Why aren't all atheists nihilistic? Why do they constantly seek a substitute for belief in God like Marxism...

Your question doesn't really have anything to do with atheism because the answer is "the same reason theists cling to religion"

I find Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums in general attracts people who want to act out on incomplete beliefs or opinions. Not exactly LARPing - pretending to be a real holy man or an enlightened sage - but voicing opinions that sort of sound right to them just to see whether they end up being defensible stances or not.

Years ago you'd see much more people posing as militant atheists or attacking religion like it was some sort of organized paleo-conservative death-cult, I'd guess most of these people came from religious backgrounds; feeling as if religion was wrong for them but unable to talk about it passionately without alienating people in real life. You still get this a lot because so many people come from religious communities but what I think we're experiencing is a windfall of people born from very ambivalent or atheistic families and communities who want to talk about religion and spirituality in a classical way without alarming anyone or actually joining a religious organization.

If I'm being honest I've quoted theologians on a few occasions to press a point, without really having any understanding of the context, just to see what anons would reply with. Really, try finding anywhere else on the internet where you can alternately bash religion and maintain that there is a divine authority, all anonymous and without being inside a hugbox for either position.

Why do tippers for christ constantly create strawman threads on Veeky Forums? Why do they relentlessly spam threads posing leading questions which bear no resemblance to the real world in order to promote a circlejerk with which strengthen their thin beliefs?

The better question is why aren't Christians altruistic? Why do they forsake the words of their savior? Why do modern Christians live lives that would get them burned at the stake by proper Christians several hundred years ago?

There are no Christians here. Stop being passive-aggressive and stand up for yourself, you pansies.

but being passive-aggressive is the best way to argue without getting BTFO

Atheist here. I'm not a nihilist because I can't be bothered to work up the effort to be one.

passive-aggressive
The fuck I was, you pissant retard.

I can't speak for all atheists like the dedicated straw men crafters who shit up every thread on every board of this site, but one possible reason an atheist might support something like Marxism is that he believes that his child will provide him the only form of an after life he could hope for, and he believes that Marxism could provide his child with a future that is less susceptible to pain and struggle than other contemporary ideologies. Humans have empathetic desires and want the best for people who don't even exist yet, the scientific community's attitude towards climate change for example.

I do not believe that the atheist can respond soundly to the idea of the meaningfulness of life without God. The nihilist is correct and shows a clear reason that the ontological purpose of man without God is nothing and all things done have no impact in the end. Additionally many philosophers have not tried to wrestle with the idea of ontological meaninglessness but rather the epistemic understanding of the world and knowledge without God. Greg Bahnsen's last opening to his debate against Michael Martin, a debate never actually done, puts the death nail into the irrationality of atheism and their understand of knowledge and truth. Bahnsen finalizes his opening speech by quoting Friedrich Nietzsche that everything including grammar is incomprehensible without God.

You forgot nationalism

>personal happiness
how do you achieve this ?

By shitposting on Veeky Forums

It's not working, am i doing something wrong?

>he believes that Marxism could provide his child with a future that is less susceptible to pain and struggle than other contemporary ideologies. Humans have empathetic desires and want the best for people who don't even exist yet,
This all that humans wants is less pains and more pleasures while feeling good about themselves, which they achieve by wanting a few other people to have less pains and more pleasures. THis is how women are th e best hedonists on earth and men will never ever be as good as women.

>that everything including grammar is incomprehensible without God.
How so?

>death nail
Well it's a doggy dog world

This was my first impression when I heard, it, I haven't read the script in a while or listened to someone saying as well. But apparently Nietzsche was looking at the absurd without God.

And what evidence do you have to support your generalization?

Nothing mattering does not forbid one from trying to understand how the world functions

you're retarded op kys

Well i haven't read Nietzsche yet, though i do plan to, but how does he explain that everything is incomprehensible without god?

Existensialism is just an ideology for spooked retards Who believe in free will

>Why aren't all atheists nihilistic?
That is a matter of personality, which varies among people.
>_all
nice prejudice you've got going on there

>Why do they constantly seek a substitute for belief in God like Marxism, existentialism, or New Atheism?
They don't.

> Why are they so desperate for something to cling to?
Again projecting.

You seem to be very biased about atheists, OP. It is very simple: Albeit not identifying yourself with a religion, one still feels the need to belong to a group of people that share the same morals and values. This "hole" is filled by all types of branches of philosphy, similar to the many branches christianity has nowedays.

