I’m like ‘the Tea Party is racist’ and my friend is like ‘Kamau, you can’t call the Tea Party racist. They’re not all racist.’ And I was like, you know what, I don’t need the Tea Party to be 100% racist for me to feel perfectly fine calling them racist. I don’t need 100% racism in the group. It could be way less than 100%. 10% is plenty for me. If the Tea Party is 10% racist I feel comfortable labeling the whole group racist.
Let me explain how that works. If I offer you a shake, a milkshake. I say ‘would you like a milkshake?’ You go “yeah, sure I’d like a milkshake.” I go, ‘okay, here you go, but just so you know it’s 10% shit.’
Oh, now you suddenly you understand how it works. 10% is kinda a lot ain’t it. You go ‘uh oh, that’s too much shit in my shake."
“Why rebel any longer against the symmetry of this world when Chaos itself can only be a system of disorders? Our fate being to rot with the continents and the starts, we drag on, like resigned sick men, and to the end of time, the curiosity of a denouement that is foreseen, frightful, and vain.”
— E. M. Cioran
- Suicide: Camus didn’t like this option and neither do I.
- Religious belief: This is the choice that you’ve made in order to “escape nihilism.”
- Acceptance: In other words, one must accept that values are baseless and therefore, that life is purposeless—meaningless. This is the conclusion that some of us draw. My conclusion is that this is most likely the case. That doesn’t imply that I’m a nihilist of all types (i.e. moral, metaphysical, political). I’m only stating that the conclusion of existential nihilism is likely the case given that I don’t believe in gods and given that I don’t believe the universe was created and endowed with objective meaning and purpose.
However, one does not have to stop there. Camus stated that upon accepting the Absurd, one attains true freedom. Thus, one can go about constructing his/her own purpose and meaning. The same can be said of the nihilistic conclusion. It is likely the case that the universe is meaningless; upon accepting that, one is free to construct meaning. That would lead us to atheist existentialism:
Thus, there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive of it. Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing more than what he makes of himself. This is the first principle of existentialism.
— Jean-Paul Sartre
My loved ones make my life meaningful. My passions make my life meaningful. My ambitions make my life meaningful. I am the pioneer and the developer of meaning in my life. You like to think that the god you believe in has given your life purpose and meaning, but what you fail to understand is this: if the nihilistic conclusion is true, your “escape” is as illusory as mine. In order to avoid the truth of that statement, it is incumbent on you to prove the truth of your escape, namely god. That is something that you cannot do, but the contrary has been and can be done. Point of all this: atheism does not lead to nihilism; it has led and can lead to nihilism, but there are other conclusions—one of which I provided via the Sartre quote. Then there’s the bit on Social Darwinism. Where did that come from? That bit amounts to propagandist nonsense and I am under no obligation to address it. So, do me a favor: stop perpetuating the kind of ignorance you wrote underneath the quote you posted. It’s a nuisance and quite frankly, one becomes tired of addressing redundant ignorance.
I’m tired of theists who argue that life must be meaningless without a god. I’ve had long arguments with them before, but they seem to have built up a powerful immunity to logic.