Violent Messiah

Just a question:

Does being an atheist necessarily entail that you are a naturalist?

Does it also entail nihilism automatically as well? If not, I'd love to hear from atheists how do they view the meaning or purpose of life.

I'm not starting an argument. I'm just curious.

King's Indian

Hi, VM.

Not sure about your first point. I assume so, since "nature" is all there is, but I'm never sure about the rigorous definition of the word (plus I always read it at first as naturist, which doesn't help).
As to your second point: certainly not. A lack of a supernatural entity doesn't entail that we may make no moral choices in the world, even if such choices may be eventually described in neurological terms. Such fatalism usually derives from the assumption that our genetic heritage (or environment, or fundamental physical laws, or even the "fact" that we are as flies to wanton boys) is comparable to the strings that run through the palms and feet of marionettes, so why bother?.
Nihilism seems slightly different to fatalism, being that our codes of morality are judged to be wrong, in the sense of deleterious, or only applicable to our detriment. Of course, when one starts throwing words like wrong about, we're right back with moral judgments.
If you can get it, "Wickedness", by Mary Midgley goes into this in some depth.
If you wait a bit, I'll post this and then edit some links for Richard Carrier and Michael Martin on the Secular Web, as they seem likely candidates for appropriate articles

Take care,

KI

Added PS: Too lazy to look further than two of Richard Carrier's.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=113
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ier/ought.html

Mageth

Does being an atheist necessarily entail that you are a naturalist?

No, not necessarily. An atheist, by my favorite definition, is merely someone who lacks belief in god(s). Atheists don't necessarily hold "the belief that phenomena in the universe are explained by natural laws, and that there are no supernatural forces at work," one definition for naturalism. As an example, at least some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, though not naturalistic.

Does it also entail nihilism automatically as well? If not, I'd love to hear from atheists how do they view the meaning or purpose of life.

No. I think there is no objective Meaning or Purpose in life (with capital "M and "P"), but that doesn't mean I can't find meaning and purpose in life. An atheist can be a Secular Humanist, for example.

philechat

First question: No. There are religious atheists who have supernatural or mystical beliefs (Buddhists and ghost-believers, for example). They lack a belief in God--though there can be thousands of different worldviews under the banner of atheism.

Second question: No again. Some atheists are nihilists, others believe in a telelogical purpose (the Utopia of the Absolute Idealists and the Nirvana of the Buddhists), and some hold life to have subjective purposes (such as the secular humanists). There is no Atheism with a capital A, and not one worldview that is called representative of atheism.

Unbeliever

I tend to think that all nihilists are necessarily atheists, but not all atheists are necessarily nihilists.

Ol' Vic

Here's the perspective of a naturist :

Naturalism implies at least some degree of empiricism, and while I imagine that most atheists are empiricists (I see no evidence of gods and hence withhold belief), this need not apply to all. I see no obstacle to an atheist denying not only the existence of gods, but the objective reality of existence itself. The natural world, that is, may lack ontological validity.

Nevertheless, when the warm weather arrives, it is pleasant to shuck off one's garments and romp naked on a sunny beach, or through a field of sweet clover. Happy Spring.

Violent Messiah

I cant see the logic in this one. How can someone disregard the existence of God but believe in the spiritual world. Neither have empirical evidence to support it.

Godot

Since when did rational thought have anything to do with belief in the supernatural?

Frotiw

Neither follows from atheism. I focus on the first one.

There are loads of modern dualists(usually in conflict with naturalism) that strongly reject any form for god while saying that naturalism lack the means to exhaustivly explain the world. Then again if all depents of the concept of "naturalism" you use. Some use a very wide concept that can entail the notion on non-material entities(e.g. Husserl) others use a narrow concept that says anything must be explained material. My personal view is(aprox.) that ontological naturalism is true but epistemical n. is not. You cannot explain everything as matter without crude reductions this however is an epistemic problem. By core(the thing in it self) is most likely matter.
Anyway naturalism does not follow at all from atheism. Also in actual philosophical thinking it would very unreasonable to pick a stance based on ones religious(or non-religious) position. My point is that in my book dogmatic atheism is about as redicules as dogmatic theism. One should not claim atheism true and then just extract all sort of stances from this point that is pretty much what the religious do. We should move away from this and pick a stance solely for rational/philosophical and scientific reasons. It's not good enough just be an atheist.

Also dualism(though I am not one) is not as often presented a mystic semi-religious stance. It is an extremely plausible theory often accepted by espcially mathematicians, logician and also a fair amount of physicians(as their laws are not material but about matter, which is not the same). In many ways materialism is a harder position to defend.