Does a scientific understanding of the world naturally lead to "nihilism"...

> ...there are two world views...
Stopped listening.

this

religion is a coping mechanism once you face your failure of your life, just like other contrived fantasizes, your faith in the scientific method included.

Religions are meant to leave material-bodily hedonism, travels, concerts, foods, sex and so on, for a spiritual hedonism, through prayers for theists and mediation for atheists.
Plenty of material hedonist love to think of themselves as less hedonistic than they are, since it improves their hedonism in thinking that they are not animals...most people who claim to be religious are not all, it is just the way they are.
In buddhism, you even leave this spiritual hedonism, after you have gained it, which is called jhanas, since you understand that this bliss from prayers, which is just a great, but not perfect concentration-stilness, are not personal nor permanent and that you are still prone to avidity and aversion.

Science, by itself and as a tool, can't confer meaning.

Nihilism only happens due to a lack of mental computation, otherwise it undermines itself: Human intuitive morality starts as the definition of good and bad. Nihilism states that the idea of morality itself is not within reality, in other words, nihilism as an approach to reality consists of the association of bad with the definition of good and bad. Such sentence is logically impossible: "it is bad to think in terms of good and bad.". Saying then that nihilism simply states that it is the Truth that there is no morality, implies a differentiation between the Truth and what is not the Truth to a degree in which the Truth has value. Had the Truth no value, Nihilism, which claims to say the Truth, wouldn't be said nor thought of nor seem as important any more than any false claim. So If the Truth has value and the non-Truth has less or no value, this is computationally equivalent to saying that the truth is good and the non-truth is bad, and the truth should be stated, thus Nihilism should be stated meaning the lack of morality should be stated, thus Nihilism can't be stated because it says it is the truth, which is good. Nihilism is an impossible idea.

Your next bet should be morality is relative, but it exists, which I will refute in a moment as well.

Wrong. Nihilism has nothing to do with morality.

In fact, it is natural for morality to arise from it, and even anarchism can evolve a moral set of values.
Point is, nothing matters.
You and your entire life will be forgotten in 200 or so years.
That won't matter because the human race will cease to exist in about 6 million years or less.
That won't matter because of the death of the sun.
That won't matter when the milky way merges with andromeda.
That won't matter when the universe suffers the heat death.

At its core, these statements have no value in and of themselves. They're not good or bad, just what will come to pass.
Giving any meaning beyond this can be done at your own discretion because it may have value to you.

If you think of it this way, nihilism is actually like liberating, instead of the depressing mid life crisis everyone seems to have about it as it relates to their life.

Also, this isn't science.
Sage

Refutation of morality as subjective morality:

Morality starts as an intuitive notion of good and bad, right and wrong. Morality concerns every state and action, thus every state and action will be set with a binary moral value. So a subject can state a moral sentence as long as it doesn't contradict another moral sentence he said or believe in, otherwise morality wouldn't be binary. Because subjects vary, subjects will vary on their ability to be consistent. This range of inconsistencies can produce each and every subjective moral system that we have heard of. Thus, we can't conclude that if there are many moral viewpoints, morality is necessarily and exclusively subjective. And we CAN conclude that as inconsistencies are reduced, there is a convergence of subjective moralities, thus there is an objective, unique, consistent, morality which concerns every state and action. Thus, there is an objective morality that civilizations, groups of people, converge to as their computation power, intelligence, increases, which is empirically verified.

>Does a scientific understanding of the world naturally lead to "nihilism"?

Yes.

/thread

Shut up, fag.

>>Veeky Forums
>>/trash/

Are you even 18?

The bad things don't mean anything so don't give them value. Why do we use Veeky Forums?

>even anarchism can evolve a moral set of values.
Anarchist here, I take offense to that. We're a very diverse bunch and none of us can agree on anything (you could say it's absolute anarchy, fnarr fnarr) except for one thing; we would be better off without leadership. The movement comes from the Greek words meaning without ruler. There is no part of not wanting to be ruled that is inherently incompatible with having moral values.

>Ireland is stupid
I like this image. This confirms what I've thought of that godforsaken island.

>Nihilism has nothing to do with morality.
Wrong.

>even anarchism can evolve a moral set of values.
Because they are not really nihilists and need the minimum amount of morality to function. People are not necessarily what they say they are, and specially, people are logically unable to be actual nihilists.

>You and your entire life will be forgotten in 200 or so years.
>so nothing matters
The size of the future is not related to the importance of things while they exist. It has nothing to do with it. The use of something is still only limited by access or the lack of it, and we have already granted such natural access for ourselves. If we use something for ten minutes and it is destroyed in a year, or if we use it for ten minutes and it is destroyed in one hundred years, we have still used it ten minutes, which is a non-zero amount of time, so it doesn't matter if things are getting destroyed or not. The prediction our home planet will be dead in the future doesn't imply our use of it is non-zero. Importance in any other way rather than use is, funny enough, useless. It is the fact that the world will be destroyed that doesn't matter, while everything in it matters proportionally to the time they exist.

>At its core, these statements have no value in and of themselves
Incorrect statements don't have the same value as correct statements, otherwise you would be unable to write.

>nihilism is actually like liberating, instead of the depressing mid life crisis everyone seems to have
It is as much liberating as any afterlife belief: "I believe death is the end, he believes in heaven, both of us find comfort and liberation in our beliefs. I embrace what others call doom because I see as inevitable, and he embraces what he sees as inevitable, even though I say he is dooming himself. I see theists as having depressing lie-fueled lives while I am enlightened, and he sees atheists as having depressing lie-fueled lives while he is enlightened."

>reinstate Church everywhere
>keep Jesuits colleges where smart people can go and not give a fuck about religion in secret
I'd be fine with that.