Does Atheism Inherently Endorse Nihilism? (1 Viewer)

[jfuh]

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."

No, it does not mean that at all: "nothing exists, BUT" and then the sentence continues. It's dishonest and quite arrogant to edit out the rest of a phrase to suit your own purposes but then to leave the remainder of the phrase that is completely contradictory to your claims there. Nothing in that statement even comes close to the rejection of moral principles, all it does it a complete rule out of anything supernatural.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

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.

Of course things are objectively verifiable. Place a weather vane somewhere where there are no other infuences. If it moves you have the objectively verifiable natural phenomenon of wind. Place a thermometer in water on a stove. Turn the stove on. If the thermometer functions properly, the temerature goes up. You have the objectively verifiable natural phenomenon of a rising temperature. Even of I say, 'but that's not windy or hot', those are subjective perceptions of natural phenomena, and don't change that the natural phenomenon objectively and verifiably occurred.

Add to this that athiests have a moral code, often developed from their perceptions of others and responses that those people received, from responses they received from behaviors, or from their own personal belief system, and, yah, Athiesim does not inherently endorse Nihilism.

 

[Felicity]

Of course things are objectively verifiable. .

BBC - h2g2 - The Scientific Method

In General

The case against the scientific method in general, comes down to two main points:

Nothing is objectively verifiable.

Induction is not objectively valid.

Both of these are true and they are often used to argue that science is completely false. Those who argue thus often seem to be right, because some of their opponents forget (or never learned) these basic facts and argue from the point that the scientific method is objectively verifiable and/or objectively valid.

The first point is the easiest to deal with and the scientific methods approach has already been described. Nothing is considered completely true, the inaccuracies of the observations are estimated6 and the result is supporting evidence of a theory, rather than proof of it.

The second is trickier. The scientific method relies on observations on a few cases to hold for all cases, and for things that happened yesterday to happen tomorrow. Just because this has held true so far doesn't objectively mean it has to be true tomorrow. And if it isn't the scientific method isn't capable to deal with it, the scientific method cannot be used on itself.


I am not arguing there is anything wrong with science or the scientific method--merely that there is a certain faith in "reality" that Atheism must accept as true to be able to even to understand or accept the world around them. This faith in the Scientific Method--or as I said, the god Empirical Evidence (EE)--makes the "practice" of Atheism--not exactly "A" (without) "thea" (god). They serve under the god EE in the religion of Science. That is why I said there is no such thing as an Atheist (perhaps I should say "true" Atheist, or "absolute" Atheist), and that the specific philosophy can only be lived in an imperfect way--because it leads to nothing--and nothing in unlivable.

 

[Felicity]

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

That makes sense.

That's why I made the distinction I did in my first post. I don't believe Absolute Atheism can be practiced by human beings--it's not in our make-up as creatures with minds that seek to understand that which beyond our understanding. That yearning for the unknown is something unique to humans and prohibits true "god"lessness. We will make a god of ANYTHING. Look around.

 

[Felicity]

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

What you immediately experience through your senses is all you consider relevant--materialist=matter is all that matters. It is an Atheistic perspective.

Nothing wrong with it. My personal opinion is that you miss out on a lot, but that 's neither here nor there. Maybe it explains why you think I'm always "off the mark."

 

[Felicity]

No, it does not mean that at all: "nothing exists, BUT" and then the sentence continues. It's dishonest and quite arrogant to edit out the rest of a phrase to suit your own purposes but then to leave the remainder of the phrase that is completely contradictory to your claims there. Nothing in that statement even comes close to the rejection of moral principles, all it does it a complete rule out of anything supernatural.

Did you read that post of mine past the "Nothing exists (Nihilism)" part???

I addressed what the "but"-monkey indicates about the Atheistic perspective that the American Atheist profess. Read further.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I am not arguing there is anything wrong with science or the scientific method--merely that there is a certain faith in "reality" that Atheism must accept as true to be able to even to understand or accept the world around them. This faith in the Scientific Method--or as I said, the god Empirical Evidence (EE)--makes the "practice" of Atheism--not exactly "A" (without) "thea" (god). They serve under the god EE in the religion of Science. That is why I said there is no such thing as an Atheist (perhaps I should say "true" Atheist, or "absolute" Atheist), and that the specific philosophy can only be lived in an imperfect way--because it leads to nothing--and nothing in unlivable.

