Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Mudhammam]

The point, Chuck... is that it *feels* true to them based on their experience, which often involves a childhood indoctrination within it.

Is that how you feel?

The doubting skeptic on the other hand feels estranged by their experiences with such, and are left more humbled, or in a state prone to rejection. Truth is more... malleable, for these people. It is not static... it is not unquestioning... it is not the end all.

Of course our perception of truth is dynamic. Jesus Christ, congrats on passing grade school philosophy.

[Violet]

Yeah, that's precisely what I mean. What the fuck else could I even possibly be talking about? (Hey, what do you know, we seem to understand each other--amazing! Wait, wait... GODDUNNIT!)

If we understand each other, then you're speaking out of your ass. This is a talent I do not posses... and I cannot help but to respect it. Your ability to draw conclusions of truth out of thin air is an absolute miracle of the organic machine... and this is the only reason why synthetics will not be our end all in the end.

Ah, the ad hominem... the go-to card when you have nothing substantial to say. Thanks for that confession though.

You don't seem to know what an ad hominem is. What you were delivered could at best be a straw man, which is only so if it is infact not the ultimate end of what you were arguing (it is).

If it's not what you're arguing, then do try again... this time without the infantile "quotations" around every word you have to use to try to defend your childlike "belief" in "truth". Hopefully, you're better at doing this than you are at recognizing personal attacks... as we might be here all week if so.

There's a reason you call it "basic" philosophy.

Yes, that was much how I felt reading that trite you put forward. Care to try again? Don't pull any punches this time... show me what you've got

---

Is that how you feel?

No, i feel like logic is a flawed process in the first place. That's what my experience with the universe suggests, after all

Congrats on passing grade school philosophy.

You would do well to return to grade school, as you seem ignorant about what is taught within its walls.

---

Of course our perception of truth is dynamic. Jesus Christ, congrats on passing grade school philosophy.

Your ability to edit after-the-fact somehow doesn't credit you any additional leverage. You might make better use of such extra time by thinking it through the first time.

---

Experience should also have inculcate the feeling that feeling true is an inadequate criteria for assessing the truth of a proposition.

Oh? How on earth would you know?

Is your ability to assess 'truth' so magnificent that you can even reach objectivity in your analysis of it? hock:

[Mudhammam]

If we understand each other, then you're speaking out of your ass. This is a talent I do not posses... and I cannot help but to respect it. Your ability to draw conclusions of truth out of thin air is an absolute miracle of the organic machine... and this is the only reason why synthetics will not be our end all in the end.

For someone who requires an all-knowing oracle to make a statement about experience that can be reasonably considered true, you sure have a lot to say. Too bad none of it is novel.

You don't seem to know what an ad hominem is. What you were delivered could at best be a straw man, which is only so if it is infact not the ultimate end of what you were arguing (it is).

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person."

See, now I can say, based off your lack of understanding the terms you use, coupled with your haughty assertions, that you are a moron--and that's an observation, not an ad hominem.

P.S. Please go learn the definition of a straw-man.

---

Your ability to edit after-the-fact somehow doesn't credit you any additional leverage. You might make better use of such extra time by thinking it through the first time.

Stated in a post in which you chose to edit. Priceless.

[Violet]

For someone who requires an all-knowing oracle to make a statement about experience that can be reasonably considered true, you sure have a lot to say. Too bad none of it is novel.

Who needs an all-knowing oracle to make a statement about an experience that can be reasonably considered "true"? That's the very question I asked but a few posts back. I thought you were around at the time... but I guess not. I'll reiterate: understanding TRUTH for *anyone* is an inherently impossible task, as there is no way for them to divorce from their perception.

Such a shame that it'll go over your head this time too... but I have faith that you could come around in time

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person."
See, now I can say, based off your lack of understanding the terms you use, coupled with your haughty assertions, that you are a moron--and that's an observation, not an ad hominem.

Sure, and where here have I given you an ad hominem? I don't have to resort to puerile infantilism to end an argument... had only you been able to rise to my very approachable level.

P.S. Please go learn the definition of a straw-man.

Something something knowledge isn't necessarily correct something something that's the point of what I'm telling you in the first place something something you probably won't grasp this enormous irony in the first place so why do I attempt to explain it to you in any facet?

It's not like you've shown me any ability to defend your stance, and it's not like you've shown me any willingness to reconsider your stance... your faith simply is too strong to penetrate through rational discourse. I envy that, you know.

---

[quote='Alice' pid='767860' dateline='1412637838']
Your ability to edit after-the-fact somehow doesn't credit you any additional leverage. You might make better use of such extra time by thinking it through the first time.

Stated in a post in which you chose to edit. Priceless.

Multiple responses automatically update the edit to show the last time a person added to their post. After about 1-3 hours (I honestly do not remember), addendums are cut off and made into one's next post, which will proceed to update as new posts are added. Edit: you may notice "when post was last modified" up there at the top of an edited post? That includes entirely new responses which are stacked by the [ hr ] lines.

