Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Esquilax]

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

Oh, I did. I even responded to the whole thing. But you weren't making any sense, you were just saying a bunch of vague, unconnected words, seemingly under the expectation that simply putting "atheism doesn't have..." at the beginning of those sentences would make them stick.

But I asked those questions for a reason: without a clear reference for what is and isn't sufficient reason, value etc, it's very hard for either of us to tell whether or not any given atheist viewpoint might have it. You might end up surprised by how we answer, but you're never going to get much cogent response when you won't define the terms you're playing by, other than to flatly assert that atheism doesn't have a few of the vital components.

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.

That's certainly true, but you were expanding upon the point that spawned the OP, and a part of that explanation was the contention that the reason why atheism leads to nihilism is because it doesn't have X, Y and Z things, which theists do because they have god. Knowing why you think that would be a useful fact to have, if we're to answer you, whether that answer is in agreement or disagreement. Perhaps we have a view of atheism you haven't considered before, that might encompass some of the things you think come from your god. Without defining your terms, we'll never know.

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.

Or perhaps my philosophy is different than you think it is. Maybe you need to stop being in such a rush to define everyone else's position for them.

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.

Except that my position, as it should be, is "I don't know." There are so many things about the way we work that aren't fully understood, I'd be mad to assume one way or the other. But it's easy to envision an alternative to what you say, where constituent parts come together to transcend the individual pieces. We see it all the time. Hell, the entirety of engineering and mechanics are based on that premise.

Meanwhile, you're sitting there either demanding I hold a position that I don't, in which case you're simply wrong, or you're claiming that it is impossible for matter to scaffold itself up to something free of the exclusive dictates of matter alone, which is the actual claim that bears a burden of proof. To simply dismiss the possibility entirely because it hasn't been fully answered for is, as you quite rightly mentioned in an earlier post, an argument from ignorance.

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?

Why can't it be both? And again, why the all or nothing attitude about it?