Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Tonus]

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?

I read it as a "might makes right" type of argument. When we understand how 'right' is used in that phrase, we understand how 'god is good' works.

[Esquilax]

Your complete misrepresentation of what I said is completely circular, yes. Congratulations on winning against yourself. Tell me how my statement differs from "he is because he says he is" and maybe we can have a discussion. You seem to get more ridiculous every day.

The really hilarious thing is that you accuse me of misrepresentation, yet the quotation you're trying to pin on me appears nowhere in what I typed, nor is the spirit of it present in any of the content I linked to.

The conversation I quoted regards how one determines the goodness of god and how that determination is circular if you ascribe goodness to god definitionally, it says nothing about the simple fiat assertion that he is good.

Did you just not read it, in your rush to call me ridiculous?

[fr0d0]

The major difference between the atheist structure and the Christian structure is that atheists are compelled to form their structure from reason and Christian use The Bible and/or revelation in addition to (we hope) reason.

What I don't see is how having a moral system created by god would provide humans with more purpose in life.

I think our position (Christians and other theists) is reasoned where atheisms is sensed. The bible, for example, is evidence of the reasoning process. Atheists can reason and do, although their reasoning is limited to a non perfect reality as it's base. Intrinsically inferior. So of course, a moral system encompassing justice trumps a moral system based upon injustice.

[Brakeman]

The bible, for example, is evidence of the reasoning process.

HaaaHaaa HAAA! That is terrible on soo many levels! POE!

[genkaus]

I think our position (Christians and other theists) is reasoned where atheisms is sensed.

And if you don't sense atheism, your position is not reasoned?

The bible, for example, is evidence of the reasoning process.

How can a bunch of flat assertions be evidence of any reasoning process?

Atheists can reason and do, although their reasoning is limited to a non perfect reality as it's base.

All reasoning is automatically limited to reality as its base. You only imagine yours is.

nce of any reasoning process?

So of course, a moral system encompassing justice trumps a moral system based upon injustice.

Which is why atheist morality trumps theist one.

[bennyboy]

The bible, for example, is evidence of the reasoning process. Atheists can reason and do, although their reasoning is limited to a non perfect reality as it's base.

True, true. It's a lot easier for imagined fictions to be true than actual things that have to bear the burden of existing and being observed.

[Chas]

I think our position (Christians and other theists) is reasoned where atheisms is sensed. The bible, for example, is evidence of the reasoning process. Atheists can reason and do, although their reasoning is limited to a non perfect reality as it's base. Intrinsically inferior. So of course, a moral system encompassing justice trumps a moral system based upon injustice.

Believing things for which there is no evidence is hardly reasoned. Theists usually justify their beliefs with faith, they feel God in their hearts. They feel there must be something more.

You have said many silly things here, but that post may be the most absurd.

[Jenny A]

The major difference between the atheist structure and the Christian structure is that atheists are compelled to form their structure from reason and Christian use The Bible and/or revelation in addition to (we hope) reason.

What I don't see is how having a moral system created by god would provide humans with more purpose in life.

I think our position (Christians and other theists) is reasoned where atheisms is sensed. The bible, for example, is evidence of the reasoning process. Atheists can reason and do, although their reasoning is limited to a non perfect reality as it's base. Intrinsically inferior. So of course, a moral system encompassing justice trumps a moral system based upon injustice.

Interesting. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that:

1) Reality or our perception of it is flawed (which? both?);
2) Therefore any reasoning based upon that imperfect reality is flawed;
3) Atheists only have access to reality, therefore any moral reasoning by atheists is flawed

and

1) god is perfectly just
2) reasoning to determine what god's justice is, is not necessarily flawed because it god's justice exists.

So I'm supposing for a minute that this just god exists and therefore so does a kind of platonic ideal justice. The problem is that even if that is the case, humans clearly have an extraordinarily flawed understanding of what god or his justice really is. So:

1) Any reasoning based upon a flawed perception is inherently flawed;
2) God is the definition of justice;
3) And Christians have a limited and flawed perception of god and his justice;
4) Christians reason based upon their flawed perception of god;
5) Christians have a flawed moral system.

Which would explain the numerous contradictory theist views, both between sects and over time, on the nature of god and justice.

I would go a step further because I see no evidence of this god entity.

1) The ancients understanding of reality was considerably more flawed than our own flawed understanding;
2) Theists have a tradition about reality including a god figure which evolved out of ancient man's attempts to explain those parts of reality he found inexplicable.
3) Theists now allow the ancients flawed tradition about reality to be a greater authority than actual perception or scientific advances when determining what reality is;
4) Thus though the perception of all men about reality is flawed, theists perception is more flawed than atheists;

Thus the morals of the religious extremists tend to be stuck somewhere between 500 BC and 300 AD.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some of you seem to feel that I must, in defending my position, demonstrate that theism can counter nihilism. I feel no such obligation. Although I do believe certain theological positions can and do provide a basis for value that atheism lacks, whether that is indeed the case or not has no bearing on the OP question or any of the arguments I have presented. Perhaps both the logical extension of both theism and atheism is nihilism.

Asserted without proof.

Clarification: *My* brain projects meaning on to the world. Maybe yours doesn't.

My position is that your mind both projects onto and extracts from your brain, and by extension the world, a subtle distinction. Our disagreement doesn't need to devolve into insult. I've been respectful of you and your position, even though we disagree. Please return the favor.

[Mudhammam]

Clarification: *My* brain projects meaning on to the world. Maybe yours doesn't.

My position is that your mind both projects onto and extracts from your brain, and by extension the world, a subtle distinction. Our disagreement doesn't need to devolve into insult. I've been respectful of you and your position, even though we disagree. Please return the favor.

My apologies. I sometimes grow impatient of rhetorical tennis when my opponent acts as though they're exempt from playing with the net, the racket, and the ball.