Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

I would argue that emergent properties would answer your objection.

That was addressed by this line.

...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.

It doesn't address that at all. The idea of emergent property is that it cannot be broken down or applied to smaller parts. Meaning, brain as a whole can be the interpreter without being broken down into smaller ones.

... and we are back to humans defining their own morals and meaning.

a.k.a. nihilism.

Not according to your definition.

[Jenny A]

It is okay for the Judeo-Christian god to kill folks and torture them

Yes because that is thoroughly just. God can do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. God isn't good... good is God. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... God is sure of his convictions, where a human judge can't be.

Only if you define justice as what god does and a very ugly justice that would be.

---

God didn't create good no. Good is what God has to be to be a creative singularity. What opposes good opposes God. And what is unjust etc, contradicts Gods nature. Hence we can know something of God.

I don't think that follows. What is it that is inherently good about a creator?

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is okay for the Judeo-Christian god to kill folks and torture them

Yes because that is thoroughly just. God can do no other. Objectively, that is his nature. God isn't good... good is God. Just like a court might sentence a criminal to punishment. Difference is... God is sure of his convictions, where a human judge can't be.


[emphasis added -- Thump]

Don't look now, but you're practicing moral relativism.

[Violet]

Go back and re-read your statement that I placed in bold for you, assuming that would have made it obvious--which, obviously I assumed wrong (Hint: Your assertion was purporting to be a true one, yes?).

Reiterate it. I didn't see any issue with whatever it was the first time, so clearly its importance in whatever it is has yet to be conveyed.

All positive claims are real. Almost all of them are ultimately false. I've no reason to consider my own positive claims to be any more true than anyone else's.

Your argument amounted to, "We can't know everything. Therefore, we can't know anything." Which, of course, is intellectually vacuous. If your only point was that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty or infallibility, then, again, no shit, sherlock.

WRONG! My argument is that we can know *ANYTHING*. That act of knowing a thing does not the thing's correctness make

We CAN know ANYTHING with ABSOLUTE certainty. We often do know more than we ought with relative certainty. The reality is that probably we're not aware of 'the reality', and can only form our best guesses around whatever apparent consistency our experiences might have in common.

This is why we have exceptions to rules, and not all-encompassing rules. Trying to get every relevant card nailed down into any one rule is impossible when we can't really tell which game we are playing. Is it cheating... or are we cheating?

Equivocal use of the term "faith." Faith is not synonymous with belief on the basis of reason and evidence. It's the antithesis of those. If you want to call the belief that other minds besides your own exist "faith," you're only muddling the discourse, not advancing it.

Faith is belief is confidence is knowledge. You do have faith in the reasons and evidence you're using to support your beliefs, do you not? You'd have to, if you believe in the findings resultant from such things. This is built upon layer and layer... there is no prerequisite for faith that states it is necessarily unreasonable. In truth, it is often quite the opposite... whether the reasons be good or bad, valid or not, is irrelevant to the process that is reasoning.

Other minds exist. Whether they exist outside of my own head, on the other hand... that's why solipsists are incorrigible: there is literally no perceptible difference. They are only wrong when they suggest that everything does not exist... because insomuch as their thinking proves their being: a table's splintering proves it's being. In each argument, existence is already assumed, because nonexistence is inherently impossible through logic: if it doesn't exist, then there's nothing to be defined. Nothing to test, nothing to contest.

Probably a good place to start if you want to end all future interactions before they get off the ground.

Of course. So many are so enraptured in what they know, that should their walls come crashing down: they'll be buried beneath the weight of their fancy.

Alternately, you could ignore me. That works for most people who are unable to defend their arguments

You seem to have a gift for sloppy aphorisms. Arbitration can be rational or irrational, scientific or non. I'm not sure which you prefer, but the former in both instances typically works for me.

That's all we've got in the end: what usually works for us. All reasoning is itself arbitrary, the goal: whether or not it convinces a person of any particular thing. Further, should justifications for a belief ultimately succeed in the establishment of persuasion... how strongly such convictions are held is affected by how enamored they have become within such.

Simply... it's the difference between "Oh? I'll have to look into that. I never thought of it that way before..." and "YOU WOT MATE? I SWEAR ON ME MUM! "

Cool. When you come up with something better, maybe you'll offer more useful contributions to our discussion.