At least, that's what I think. But this is the theme I intend you be left with: everything you know is probably wrong.

[Mudhammam]

Who needs an all-knowing oracle to make a statement about an experience that can be reasonably considered "true"? That's the very question I asked but a few posts back. I thought you were around at the time... but I guess not. I'll reiterate: understanding TRUTH for *anyone* is an inherently impossible task, as there is no way for them to divorce from their perception.
Such a shame that it'll go over your head this time too... but I have faith that you could come around in time

Once you have a grasp of elementary logic, you'll learn not to refute yourself.
Take your time, I'll still be here.

Sure, and where here have I given you an ad hominem? I don't have to resort to puerile infantilism to end an argument... had only you been able to rise to my very approachable level.

In your attacking my "lack of experience" or age, or whatever your puny attempt at argumentation was supposed to imply.

Something something knowledge isn't necessarily correct something something that's the point of what I'm telling you in the first place something something you probably won't grasp this enormous irony in the first place so why do I attempt to explain it to you in any facet?

There is no universal, absolute, infallible principle upon which to establish truth. Yes, and, no shit, sherlock. That was your point? That's it? I don't think it was. You seemed to be denying the ability to distinguish between a claim that is probably true given the evidence of reality and a claim that is patently false given its failure to attain coherency or correlate to any object in verifiable experience.

It's not like you've shown me any ability to defend your stance, and it's not like you've shown me any willingness to reconsider your stance... your faith simply is too strong to penetrate through rational discourse. I envy that, you know.

Did you edit out your original comment about "feeling" that "logic isn't adequate" or whatever you said a few posts back? That was surprisingly smart, for you. Good job.

[Jackalope]

Dammit, I'm all out of

[Mudhammam]

Did you edit out your original comment about "feeling" that "logic isn't adequate" or whatever you said a few posts back? That was surprisingly smart, for you. Good job.

Never mind, Alice isn't that smart after all.

No, i feel like logic is a flawed process in the first place.

your faith simply is too strong to penetrate through rational discourse.

I think I'll go find something more productive to do but I found someone who can carry on at your level of sensibility, if you care to do so:
Have fun!

[genkaus]

Right... right. So you've gotta know the truth to know the truth.

More importantly, you gotta know how to know the truth to know the truth.

HOW can you differentiate between actual truth and any truth that isn't actual? Do you know some all-knowing oracle that filters the false from the true for you?

Two oracles, actually. I call them logic and evidence.

It's funny how deluded they can be without knowing it... I wonder, is it a kindness to expose reality to their consciousnesses... or am I cruel to betray their beliefs to them, to demolish their coping mechanism in certainty?

Betray away - If you can.

Oddly, your long answer was shorter than your short answer. If you don't have the capacity to defend your beliefs when they're questioned, then I've no respect for them

I've defended them many times in many threads - I just don't want to derail this one to do so.

Your concept of wrong, and what wrong actually is, are not one and the same.

And how can you make that statement without knowing what my concept of wrong is?

You're luckier than you know... able to live in a world where you think you know the rules... all the solutions to every problem... where things seem consistent, some of them unwavering.

No, I know how lucky I am - to live in a consistent universe.

Not all of us have the kindness that is ignorance, the blessing that is arrogance, and the comfort that is stability. I do not have the luxury of such faiths.

Faiths?

[Violet]

Once you have a grasp of elementary logic, you'll learn not to refute yourself.

Take your time, I'll still be here.

Care to demonstrate this refutation that only you see to me?

In your attacking my "lack of experience" or age, or whatever your puny attempt at argumentation was supposed to imply.

I have made no such attack. For all i am concerned, you are an eighty year old philosopher with all the degrees this world can give you...

And you still do not recognize my taking an argument you gave to its end (that experience is what we ought base our truths and our knowledge upon). Would you have rather I asked whether we ought listen to our elders?

At worst, I have given you a straw man, based on your very unclear and interpretable argument (the "one" "with" all the "quotations"). You've as of yet not divorced this concept, and so I have not as of yet considered my argument a straw man.

As for any insults you've received, I have only ever responded in kind, and with tongue in cheek

There is no universal, absolute, infallible principle upon which to establish truth. Yes, and, no shit, sherlock. That was your point? That's it? I don't think it was. You seemed to be denying the ability to distinguish between a claim that is probably true given the evidence of reality and a claim that is patently false given its failure to attain coherency or correlate to any object in verifiable experience.

Yes, I returned to that because you didn't seem to be able to grasp it (you were quite adamant about refusing it, infact. Pointed dismissal is the weakest form of refutation, but you seemed so very passionate... I had to admire it).

And no... we cannot distinguish with a certainty that is not faith-based that which is real from that which is not. We believe it because science has ruled it likely true... because we have faith in the scientific method, the peer review process, and faith in intersubjective observation of the rules of our universe (which allows for independent studies to reach conclusions equivalent to those already completed). We have these faiths largely because they clearly work... most of the time.

