Nihilism and Atheism

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Hello all,

I have a fairly simple question: What is the difference between Nihilism and Atheism?

Thanks

No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
Walter Sobchak (John Goodman) in the Big Lebowski

 

[AntiTheist]

Hello all,

I have a fairly simple question: What is the difference between Nihilism and Atheism?

Atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods. It’s the absence of a belief, not a belief or a position in itself.

Nihilism is actually a position. It is a philosophical idea that can take several forms, usually involving the idea that there is no objective meaning or purpose to life.

Obviously, one can be both an atheist and a nihilist. However, one can be an atheist and not be a nihilist (for example, some atheist buddhists and some atheist secular humanists would affirm the existence of some kind of “objective meaning” to life; depending on how you define “objective,” perhaps even most atheists would not be nihilists).

Note that nihilism does not equate to “hopelessness,” as it is sometimes suggested. I personally don’t think that life has an objective meaning, but that doesn’t stop me from attributing a personal meaning to things in my own life or to finding value or meaning in the things that I do.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Thank you.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods. It’s the absence of a belief, not a belief or a position in itself.

Nihilism is actually a position. It is a philosophical idea that can take several forms, usually involving the idea that there is no objective meaning or purpose to life.

Obviously, one can be both an atheist and a nihilist. However, one can be an atheist and not be a nihilist (for example, some atheist buddhists and some atheist secular humanists would affirm the existence of some kind of “objective meaning” to life; depending on how you define “objective,” perhaps even most atheists would not be nihilists).

Note that nihilism does not equate to “hopelessness,” as it is sometimes suggested. I personally don’t think that life has an objective meaning, but that doesn’t stop me from attributing a personal meaning to things in my own life or to finding value or meaning in the things that I do.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you.

From the New Oxford American Dictionary on my laptop:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

 

[AntiTheist]

From the New Oxford American Dictionary on my laptop:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Sure. And this is from Kai Nielsen in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings… Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God.”

And this is from Paul Edwards in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “an ‘atheist’ is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition.”

I could go on and on multiplying quotes from professional philosophers and from atheists on the subject. The fact of the matter is that the way the word is actually used by people – professionals, atheists, and people who discuss this subject – is to designate someone without a belief in gods. It’s a negative designation, a designation of an absence or lack of belief.

You can cite all the dictionaries you want – most of which haven’t caught up to the way that the word is actually used by people today – but if you expect to communicate properly, you can’t use that as the basis for your definition when other people – including the group under discussion – tend to use an entirely different definition.

Now, that there are no gods can be a belief – someone who believes that no gods exist is also an atheist, but the thing that makes him an atheist is the fact that he lacks belief in gods. The fact that he holds the belief that there are no gods is extra.

And before someone says, “But saying you don’t believe in gods is the same thing as saying you believe there are no gods!” consider this simple example. I just flipped a coin and concealed it in the palm of my hand so that no one can see it. My friend believes the coin is heads up (he’s a headsist, or a theist). It’s obviously possible to not have a belief that the coin is heads up and to also not have a belief that the coin is tails up. It’s also obviously possible to have a belief that the coin is tails up. They are different positions.

Yet the word “A-headsist” (or a-theist) designates everyone who doesn’t accept the claim that the coin is heads up, and this term includes both those who don’t have a belief (those who reject the claim that the coin is heads up and also reject the claim that the coin is tails up) and those who actively believe that the coin is tails up.

 

[1holycatholic]

Sure. And this is from Kai Nielsen in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings… Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God.”

And this is from Paul Edwards in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “an ‘atheist’ is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition.”

I could go on and on multiplying quotes from professional philosophers and from atheists on the subject. The fact of the matter is that the way the word is actually used by people – professionals, atheists, and people who discuss this subject – is to designate someone without a belief in gods. It’s a negative designation, a designation of an absence or lack of belief.

You can cite all the dictionaries you want – most of which haven’t caught up to the way that the word is actually used by people today – but if you expect to communicate properly, you can’t use that as the basis for your definition when other people – including the group under discussion – tend to use an entirely different definition.

Now, that there are no gods can be a belief – someone who believes that no gods exist is also an atheist, but the thing that makes him an atheist is the fact that he lacks belief in gods. The fact that he holds the belief that there are no gods is extra.

And before someone says, “But saying you don’t believe in gods is the same thing as saying you believe there are no gods!” consider this simple example. I just flipped a coin and concealed it in the palm of my hand so that no one can see it. My friend believes the coin is heads up (he’s a headsist, or a theist). It’s obviously possible to not have a belief that the coin is heads up and to also not have a belief that the coin is tails up. It’s also obviously possible to have a belief that the coin is tails up. They are different positions.

