Existential nihilism?

[MaxVel]

As I've made clear before I don't view myself as an existential nihilist in the least and don't think it at all follows from atheism and in fact think the its falsity follows from atheism.

But, as both seer and MM have made clear in the past they both believe atheism implies existential nihilism, though since they are not atheists few of us give a fig what they think atheism implies.

As an atheist, then, why should the Christians here 'give a fig' what you think Christianity implies?

Or as a non-American, why should the American posters 'give a fig' what you think about American politics?

[Mountain Man]

As far as I can tell, you dislike the answer...

Whether or not anybody likes the logically necessary conclusion of the atheistic worldview is entirely beside the point.

It's a question of objectivity, and the question is, what objective reason do atheists have to not live like hedonists? And the answer, as far as anybody has been able to provide one, is there is no objective reason. Why are so few atheists willing to own it?

[Stoic]

You didn't explain, you asserted. The fact is that if existential nihilism is true, and that life is inherently meaningless, then necessarily, literally nothing you choose to do can be wrong.

Nothing would be wrong in some absolute, objective sense. But that's not the only sense in which the word "wrong" can be used.

If one accepts the premises of your worldview as true, then there is no logical counterargument to this conclusion.

Your refusal to accept logical counterarguments does not mean they don't exist.

[Stoic]

Whether or not anybody likes the logically necessary conclusion of the atheistic worldview is entirely beside the point.

It's a question of objectivity, and the question is, what objective reason do atheists have to not live like hedonists? And the answer, as far as anybody has been able to provide one, is there is no objective reason. Why are so few atheists willing to own it?

Because there are subjective reasons, of course. You appear to be in an objective rut.

[Mountain Man]

Nothing would be wrong in some absolute, objective sense.

Bingo. And so you concede that if atheism is true, then there is literally no wrong way to live.

And yet atheists get a bit squeamish whenever this is pointed out. I wonder why?

[EvoUK]

Whether or not anybody likes the logically necessary conclusion of the atheistic worldview is entirely beside the point.

I and many others are entirely relaxed about it, I am merely pointing out your dislike of the concept is basically your only line of argument - again your dislike does not prove anything to be true or false.

It's a question of objectivity, and the question is, what objective reason do atheists have to not live like hedonists? And the answer, as far as anybody has been able to provide one, is there is no objective reason. Why are so few atheists willing to own it?

Again, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, they consider your line of thinking to be simplistic and flawed. For example, there is no reason to assume an 'objective' reason for anything, objective in this sense usually being a word thrown around because it sounds important. You may wish there to be an 'objective' reason to do or not do something, that does not mean it has to be the case.

[Mountain Man]

For example, there is no reason to assume an 'objective' reason for anything...

And so, like Stoic, you, too, concede that if atheism is true, then there is literally no wrong way to live. And yet you don't seem comfortable with that logically necessary conclusion of your worldview, even suggesting that someone who embraces this truth would be "an absolute nightmare for wider society". So what if they are? They are not doing anything objectively wrong, simply living their life as they see fit. I suppose that's one comfort you can take, that whatever you do is "right" in the sense that there are no ultimate consequences. As the video you posted says, just close your eyes and count to one and realize that nothing you do is of any lasting importance. Yay for optimism, right?

[Stoic]

Bingo. And so you concede that if atheism is true, then there is literally no wrong way to live.

No. You keep dishonestly leaving out the word "objective".

I'm done talking to you about this.

[EvoUK]

I suppose that's one comfort you can take, that whatever you do is "right" in the sense that there are no ultimate consequences.

Why do you need 'ultimate consequences' to live your life in any sort of moral sense?

As the video you posted says, just close your eyes and count to one and realize that nothing you do is of any lasting importance. Yay for optimism, right?

I'm comfortable knowing my place in the universe and the grand scheme of things, I do not feel the need to believe there must be something more or it was created for my species or something. I get that it clearly scares you, and you have my sympathies.

[seer]

Why do you need 'ultimate consequences' to live your life in any sort of moral sense?

Well yes or no. If you are correct we ultimately live in an unjust and a-moral universe. Whether you live like a Mother Teresa or a Stalin makes no difference in the end. I suspect that if men really believed that their actions would face a final judgement, a moral reckoning, they would drastically modify their behavior. Not that all men necessarily need a universal governing authority, but it does seem that a significant portion of mankind do need moral boundaries. As it says in Federalist 51: If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

[EvoUK]

Whether you live like a Mother Teresa or a Stalin makes no difference in the end.

It makes a difference to those around you. Again, this has been patiently been explained to you numerous times previously, in almost all of the endless morality threads you like to start.

Why does your actions need eternal consequences for them to matter?

[Mountain Man]

No. You keep dishonestly leaving out the word "objective".

I'm done talking to you about this.

You're done only because you don't have a logical rebuttal. If you accept that atheism is true, then you must necessarily accept that existential nihilism is true, and if you accept that existential nihilism is true, then you must necessarily accept that the concept of right and wrong are meaningless. Therefore, according to the premises you have already conceded, there is literally no wrong way to live.

The phrase "hoisted by one's own petard" is apropos.

[seer]

It makes a difference to those around you. Again, this has been patiently been explained to you numerous times previously, in almost all of the endless morality threads you like to start.

Why does your actions need eternal consequences for them to matter?

Why do our actions need temporal consequences? Why have any laws at all? And go back and re-read my post - I explained the benefits of an ultimate judgement. And BTW - I did not intend this thread to be about morality.

[EvoUK]

Why do our actions need temporal consequences? Why have any laws at all?

Apologies, I think I misunderstand you here. Why would we do away with laws?

And go back and re-read my post - I explained the benefits of an ultimate judgement.

I suspect that if men really believed that their actions would face a final judgement, a moral reckoning, they would drastically modify their behavior.

This is the bit you're referring to I think? It's nice in theory, though I'm not so sure it holds up in practice, given the numbers of people who do not adhere to belief in a final judgement but act well in every day life. I steal, murder, rape & pillage exactly as much as I want to. Not at all. No threats of divine or societal punishment required. So given that it doesn't hold up in real life, I am not sure why I'd believe it to be a factor?

[Mountain Man]

Why do you need 'ultimate consequences' to live your life in any sort of moral sense?

It's not about need, it's about what is. I can only accept reality as it exists and respond accordingly.

I'm comfortable knowing my place in the universe and the grand scheme of things, I do not feel the need to believe there must be something more or it was created for my species or something. I get that it clearly scares you, and you have my sympathies.

Why would that scare me? If I'm wrong, there are no ultimate consequences for anything. What I can't understand is the atheist who paradoxically tries to live as if life has some greater meaning.