarily decided, and more importantly fallacious since it appeals to authority. But if there is a method that god uses, then divine command is not needed, meaning god is not needed.

From tradition and ignorance in as much that this authority cannot be verified.

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309350459' post='2260194']None of these are, in and of themselves, arguments against atheism. Just because something is ugly doesn't make it false. It does however highlight two very important points:

1. Most atheists hold inconsistent views
2. Atheism is unable to account for humanity's search for transcendence or the existence of conscience. If atheism is correct then man is an inherently irrational animal because he desires something that does not exist and lives his life by rules that have no basis in reality.[/quote]I don't see any warranting for these conclusions. But atheism doesn't have to account for humanity's search for anything. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof and positive claims requires more proof than negative claims. The burden of proof is upon the one making the extraordinary positive claim of a god.

Homo sapians sapians are animals, simply a different kind of animal. But humanity's religious tendencies doesn't necessarily mean humans are irrational, maybe misguided, but I think that could be agreed upon regardless if one believes in god or not.

[i]Temporarily visiting, since you addressed me. Hope this helps. I have been avoiding Phatmass recently, I apologize if anyone misses me or deplores my presence.[/i]

Edited July 6, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat