Nihilistic atheism

I'm just curious how popular the 'nihilistic' version of atheism is that seems to be trendy on the net and in the media.

Basically the form of atheism I consider 'nihilistic' centers on the theme that 'existence is meaningless' or on the positive assumption that when you die 'this is all there is'. And usually argues against there being a god based on the claim that because there is 'suffering in the world', there can be no God.

I'm not big on this type of atheism, and I think it's the one most popular with angsty teens who're disillusioned with religion.

I'm also not big on agnosticism either - because my view is that even though there is not hard evidence of a god (let alone a specific god) - a person can still have an opinion whether one exists or not. Just like a person can have an opinion on anything (such as whether OJ Simpson was guilty or not) even without concrete evidence of it.

I think that either positive atheism (I believe there is no god because...) or diesm/theism is a less wishy washy position - however I'm not fond at all of the atheist argument that 'suffering in the world' disproves a god. Or simply resorting to the 'there's no evidence of a god' position to avoid giving a personal opinion on whether there's one or not. I'd like to hear other opinions on why there isn't a god. (Keep in mind again I'm not talking about a specific god like Jesus or Allah - I'm simply talking about "a god" in general). Love to get some feedback here.

I would conisder myself an atheist who perhaps fits the criteria for being nihilistic in that I largely agree with the statement 'existence is meaningless' in the way it's normally intended, but I definitely would never make the claim that my beliefs are in any way influenced by 'the suffering in the world', that's not the reason why I don't believe in God, in fact I would say that statement more commonly comes from agnostic or religious people who are doubting their beliefs (unsure) or trying to sympathise with those who aren't religious, i.e "Yeah, I can see why you don't believe in God with all this suffering in the world..."

I'll maybe type more of what you want (arguments why there isn't God) tomorrow, I'm off to bed for now.

__________________

I'd give you some feedback but I was never big on labels, heck I'm not even sure what all those isms mean?

For myself I kinda go with the Popeye approach, "I yam what I yam"

Well from what I hear 'atheism's' sometimes used as a broad label for anyone who 'doesn't believe in a god', but it can include agnostics too.

'Positive atheism' means someone believes with certainty that there is no god.

The 'nihilistic' term I used relates more to the mentality that the world or universe is overall 'bad' or 'meaningless' (ex. such as due to warfare, famine, etc).

I see....I like the Taoist philosophy of the universe. There's no, all good or all bad...good or bad are relative and comes from how we view an event.

I identify as atheist, because with all the horrible things happening in the world, I'm faced with the choice of either believing there is no God or believing that God is real but is undeserving of worship because he stands by while these things continue to happen.

If that's nihilistic atheism, fine. Whatever, but I don't think this viewpoint has anything to do with teen angst.

__________________

Problem is that that's a false dichotomy since that's an argument against a perfect or omnipotent creator (which is only a concept of god that exists in religions like Christianity or Islam anyway).

As opposed to a creator who isn't omnipotent or 'perfect' in the sense that they could just 'snap' their fingers and make all of the problems go away. Which fits in more with my deistic belief. Because even human geniuses and inventors can't invent a 'perfect' creation, so why should a creator of the universe be automatically expected to be capable of that?

It's the view I see most often with the younger or more 'angry' style of atheists; and it's the only opinion I've ever heard expressed from people who say they believe there is no god or higher power.

I say it's a poor argument since it's similar to saying "a Ferrari couldn't have had a designer if it has mechanical flaws". That's why I was interested in hearing better arguments for the positive belief that there's no god.

I've only heard the term Atheist, without any subcategories. I've been called an Atheist ever since I was little, however, now one of my best friends likes to tell me..."You say Atheist, but I hear Buddhist." All these terms like- positive and nihilistic are really fascinating! I've always been a fan of SBNR "spiritual but not religious," but I might replace that with Citizen's Popeye approach.

Considering how long we've known each other, I don't think we've had a really in-depth discussion about Atheism and religion...I may bring this up next time we get together- get ready!

I'm obviously talking about the Christian notion of God as an omipotent and all powerful being. And, quite frankly, if there exists a deity that isn't omnipotent and all powerful, why would that deity be worthy of worship?

That's the false dichotomy that I was talking about; that a fictional god from a specific religion is the only alternative to 'atheism'.

It wouldn't be worthy of "worship" - that'd be based on the concept God's a king or dictator rather than a designer.

I'd say it'd mean acknowledging that there is greater purpose in life as part of nature itself, and that this is revealed through science - which is what deism is essentially.

Those are the alternatives that make the most sense to me. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but you can keep your preaching to yourself. You cannot say with absolute certainty that it is a "false dichotomy." You don't know the truth of what's out there any more than anybody else does.

Greater purpose as defined by what? "Revealed through science" how?

It's a false dichotomy because you mentioned only "atheism" contrasted with a theistic version of God who 'just allows bad things to happen' and demands 'worship'. So you presented only 2 options when there are more.

