Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...And how are you defining your three concepts,?...

I guess you don’t read whole posts before you start spouting off.

... what is it about a god that resolves these issues? This seems to me a total non-sequitur: why must we gain those things from outside of humanity for them to be worth enough...

The question of the OP is “Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?” not “how does believe in God provide meaning.” That question would be a distraction from the original question.

... This all seems needlessly melodramatic, to me.

As per the OP we are talking about logical extremes. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about then you haven’t fully embraced your own philosophy.

...You're beginning with a premise that I don't buy, that if life is solely composed of material causes then matter is all there is. But that's a fallacy of composition, presuming that the whole must function exactly like its constituent parts.

Except you haven’t proven that giving matter a specific form is sufficient to endow a being with final cause. So the burden of proof is on you when you claim that your life has purpose to justify that belief in purpose itself.

...Just because something ends doesn't mean it has no legitimate worth. If you actually believed that you'd never see movies, or read books, or even talk to people. After all, you'll eventually forget things about them, therefore diminishing their value, right?

That’s kinda the point isn’t it? The value of a trivial but enjoyable book fades because it doesn’t make an impact on your life. Then there are other books that profoundly change how you think and feel about the world. Is life profound or trivial?

---

...all atheists are tacit nihilists no matter how adamantly they deny it.

Perhaps that was your atheism. It certainly isn't mine.

Like I said, you may deny it, but that doesn’t mean that atheism isn’t actually nihilistic.

The unquestioned premise here is that all atheists are materialist reductionists.

The explicit answer is that denial of a spiritual dimension to reality leaves only the physical one. In turn, you get ontological naturalism. Whether that become material reduction or idealistic monism or something else doesn’t matter.

Death doesn't render life meaningless, that is a silly claim. You may as well argue that the period at the end of this sentence removes meaning from each and every word in it.

I didn’t say that it did. I haven’t gotten to the third part about significance yet. What I did say was that death undermines lasting value. I think that’s pretty obvious to most people except Esquilax.