Defining the acceptance of probability as "faith" is making the definition of faith so broad it is meaningless in this discussion. Empiricists accept that things may change, but the laws of probability say that the physical rules of our universe probably won't -- and that's "probably" with a lot of 0's behind it, so to speak. Because that is the case, empiricists ignore the possibility that something may happen differently than it always has, unless something happens differently, and then they examine it and decide where it fits into the current theory -- hence the scientific method. An empiricist does not have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow, he merely knows that it has happened every day for the last 5 billion years, so the chances are pretty good. One cannot have faith in evidence; by definition, faith is belief without evidence. One may have faith that a conclusion derived from evidence is correct, but that has nothing to do with the term as it is used in a religious context.
And accepting that empirical evidence is the closest we can come to knowing anything is not making of empirical evidence a god: there is nothing supernatural about evidence, it does not guide us from on high with absolute morals, it does not wait for us after we die. It is not a god, and this is not a good argument against atheism.

 

[tecoyah]

That makes sense.

That's why I made the distinction I did in my first post. I don't believe Absolute Atheism can be practiced by human beings--it's not in our make-up as creatures with minds that seek to understand that which beyond our understanding. That yearning for the unknown is something unique to humans and prohibits true "god"lessness. We will make a god of ANYTHING. Look around.

Perhaps we have gotten a bit off track here, as far as the understanding of what atheism actually is:


a‧the‧ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism]

Though Faith may be a part of the belief in a God, it is not in the definition of what an atheist is. One can be atheist and have faith in many things....just not a supreme being. Placing the criteria of a complete lack of faith upon this subject is unjustified, as there can only be one explanation for a creature that carries no faith whatsoever...."God".

faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

To have no faith in anything, would require absolute knowledge of all things, at all times....which I believe fits the definition of a supreme being, does it not? Thus a self fulfilling, and impossible reality. I myself have faith in the Theory of Relativity, as I feel the pieces which form this theory fit the observed reality, yet it is not fact. I do NOT however, have faith in the Biblical portrayal of "God"....as such I am an atheist by description, yet have faith in many things.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

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."

So you explain that atheists believe that there is nothing supernatural, and then you make the huge leap to "nothing exists." Where is the logical connection there? Matter exists, and nothing escapes causality.

Just because there is nothing supernatural doesn't mean nothing exists. You don't have to have faith in things that just are. Things are as they are regardless of your capacity to perceive them.

I am not arguing there is anything wrong with science or the scientific method--merely that there is a certain faith in "reality" that Atheism must accept as true to be able to even to understand or accept the world around them.

Faith in reality? I'm sorry but until the physical rules of nature shift on us I'm going to have to say that I have reason to believe in cause and effect, and it requires no faith.

This faith in the Scientific Method--or as I said, the god Empirical Evidence (EE)--makes the "practice" of Atheism--not exactly "A" (without) "thea" (god). They serve under the god EE in the religion of Science.

First of all, what evidence isn't empirical. Secondly, how does using evidence and reason automatically equate the scientific method to your new god? You seem to believe that everyone must have a god of some sort, be it a philosophy or a rock.

That is why I said there is no such thing as an Atheist (perhaps I should say "true" Atheist, or "absolute" Atheist), and that the specific philosophy can only be lived in an imperfect way--because it leads to nothing--and nothing in unlivable.

Does that even mean anything? Perhaps you aren't making a distinction between a strong atheist (There is no god) to a weak atheist (I don't have a reason to believe in your god.) The strong atheist's claim is just as fallacious as the mystic's because you cannot prove or disprove either way.

If the comment above my avatar doesn't explain my bias enough, I am a man who operates on zero faith. Sure I cannot know for certain the outcome of my actions and decisions, but I have reason for each of them, and though I may hope for a certain outcome, or trust in another, faith had nothing to do with the cause. I am an atheist, and I have been unimpressed with the best religion has to offer on deities.

I dare not claim there cannot be a prime mover, or infinite complexity to the universe, but a humanoid deity?

Things exist, and I cannot accept your claim that faith precedes science, or that science or atheism lead to nothingness.