Yet the word “A-headsist” (or a-theist) designates everyone who doesn’t accept the claim that the coin is heads up, and this term includes both those who don’t have a belief (those who reject the claim that the coin is heads up and also reject the claim that the coin is tails up) and those who actively believe that the coin is tails up.

Verbal engineering apparently doesn’t fly with the editors of dictionaries.

There’s always Wikipedia.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods. It’s the absence of a belief, not a belief or a position in itself.

Nihilism is actually a position. It is a philosophical idea that can take several forms, usually involving the idea that there is no objective meaning or purpose to life.

Obviously, one can be both an atheist and a nihilist. However, one can be an atheist and not be a nihilist (for example, some atheist buddhists and some atheist secular humanists would affirm the existence of some kind of “objective meaning” to life; depending on how you define “objective,” perhaps even most atheists would not be nihilists).

Note that nihilism does not equate to “hopelessness,” as it is sometimes suggested. I personally don’t think that life has an objective meaning, but that doesn’t stop me from attributing a personal meaning to things in my own life or to finding value or meaning in the things that I do.

Having discussed this a little with you in the past, I’ve got to say you still come across as a nihlist in denial, as does all scientismic atheism. Logical materialistic atheism, I’d say, can’t really be anything but nihlistic. Picking a purpose as a hobby to distract yourself from the nullity of purpose afforded by your interpretation of reality

Objectivism I don’t know so much about, but as far as I can tell seems to base itself in some kind of apriori intuitive justification, a bit like Nietsche’s reason beyond reason possessed by the uber-man. No need to bother with logic there then! And Sartre’s purpose pretty much boils down to an imperetive to be true to yourself, whatever that is to be, which he likes to think justifies socialism, which would fall by the wayside according to our previous discussion… as would this true-to-self imperitive, which I can’t see any real purpose of in the face of impermanence.

Buddhists, falaciously considered atheistic as a collective form of belief, even if they are so according to some variations, have some reasonable basis for their purpose, in that believing in infinity, and our capability to interact and be a part of it, they conceive of reality as being one in which they themselves and all life as being linked to a form of permanencey, itself being the only thing which, as far as I can see, is what grants reasonable value to purpose. Although the idealistic nature of Buddhism as it is conceived of in the West essentially makes this permanence an essentially idealistic, and hence essentially impermanent one, which, as far as I can see largely makes this value something of a pleasant illusion, even within said conception of reality

So I’d say scientismic atheism is either a) nihlistic or
b) illogical in defining purposeful value at all…

 

[Oreoracle]

From the New Oxford American Dictionary on my laptop:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

In addition to the issue AntiTheist pointed out, there’s another problem with this as well. Atheists lack belief in all gods, not just “God.” You see, “God” is a proper noun, whereas “god” is the regular noun that can refer to any divine being. As a proper noun, God serves as a name; usually it’s a placeholder for “Yahweh” (I guess God sounds more approachable to Christians than Yahweh. I don’t know.).

Anyway, the definition you quoted assumes a particular god of a particular religion, and so it would cause us to make a rather embarrassing error if we were to use it: other theists who don’t believe in God but instead believe in a god with a different name would be considered atheists by this definition. A muslim, for example, does not believe in God but in Allah, and since Allah is believed to be the only god in Islam, Islam serves as “a theory that God does not exist.” So according to your definition, muslims, other theists, and even polytheists are all atheists so long as their god (or gods) of choice isn’t God and they declare other gods to be non-existent. LOL.

 

[Syntax]

In addition to the issue AntiTheist pointed out, there’s another problem with this as well. Atheists lack belief in all gods, not just “God.” You see, “God” is a proper noun, whereas “god” is the regular noun that can refer to any divine being. As a proper noun, God serves as a name; usually it’s a placeholder for “Yahweh” (I guess God sounds more approachable to Christians than Yahweh. I don’t know.).

Anyway, the definition you quoted assumes a particular god of a particular religion, and so it would cause us to make a rather embarrassing error if we were to use it: other theists who don’t believe in God but instead believe in a god with a different name would be considered atheists by this definition. A muslim, for example, does not believe in God but in Allah, and since Allah is believed to be the only god in Islam, Islam serves as “a theory that God does not exist.” So according to your definition, muslims, other theists, and even polytheists are all atheists so long as their god (or gods) of choice isn’t God and they declare other gods to be non-existent. LOL.

That’s a very poor analysis: it all depends on your assumption that monotheists believe in different gods in virtue of having different names–as if John’s use of “Mark Twain” and Bill’s use of “Samuel Clemens” refer to different individuals in virtue of being different names.

