Re: The Problem with Atheism
Reply #452 –
It doesn't matter at all because you are not interested in the ontological nature of things
Indeed, that's often the case… When ways of talking (i.e., analogies) are elevated (e.g., pushed past their usual and vague application) to ontological independence, nonsense typically ensues!
Are you confused? Blame it not on my inept communication; nor on your inapt understanding: You've instantiated the eternal, ideal object Confusion.
(Was it good, for you? )
Had you kept your head out of the clouds, you could argue otherwise…
Nihilism is the thesis that there are no composite objects: every object is mereologically simple (i.e., partless). Together with the plausible assumption that ordinary objects (if they exist) are all composite objects, nihilism entails that there are no ordinary objects. Nihilists typically accept that there are countless microscopic objects: although there are “simples arranged dogwise” and “simples arranged statuewise”, there are no dogs or statues. But nihilism is also compatible with existence monism—the thesis that there is a single, all-encompassing simple (the cosmos, a.k.a. “the blobject”)—as well as the extreme nihilist thesis that there are no objects whatsoever.
Although I like the term blobject (kinda mystical, i'n't? ) I see in most philosophical "positions" little more than posturing: Head-in-the-clouds playing with words; word-play, where the usual rules of language are changed and, usually, kept mostly secret…
(That may be giving "philosophers" too much credit, however: They may be unaware that they've in fact changed the rules! Or -a kinder way of putting it- simply get caught up in the excitement of the game!)
But, of course, I doubt that's what ersi meant by calling me a nihilist. He most likely meant to call me either immoral or amoral…because, yes, I'm comfortable with locating morality entirely within human groupings. (Which is not to say that anything goes!) And I could probably be called an atheist, too.
———————————————
A side note: I don't think the term falsification should be used outside of its technical sense, which is that of providing a better justificatory warrant for the truth of scientific theories than confirmation…
You may be confusing me with Sparta?