Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Mudhammam]

Reiterate it. I didn't see any issue with whatever it was the first time, so clearly its importance in whatever it is has yet to be conveyed.

Okay. Moreover, I'll just watch while you argue with yourself.

All positive claims are real. Almost all of them are ultimately false. I've no reason to consider my own positive claims to be any more true than anyone else's.
WRONG! My argument is that we can know *ANYTHING*. That act of knowing a thing does not the thing's correctness make

So, the following statements you're going to make are almost ultimately... false?

I'll reiterate:

Please.

understanding TRUTH for *anyone* is an inherently impossible task

Including... that. Like I said, self-refuting. You make this too damn easy.

We CAN know ANYTHING with ABSOLUTE certainty. We often do know more than we ought with relative certainty.

Are you high? Are you even reading what you write?

The reality is that probably we're not aware of 'the reality', and can only form our best guesses around whatever apparent consistency our experiences might have in common.

Ohhhhh. Because you received that "knowledge" about "reality" last time you took a hit of acid? Dreamt it in your sleep? The reality is that yes, mostly everything we *think* we know is an approximation of the truth, measured for its degree of accuracy--i.e. as a true representation of the objective world--by clear thinking derived by definitions that logically cohere, both conceptually and with multiple, varying perceptions of said world, which we furthermore test using tried and proven instrumentation developed through the trial and error that results from the scientific method. None of this has anything to do with faith in the traditional sense as belief in a proposition not sufficiently supported by evidence given in our shared experiences, and in spite of reasonable doubt.

This is why we have exceptions to rules, and not all-encompassing rules. Trying to get every relevant card nailed down into any one rule is impossible when we can't really tell which game we are playing. Is it cheating... or are we cheating?

That's like, so deep!

Faith is belief is confidence is knowledge.

Not in the religious usage of the word faith, which is precisely why I reject its appropriateness here.

You do have faith in the reasons and evidence you're using to support your beliefs, do you not? You'd have to, if you believe in the findings resultant from such things.

Nope. Faith is not required for existence. It does not require faith to understand and know beyond a reasonable doubt that "I exist" is a true statement. I do trust that when I talk to someone outside of my "self," they understand the words I am using and their correlation to the objects in the objective world that I am attempting to describe. That trust is established on the very success of that process in past experience, the source of all knowledge, though, I confess, it is rapidly eroding right now.

This is built upon layer and layer... there is no prerequisite for faith that states it is necessarily unreasonable. In truth, it is often quite the opposite... whether the reasons be good or bad, valid or not, is irrelevant to the process that is reasoning.

Obviously, we disagree on the usefulness or application of the term "faith" in the context of this conversation, none of which is dependent on logical principles or inferences not found in immediate experience.

Other minds exist. Whether they exist outside of my own head, on the other hand... that's why solipsists are incorrigible: there is literally no perceptible difference. They are only wrong when they suggest that everything does not exist... because insomuch as their thinking proves their being: a table's splintering proves it's being. In each argument, existence is already assumed, because nonexistence is inherently impossible through logic: if it doesn't exist, then there's nothing to be defined. Nothing to test, nothing to contest.

Of course. So many are so enraptured in what they know, that should their walls come crashing down: they'll be buried beneath the weight of their fancy.

Alternately, you could ignore me. That works for most people who are unable to defend their arguments

So glad you cleared that up for us.

That's all we've got in the end: what usually works for us. All reasoning is itself arbitrary,

No, wrong again, for the reasons I've already given.

the goal: whether or not it convinces a person of any particular thing.

A goal that effects our ability to survive and thrive.

Further, should justifications for a belief ultimately succeed in the establishment of persuasion... how strongly such convictions are held is affected by how enamored they have become within such.

Yes, tempered by the soundness of the reasoning and the evidence which is available.