Topic: What is the difference between an atheist and a nihilist?
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #16,495
Is it that an atheist only not believes in higher existence while a nihilist doesn't believe in anything, not even morality?
dw !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #283,286
ad hominem
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 45 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #283,288
Well there are many different strands of nihilism and many different definitions of atheism. Moral nihilism is the view that there are no objective or intrinsic moral systems or standards (I think). Existential nihilism holds that there is no intrinsic purpose to human life. Mereological nihilism argues that there are no such things as objects. Atheism is either the claim that God doesn't exist, or that God's existence has not yet been demonstrated. I'm sure there are other definitions of atheism and forms of nihilism that I'm missing, but it should hopefully clear up the difference.
I'm not exactly familiar with nihilism but I'll see if I can do some more research to clear this up.
I'm not exactly familiar with nihilism but I'll see if I can do some more research to clear this up.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 51 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #283,289
Nihilism is some kooky shit. Atheism is rational and logical.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 35 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #283,295
ideologyFake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #283,304
Alright, so there doesn't seem to be a good, scholarly source regarding the various types of nihilism. From what I can find, there are four major kinds of nihilism.
1.) Ethical (moral) nihilism: "nothing matters morally"1" rel="nofollow"> (which I think is a kind of sloppy, inarticulate definition, but it will have to do). Basically, all moral judgements/discussion are a waste of time.
2.) Metaphysical nihilism: it is conceivable that there is a possible world in which nothing exists. Honestly, I fail to see how this is a interesting or worthwhile point to debate, but some people seem to think otherwise.
3.) Mereological nihilism: The view that there are no objects with parts that exist. All that exists are (to steal a sentence from some philosopher whose name I forget who stole it from Van Inwagen I think) "simples arranged objectwise". Whatever the simplest physical object/objects that exist are the only things that exist (think electrons and quarks), and they are referred to as "simples". There are no tables and chairs, just "simples" (read fundamental particles i.e. quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc.) arranged "tablewise" or "chairwise". This can lead to problems for morality. If people are only "simples arranged personwise", why would they be deserving of moral praise/blame?
4.) Epistemic nihlism: The view that it is impossible to know much/anything at all. In it's strongest form, it's unsupportable, because it entails the claim, "I know that zero things are knowable", which is a self-contradictory sentence. The Pyrrhonists are an early example of this kind of thinking.
"Atheism" has too many contradictory definitions to really pick. Antony Flew defined "positive atheism" as believing that "the claim that at least one god exists is false", and "negative atheism" as anyone who is not a theist. Given these definitions, there is no necessary connection between atheism and nihilism. The only possible link I can see is that ethical nihilism is more easily justified as an atheist than as a theist.
That's probably way more than you wanted to know, but oh well.
1.) Ethical (moral) nihilism: "nothing matters morally"1" rel="nofollow"> (which I think is a kind of sloppy, inarticulate definition, but it will have to do). Basically, all moral judgements/discussion are a waste of time.
2.) Metaphysical nihilism: it is conceivable that there is a possible world in which nothing exists. Honestly, I fail to see how this is a interesting or worthwhile point to debate, but some people seem to think otherwise.
3.) Mereological nihilism: The view that there are no objects with parts that exist. All that exists are (to steal a sentence from some philosopher whose name I forget who stole it from Van Inwagen I think) "simples arranged objectwise". Whatever the simplest physical object/objects that exist are the only things that exist (think electrons and quarks), and they are referred to as "simples". There are no tables and chairs, just "simples" (read fundamental particles i.e. quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc.) arranged "tablewise" or "chairwise". This can lead to problems for morality. If people are only "simples arranged personwise", why would they be deserving of moral praise/blame?
4.) Epistemic nihlism: The view that it is impossible to know much/anything at all. In it's strongest form, it's unsupportable, because it entails the claim, "I know that zero things are knowable", which is a self-contradictory sentence. The Pyrrhonists are an early example of this kind of thinking.
"Atheism" has too many contradictory definitions to really pick. Antony Flew defined "positive atheism" as believing that "the claim that at least one god exists is false", and "negative atheism" as anyone who is not a theist. Given these definitions, there is no necessary connection between atheism and nihilism. The only possible link I can see is that ethical nihilism is more easily justified as an atheist than as a theist.
That's probably way more than you wanted to know, but oh well.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,375
atheism is a religion and nihilism is a way of life
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,395
@283,304 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Basically, all moral judgements/discussion are a waste of time.
Not quite, it's more that... most moral judgement and discussion is a waste of time. Do you really not facepalm when people call South Koreans "savages" or "evil" for eating dog meat? That's the kind of shit that it means. There is no intrinsic right or wrong... it's all down to personal point of view.
> Basically, all moral judgements/discussion are a waste of time.
Not quite, it's more that... most moral judgement and discussion is a waste of time. Do you really not facepalm when people call South Koreans "savages" or "evil" for eating dog meat? That's the kind of shit that it means. There is no intrinsic right or wrong... it's all down to personal point of view.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,413
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 33 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,416
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> a theism
> a religion
I know it may seem hard, but please try to keep up bud.
> a theism
> a religion
I know it may seem hard, but please try to keep up bud.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,417
@previous (F)
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair colour.
