Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

Thanks for the support.

Confusing dissent with support, huh? - Well, that is to be expected given the bizarro nature of your beliefs.

You're confusing the application of words. Again. The singularity contained all possible information of everything that will ever exist in this universe. It contained the blueprint of all substance. If you didn't have the potential to absorb information and use it, then you wouldn't absorb or use it.

The bolded part is the claim that you are required to prove. Your potentiality argument is not sufficient to prove that. Once again, "potential to absorb information" or even "potential to create information" is not the same as "containing all possible information".

Well make you're mind up. When it suits you, you call me names for not changing to the realms of pure philosophy. Now you want to switch back. Any one persons success or failure to achieve an objective state of mind has little bearing on the idea. For example, I might agree that charging my phone every day is a good idea. When I don't charge my phone, and my battery dies, is the idea then bad? No, it's my own personal failure that's to blame.

Proper practical application requires consistency with the idea - so when talking about the value of the idea in practice, it is assumed that it is being practiced consistently.

Q: is a life superior that adopts the philosophy? A: If it's applied, yes. If it isn't, no. As far as a person manages to maintain a focus on a just reality, their resulting quality of life will logically have to be better.

Once again, simply asserting that it'll "logically have to be better" is not sufficient - you still have to prove it.

My perspective is different > my moral understanding is different > my quality of life is different.

Different? Sure. Better? Prove it.

I'll ignore this as trolling. If you can make a point, go for it. At the moment your lack of input is noted.

The point is simple: Your argument goes like this -
1. Morality of revenge requires sufficient knowledge to condemn.
2. Humans don't have sufficient knowledge to condemn.
Therefore, revenge is always immoral for humans.

You failed to establish what constitutes sufficiency of knowledge - making your premise 1 vague.
You failed to establish premise 2 are true.
Therefore your conclusion is invalid.

That's too funny. Well, good luck with your defiance of nature. Are you an ex JW by any chance?

Thanks and nope.

Yet logic proves otherwise. Unless you have some reply.

My reply would be logic doesn't prove otherwise - and your failure to do so shows that.

And at this point you demonstrate that you haven't started to engage in this subject at all. Congratulations. Yes, 'reality' is the same for all of us. But then how we perceive reality is shaped by our understanding. Our beliefs. Our perception and it's impact upon our lives is the only subject here.

At this point you demonstrate your desire to have your cake and eat it too. If you accept that reality is same for all, then stop making statements like "reality sans faith is unjust" or "reality with faith is just".