Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[fr0d0]

@fr0d0
What the fuck is a creative singularity?

Hehe

It's a singularity with extra explanatory powers

[Violet]

Big difference between a belief being reasoned and belief being based on sound reasoning. You are using reason as a means to knowledge only in the second case.

What in the hell is this "sound reasoning" bullshit? Sound reasoning is truth already, and you wouldn't know the difference between sound reasoning and logically valid reasoning, which is hopefully what you were trying to say in the first place.

I mean... I can tautology too... but it won't change the fact that I'm sorely unable to observe "truth" from that which I might be lead to believe is "truth"... there is literally nothing that differs between a reasoning that is "correct" (what even is that?) and a reasoning that is only valid... nothing except whether or not I BELIEVE it.

Actually, correctness is found in sound reasoning. Which is why knowledge is, by definition, a mirror of truth.

Cool... where is this delicious unicorn, and can I have mine with some snazzberry jam, and a side of some healthy fast food?

On the contrary, I've questioned them and found the answers. Which is why I know I am not wrong.

How do you know you're not wrong? What are these "answers" that you have?

---

@fr0d0
What the fuck is a creative singularity?

Hehe

It's a singularity with extra explanatory powers

AKA: creator god. Like Alice if she only had a planet-sized paintbrush.

[genkaus]

Just to be clear, my definition of nihilism is very broad: holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

So, basically, you are abandoning the varied wiki definition that was provided in the OP and coming up with your own? Fine with me. This makes things much easier - almost every atheists here has a basis for values and know and communicate many things - so clearly, it is impossible for them to be actual nihilists.

This takes me to my third component needed to counter nihilism: significance.

For the record - your first two components have already been knocked out of the park.

Significance refers to the relationship between a signs, or signifiers, and that to which the signs refer (the signified). So when people say that life has significance, then they are essentially claiming that their b and actions are signifiers that point to something external to them.

Wrong - nothing in the definition of the relation between the signifier and signified requires them to be distinct entities. Or belong to distinct entities for that matter. So, when people say their life has significance, they can just as easily be claiming that their actions are signifiers that point to something internal to them. Externality is not a requirement.

Signs are physical and include material forms, like letters, images, and artifacts; structured events, like music and speech; or some combination of both. The meanings of the signs are what people assign to otherwise meaningless things. For example, in traffic a blinking red light means ‘stop’ only as a matter of convention. Physical things in and of themselves do not have meaning without an interpreter.

OK.

Every atheist I know assumes that the brain adequately serves as the interpreter of signs. There is a problem with this assumption. Brains are themselves sensible objects performing material processes and like all other physical things and as such have no meaning.

Would have no meaning without an interpreter. You forgot to include that part. Fortunately, the brain serves as its own interpreter.

Neural correlates are like abacus beads that require the interpretation of a knowing subject. The brain cannot act as the interpreter of its own physical states because that makes an empty self-referential circle. Nor can one part of the brain serve and the interpreter of another, since the first would itself require interpretation from a second, the second by a third and so on, i.e. an infinite regress. Nor can the brain, as a whole, can be broken down into smaller and smaller interpreters, each assigning meaning to lesser and lesser signs. Even the smallest sign requires an interpreter no matter how tiny. You cannot build something out of nothing.

Bolding mine.

That is where your argument fails completely - being self-referential is the essence of self-awareness. It is only when the object of interpretation is the same as the subject doing the interpretation that there can be any self-awareness. Which is why brain can and does act as the interpreter of its own physical states.

The above is how a God or gods provide a basis for value that atheism lacks: value is contingent on [a] non-physical interpreter[s].

FYI, god or gods are not the only possible non-physical interpreters - you ignored that part. Secondly, by your initial argument, your god would require a knowing subject external to him for his existence to have any significance - which means if humans didn't exist, your god would be a nihilist.

---

Hehe

It's a singularity with extra explanatory powers

So, basically something you pulled out of your ass...

[Mudhammam]

@fr0d0
What the fuck is a creative singularity?

Hehe

It's a singularity with extra explanatory powers

Which also occasions from time to time to take the likeness of man, proceeding to shed its blood for mystical purposes, travel into the depths of hell, magically arise three days later, and float off into its abode somewhere in outer space?

Very creative explanatory powers indeed. ;-)

[Angrboda]

Every atheist I know assumes that the brain adequately serves as the interpreter of signs. There is a problem with this assumption. Brains are themselves sensible objects performing material processes and like all other physical things have no meaning.

That every atheist you know holds a certain position doesn't make that position a logical extension of atheism.

Neural correlates are like abacus beads that require the interpretation of a knowing subject .... God or gods provide a basis for value that atheism lacks: value is contingent on [a] non-physical interpreter[s].