It's not a religion, it's a lack of religion.
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying that bald is a hair colour.
It's not a religion, it's a lack of religion.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,446
@283,395 (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
That view is called cultural (or naïeve, depending on who or what the moral decider is ) relativism. I don't think that necessarily follows from moral nihilism though.
That view is called cultural (or naïeve, depending on who or what the moral decider is ) relativism. I don't think that necessarily follows from moral nihilism though.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,449
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I wrote something but it looked like I just copied from Wikipedia and changed it to seem more knowing since I use the same words more or less, so I am actually just going to copy and paste from Wikipedia to avoid that.
> Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but does not assign any static truth-values to moral statements, and of course moral universalism, which holds moral statements to be objectively true or false. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism.
I wrote something but it looked like I just copied from Wikipedia and changed it to seem more knowing since I use the same words more or less, so I am actually just going to copy and paste from Wikipedia to avoid that.
> Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but does not assign any static truth-values to moral statements, and of course moral universalism, which holds moral statements to be objectively true or false. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,452
@previous (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
Yeah. I agree that if you're a moral nihilist, some form of relativism is an option, but you could just as easily hold the position that even a relativistic account of morality is giving too much credence to the concept of morality.
Yeah. I agree that if you're a moral nihilist, some form of relativism is an option, but you could just as easily hold the position that even a relativistic account of morality is giving too much credence to the concept of morality.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,454
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Nobody is denying morality exists, just that it is artificial and therefore not as important as people seem to think it is.
Nobody is denying morality exists, just that it is artificial and therefore not as important as people seem to think it is.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #283,458
@previous (Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc)
Traditionally, morality is seen as objective, so to claim that moral truths are culture or individual-dependent is in a sense to claim that "morality", at least as it's traditionally conceived, doesn't exist. If by "artificial" you mean "created by humans", then I think most philosophers would agree with your premise that morality is artificial, but disagree that simply because something is artificial, it is somehow less important than other "non-artificial" things (whatever those are).
Traditionally, morality is seen as objective, so to claim that moral truths are culture or individual-dependent is in a sense to claim that "morality", at least as it's traditionally conceived, doesn't exist. If by "artificial" you mean "created by humans", then I think most philosophers would agree with your premise that morality is artificial, but disagree that simply because something is artificial, it is somehow less important than other "non-artificial" things (whatever those are).
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,630
Atheism is concerned only with the existence of a deity. It is not a moral/scientific/epistemological philosophy
Anonymous I double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,631
@283,458 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are they created by humans or simply recognized? Are scientific laws and theories created by humans or simply recognized?
Are they created by humans or simply recognized? Are scientific laws and theories created by humans or simply recognized?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,637
@previous (I)
I'm not sure. Rights are tricky business. Natural rights are hard to derive a priori (hence Mill's effort to cast obligations in the form of duties), and even if some rights were deducible from human nature or whatever source they are derived from, some human-built structure would need to codify and enforce them. I think that there is where the analogy between scientific laws and rights breaks down. There is no punishment for violating the law of conservation of mass-energy, for example, and I think that it seems strange to suggest that there ought to be a punishment for doing that. It does not seem equally implausible to suggest that there should be a punishment for violating a moral "law" (e.g. infringing on someone's right to life, liberty, property, or whatever). Given this pretty significant difference between the two, I don't know that they are similar enough for the analogy to have much strength.
I'm not sure. Rights are tricky business. Natural rights are hard to derive a priori (hence Mill's effort to cast obligations in the form of duties), and even if some rights were deducible from human nature or whatever source they are derived from, some human-built structure would need to codify and enforce them. I think that there is where the analogy between scientific laws and rights breaks down. There is no punishment for violating the law of conservation of mass-energy, for example, and I think that it seems strange to suggest that there ought to be a punishment for doing that. It does not seem equally implausible to suggest that there should be a punishment for violating a moral "law" (e.g. infringing on someone's right to life, liberty, property, or whatever). Given this pretty significant difference between the two, I don't know that they are similar enough for the analogy to have much strength.
Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,649
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Perhaps the term "punishment" is distracting. Could we not suggest simply that violating rights causes certain behavioral and emotional reactions in people? You know, abstract it a bit?
Perhaps the term "punishment" is distracting. Could we not suggest simply that violating rights causes certain behavioral and emotional reactions in people? You know, abstract it a bit?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,652
@previous (I)
Sure, I'd grant that, though unless you're a utilitarian of some sort, the reactions of individuals to having their rights violated is merely incidental to why one ought not violate other people's rights.
Sure, I'd grant that, though unless you're a utilitarian of some sort, the reactions of individuals to having their rights violated is merely incidental to why one ought not violate other people's rights.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,661
@283,637 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Excellent points, and I like that you're familiar with Mill. He's one of my favorite philosophers, though I don't consider myself a strong utilitarian.
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Excellent points, and I like that you're familiar with Mill. He's one of my favorite philosophers, though I don't consider myself a strong utilitarian.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,665
> No mention of Odin.
I am disappointed.
I am disappointed.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,681
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,725
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #283,729
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
well, the only counter to stupidity of that grade is the implied facepalm, so...
yeah.
well, the only counter to stupidity of that grade is the implied facepalm, so...
yeah.