That's &humanities for ya

You use god as a purpose, if I replace it with another purpose out of my own free will and recognizing both are equally meaningless and entirely dependant on my personal opinions, it shouldn't matter.

That said, I'm firmly against moral imperatives or eschatological shit like Marxism.

People like to have a meaning to their life. This is why we have so many different religious beliefs.

>Atheist here

>Very few people can truly be atheists.
What makes you say that? What's so hard about lacking a belief in a divine entity?

The hard part is following the denial of divinity all the way through. You have to prevent something else taking the place of God.

It's very simple OP. You're baiting by posting shit that isn't true.

>Why do they constantly seek a substitute for belief in God like Marxism, existentialism, or New Atheism? Why are they so desperate for something to cling to?

Does not apply to most atheists that I know, including myself. Most of us fall nicely within the second panel of that nifty comic you posted. Sure, the first panel's sort of nihilist does exist, and they are extremely annoying, but you only think that they're all atheists because they're very loud, while decent sorts tend to not bother blathering on with their self-important declarations that everything is meaningless and hey listen to me I'm telling you that it's meaningless why do you keep doing things and having fun oh what a cruel world!

Nihilism is actually quite pleasant. Believe it or not, it is not an intrinsically pessimistic attitude: it is entirely possible to believe that any action you take is utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and still enjoy your life. You'd have to be an arrogant prick to think that you are entitled to cosmic relevance. I am not, so I don't, but I know that I enjoy spending time with a beautiful girl, eating a delicious meal, learning about the way this whole pointless world works, and a slew of other things, as well as helping others to enjoy life similarly; because hey, maybe they'll help me back someday. At the end of the day, nothing I do matters on a cosmic scale, so I might as well do the things that I enjoy. As long as I'm facilitating others' enjoyment of their own lives at the same time, I know I'll never be inadequate in any relevant way, because there is no gigantic father figure in the sky looking down at me in disappointment for sex without first signing a bunch of legal documents.

Only an atheist can be a true believer. If there is no god, why be moral? Lo and behold, the atheists do it anyway.

Remember, the more secular/atheist a country is, the more prosperous and less violent.

This is actually not a bad thread. I dont care what the topic is, as long as anons discuss the topic civially and ernistly.

Being nice and obsequious is not the same thing as being moral.

Jesus fucking christ, can we get a /rel/ containment board for the indoctrinated already?

yes

How does the atheist know what is moral?

>obsequious
No one said servility ever equated to morality, at least not atheists in this thread. Besides, how do you define being moral?

If being moral means I, a willing adult, can't have sex with another willing adult until I've submitted documents to the state which tie my finances to those of the other adult (because otherwise I'll be eternally punished), I don't think I want to be moral.

Far better to do your best to just live and let live and act towards other people as you'd have them act towards you, within reason.

I think there is more to it than with who and how you have sex, which for some reason is a major hang up people have with religion. Maybe it has more to do with what you're willing to do for sex?

>willing adult
only liberals believe, since descartes, that a human is a willing individual

Yes it is. None of these things are tangible.

Like god, these things are just concepts invented by humans. Social contracts, taboos, laws, religion, it's all just stuff humans come up with that people have a choice to give a damn about. If you jump around to different parts of the world different cultures have different opinions of what being nice is, what being moral, and what god is.

In one country not raping a woman when you could have might be "nice". Maybe it's okay or encouraged to rape heretics within that culture, so it might not be the morale choice in that situation since a religion dictates she deserves punishment. Neither words have any real meaning and are relative to the person and culture.

Because it's literally impossible to be a nihilist, just like it's impossible to "Turn the other cheek" when there is a mosquito landing on your forehead.

>>Remember, the more secular/atheist a country is, the more prosperous and less violent.
Yes, atheists just want more good stuff, less bad stuff and they punish people who do not behave like they want, or tell them they are sick and treat them by putting them in a home. Plus people love to break the little democratic laws of daily life which is enough for them to get off and then behave well in public.

They are all against murder and when there was no contact reached it independently.

different cultures have different definitions for murder

They have more in common than different.

that's pretty fuckin retarded. like legitimately stupid.

Maybe, MAYBE very few people can truly be purely rational, not clinging to a faith in mysticism that ensures them a basal need. But to think that that necessarily requires a faith in a personal deity is just pants on head retarded. It's like you're not even trying.

