Does Atheism Inherently Endorse Nihilism? (1 Viewer)

[liberal1]

And, if so, is it a bad thing?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Not at all, and how are you making that connection.

And yes, in my opinion it is a very bad thing. Nihilists have the worst point of view imaginable next to the mystics IMO.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Agreed. Most athiests have moral codes/values that they believe in...they just don't associate them with a higher power.

 

[ngdawg]

According to my handydandy dictionary, nihilism is the complete rejection of religious and moral principles. Are you suggesting that atheists have no moral principles simply because they don't believe in God? That's totally absurd....
How do you explain so many criminals who DO believe in God? One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Thelost1]

no, someone who has truly come to terms with the lack of anything supernatural has probably developed their own morals.

 

[Felicity]

There are many different degrees of the "practice" of Atheism so I think it only fair to look at the terms themselves objectively.

Atheism--NOT Atheist themselves--does, in my opinion, ultimately conclude with Nihilism. I am speaking in terms of the philosophy--not the actual personal practice--of Atheism (no-god).

 

[tecoyah]

There are many different degrees of the "practice" of Atheism so I think it only fair to look at the terms themselves objectively.

Atheism--NOT Atheist themselves--does, in my opinion, ultimately conclude with Nihilism. I am speaking in terms of the philosophy--not the actual personal practice--of Atheism (no-god).

And in this...you would be assuming based on lack of knowledge. In many ways those who claim Paganism, are atheist in practice, as very few truly believe in the existance of a God(s), but rather use the deity as a means to focus. Yet these people as a general rule follow a defined set of rules in life...meant to guide actions and develop the spirit towards growth.

Karma can certainly be seen as a moral code in its essence, and most Atheists delieve in this at some level:

" from the root kṛ, "to do") is a word of ancient origin meaning action or activity and its subsequent results (also called karma-phala, "the fruits of action"). It is commonly understood as a term to denote the entire cycle of cause and effect as described in the philosophies of a number of Dharmic Religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

Karma is a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. Individuals go through certain processes and accompanying experiences throughout their lives which they have chosen, and those would be based on the results of their own creations: "karma". Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward. Karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well.

Throughout this process, many see God as playing some kind of role, for example, as the dispenser of the fruits of karma. Other Hindus consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. Some interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita suggest an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple. "

 

[Felicity]

And in this...you would be assuming based on lack of knowledge. In many ways those who claim Paganism, are atheist in practice, as very few truly believe in the existance of a God(s), but rather use the deity as a means to focus. Yet these people as a general rule follow a defined set of rules in life...meant to guide actions and develop the spirit towards growth.

uh..no...I specifically said (quite carefully and clearly) not the personal practice of Atheism. Are you just feeling contrary?


Hey--that def. of Karma is very like the way I've been trying to explain "nature" to FI in the abortion forum only Karma refers to events and behaviors rather than the creature itself.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

There are many different degrees of the "practice" of Atheism so I think it only fair to look at the terms themselves objectively.

Atheism--NOT Atheist themselves--does, in my opinion, ultimately conclude with Nihilism. I am speaking in terms of the philosophy--not the actual personal practice--of Atheism (no-god).

If god is seen as the alpha and omega, then yes, the rejection of him ends up being the rejection of all meaning and truth, i.e. nihilism. But atheism is the rejection of a conclusion reached without evidence; anything for which evidence exists would be seen as objectively true. In terms of deeper meaning, most atheists recognize they must create it themselves, but they do do so. They do not generally reject all meaning just because there is no higher power to grant us meaning from above.

I think this question reflects a theistic bias, inasmuch as a believer who suddenly stopped believing for whatever reason might find himself or herself as a nihilist. But I don't think most atheists feel the same lack, and so do not feel that all truth is tainted by it. So no, I don't think atheism leads naturally to nihilism. I think a traumatic loss of faith leads to nihilism.

 

[Jerry]

And, if so, is it a bad thing?

Dictionary.com

Nihilism;
4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.

As I read that entry I am reminded of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Invisible Pink Elephants" arguments which serve to deny real things.

Also, if there is an objective basis for truth, then it would directly threaten the Moral-Relativism so proffered in society today.

 

[ngdawg]

There are many different degrees of the "practice" of Atheism so I think it only fair to look at the terms themselves objectively.

Atheism--NOT Atheist themselves--does, in my opinion, ultimately conclude with Nihilism. I am speaking in terms of the philosophy--not the actual personal practice--of Atheism (no-god).

Pulled apart, this makes no sense. Where is atheism if not with atheists? Seems comparable to saying you have eight friends and you're all at your homes, but you're playing baseball together....
Atheism is the rejection of belief in a supreme being and its ultimate power over life, no? I don't even think Karma can be seen as atheistic as it assumes something is working to direct outcomes.
If the 'philosophy' of atheism concludes in nihilism and atheists themselves don't support that philosophy(ie; they DO have moral principles), then it would appear the 'philosophy' does not exist within the (non) believers(as grouped together) and thusly is nonexistent.

