Coming Back to Reason 2: Escaping the Black Hole of Nihilism
You can escape. There is freedom in Christ.
Fredrick Nietzsche followed his “rational” to its logical end. He spent the last 14 years of his life in an asylum. 1882: "God is dead" signed: Nietzsche, 1900:
I believe true atheists would be nihilist, but the nihilism is such a dismal place many steer clear because they fear where their reason and rational will lead. True nihilist are the truly insane by definition. But what we find today are the pop culture nihilist that still jump up to argue and rebel against Christianity and the God of the Bible, and will not gentle into that gloomy goodnight, yet.
Let's define the primary term
Definition of Nihilism-
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist. A mental illness.
This is a video is made by a nihilist with a consistent worldview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exiCcOcjbBY
From hopeless end to endless hope
Okay let's explore;
Nihilists have a problem with absolutes like the atheist this is a form of rebellion against the absoluteness of the One True God(denial is NOT proof and they will be held accountable). They commit the fallacy argument from the negative: Arguing from the negative asserts that since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. This fallacy is often used interchangeably with argumentum ad ignorantiumand the either/or fallacy. Another definition is arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is, therefore, true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is, therefore, false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma) since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." To the nihilist: Just because YOU cannot prove or know there is are absolute truths, does NOT mean absolute truths do not exist.
You can't LOGICALLY argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. The nihilist must step outside logic and plumbs the deeps of what if scenarios, millennia of time and just- so rescue stories(which explains why they appeal to the naturalistic views of origins(evolutionism) which requires similar conjecture.)
Let’s look at the obvious dilemma to this position as one who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth. Then we’ll let’s see how they dodge the obvious.
"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.
"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.
"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.
When faced with the obvious nihilist resort to argumentum ad hominem. This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (they'll use words like idiot, stupid, flatearther, dumb, moron, bigot, close minded, or worse you name it), but they always avoid the opponents valid point. So instead of dealing with the obvious you go into a bullying and ridicule stand which unveils the shaky ground their entire position stands on.
There is NO winning or losing when one chooses to engage a nihilist. Like anyone else with an ideology they are looking to convert anyone to their way of thinking or not thinking in their case. Nihilist offer nothing, and essentially is nothing, So it’s wrong due to its negative connotation(you can’t prove a negative true, doesn‘t necessarily mean it‘s not, but it goes beyond a reasonable doubt for those who are reasonable.)
"The more they deny absolute truth the more they prove its existence. Reality is absolute whether you feel like being cogent or not. Philosophically, relativism is contradictory. Practically, relativism is anarchy. The world is filled with absolute truth."
"A relativist maintains that everyone should be able to believe and do whatever he wants. Of course, this view is emotionally satisfying, until that person comes home to find his house has been robbed, or someone seeks to hurt him, or someone cuts in front of him in line. No relativist will come home to find his house robbed and say, "Oh, how wonderful that the burglar was able to fulfill his view of reality by robbing my house. Who am I to impose my view of right and wrong on this wonderful burglar?" Quite the contrary, the relativist will feel violated just like anyone else. And then, of course, it's OK for him to be a relativist, as long as the "system" acts in an absolutist way by protecting his "unalienable rights.""