My argument is that if there is more to morality than acting in the general good interests of firstly your family, then your friends, then your community, then your city, then your nation, then all of humanity, then I want no part of it. Surely anything past the requirement to generally be decent to others is superfluous and unnecessarily restrictive? Sex is a specific hangup that I have with contemporary religious morality but it's archetypal of the sort of issues that I have with religious morality in general. Unlike enlightened self-interest (while I hate how pompous the term sounds, it does describe my personal morality), religious morality is not bound by practicality or even worldly reason. While I'm of the opinion that most religious tenets arose for some practical reason or other, their ongoing interpretation is static, and does not shift well to meet the context that their adherents find themselves in. To carry on the example of sex; children out of wedlock were bad for the general good governance of a state due to the difficulty of recording them, and often have to go without steady fathers and ended up (and still often do end up) being an overall drain on society. This is no longer nearly as relevant thanks to both better administration and the rise of contraceptives, making sex out of wedlock a non-issue between two responsible and willing adults.

Milk toast morality doesn't change the world, which is what is really needed instead of preserving a corrupt status quo.

>to think that that necessarily requires a faith in a personal deity
Where does that user even imply that? He could be an atheist talking shit about sensitive and weak-willed fags like you.

I'm a nihilist mate, I don't give a fuck whether or not a person has true Will. As far as I'm concerned, I exist, and so do you, and we experience this world, and we can enjoy that experience or not. If your personal philosophy means that you can't ever have consensual sex, that's pretty fucked (but only metaphorically), and I urge you to consider the wonderful world that exists outside of the pontifications of philosophers.

Where did I ever imply that my morality was milquetoast? The best interests of my nation involve the impeachment of our current president (South African, not American, before you all start chanting MAGA), the best interests of my friends involves punching the lights out of the guy who attacks my buddy, the best interests of humanity in general involves the culling of the childish tendencies of the new left. The best interests of others can involve conflict with other others. In fact, unlike Christian morality, my philosophy explicitly omits turning the other cheek. It is not in my best interests to do so in most cases; it is usually in my best interests to respond with enough force that my other cheek will never be threatened.

Or you could focus on curing cancer or something like that where retaliating for every little thing just distracts you from your goal.

What? I don't retaliate for every little thing, I retaliate where appropriate and doing so would prevent further harm to my person. I said that my philosophy excludes turning the other cheek, not that it demands the opposite extreme. Why are you so convinced that I'm retarded?

Besides, it would distract me a hell of a lot more if I consistently let myself get abused verbally or physically than if I just take appropriate action to ensure that such abuse cannot reoccur.

By the way, I'm studying mechanical engineering to be followed up with a postgrad in astronautics. Not working towards a cure for cancer but something possibly better for humanity in the long run, in my opinion.

No you don't. All that is required to be a atheist is to lack a belief in god. Anything beyond that is just seasoning.

that's what you get for expecting to get the same results as another person from a happiness machine suited to THEIR needs! nigger!

not saying his reductionist view of humanity is right but yours isn't either

>Why are you so convinced that I'm retarded?
I'm not

>I just take appropriate action to ensure that such abuse cannot reoccur
That's murder

>I'm studying mechanical engineering to be followed up with a postgrad in astronautics
Best of luck

This question is doubly retarded because many theistic people, notably the ancient Greeks and Romans but also most of the European or East Asian populations today, typically do not derive meaning for their existence from their gods or their religions.
It's mostly an Abrahamic (and Vedic/Dharmic) thing to do really.

What they have in common is that "killing people is okay in some cases and not in others, when it's not it's called murder."

If you're referring to the hypocrisy of war you're preaching to the choir.

>>I just take appropriate action to ensure that such abuse cannot reoccur
>That's murder

Literally what. Maybe I should rephrase that as "will not reoccur" but regardless you're blowing what I say way out of proportion. Ensuring that someone will not hit me again is as simple as hitting them back hard enough that they consider it worthless to continue. Preventing someone from being emotionally abusive towards me is as simple as excising them from my social circle. It is not necessary, nor is it in my best interests, to murder people willy-nilly.

Maybe we know different kinds of people.

Maybe you should stop knowing those kinds of people. It's clearly not in your best interests.

Here punches lead to knives, knives lead to guns.