 

[hipsterdufus]

And, if so, is it a bad thing?

It depends on how you want to use the word Nihilism.
One meaning of Nihilism is a

derogatory term referring to a complete rejection of all systems of authority, morality, and social custom, or one who purportedly makes such a rejection.

Nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That has nothing to do with Atheism, in fact, quite the opposite usually.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Atheism--NOT Atheist themselves--does, in my opinion, ultimately conclude with Nihilism.

How? Explain to me how you arrive at this conclusion.

 

[Felicity]

Pulled apart, this makes no sense. Where is atheism if not with atheists? Seems comparable to saying you have eight friends and you're all at your homes, but you're playing baseball together....
Atheism is the rejection of belief in a supreme being and its ultimate power over life, no? I don't even think Karma can be seen as atheistic as it assumes something is working to direct outcomes.
If the 'philosophy' of atheism concludes in nihilism and atheists themselves don't support that philosophy(ie; they DO have moral principles), then it would appear the 'philosophy' does not exist within the (non) believers(as grouped together) and thusly is nonexistent.

Dang! you are such a materialist.

 

[Felicity]

How? Explain to me how you arrive at this conclusion.

As human beings, we are basically programmed to "believe" in things. Humans have the capacity to yearn for understanding beyond that which they empirically know. In that yearning to "know" that which we do not already know, some will experience this yearning as a quest predominantly toward spirituality and those would be the people who tend toward Theism of various stripes. Those who experience this yearning predominantly toward empirical knowledge would tend toward Atheism. However, I do not believe there are any true Atheists, because even those who tend toward Atheism, put faith in things which they do not know. To simplify it a great deal, even the most staunch Atheist practices Atheism at the same time he yearns to know that which he does not already know, and in that quest, he may find a "God" in science or in nature. I believe tecoyah explained it rather well. "Atheism"--as a philosophy in the hypothetical sense is "A"= "no" or "without" and "Thea" = "god." If practicing Atheists cannot experience existence without making a "god" of something--as I said, science, nature, self, etc...--because all humans yearn for understanding, then there are no true Atheists.

If Atheism is, in fact, the philosophical stance that there is no god (NONE of any sort), then indeed it becomes Nihilism--(Nothingness).

 

[CoffeeSaint]

As human beings, we are basically programmed to "believe" in things. Humans have the capacity to yearn for understanding beyond that which they empirically know. In that yearning to "know" that which we do not already know, some will experience this yearning as a quest predominantly toward spirituality and those would be the people who tend toward Theism of various stripes. Those who experience this yearning predominantly toward empirical knowledge would tend toward Atheism. However, I do not believe there are any true Atheists, because even those who tend toward Atheism, put faith in things which they do not know. To simplify it a great deal, even the most staunch Atheist practices Atheism at the same time he yearns to know that which he does not already know, and in that quest, he may find a "God" in science or in nature. I believe tecoyah explained it rather well. "Atheism"--as a philosophy in the hypothetical sense is "A"= "no" or "without" and "Thea" = "god." If practicing Atheists cannot experience existence without making a "god" of something--as I said, science, nature, self, etc...--because all humans yearn for understanding, then there are no true Atheists.

If Atheism is, in fact, the philosophical stance that there is no god (NONE of any sort), then indeed it becomes Nihilism--(Nothingness).

Too loose a definition of god. Defining god as any ideal, any goal that should be aspired to, and/or anything that is relied upon or believed in would make all of us theists, yes -- but it also makes the concept of god,and thus theism, utterly meaningless.
I love language. I believe it can achieve great things when raised to its highest level, which is very nearly sublime. It is something that inspires me and motivates me. It is not a god: it did not make me, it does not control me, it does not watch over me, it does not wait for me after I die. It is not in any way separate from nor above the natural world; therefore it is not a god.
God must be supernatural, and god must be conscious. Otherwise it isn't god. Atheism is the denial of that, and only that. Some atheists take that lack of a conscious supernatural being to mean there also isn't any power beyond observable natural forces, but that is an extension of atheism, not atheism itself.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Dictionary.com


As I read that entry I am reminded of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Invisible Pink Elephants" arguments which serve to deny real things.

Also, if there is an objective basis for truth, then it would directly threaten the Moral-Relativism so proffered in society today.

Atheists generally do believe there is an ob jective bassis for truth, in empirical observations of natural forces, in mathematics, in the laws of physics. One who did not believe that would be a nihilist, but the one does not imply the other. There is a great difference between the existence of objective scientific truth and objective moral truth.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If Atheism is, in fact, the philosophical stance that there is no god (NONE of any sort), then indeed it becomes Nihilism--(Nothingness).