 

[1holycatholic]

In addition to the issue AntiTheist pointed out, there’s another problem with this as well. Atheists lack belief in all gods, not just “God.” You see, “God” is a proper noun, whereas “god” is the regular noun that can refer to any divine being. As a proper noun, God serves as a name; usually it’s a placeholder for “Yahweh” (I guess God sounds more approachable to Christians than Yahweh. I don’t know.).

Anyway, the definition you quoted assumes a particular god of a particular religion, and so it would cause us to make a rather embarrassing error if we were to use it: other theists who don’t believe in God but instead believe in a god with a different name would be considered atheists by this definition. A muslim, for example, does not believe in God but in Allah, and since Allah is believed to be the only god in Islam, Islam serves as “a theory that God does not exist.” So according to your definition, muslims, other theists, and even polytheists are all atheists so long as their god (or gods) of choice isn’t God and they declare other gods to be non-existent. LOL.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Atheism and Agnosticism
“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy.”

 

[AntiTheist]

Having discussed this a little with you in the past, I’ve got to say you still come across as a nihlist in denial, as does all scientismic atheism.

Well, I certainly am a nihilist in the sense that I don’t think that there is an objective meaning or purpose to the universe. I’m not a nihilist in the sense of its usual connotation (someone who doesn’t care about anything or who is hopeless or depressed all the time).

 

[AntiTheist]

Verbal engineering apparently doesn’t fly with the editors of dictionaries.

Your inability to respond to the substance of my post noted.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well, I certainly am a nihilist in the sense that I don’t think that there is an objective meaning or purpose to the universe. I’m not a nihilist in the sense of its usual connotation (someone who doesn’t care about anything or who is hopeless or depressed all the time).

Yes - that’s why I consider you a nihlist in denial, although I’m sure (archetypical) nihilists care about things, but simply believe it doesn’t actually matter that they care…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Your inability to respond to the substance of my post noted.

Doubleplusgood!

I’m a big fan of the idea of words meaning what people believe they mean, although the kind of nuspeak that political correctness tries to enforce upon us, and this redefinition of atheism certainly imitates, certainly tries to use language to enforce a particular mode of thinking, I believe, by removing the ability to express certain meanings from terms which they work reasonably well in representing

If atheism essentially means agnosticism, then you need a new term for all those like yourself who vehemently disbelieve in the existence of God… although, as I say, this redefinition of atheism (and it is a redefinition in a contemporary context) is nothing but a calculated attempt to redetermine agnostics to appear to support what is a far more extreme position than they actually hold…

Why bother? Oh yeah - because atheists want to increase the party faithful

If atheism is the new agnosticism, then I suppose it’s not clear whether or not many people actually disbelieve in God or not - unless they define themselves as, say, antitheists.

Which would reduce the number of people who clearly believe there is not a God to being an even smaller minority!

 

[Syntax]

Doubleplusgood!

I’m a big fan of the idea of words meaning what people believe they mean, although the kind of nuspeak that political correctness tries to enforce upon us, and this redefinition of atheism certainly imitates, certainly tries to use language to enforce a particular mode of thinking, I believe, by removing the ability to express certain meanings from terms which they work reasonably well in representing

If atheism essentially means agnosticism, then you need a new term for all those like yourself who vehemently disbelieve in the existence of God… although, as I say, this redefinition of atheism (and it is a redefinition in a contemporary context) is nothing but a calculated attempt to redetermine agnostics to appear to support what is a far more extreme position than they actually hold…

Why bother? Oh yeah - because atheists want to increase the party faithful

If atheism is the new agnosticism, then I suppose it’s not clear whether or not many people actually disbelieve in God or not - unless they define themselves as, say, antitheists.

Which would reduce the number of people who clearly believe there is not a God to being an even smaller minority!

It is so strange that you say this, because I just got done arguing this *exact *same point with AntiTheist at length in another thread. I promise you will get a whole lot of references from Anti about current atheists who “say” this, too, in support of his point. I agree: atheists are trying to make more logical space in their defintions to accommodate a wider variety of alleged “atheists” while simultaneously shrinking the logical space for agnostics to occupy. In fact, the new definition of atheist turns agnosticism into a binary position of being either atheist or theist. The atheist doesn’t allow that there be non-theist, non-atheist agnostics! This fashionable new definition is thoroughly suspect. I guess they just think its “cool.”

There is no reason to suppose that the term “atheist” means “lacking a belief in God” any more than “believing God does not exist.” But they want either meaning to be sufficient for calling oneself an “atheist.” They insist the distinction between “atheist” and “theist” can be drawn with respect to having or lacking a belief. But there is no reason why we should not actually be drawing this distinction only with respect to the *content *of the beliefs already there.

