If there is no God, how do we combat nihilism?

Originally posted by LemonJello
This topic is like a merry-go-round with you. It is a sleight of hand to say that IF death is merely a permanent end to consciousness THEN all actions become meaningless. I think I already posted an example from Nagle concerning "chains of justification" that terminate fully within this natural life:

Suppose your daughter or son unknowingly reaches f ...[text shortened]... certainly don't require external justification that stems from eschatological considerations.

It isn't a merry-go-round with me, it is a topic you and others start
then back off when the questions come.

I didn't say all actions become meaningless, I said everything
becomes meaningless if it all goes to nothing after this life time.

Life matters, everything that does matter only matters in life, where
there isn't life, nothing matters. So of course all examples you give
where I'm going to apply meaning, purpose, value are going to
apply in life, but that isn't what this discussion is about now is it?

It is the window of life, how long is it, and does it stop ever? If the
end of life means that all you are or what you have ever done,
goes up into nothingness, than that is what happens, nothing. It
would not matter after you die to you if you stopped your child from
being hurt, or that you hurt your child, nothing you did matters after
you die according to that belief system, except in this life, and then
it to will wash away as time goes on as those that you touched all
die and go into nothingness too. The selfish life, and the giving one
are equally void at death, they are only meaningful in life, but who
is to say one is worse than the other since they both go to the same
end, and all the effects of both also end up the same way in the
end.
Kelly

Originally posted by Starrman
This is hogwash. The point to life is defined by the fact that it is all we have. We need to act in a way in which we can contribute to society and our fellow humans or there would be no point. Our interactions, social hierarchy, natural pleasures, are the very things that make up the boundaries of existence. To say that life has no meaning becau ...[text shortened]... listening, dining and playing which are the very essence of these things; so too with life.

Who says, if this life is all there is, why should anyone care about
society, or contribute they only get a small window that will go away
as soon as death comes? Why not look at it as party while you can
and enjoy the ride, because once it is over it is over? Your values
are as meaningful in the end as those that take the 'eat drink, and
be merry' crowd in the end, what makes it important to follow your
views? You and all that agree with you will all die and turn to
nothing in the end, just as the party crowd will according to that
belief system, your views on who is right and wrong will not matter
in the end, nothing will, it all flows into nothing if that is true. So
tell me where the hogwash is, if it all is nothing in the end?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who says, if this life is all there is, why should anyone care about
society, or contribute they only get a small window that will go away
as soon as death comes? Why not look at it as party while you can
and enjoy the ride, because once it is over it is over? Your values
are as meaningful in the end as those that take the 'eat drink, and
be merry' cro ...[text shortened]... ing if that is true. So
tell me where the hogwash is, if it all is nothing in the end?
Kelly

The hogwash is that your previous post was clearly trying to say not that:

This life has meaning until it ends.

but:

This life has no meaning, because it ends.

If you are now saying that life matters and then you die, I agree with you: with the addendum that your impact on the world can live on; in friends, relations, children, work etc. You just won't be around to experience it.

There is no need for an afterlife to make this life and the experiences therein justifiable.

Originally posted by vistesd
The absurdity of our existence, according to Camus, stems from the fact that we are conscious beings who, by the very nature of our consciousness, seek to find value, purpose and meaning in a world where such are not given, and in the face of our own death. Therefore, our choice is either (1) to live a valueless, purposeless, meaningless life (nihilism)—if ...[text shortened]... heaven—then I hope they keep their beliefs. I suspect such people are rare; perhaps I’m wrong.

So tell me, what is a good life and a bad one, if all lives are the
same in the end? I know you have your personal tastes, you like
this, you don't like that, but so do others, what makes "good" if
all there is in the end is nothing? Do you or others gain anyting
of lasting value by picking one over the other, since all roads lead
to the same place in the end? Outside of life there is no meaning,
and if life is only here, who is the judge on what is good or bad,
when one does not care about others, does that person's values
carry more or less meaning in the end since he shares the same
end as someone who does care?
Kelly

Originally posted by rwingett
There is no inherent purpose assigned to one's life through some external agent. The object is to assign a purpose to one's own life through your own efforts. It is up to the individual to make his own life meaningful.