How does not believing in the god's of others become nihilism?

Main Entry: ni·hil·ism
Pronunciation: 'nI-(h)&-"li-z&m, 'nE-
Function: noun
Etymology: German Nihilismus, from Latin nihil nothing -- more at NIL
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
- ni·hil·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- ni·hil·is·tic /"nI-(h)&-'lis-tik, "nE-/ adjective

I just don't see the connection, or logical inevitability. How does no god mean there is no objective truth?

 

[jfuh]

There are many different degrees of the "practice" of Atheism so I think it only fair to look at the terms themselves objectively.

Atheism--NOT Atheist themselves--does, in my opinion, ultimately conclude with Nihilism. I am speaking in terms of the philosophy--not the actual personal practice--of Atheism (no-god).

The immediate fallacy being simply that there is no such thing as a practice of atheism. Religions you practice, atheism does not require practicing the rejection of religion.

 

[jfuh]

However, I do not believe there are any true Atheists, because even those who tend toward Atheism, put faith in things which they do not know.

Such as?

To simplify it a great deal, even the most staunch Atheist practices Atheism at the same time he yearns to know that which he does not already know, and in that quest, he may find a "God" in science or in nature.

That does not indicate any presence of a supernatural work. This is but an ignorant claim.

If Atheism is, in fact, the philosophical stance that there is no god (NONE of any sort), then indeed it becomes Nihilism--(Nothingness).

That's hardly here nor there, nor leading to there. You're making the premise that if there is no god, then there is nothingness. Hardly what atheism is by any means.

 

[Thelost1]

There are many different degrees of the "practice" of Atheism so I think it only fair to look at the terms themselves objectively.

Atheism--NOT Atheist themselves--does, in my opinion, ultimately conclude with Nihilism. I am speaking in terms of the philosophy--not the actual personal practice--of Atheism (no-god).

There is no defining line between atheism and atheists. Whatever atheists believe is atheism.

Though, of course, atheism literally means "no god'.

 

[Felicity]

Too loose a definition of god. Defining god as any ideal, any goal that should be aspired to, and/or anything that is relied upon or believed in would make all of us theists, yes -- but it also makes the concept of god,and thus theism, utterly meaningless.
I love language. I believe it can achieve great things when raised to its highest level, which is very nearly sublime. It is something that inspires me and motivates me. It is not a god: it did not make me, it does not control me, it does not watch over me, it does not wait for me after I die. It is not in any way separate from nor above the natural world; therefore it is not a god.
God must be supernatural, and god must be conscious. Otherwise it isn't god. Atheism is the denial of that, and only that. Some atheists take that lack of a conscious supernatural being to mean there also isn't any power beyond observable natural forces, but that is an extension of atheism, not atheism itself.

Here's how American Atheist describe their POV:

American Atheists -- Atheism
ATHEISM
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

Ergo:
NOTHING exists (Nihilism)

However, the "...but natural phenomena (matter)" part starts one thinking that something DOES fill that void for an Atheist--and that is the god known as Empirical Evidence.

So, as an honest Atheist might say: "Nothing exists except that which we have faith is real which is empirical evidence--but we won't admit it requires a certain amount of faith and devotion to accept something as real (like those darned Theists are wont to do) because it would be a contradiction to admit we must reley on a sort of unprovable belief in the reality of any such empirical evidence to accept anything as true since NOTHING is objectively verifiable."

 

[Felicity]

Oooo...and that leads back to that whole Nihilism thing.... Nothing exists except that which is objectively verifiable--and NOTHING is objectively verifiable!

So yah...I believe Atheism inherently endorses Nihilism. The American Atheists say so.

 

[Thelost1]

perhaps a better definition is thus:
"An Atheist believes that which requires the least amount of faith."

 

[ngdawg]

Here's how American Atheist describe their POV:

American Atheists -- Atheism
ATHEISM
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

Ergo:
NOTHING exists (Nihilism)

However, the "...but natural phenomena (matter)" part starts one thinking that something DOES fill that void for an Atheist--and that is the god known as Empirical Evidence.

So, as an honest Atheist might say: "Nothing exists except that which we have faith is real which is empirical evidence--but we won't admit it requires a certain amount of faith and devotion to accept something as real (like those darned Theists are wont to do) because it would be a contradiction to admit we must reley on a sort of unprovable belief in the reality of any such empirical evidence to accept anything as true since NOTHING is objectively verifiable."

Talk about not comprehending...note the word 'but' in there? They are not saying that nothing exists, period. They are saying what DOES exist is natural phenomena, ie; acts of nature. It also is not rejecting moral principles.
And you think this group you're quoting has faith in or worships 'empirical evidence'? Simply because they say there's no God?
Your take on atheism is, as usual, off the mark.

Dang! you are such a materialist.

What the hell does that mean or have anything to do with anything if I was?