In that case, you should move somewhere else. Regardless of accusations of milquetoast attitudes, you're not gonna improve the neighbourhood by being vocally moral in thugville.

That's more to survive those sorts of neighborhoods.

I'm not referring to anything in particular, I'm just pointing out that murder is unlawful/socially unacceptable killing, and what is considered lawful and socially acceptable varies a lot.
Killing soldiers in a war is universally considered okay, ironically.

>Killing soldiers in a war is universally considered okay, ironically.
What constitutes a war crime is foggy at best.

What's foggy is whether it's okay to kill civilians in enemy countries, war prisoners or various personnel in non-combat roles, not soldiers who are holding weapons.

“They trained us to hit only the lower extremities,” said a soldier from the IDF’s sniper unit, who said he was supposed to be part of a special sniper force that the IDF has trained for disengagement. An interview with the sniper will be broadcast today on Avi Yaacobovitz’s radio program “Response Time” on the the “Kol Hai” radio station.

Not everyone can do it. In extreme circumstances, people's strong emotions could take over and throw all that disbelief out the window
^ as user said

How does france?

>dumb assertions phrased as questions

2/8 b8 m8 fags will fall for it.

Why the real nihilist is dressed as the CIA?

I'm not an nihilist casue I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist since i'm a nihilist.

>What we all take for granted in terms of objective knowledge, linguistic meaningfulness, logical standards, scientific procedures, human freedom and dignity and moral absolutes, because what we take for granted in terms of these things, would be utterly unintelligible within the context of the atheist worldview. These things do not comport with atheistic presuppositions. When the atheist tells us that there is no God and that all there is is matter and motion, it becomes impossible to give a rational account of objectivity, human freedom, moral absolutes, science, laws of logic etc. On the otherhand, the worldview of Christian theism is the philosophical perspective in which all of these things are intelligible.

>Because I said so everything is objective LOL

>Why aren't all atheists nihilistic?
Because atheism doesn't entail moral nihilism.

I don't think there is a single original thought in this thread. Impressive.

...

>Why aren't all atheists
Stopped reading there. We are not obligated to be anything. No one is. If you think that anyone should be x or y, that's your opinion. Only this. What we are is not your business at all.

Existentialism is a humanism.

>we

People who can't understand the fundamental absurdity of subjective reality need to die. All subjective understanding is by its very nature pragmatic, and thereby can be unraveled when pressed hard enough. Hell, no matter your ontological system, you can't truly claim to have a foundational understanding of anything.

Even if you go full Empiricist, this is something even fucking Hume understood. This is basic philosophy. From Socrates to Nietzsche.

"God is dead" does not mean "God" literally died. It means that the objective metaphysical foundation of human understanding could no longer be justified, because "God is dead". Instead, there is only Will. There is only tautology. There is no overarching moral or existential system, no essential thing by which to measure one's life, or life at all. Hence, Nihilism.

And if you're an Atheist and not an Agnostic, it means you've already staked your claim that "God is dead". The least you could do is believe in something coherent, and not simply use a communal Ideology as patchwork Theology.

Animals.

Because people who are attracted to or identify as humanist/nihilist/atheist/etc are weak willed brainlets who couldn't create a functional argument if their life depended on it. Threads like these are proof of this.

Atheism is for weak people who can't comprehend the fact that they aren't completely in control of their own lives and future. They are scared that their actions might have future consequences that are impossible to escape from. It is pure narcissism taken to the absolute extreme. According to you a bacteria must be strong since it doesn't believe in God either, but anyone with more than a single digit IQ would laugh at that stance. However, I do agree that you atheist do have the intelligence of a typical bacteria. Unless you genuinely believe that sticking a banana up your butt is the pinnacle of intelligence.

>complains about strawmen
>proceeds to post multiple strawmen

I hope you were just ironically being retarded. I have my doubts however.

atheists BTFO

Wuz

Stop samefagging, you tedious retard.

Or, you know, some of us just don't believe in any deity or group of deities. Also you're kidding yourself if you think the average religious person isn't clinging to their beliefs out of hope that they will get to meet their loved ones again in the afterlife.

*tips crucifix*

>believe in something coherent
The ones that aren't absurdists do, but they recognize the self-imposed value of that cause. Theism is a justification for the cause outside of evidence, because it's an easier to believe in your purpose when it is literally set in stone by someone else.