Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[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.