 

[Felicity]

Placing the criteria of a complete lack of faith upon this subject is unjustified, as there can only be one explanation for a creature that carries no faith whatsoever...."God"..

Take that...reverse it--and you've got an atheist.

Not G.O.D.......but D.O.G.

Animals do not have faith in anything--they do not conceive of a reality beyond their own experience. Their knowledge of the world consists of the material and the present. They are perfect atheists since they cannot formulate the necessary abstract ideations to assent to belief in anything or not.

 

[Felicity]

Things exist, and I cannot accept your claim that faith precedes science, or that science or atheism lead to nothingness.

That is because you believe "THIS" is real. You say "things exist"--THAT is your faith which you cannot prove. Just as Jerry pointed out earlier, The Flying Spaghetti Monster thing can be used to renounce the proof of the existence of ANYTHING. Can you prove we are nothing more than the stray dream of an insane man? Can you prove anything--really? That's the point--ultimately the human person needs to accept reality as real without proof. We are not like dogs who have no concept of that which is beyond his immediate experience--nor does he wonder about it. Human beings do. And because of that--in order to make sense of the experiences we have we assent to accepting reality as real--that "things exist."

 

[ngdawg]

What you immediately experience through your senses is all you consider relevant--materialist=matter is all that matters. It is an Atheistic perspective.

Nothing wrong with it. My personal opinion is that you miss out on a lot, but that 's neither here nor there. Maybe it explains why you think I'm always "off the mark."

As is this....
At least you're consistent, even if it is consistently wrong when it comes to thinking you know what I believe. You haven't a clue, really.

 

[jfuh]

Did you read that post of mine past the "Nothing exists (Nihilism)" part???

I addressed what the "but"-monkey indicates about the Atheistic perspective that the American Atheist profess. Read further.

And you incorrectly labled it again through the use of a supernatural which has already been tossed out by atheists.
You ignorantly addressed the "but monkey" through your own dictation of what it means and dishonestly made the conclusion that because the website stated "nothing exists" that indeed then atheism is nihilitic by nature. In other words, if I stated - there's nothing on my desk, you've taken that I said that there's nothing and are then claiming then of nihilism. Or if someone asks what're you thinking about and the response is nothing you then state that person is a nihilist - which then follows my statement of a ridiculous and dishonest premise.

 

[Felicity]

And you incorrectly labled it again through the use of a supernatural which has already been tossed out by atheists.
You ignorantly addressed the "but monkey" through your own dictation of what it means and dishonestly made the conclusion that because the website stated "nothing exists" that indeed then atheism is nihilitic by nature. In other words, if I stated - there's nothing on my desk, you've taken that I said that there's nothing and are then claiming then of nihilism. Or if someone asks what're you thinking about and the response is nothing you then state that person is a nihilist - which then follows my statement of a ridiculous and dishonest premise.

Dear...my conclusion was not that the American Atheists were Nihilistic. My conclusion was that they indeed have belief in something--they believe in their god EE. You have to read whole posts --don't stop when you see something that makes you feel like you have something to say or else you may fail to grasp the actual point being made. And (if I may) Heaven help you avoid it a SECOND time when the problem is brought to your attention. Please--read the post past the word Nihilism to avoid being irrelevant. The philosophy of Atheism is Nihilistic--Atheists are not--because there is no such thing as a "true Atheist."

 

[jfuh]

Dear...my conclusion was not that the American Atheists were Nihilistic. My conclusion was that they indeed have belief in something--they believe in their god EE. You have to read whole posts --don't stop when you see something that makes you feel like you have something to say or else you may fail to grasp the actual point being made. And (if I may) Heaven help you avoid it a SECOND time when the problem is brought to your attention. Please--read the post past the word Nihilism to avoid being irrelevant. The philosophy of Atheism is Nihilistic--Atheists are not--because there is no such thing as a "true Atheist."

