Is atheism automatically nihilism?

An agnostic atheist? So, you do not know that god does not exist? You just coin that term? I think you may be an oxymoron. So if that term you use has meaning, then an agnostic theist does too. That is like asking for directions and some madman tells you to take both a left and a right at the next intersection. Communication is difficult enough without creating nonsensical terms and injecting them into a conversation.

 

JC was teaching people how to live. When he said to take no thought for the morrow, this means to live fully in the present. For if your mind is always in the tomorrow, you will not live in the present fully. For most people, perhaps even you, live in the past, and in the future, and hardly ever in that present moment, as experienced. The Kingdom can only be found in the present moment, the NOW. If your mind is forever in the past or the future, you will not find the kingdom there. So he was telling people of a state of mind that lives in the eternal present. This is not nihilism sir.

 

These are common expressions, and ones that have been used in this forum repeatedly. An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in God, but who does not state that "God does not exist" as a matter of provable knowledge. And yes, there are agnostic theists as well. Theism and atheism are statements of belief (or lack of belief). Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge (or, in this case, lack of knowledge).

Agnostic atheism: "I do not know whether or not God exists, but I do not believe that God exists."
Agnostic theism: "I do not know whether or not God exists, but I believe that God exists."

 

... so in your oppinon, Jesus did NOT mean that "traditional values" (like Judaism, as was being practiced in 32 AD), "and beliefs," (like the Law will save you), "are unfounded... and that existence is sometimes senseless and useless" (if we live in the past or the future which has not even yet come)?

 

Well, Feminism was the major theme of the first writers concerning Existentialism.
These writers saw things in the past as gone and unworthy of discussion.
They called for a fresh new look at the present realities, and for behavior which they insisted, NOW was OK and good.

Their dismissal of Tradition though is dangerous, especially if one really uses what these feminists said for a supposed advancement in their own condition as women, in general.
Things like sexual morality may NOW seem ridiculous and to the disadvantage of women in general.
There is such a great and wide market for sexual immorality,... now,... that forgetting the traditions of the past, can be utilized now.

 

But institutionalized ideas don't "go without saying."

Feminism said, "now, women need not be sexually prudent, because prevention can prevent bastard kids, disease, and marriages to just one man forever."

But those words have been shown erroneous for the last half a century in America.

Illegitimacy is now 50% of all births.

Abortions are 1.2 million annually.

Bastard kids fill our cities with criminals.

Fatherless kids represent half the population now.

Child Abuse of bastards children is tremendous.

Diseases have increased.

So, traditional things are important, and we have institutionalized them, haven't we?

 

Hmmm,...
But as you said, "without having to rationalise or formalise it."

Were you to do this, and discover that things you now do, which you thought never hurt others, does hurt them, you would be torn between behavior that hurts, and stopping that behavior.

This is the essence of Christianity which says the Truth is a bitter pill once we see it more clearly.

- - - Updated - - -

But he said he doesn't want to hurt anyone, and what you say, does hurt the children.

- - - Updated - - -

I think he meant that he isn't sure if a god exists, but he tends to deny one.

 

When did he say that?

 

"Similarly, I have no desire to harm others "...

 

When did SpaceCricket say that?

 

A better question is why do you assume atheists in general are as you describe above?

To me the boundary that separates an action from an immoral action in general is harm. It's not rocket science nor is it required to read ancient old tomes to have a moral basis.

 

But if one believes life is meaningless then why should they "not" kill if they decide killing is what gives their life meaning?

And yes even though most people instinctively know not to kill, some apparently do not

- - - Updated - - -

The question is that if atheism by definition automatically means nihilism - since if someone believes there is no design or higher power then how is it possible to believe that life has inherent meaning?

 

If Ghandi believed life was meaningless why would have have been motivated to fight for it? Rather than be content just "not hurting people?

 

Have you ever felt so much pain that you would not want to see another person put through that same pain?

 

What about someone like Jeffery Dahmer who doesn't care?

If "life is really meaningless" then what incentive is there for someone like Dahmer not to do what they did?

 

"If" implies an unknown. I argue that atheism is not defined as being nihilistic thus rendering the above question moot. Its a weird concept to me that some can only find meaning in life if they associate it with a God. Take away God and how does one find meaning in life? Through family, friends, work, being a good parent, being kind caring and giving... etc. None of the preceding require a belief in God. If some need God to find meaning in the preceding then so be it, but to assume that atheists cannot possibly believe that life has inherent meaning is just silly.

 

Because even apathy has meaning. If you want other people to respect your apathy, then you have to respect other people. It's a lesson that takes time to figure out.

 

What does this have to do with anything I said. Your assertion that atheists are nihilists is baseless. Atheists are many different things, just like Christians. Some atheists will be nihilists and some Christians will be anything but loving and tolerant. Some atheists are horrible people just as some Christians are horrible people, while other atheists are kind and loving people just like other Christians are kind and loving people. To argue that atheism or Christianity makes people into some one dimensional stereotype is just silly at best and plain biased as worst. People find meaning in life through many different sources and theism has no monopoly upon the meaning of life.

I argue that the meaning of life is to be happy so perhaps ethical hedonism.

 

If someone is a theist who positively believes that there is a god and that life is meaningless or "just an accident" - then why is there any incentive to care about anything?

The term atheism (or theism) describes an individual's belief position regarding gods, nothing else. It is clearly apparent that people with the same fundamental position on that question can and do have vastly different views, opinions, beliefs and outlooks on everything else.

If you want to discuss atheism, I suggest you ask about atheism. If you want to discuss nihilism, I suggest you ask about nihilism. If you just want to insult and attack people who happen to believe differently to you, I suggest you re-read the forum rules.

 

Saying that life has no value because it isn't eternal is like saying that gold has no value because it is so rare.

Those of who do not believe in eternal life have two choices when it comes to valuating our existence: we can dismiss it or we can cherish it. Most of use choose the later.

 

Remember that there are two deaths.
Reality is that we all die.
But our species lives on, unless a second death takes us away in Extinction.
To avoid that ends, life is important.

We are products of our genetic code.
We will be made again in the future.
The days will come, when we will remember past lives.

 

Yes he is dead and he died a nihilist not humanist a humanist is one that cares about fellow humans and embrace those who cares about humanity.

 

And you are free to that opinion, but I highly doubt that opinion was formed by reading this man's actual words or examining his actual actions. It seems, instead, to focus on a caricature of him. He attacked those who "[cared] about humanity" specifically because they didn't actually care about humanity, or they did more harm to humanity than good. He attacked, for example, so-called humanitarians that collected donations for food, but who encouraged the recipients of that food to stay in poverty.

Hitchens loved humanity, warts and all, and I've always found his "embrace" of it more eloquent, unequivocal and heart-felt than anything I've read in a religious text, and I say that as a religious person myself.

 

Hitchens and many atheist or nihilist like him are very eloquent in expressing and transmitting their negative opinion on almost everything especially on humanist and religious people for serving the poor.

 

I've read most of his work and I've never heard him express such an opinion. I've heard him express a negative opinion of people who abuse the poor while pretending to serve them, but never those who genuinely serve the poor. Maybe you are thinking of a different Christopher Hitchens.