Why?

Originally posted by amannion
It's certainly not obvious to me as a practising atheist.

Practising atheist? Let us know when you get that thing perfected.

Originally posted by Starrman
The hogwash is that your previous post was clearly trying to say not that:

This life has meaning until it ends.

but:

This life has no meaning, because it ends.

If you are now saying that life matters and then you die, I agree with you: with the addendum that your impact on the world can live on; in friends, relations, children, work etc. ...[text shortened]...

There is no need for an afterlife to make this life and the experiences therein justifiable.

Don't tell me what I was clearly trying to say, I can tell you if you ask!

I have had this discussion before, and many of these people here
and now, just shutup and left after getting a couple of questions on
this topic, and personally that suprised me!

There is no addendum in the end, all my family and friends will die,
and all that I added to will all come to naught as well. There is no
meaning in nothing, you can multiply good deads millions of times
over, but as soon as you do it times 0, it all goes away.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So tell me, what is a good life and a bad one, if all lives are the
same in the end? I know you have your personal tastes, you like
this, you don't like that, but so do others, what makes "good" if
all there is in the end is nothing? Do you or others gain anyting
of lasting value by picking one over the other, since all roads lead
to the same place in ...[text shortened]... re or less meaning in the end since he shares the same
end as someone who does care?
Kelly

First, part of my seeing value in the lives of others is the recognition that they are in the same boat as me—human beings in the human condition. That arouses a sympathy (in the underlying meaning of that word, not some mushy-mushy feeling) in me. Also, as Starrman pointed out, living in social relationships with others is part of our human condition—except for true hermits. It does not serve the harmony of my life to create enmity in those relationships.

Second, I cannot speak for everyone and how they see life. I am speaking here only for me.

Third, even if I grant your entire argument about the relationship of a belief in an afterlife to meaning, I cannot honestly just say, “Okay, then I’ll believe in that afterlife!” I have to do my best with what, in fact, I believe.

I don't see KJ's argument for meaning in life dependent upon the afterlife. Instead, I see his argument against those who posit that life has no meaning. If life has no meaning, then what standard determines its value?
Some say, this is all we got, so let's make the best of it. Who determines what the "best" is?

Originally posted by Halitose
The only question left unanswered by atheistic existentialism is the "nothing" after death.

It's not unanswered - it's nothing.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not unanswered - it's nothing.

Yeah. My wording let me down. 😠

Originally posted by KellyJay
Don't tell me what I was clearly trying to say, I can tell you if you ask!

I have had this discussion before, and many of these people here
and now, just shutup and left after getting a couple of questions on
this topic, and personally that suprised me!

There is no addendum in the end, all my family and friends will die,
and all that I added to wil ...[text shortened]... good deads millions of times
over, but as soon as you do it times 0, it all goes away.
Kelly

If you can't make it clear what you are trying to say the first time round, how do you expect people to discuss the issue with you?

So you don't think your legacy lives on after you are gone? This is clearly untrue, we have electrical equipment thanks to Faraday's legacy, beautiful music thanks to Beethoven's legacy and so on. Perhaps you should try to clarify what exactly you do mean as you sound confused.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't see KJ's argument for meaning in life dependent upon the afterlife. Instead, I see his argument against those who posit that life has no meaning. If life has no meaning, then what standard determines its value?
Some say, this is all we got, so let's make the best of it. Who determines what the "best" is?

Who determines what the "best" is?

And for whom?

I may have mis-interpreted Kelly. He and I had this discussion once before, in the context of Ecclesiastes—which I ought to re-read.

Part of my difficulty is that my “worldview” is something of a patchwork quilt. I don’t have a ready, systemic answer. I find that my life has value; I live it out according to how I value things and people. I look at the “other,” and say, “It must be the same for them.” That is, we share the same human condition. Why am I not willing to tolerate rape and torture, say, in my world? Because to me they represent a blight on my world, my values, my aesthetic of life. I find them personally abhorrent.

