Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Violet]

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?).

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.

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.

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.

WRONG! My argument is that we can know *ANYTHING*. That act of knowing a thing does not the thing's correctness make

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

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?

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.

Faith is belief is confidence is knowledge. 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. 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.

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.

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

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

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.

That's all we've got in the end: what usually works for us. All reasoning is itself arbitrary, the goal: whether or not it convinces a person of any particular thing. 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.

Simply... it's the difference between "Oh? I'll have to look into that. I never thought of it that way before..." and "YOU WOT MATE? I SWEAR ON ME MUM! "

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

I have something of a balance: trust everything to be real, respond to only that which demands an immediate response, respond with as little motion and noise as possible, and always get the hell out of dodge in the safest, shortest, and least attention-drawing method if shit actually does go down.

So far, I haven't been arrested for babbling, erratic motion in the street, inexplicable hand motions, or blunted/flat affect... but hey, I'm young: give me time

---

I'd say prove it.

Why would I challenge a scottsman on his own turf? No true Alice dares mess with men manly enough to wear skirts.

Your reasons don't concern me. I accept any opportunity to refine my beliefs.

Really? An outsider might be led to believe otherwise.

And what did she tell you about my concepts?

That you really need to take another look at those hands, brother...

They have drawing classes for that, you know?

I would.

Hello Would. Me Alice. What is you feel?

None of that is faith.

So they say. They say many things; they keeps Alice up at night.