Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[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...