Now, it seems to me that humanity has a pretty broad range of shared values, including moral values. It’s a bell curve. Most people do not rape and torture; most people do not seem inclined to. Whether that’s because of natural law, the general make-up of our consciousness that represents some categorical imperative—I don’t know. I don’t seem to have to know in order to act.

So: to what standard can we all be held, the sane and the psychopath alike? Should I be held to the same standards as a psychopath? (Well, maybe I should have to report in from time to time... 😉 )

Here is Hillel’s version of the “categorical imperative”: What you find hateful for yourself, do not do to others.” (Actually, to turn that into a categorical imperative, I think you need to argue that it is imperative because it is irrational to do otherwise.) That seems to me to be a reasonable starting point for living in the world with my fellow human beings; it seems a reasonable standard, as a start. Of course, there is a huge amount of “commentary” behind that prescription. Hillel: “That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary. Now go an study the commentary.”

But, morals and meaning are getting all wrapped up here, and maybe I’m confusing things myself.

My life has value to me because of the richness and joy and love I find in the living of it; and those carry me through the hard times. I can say to people, this is how life has value to me; here is how I make meaning in my life. Here are the times I’ve suffered and despaired, and here are the things that brought me through. I can offer no one anything other than that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It isn't a merry-go-round with me, it is a topic you and others start
then back off when the questions come.

I didn't say all actions become meaningless, I said everything
becomes meaningless if it all goes to nothing after this life time.

Life matters, everything that does matter only matters in life, where
there isn't life, nothing matters. So of to the same
end, and all the effects of both also end up the same way in the
end.
Kelly

It's like someone paid you a shiny new quarter to be purposefully vague.

You agree with me that my actions during life are meaningful, and then you turn around and state that they become meaningless when I die and experience an end to consciousness. That's not the way it works, KJ. If my actions up until the point I die were meaningful, then it is true for all time that they were meaningful.

So of course all examples you give
where I'm going to apply meaning, purpose, value are going to
apply in life, but that isn't what this discussion is about now is it?

Uh...yeah it is KJ. That is precisely what this discussion is about. What did you think this discussion was about?

If the
end of life means that all you are or what you have ever done,
goes up into nothingness,

This is exactly what we are supposed to be debating, and there you are, prefacing it with 'if' as though it were given. You apply circular thinking and then deny that this is a merry-go-round ride. Harrumph. And you wonder why people get annoyed when you 'debate' this topic. Harrumph again.

If you want my opinion, you are a classic case of a passionate mind at odds with the absurd. The fact that irrational beliefs and mere wishful thinking results from that confrontation is probably none too unexpected. And with that, I am taking a self-imposed ban for a while. I like you too much, KJ.

Originally posted by vistesd
And for whom?

My life has value to me because of the richness and joy and love I find in the living of it; and those carry me through the hard times. I can say to people, this is how life has value to me; here is how I make meaning in my life. Here are the times I’ve suffered and despaired, and here are the things that brought me through. I can offer no one anything other than that.

Aren't all the adjectives meaningless, however, without a standard by which they can be measured?

For instance, say you happened upon a painter in the park, who was plying his canvass with paints to assimilate the scene before him: a pond, a tree beside the pond, and a bench beside the tree. If, in passing, you notice the scene his canvass depicts is nothing like the scene before him, you may (if so bold) ask him what message he is conveying.
If he claims to be anything other than a realist, you will likely nod your head in affirmation of his right to 'see' and portray the scene anyway he sees fit. If, however, he claims to be a realist, you may offer such helps as, "I think it would be more true to the scene, were the tree in such-and-such a position," or "It appears to me that the pond is closer to this color of paint, rather than the one you chose," and etc.
The beauty is found in the painting's harmony with reality. Now, this is not a treatise on beauty, per se, as it is on agreement with standards.