 

[Syntax]

Yes - that’s why I consider you a nihlist in denial, although I’m sure (archetypical) nihilists care about things, but simply believe it doesn’t actually matter that they care…

This reminds me something of what Kierkegaard said about this in The Sickness Unto Death: the aesthetic nihilist who subjectively cares about this or that on a 1st-order level, does not know that he is actually objectively in despair on a 2nd-order level because he cannot, or refuses to, recognize that he objectively despairs.

 

[1holycatholic]

It is so strange that you say this, because I just got done arguing this *exact *same point with AntiTheist at length in another thread. I promise you will get a whole lot of references from Anti about current atheists who “say” this, too, in support of his point. I agree: atheists are trying to make more logical space in their defintions to accommodate a wider variety of alleged “atheists” while simultaneously shrinking the logical space for agnostics to occupy. In fact, the new definition of atheist turns agnosticism into a binary position of being either atheist or theist. The atheist doesn’t allow that there be non-theist, non-atheist agnostics! This fashionable new definition is thoroughly suspect. I guess they just think its “cool.”

There’s an image claiming eight famous individuals are all atheists.

AFAIK not one person in the image was an atheist. One even explicitly denied being an atheist!

I’ve also seen polls of religious beliefs interpreted where respondents who reply “not affiliated with any denomination” was interpreted as atheism. :whacky: The non-denominational Christians are going to be surprised to hear that they are atheists!

I find the position of many agnostics perplexing. If you assert that you can not know whether a god/gods do/don’t exist, then logically claiming to be an agnostic who does, or does not believe god/gods exist is inconsistent. If you can’t know, then you can’t say either way. Further, how is it that the agnostic knows that you can’t know?

 

[Syntax]

There’s an image claiming eight famous individuals are all atheists.

AFAIK not one person in the image was an atheist. One even explicitly denied being an atheist!

I’ve also seen polls of religious beliefs interpreted where respondents who reply “not affiliated with any denomination” was interpreted as atheism. :whacky: The non-denominational Christians are going to be surprised to hear that they are atheists!.

Yeah, that’s pretty lame. Whatevery happened to honesty, people?

I find the position of many agnostics perplexing. If you assert that you can not know whether a god/gods do/don’t exist, then logically claiming to be an agnostic who does, or does not believe god/gods exist is inconsistent. If you can’t know, then you can’t say either way. Further, how is it that the agnostic knows that you can’t know?

I don’t think that’s correct. “Agnostic” means “not-knowing”; it doesn’t mean “not-believing.” You can claim not to know that God exist, but still believe that God exists, or claim not to know that God does not exist but still believe that God does not exist. Not knowing just means you are not justified in believing the truth of X. But one can still believe that X. So it is perfectly plausible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

But I suspect too (and this is where most atheists will disagree with me), that an agnostic can be neither atheist, nor theist. Too many atheists think you have to be one or the other if you are agnostic since lacking a belief in God, as opposed to having a belief that God does not exists, will still qualify one as an atheist by default. But I disagree.

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t think that’s correct. “Agnostic” means “not-knowing”; it doesn’t mean “not-believing.” You can claim not to know that God exist, but still believe that God exists, or claim not to know that God does not exist but still believe that God does not exist. Not knowing just means you are not justified in believing the truth of X. But one can still believe that X. So it is perfectly plausible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

But I suspect too (and this is where most atheists will disagree with me), that an agnostic can be neither atheist, nor theist. Too many atheists think you have to be one or the other if you are agnostic since lacking a belief in God, as opposed to having a belief that God does not exists, will still qualify one as an atheist by default. But I disagree.

I agree that agnostic means not knowing. I was saying that for the agnostic a belief (or disbelief) of the existence of a god or gods is unwarranted.

I think we are saying the same thing.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It is so strange that you say this, because I just got done arguing this *exact *same point with AntiTheist at length in another thread. I promise you will get a whole lot of references from Anti about current atheists who “say” this, too, in support of his point. I agree: atheists are trying to make more logical space in their defintions to accommodate a wider variety of alleged “atheists” while simultaneously shrinking the logical space for agnostics to occupy. In fact, the new definition of atheist turns agnosticism into a binary position of being either atheist or theist. The atheist doesn’t allow that there be non-theist, non-atheist agnostics! This fashionable new definition is thoroughly suspect. I guess they just think its “cool.”

There is no reason to suppose that the term “atheist” means “lacking a belief in God” any more than “believing God does not exist.” But they want either meaning to be sufficient for calling oneself an “atheist.” They insist the distinction between “atheist” and “theist” can be drawn with respect to having or lacking a belief. But there is no reason why we should not actually be drawing this distinction only with respect to the *content *of the beliefs already there.

Seriously, I suspect it being primarily an attempt at vote catching…