Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[SteveII]

So what "inspires us to live beyond selfish interests and so achieve social coherence...and compels us beyond self-interest, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, and race." Why don't we live only for self-interest like evolution taught us to do?

Here's a serious question: did you think about the world you live in at all before you wrote that post? I don't mean to be nasty, but come on: you live in a world in which social coherence is beneficial to your selfish interests! You don't have to grow your own food, be your own doctor, make your own clothes, you get to specialize and have your own career precisely because of social coherence. The idea that you can characterize society as nothing but some great sacrifice we're all making is completely baffling.

I was quoting the paper. This was the gist of address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991 by Dr. L. D. Rue. It is also the conclusion of many (some famous) atheist philosophers. How is it that you do not come to the same conclusion. At what philosophical point do you part ways?

---

An how does an atheist obtain ethics?

The same way everyone else does: a mixture of inheritance from parental views, human empathy, and the ability to use reason to apply those two bedrocks to novel experiences.

Yes, that includes religionists.

So, a different set of parents and a little less empathy would yield a different set of ethics? That does not seem shaky to you?

[rexbeccarox]

This is just another dressed-up, "where do atheists get their morals?" or "how can atheists have morals without a god?"

Infuriating.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, a different set of parents and a little less empathy would yield a different set of ethics? That does not seem shaky to you?

It works for me. What if you'd been born in Riyadh? Also -- I notice you left my point about reason out of your reply. Why is that?

You seem to be saying you've got a taproot to ethics that is superior to relative judgments. Why don't you lay out your own view on the matter, so we might ascertain the relative values in play?

I'm comfortable displaying my ethics for your critique. Why are you so cagey about your own? You clearly have an agenda, yet just as clearly, you're afraid to subject it to public scrutiny. Why is that?

Me, I think you know that moral relativity is the truth, and you're afraid to admit that had you been born into a different culture, you'd happily strap on a bomb vest, because you're not accustomed to questioning your precepts.

Just a guess. No offense intended.

[Angrboda]

Chad: my question is, if I accept there is a god, what difference would this make to me? What practical changes would you suggest?

If you accept the existence of God then it would make sense to enter into earnest relationship with that God by means of prayer, contemplation of the Word, communion with believers, and meditation. If you do that, then the Lord will tell you what practical changes to make in your life; it's not for me to say.

And if that doesn't work, the threat of eternal hellfire is there as a backup.

It worked for the Jews... obey God or he'll do bad things to you. The Christians... love God or he'll do bad things to you. The Muslims... submit to God or he'll do bad things to you.

I feel like I'm in A Few Good Men, and I'm Lt. Kaffee asking Jessup "why the two sets of orders?"

It seems that, at least historically, self-interest has been a good enough foundation for theistic morals, why is it suddenly a bad thing when others appeal to it?

[TheRealJoeFish]

So, a different set of parents and a little less empathy would yield a different set of ethics? That does not seem shaky to you?

I can't speak for Parkers Tan, but that seems so obvious to me as to be beyond disagreement. Are you trying to say that a person's ethics are 100% a product of nature rather than nurture?

Or, are you just taking issue with the implication behind the statement, namely, that "everyone's personal ethics are different"? There are a ton of things "shaky" about reality; their shakiness doesn't make them any less real.

TL;DR: I don't get what you're saying here.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, a different set of parents and a little less empathy would yield a different set of ethics? That does not seem shaky to you?

I can't speak for Parkers Tan, but that seems so obvious to me as to be beyond disagreement. Are you trying to say that a person's ethics are 100% a product of nature rather than nurture?

Or, are you just taking issue with the implication behind the statement, namely, that "everyone's personal ethics are different"? There are a ton of things "shaky" about reality; their shakiness doesn't make them any less real.

TL;DR: I don't get what you're saying here.

He's alleging objective morality without shouldering the burden of proof.

He will soon learn that he cannot eat his cake, and have it too.

[Faith No More]

I can't speak for Parkers Tan, but that seems so obvious to me as to be beyond disagreement. Are you trying to say that a person's ethics are 100% a product of nature rather than nurture?

Or, are you just taking issue with the implication behind the statement, namely, that "everyone's personal ethics are different"? There are a ton of things "shaky" about reality; their shakiness doesn't make them any less real.

TL;DR: I don't get what you're saying here.

It appears to be nothing more than an appeal to consequence, a theist favorite.

When someone points out that my conclusions make reality seem absurd, I just think to myself, "But I didn't make the rules!"

It's less of an argument and more of a deep insight into theistic insecurities.

[SteveII]

So it seems that at least for some of you ethics shift from person to person from group to group and from generation to generation. This seems consistent with the logical conclusions of atheism (and the nihilism that follows). This I understand.

Others (Esquilax) seem to believe reality to be a sufficient objective framework upon which to hang morality. This I don't understand.

[Cato]

If ethical nihilism necessarily followed, the ensuing free for all would have consumed our species...notice that anyone that truly practiced ethical nihilism quickly winds up in jail or dead.

That's a bit of a red herring. One can easily believe that their is no universal basis for determining right or wrong and still conform to societal norms and conventions.

---

Theists like to think their morality comes from gods...they assume that, without gods, they would be without morality.

I don't believe that. I say that God provides the conscience by which all people, believers and atheists alike, identify right and wrong.

"practiced" Chad, "practiced". If a nihilist is conforming to societal norms he/she is not practicing nihilism.

[robvalue]

I'm being ignored, so I'll trouble no more with questions. I'll leave you with this:

No. Atheism does not automatically lead to anything. Until you understand that, you don't know what atheism is.