Verifiability is intersubjective. I don't have such faith that you see what I see... you see: philosophy is... useless in a deterministic practical sense. Science has naught to do with it, only logic... and the faith required to be logical. Scientific process has no impact besides that which the individual feels it does... as it is with "believers" in any congregation... so sure of their faith, so certain within the words of their experts, and that which they can sense for themselves.

A lie or not... it is all real... and this is why it is not possible to distinguish besides through arbitration.

Did you edit out your original comment about "feeling" that "logic isn't adequate" or whatever you said a few posts back? That was surprisingly smart, for you. Good job.

I don't delete things unless I feel I've gone too far with an insult, or accidentally jeopardized someone else, or (rarely) when I realize i've broken a rule.

It remains that I do not consider logic, with its 3 rules, to be the end-all of the universe. It works pretty well for here, usually... but here isn't everywhere, and I've been a lot of places. I simply do not have faith in it, even when respecting that it's the best we have today, and that I tend to accept it face value, even though I'm well aware that it's not perfect.

The circularity of logic is the reason it works... it's a system, and it works. It's also a system you can either accept (consciously or otherwise)... or deny. It's not so much a leap of faith as a small short breath of faith. I'm only wary of attributing all of my eggs in its basket, as I see the rug, and I do not want much want for cracked eggs.

It'd be raw, man.

---

Dammit, I'm all out of

Have some of mine... I've got plenty to share.

---

Never mind, Alice isn't that smart after all.

Interesting assessment. I wonder how long that took you.

I think I'll go find something more productive to do but I found someone who can carry on at your level of sensibility, if you care to do so: Have fun!

My telling you that you're too embroiled in your belief to accomplish anything through discussion causes you to withdraw to go ?

To think I'd be the one accused of rock hard sensibilities

---

More importantly, you gotta know how to know the truth to know the truth.

Woah, you got some downright matrix level shit going on here. What if I told you... that every truth you know is false? Nah, you'd probably be all, "you wot mate?!", and then I'd have to hear some oily man wearing a dress defend his homeland from Nancy Drew.

Two oracles, actually. I call them logic and evidence.

How very almighty of them. They must never be wrong... you sir, have the wisest of all the gods in your pocket.

It's a pretty big pocket, you've also got Nero.

Betray away - If you can.

They're your beliefs. What am I gonna do... tell you you're wrong, with like... evidence and shit? What have I to gain by leaving you a sniveling nihilistic mess?

Aside from the entertainment, obviously.

I've defended them many times in many threads - I just don't want to derail this one to do so.

It's a thread about nihilism and atheism. Believe you me: it could not be any more pointless without your contribution.

And how can you make that statement without knowing what my concept of wrong is?

The same way I can make the statement that the sun is nuclear, cancer can be cut out of you with a laser, and the bible is exceedingly boring (two words: numbers)... I met some lady on a train in Transylvania. She told me.

No, I know how lucky I am - to live in a consistent universe.

You would think that.

Faiths?

The faith in your knowledge being correct... the faith that you have the ability to recognize your knowledge's correctness... and the faith that your knowledge's correctness changes only according to patterns that you (can?) understand.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just to be clear, my definition of nihilism is very broad: holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

This takes me to my third component needed to counter nihilism: significance.

Significance refers to the relationship between a signs, or signifiers, and that to which the signs refer (the signified). So when people say that life has significance, then they are essentially claiming that their being and actions are signifiers that point to something external to them.

Signs are physical and include material forms, like letters, images, and artifacts; structured events, like music and speech; or some combination of both. The meanings of the signs are what people assign to otherwise meaningless things. For example, in traffic a blinking red light means ‘stop’ only as a matter of convention. Physical things in and of themselves do not have meaning without an interpreter.

Every atheist I know assumes that the brain adequately serves as the interpreter of signs. There is a problem with this assumption. Brains are themselves sensible objects performing material processes and like all other physical things have no meaning.

Neural correlates are like abacus beads that require the interpretation of a knowing subject. The brain cannot act as the interpreter of its own physical states because that makes an empty self-referential circle. Nor can one part of the brain serve and the interpreter of another, since the first would itself require interpretation from a second, the second by a third and so on, i.e. an infinite regress. Nor can the brain, as a whole, can be broken down into smaller and smaller interpreters, each assigning meaning to lesser and lesser signs. Even the smallest sign requires an interpreter no matter how tiny. You cannot build something out of nothing.

The above is how a God or gods provide a basis for value that atheism lacks: value is contingent on [a] non-physical interpreter[s].

I would argue that emergent properties would answer your objection.

Additionally, in your last sentence, you are assuming that god(s) are external of the mind. If they are only a mental construct, your argument goes down the subjective shitter ... and we are back to humans defining their own morals and meaning.

Quite frankly, the fact that some folks believe while others don't implies to me that subjectivity is certainly at play; you have people selecting their own beliefs. The only way out of that corner is to accept that your deity preselects who will and will not go to hell, and at that point, any free will argument against the Problem of Evil is shattered.