I have something of a balance: trust everything to be real, respond to only that which demands an immediate response, respond with as little motion and noise as possible, and always get the hell out of dodge in the safest, shortest, and least attention-drawing method if shit actually does go down.

So far, I haven't been arrested for babbling, erratic motion in the street, inexplicable hand motions, or blunted/flat affect... but hey, I'm young: give me time

---

I'd say prove it.

Why would I challenge a scottsman on his own turf? No true Alice dares mess with men manly enough to wear skirts.

Your reasons don't concern me. I accept any opportunity to refine my beliefs.

Really? An outsider might be led to believe otherwise.

And what did she tell you about my concepts?

That you really need to take another look at those hands, brother...

They have drawing classes for that, you know?

I would.

Hello Would. Me Alice. What is you feel?

None of that is faith.

So they say. They say many things; they keeps Alice up at night.

[Jackalope]

... and we are back to humans defining their own morals and meaning.

a.k.a. nihilism.

Existentialism, not nihilism.

[genkaus]

Why would I challenge a scottsman on his own turf? No true Alice dares mess with men manly enough to wear skirts.

Then don't make claims you can't prove.

Really? An outsider might be led to believe otherwise.

Led by whom?

That you really need to take another look at those hands, brother...

They have drawing classes for that, you know?

That makes no sense at all.

I would.

Hello Would. Me Alice. What is you feel?

So they say. They say many things; they keeps Alice up at night.

Sounds like Alice needs to start taking her meds again.

[Whateverist]

a.k.a. nihilism.

Existentialism, not nihilism.

Yeah, you would have thought nihilism was when your attempt at existentialism didn't go well.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm an Atheist and Nihilist and I say yes. Atheists who are reject Nihilism are being intellectually dishonest.

The Wiki article is conflating objective meaning with intrinsic value. Simply because we supply our own meanings to our own lives, it doesn't follow that our lives are worthless.

My own answer is: no. I supply my own meaning to my own life.

That you feel that your life has meaning has no bearing on whether or not it actually does. You can supply meaning all you want but that doesn't mean anything. In 100 years all that meaning that you've convinced yourself of will likely be pointless. I think the mistake is in thinking that somehow nihilism means being whiney and depressed. I actually find power in being a nihilist. Rather than saying that it means that you should just mope around (like half the people on this fourm do anyway) it means that my life is truly free for me to do whatever I like with it.

[Jackalope]

I'm an Atheist and Nihilist and I say yes. Atheists who are reject Nihilism are being intellectually dishonest.

I lean towards Absurdism myself and see nothing intellectually dishonest about it. Perhaps you can enlighten me, perhaps not.

[Jenny A]

Sorry to grossly over simplify, but what I'm reading is this:

If we follow Chad W's description of nihilism, we can't be sure of our sensory perception of the world or our ability to reason or the existence of any capital T truths. So atheism leads to not knowing anything and a bleak existence.

But if god exists all is real and there are capital T truths.

I can see the problem. Delve to far into metaphysics and you're likely to conclude we can't know anything at all. But even those who make that conclusion go right on acting as if our sensory and reasoning processes work just find. Find me a skeptic so far gone he'll stick his hand into a fire because he doesn't have any reason to believe his hand is real and I'll believe there's a real doubter out there.

The problem is that you have to reason your way into the problem (which requires that which we are supposed to be doubting) and everyone still able to navigate the world knows better than to trust reason in the face of what appears to be reality too far without very careful confirmation. So no one really goes there. By this definition there are no real nihilists.

Now, having stated this problem that we ignore to our physical benefit, I ask the question does god solve this dilemma?

I think not. If we doubt our ability to reason and to perceive, surely we doubt any innate knowledge of god. Announcing faith in god is no different than announcing, as I proudly do, that the world is generally consistent with my perception and reasoning and so I shall continue to believe in it. But wait. Believing in god requires two presumptions: 1) I can reason and perceive; and 2) god made that so. So where is the need for or proof of 2?

There's certainly no need, but if you demand capital T truths of justice and goodness, perhaps god is necessary for that. But, god doesn't appear to provide that answer here in this life or least not ones that are agreed upon by all believers in a god or gods, so I'll just live happy with my subjective truths. OK?

There atheism without nihilism.