Does atheism lead to nihilism and moral relativism?

You mean engage in self-delusional fantasy?

Sounds like you don't understand anything about science, materialism, or atheism.

>Of course it causes moral relativism, because once one becomes an atheist he quickly poses the question: "Well who is the one to set the moral boundaries then? Isn't everyone an independent being, free of doing anything he wants as long as it (from my narrow perspective) doesn't affect others directly?"
Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to that.

If you're referring to scientism, then yes. You do realize its entirely possible to fully accept the possibilities of science without falling into the fallacy of blind faith, right?
>Sounds like you don't understand anything about science, materialism, or atheism.
I'm a biology major who used to be a Dawkins dick-rider in a darker time in my life. The only reason I speak at all about this is because I have a large amount of first-hand experience.

Only edgy faglords raised in christian homes turn into moral relativists.

People raised normally just become secular humanists

>you think things can be beautiful or that people can believe things not through empiricism?
>what a fantastical delusion

Define beauty.

Explain to me how a belief without evidence is not fantasy.

The point is trying to distill everything down to "logical" beliefs and viewpoints is robotic and not human. I find the stars beautiful, I believe they're beautiful because they create a feeling inside me; that is the evidence I have. I also think that other people have consciousness, even though I cannot empirically know that nor do I actually have any evidence that they are, other than conjecture and trying to apply my own experiences to them.

Pure empiricism is self-defeating anyway, since the belief that "nothing is true unless they are empirically shown to be true" cannot be proven empirically.

>I find the stars beautiful, I believe they're beautiful because they create a feeling inside me; that is the evidence I have.

How do you discern a feeling of beauty from any other feeling?

>
Pure empiricism is self-defeating anyway, since the belief that "nothing is true unless they are empirically shown to be true" cannot be proven empirically.

Nice strawman.

>How do you discern a feeling of beauty from any other feeling?
Because I feel a specific, positive emotion that I refer to as beauty. If I laughed at the stars I'd refer to them as funny. I'm not sure what the point of the question is. Are you trying to disprove emotions?
>Nice strawman.
That's not a strawman. That's what a pure-empiricist believes and why it is incorrect. Maybe you're not a pure-empiricist and believe some things have validity outside of empiricism, I dunno.

Nope. I personaly don't belive that true nihilists even exist. They are either existentialist, as am I and most Atheists, or they think that the meaning of life is suffering which is different from true nihilism. Read The stranger by Albert Camus to see how a true nihilist would actually behave.

AS for moral relativism. that's stupid. Most people already follow some form of consequentialism/deontog with some selfishness even if they are religious(irespective of whatever they holy book sais). There is no school of thought in ethics that gives any credence to moral relativism. So any1 following moral relativism is a fuking idiot regardless of their religious belifs

This

Serious question is Veeky Forums just a giant Christian hug box? Every time there is a post on the main page it's a christin bait post essentially begging for emotional support.

I think we've got a vocal minority of actual Christians supported by a cadre of ironic Christian shitposters.

Nihilism is a meme. Everyone values something.

> making stuff up is good

As an atheist - I see things this way: for me life is meaningless in a symbolic way we're death experiencing life for a short while for no reason just to return into the state of death with no memories of this event ever happening.

I came into this existence having highs and lows, but mostly it was shitty around me - I've managed to gather lots of information and skills to actually shape the environment and people around me and actually see the results - now I'm thinking, from the core of my being why would I not invest this meaningless existence to leave behind a better place? New beings will be created and instead of encountering a worse world because of me - they'll have it better..

I see that the whole responsibility of the entire humanity is hanging on my shoulders, and It's up to me to fix everything and keep a balance as much as I can comprehend out of the world around me, I will also use the wisdom of the generations before me to know where I would fail even if I invest all my capabilities and start with good intentions, history is also there for that...

So live, enjoy life trough working hard - improving yourself and world around you, leave a better place ahead of you after your biological demise in which people just like you will be born unto.

I naturally feel empathy with people and care about their feelings and struggles in life and try to give a hand when I can - I didn't need no religion for that and at one point I became Christian - times at which I lend less help and when I done it was to a restricted group, mainly Christians, because of the influence from theology I was studying, the so called ideas of the saints which supposedly had the presence of God with them in the form of Holy Spirit.

+ I've read the bible, that drove me away entirely from Christianity.

>muh morality

Meanwhile atheists make up barely a fraction of the prison population. All that morality apparently doesn't lead the religious away from a life of crime.

>Does atheism lead to nihilism and moral relativism?

This seems to assume that there is only one kind of atheism, rather than many kinds of atheisms.

The trickier question is if all possible atheisms lead to some kine of nihilism and some kind of moral relativism.

>If the only thing preventing you from committing evil acts is fear of punishment then you are already immoral
This is a really trendy thing to say, but I think this is the biggest lie ever.

"Morality" without punishment is the great spook haunting us. There's nothing there. Most humans are tribally altruistic by instinct. Many are sociopaths and have zero altruism. What does this mean? Nothing.

The only interesting thing about morality is whether you get punished for breaches of it. Because that's the only possible way you could convince someone to be moral.

While I agree morality must have consequences for breaking the morals, I don't believe the real consequences are the ones imposed by laws or a divine ruler. Basically certain actions will cause you suffering and damage your quality of life, while other actions will make you feel good and make you happier. Which is which depends on your conscious, which outside of arbitrary social programming, is universal. Some choose to violate their conscious to the extent to where they feel as if they don't even have one, but them violating it all the same still leads to emotional suffering.
> Many are sociopaths and have zero altruism. What does this mean? Nothing.
It means a whole lot. Considering it doesn't seem that sociopaths are born, but made. They also typically are losers and don't get far. Not only is their lack of empathy and altruism a emotional detriment, it's also a material one.
>Because that's the only possible way you could convince someone to be moral.
Basically, you should be moral because morality = conscience and by following your conscience you will be happier than if you didn't. The reason being humans evolved to get along and form strong ties with other humans, which they do so by empathy and altruism.

Does religiosity lead to constant juvenile and petty shitposting on the history board?
>inb4 & humanities

Eh. Moral relativism exists in anyone who has morals.

To point that out, isn't a bad thing.

I mean, if you were born a Muslim in Saudi Arabia you'd believe in that shit.

Personally, I don't agree that makes you right about Islam, but as a pragmatist, I can understand why you like to throw homosexuals off the roof.

Doesn't mean I agree with it though.

There's nothing wrong with moral relativism. You don't have to accept anyone elses morality just because morality is relative.

No, but intelligence leads to both.

So many spooks in this thread.

This, Christfags are just angry that they lost (Europe) / losing (US) all influence on society and the political process, and now they go begging with their "moral values".

>MORALITY

...

pretty much nailed it like jesus.
atheist born in christian homes become resentful because of their time with their parents. which lead them to becoming anti-religion or anti-theist. every single one of my friends growing up was atheist while i was the only christian. none of them turned into religion hating activists, because they were just raised by normal people who werent particularly religious.

Usually people who are nihilists or relativists don't care about philosophical debates over god, morality, and truth.

The same is true for /pol/
according to strawpoll
there are about 30% christians on his
strawpoll.me/10407759/r

Funny, it seems that we have a higher percentage of religious people than /pol/. If I'm remembering /pol/'s latest high number poll correctly.

The far majority of biologists are agnostic, not atheists.