Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Mudhammam]

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

Go back and re-read your statement that I placed in bold for you, assuming that would have made it obvious--which, obviously I assumed wrong (Hint: Your assertion was purporting to be a true one, yes?).

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.

Your argument amounted to, "We can't know everything. Therefore, we can't know anything." Which, of course, is intellectually vacuous. If your only point was that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty or infallibility, then, again, no shit, sherlock.

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.

Equivocal use of the term "faith." Faith is not synonymous with belief on the basis of reason and evidence. It's the antithesis of those. If you want to call the belief that other minds besides your own exist "faith," you're only muddling the discourse, not advancing it.

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.

Probably a good place to start if you want to end all future interactions before they get off the ground.

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

You seem to have a gift for sloppy aphorisms. Arbitration can be rational or irrational, scientific or non. I'm not sure which you prefer, but the former in both instances typically works for me.

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.

Cool. When you come up with something better, maybe you'll offer more useful contributions to our discussion.