I don't have to 'know' to have a belief, or as the religious call it - faith.

No one currently 'knows' in the sense of physical proof if alien life exists elswhere the universe - but they can still have a belief that there is or isn't and reasons for believing it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Did a google search and I found this, and still disappointed. All of the arguments still base off the concept of a "theistic" or omnipotent God such as in Christianity rather than a Deistic God, or just revert to the subject of a "lack of physical proof" (which isn't relevant when it comes to a belief whether there is a god or not).

http://www.existence-of-god.com/argu...r-atheism.html

That's not really an answer. Why would the universe having been the product of a deity give it more meaning than one which began without this deity? You say you're a deist, right? So, let me get this straight...you believe the universe has a designer of sorts, and this designer is not just a force, but something conscious and thus capable of action, and it acted to create/design the universe? And is it safe to assume you fall into the classic camp of deism which states this deity is far away and does not meddle or interact with the life forms in the universe? I'm trying to grasp why this deity would give meaning to life. I also fail to see how it's anything other than a wishy-washy form of agnostic-atheism, but maybe that's just me.

As for having beliefs without having complete knowledge, then of course all of our beliefs are without complete knowledge, but I think there's something to be said for having justified beliefs. Beliefs that correspond to reality as we're capable of understanding it. Wishful thinking is not a justification, as far as I'm concerned. As for there being a deity as I think you've described, I would say I'm agnostic. It's just impossible to say one way or the other, but I definitely lean toward the atheist side. Either way it doesn't matter, because this deity's existence in no way impacts our existence. As for a personal god who watches over us and perhaps will punish or reward us after death, I'm definitely an atheist. Again I don't think it matters. I would reject any god who would eternally punish someone for not believing in it. It boils down to this: any god worthy of worship wouldn't demand it, and any god who would demand worship isn't worthy. So there you go. As for meaning in existence, you could just as well say existence is it's own meaning, and as for meaning in our own lives, then we decide what meaning to give it, which might be a cliche, but it's better than the alternatives.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

The specifics of the god entity aren't important - my belief is that a higher power bought the universe into being, and that the meaning is in inherent part of the workings of nature itself (rather than something God sat down and "decided").

"Wishful thinking" doesn't validate or invalidate a belief - for example some theists use the same argument against atheism (ex. that atheists don't want to 'risk' the possible consequence of punishment from God).

I'd say a belief would have to have evidence outright disproving it in order to be invalid.

I'd say that meaning is self-evident in nature based on observation of the cause and effect of behaviors - so while people can assign personal meanings, some have proven benefits over others.

In other words true meaning isn't something which an individual can just 'decide on a whim' - it's determined by genetics and human evolution.

Yeah, still makes no sense.


I never said it validates or invalidates a belief. I said it doesn't make it a justified belief. You know, a legitimate belief. And if a belief is simply wishful thinking, then the obvious assumption is there isn't any objective, rational reasons for believing it otherwise.


Personal meaning is not determined only by genetics and human evolution, and I certainly didn't say it was decided on a whim.

So people can have an opinion on anything, but they can't have the "opinion" that they simply don't know?

Makes no sense to me.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

The same applies to me and my recognition of only two possibilities: God (as seen in the various Christian religions and similar faiths) or no God.

That's exactly my point: Believe as you choose to believe, but don't tell me that what I believe is wrong nor insinuate that it has anything to do with "angst."

Read: 90sAce has no answer to this question and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I like that! It applies to me too. How about I make up a new term: Spiritual Nonconformist, that's what I'm calling myself.


I like that. I don't bend a knee for anyone, not even a omnipotent being.

I agree. That's why I have staid away from the other Question for Atheist thread. Ultimately it turns into a bashing of others ideas and then nothing is learned. It's near impossible to change someone's mind in a debate on religion/atheism, so why try?

That would be incorrect, since 'possiblities' aren't something you get to decide - you decide your own belief.

For example someone can belief alien life exists or not - but they can't believe it's "impossible for their to be a possibility about alien life existing... or something" - that makes no sense and sounds like a cop out.

Personal experience is that when people realize religions like Christianity and the like are a crock and become atheist, they start out very negative and disillusioned - later on a lot of them mellow out (when I first left Christianity I was an atheist for a little while, and I fit this attitude - this is also the attitude and age range I saw on a lot of atheism related forums).

The view that "there is no god because of suffering" though is a huge fallacy like I explained and is a nihilistic belief

My answer is that the the universe has a diestic creation.

That's not an "opinion" - it's stating a technical truth (basically just a wishy washy way of avoinding taking a stance on something).

It would be like responding "The Godfather won an Oscar" if someone asked me "Do you think the Godfather is a good movie?". That's just stating a technical truth to avoid giving a personal belief or opinion (yes/no, because...)