What you have failed to grasp is that there is no god or supernatural explanation in atheism. This is not a matter of comprehension skills it is the inability on your behalf of accepting the basis that atheists do not believe in anything supernatural - that being far from nihilists.
As for your interpretation of there being no true atheists is again also false; a confusion between atheist and agnostic and or animism. Atheist do not recognize supernatural explanations for anything at all. Hence to state that EE is the god for atheist is plain ignorance. The philosophies of atheism and nihilism couldn't be the more different - no one does not encompass the other as it would be identical to the statement that Catholicism is a subset of Paganism since catholics celebrate yule.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

That is because you believe "THIS" is real. You say "things exist"--THAT is your faith which you cannot prove. Just as Jerry pointed out earlier, The Flying Spaghetti Monster thing can be used to renounce the proof of the existence of ANYTHING. Can you prove we are nothing more than the stray dream of an insane man? Can you prove anything--really? That's the point--ultimately the human person needs to accept reality as real without proof. We are not like dogs who have no concept of that which is beyond his immediate experience--nor does he wonder about it. Human beings do. And because of that--in order to make sense of the experiences we have we assent to accepting reality as real--that "things exist."

:shock: My eyes are open, you're the nihilist!

 

[ngdawg]

Is it possible that because of her own devoutness, the only way to understand the mindset of atheism is to attach a 'god' to it?
I think those who have total faith in a deity have difficulty with the thinking that others do not. It's almost like trying to explain to a perfectly sighted person how you can't see things because they aren't clear.
Earlier, the mistaken assumption was made that "What you immediately experience through your senses is all you consider relevant--materialist=matter is all that matters". Totally false, but because the comment and wrong observation was made by a devotee to an organized faith system, anything else is beyond comprehension.

 

[1069]

I think those who have total faith in a deity have difficulty with the thinking that others do not. It's almost like trying to explain to a perfectly sighted person how you can't see things because they aren't clear.

Or, conversely, trying to explain to a delusional person that you are not privy to their hallucinations.

 

[jfuh]

I think those who have total faith in a deity have difficulty with the thinking that others do not. It's almost like trying to explain to a perfectly sighted person how you can't see things because they aren't clear.

Other way around - trying to explain color to the blind or sound to the deaf. It certainly seems that around we go regardless of how many times it is noted to her that there is no supernatural aspect to atheists that we go right back again to the "EE god". What is noteworthy is that there is no argument about atheist being immoral.

 

[Felicity]

Wow--a lot was chopped off here during the shutdown....the gods must be angry:mrgreen:

 

[hipsterdufus]

I think those who have total faith in a deity have difficulty with the thinking that others do not. It's almost like trying to explain to a perfectly sighted person how you can't see things because they aren't clear.

Try this line of reasoning - it helps me get the point acrioss sometimes:
The vast majority of the population is atheistic to one degree or another in that they don't still believe in Zeus, Apollo,Poseidon, Yahweh or for Christians - Allah.

 

[1069]

Try this line of reasoning - it helps me get the point acrioss sometimes:
The vast majority of the population is atheistic to one degree or another in that they don't still believe in Zeus, Apollo,Poseidon, Yahweh or for Christians - Allah.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen Roberts)

 

[Andy]

One common argument I've seen throughout this thread is the idea that atheists aren't nihilist because most still have some sort of moral code or structure.

I think this raises the question though. Is this moral code real? Does it have any greater purpose? Any meaning? I contend that it does not. Atheist (and I include a part of myself in that catagory) might have a moral code, but can such a code have any meaning other than to act as a psychological coping mechanism, a device used by the athiest mind to get them through the day?

 

[Felicity]

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen Roberts)

That sounds like the flip-side of what I said to tecoyah in the part that got lost in the shutdown--My God is your God too, even if you don't believe in Him. IOW--He's still God, but he allows you to dismiss Him. Everyone will know someday--that is the point of free will and faith.

 

[tecoyah]

One common argument I've seen throughout this thread is the idea that atheists aren't nihilist because most still have some sort of moral code or structure.

I think this raises the question though. Is this moral code real? Does it have any greater purpose? Any meaning? I contend that it does not. Atheist (and I include a part of myself in that catagory) might have a moral code, but can such a code have any meaning other than to act as a psychological coping mechanism, a device used by the athiest mind to get them through the day?

The Moral Code...as you call it, is more a product of Society, and human interaction, than a mandate from on high. For this Pagan/Atheist, My own understanding of Ethics revolves around a betterment of Myself, and a means to function in a large group of people. If someone else needs a God to tell them to be nice....go for it. But just because I do not, dont you dare relegate me to some imaginary brimstone eternity of suffering. I do not need the pity of weak minds.