This is an interesting assertion, but again, reductive materialism is not a logical extension of atheism. I would agree that it's possible that value is contingent on a non-physical interpreter, but what is your argument that this is indeed the case? If you're arguing that reductive materialism hasn't explained the operation of meaning in the world, or that you can't imagine how it could, then that's nothing more than an argument from ignorance or incredulity. I will concede that reductive materialism may have failed in this area. That doesn't make your assertion true by default. I'm not an atheist, but my belief is that the common understanding of the nature of meaning is an illusion, an illusion consisting of material processes. This introduces a third option which you seem to have failed to consider, which renders your formulation a false dichotomy.

[genkaus]

What in the hell is this "sound reasoning" bullshit? Sound reasoning is truth already, and you wouldn't know the difference between sound reasoning and logically valid reasoning, which is hopefully what you were trying to say in the first place.

I mean... I can tautology too... but it won't change the fact that I'm sorely unable to observe "truth" from that which I might be lead to believe is "truth"... there is literally nothing that differs between a reasoning that is "correct" (what even is that?) and a reasoning that is only valid... nothing except whether or not I BELIEVE it.

Ofcourse I know the difference - sound reasoning is logically valid reasoning from true premises. That is the basis on which you can differentiate between actual truth and what you've been led to believe is true. And that is why I equate correct reasoning with sound reasoning because simply valid reasoning form untrue premises would lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Cool... where is this delicious unicorn, and can I have mine with some snazzberry jam, and a side of some healthy fast food?

You bring the validity, I'll get the soundness.

How do you know you're not wrong? What are these "answers" that you have?

Short answer: If I am wrong, the concept of "wrong" would be rendered meaningless.

Long answer: Go look for it in all the other posts I've made on this forum.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So, basically, you are abandoning the varied wiki definition that was provided in the OP and coming up with your own?

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth addition. I'll address your other points later.

---

I'm not an atheist, but my belief is that the common understanding of the nature of meaning is an illusion, an illusion consisting of material processes.

But aren't illusions, of necessity, in some way meaningful?

[genkaus]

So, basically, you are abandoning the varied wiki definition that was provided in the OP and coming up with your own?

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth addition.

This one?

ni·hil·ism
n.
1. Philosophy The doctrine that nothing actually exists or that existence or values are meaningless.

Yours was: Holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

The dictionary is just trying to be comprehensive - conveying ontological, existential and moral nihilism as distinct ideas in just one sentence.

[Angrboda]

I'm not an atheist, but my belief is that the common understanding of the nature of meaning is an illusion, an illusion consisting of material processes.

But aren't illusions, of necessity, in some way meaningful?

Not in the sense you are trying to indicate. Our brains appear capable of interpreting anything as meaningful, regardless of whether the sense of our thoughts represent anything or not. Experiments with drugs like DMT and hallucinations make clear that the brain is quite capable of declaring anything as "seemingly meaningful." Meaningfulness appears to be a natural category of our minds, like the categories moral and immoral, or the belief in free choice; whether there is an objective construct behind these categories which corresponds with their appearance is as yet unclear. (As is often the case, senselessness can easily go unnoticed, such as times when you fail to question what you've just heard or read. It can also arbitrarily appear where it shouldn't, such as in the case of jamais vu. Or as in the case with some aphasiacs who are unaware that their vocal productions don't make sense, a mix of aphasia and anosognosia.)

[Violet]

Ofcourse I know the difference - sound reasoning is logically valid reasoning from true premises. That is the basis on which you can differentiate between actual truth and what you've been led to believe is true. And that is why I equate correct reasoning with sound reasoning because simply valid reasoning form untrue premises would lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Right... right. So you've gotta know the truth to know the truth. Right. You were around for the whole thing about the tautology thing, weren't you? Nah, you probably assumed it meant something like treacle or some shit, and be jamming to that slam you call mushrooms.

HOW can you differentiate between actual truth and any truth that isn't actual? Do you know some all-knowing oracle that filters the false from the true for you?

It's funny how deluded they can be without knowing it... I wonder, is it a kindness to expose reality to their consciousnesses... or am I cruel to betray their beliefs to them, to demolish their coping mechanism in certainty?

You bring the validity, I'll get the soundness.

A = A
A ≠ A
A / ≠A

Done... so what's soundness got to do with it?

Short answer: If I am wrong, the concept of "wrong" would be rendered meaningless.

Long answer: Go look for it in all the other posts I've made on this forum.

Oddly, your long answer was shorter than your short answer. If you don't have the capacity to defend your beliefs when they're questioned, then I've no respect for them

Your concept of wrong, and what wrong actually is, are not one and the same. You're luckier than you know... able to live in a world where you think you know the rules... all the solutions to every problem... where things seem consistent, some of them unwavering.

Not all of us have the kindness that is ignorance, the blessing that is arrogance, and the comfort that is stability. I do not have the luxury of such faiths.