Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
6. so, amongst all things which walk and which fly, there are koins
7. therefore there are no koins amongst things which swim
*It doesn't matter what the system is based on as long as the link can be demonstrated between the premises.
All this logic is reasonable and really only questioned when we arrive at the conclusion that "no koins are amongst things which swim" giving us something solid to question the premises with.
the 1st premise of "all koin's can either walk or fly". If this statement could be falsefied with some new input, such as finding that there are in fact two types of koins (depending on method of locomotion) or that koins are able to float; then the system needs to incorporate the new premise.
Such: flying koins and walking koins are separate types; or, koins move in air, on ground, and on water.
1. God is illogical
2. logic cannot prove god's existence
3. therefore believing god exists has no logical basis
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
(January 26, 2010 at 2:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Asking for evidence of something that requires that there be no evidence seems like utter stupidity to me. Please explain to me how it isn't.
What's really fucking retarded is the fact you continuously contradict yourself on this matter.
Sometimes it's "No evidence" other times it's "no empirical" or "no corroborative" evidence.
Do you have evidence OF ANY KIND or not?
Because if you don't then you're believing on no rational logical or reasonable reason whatsoever, and that's as delusional a basis of belief of any kind as it completely, totally, utterly and absolutely fucking gets.
rjh4 said:"In other words, you cannot show me where my reasoning was wrong either."
You must mean your lack of reasoning, because I have yet to see any in any of the threads either from yourself or any of the other theists on the site.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
(January 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm)tackattack Wrote: "faith is the abandonment of logic and reason and the subjugation of ones mind and true self "
Utterly ridiculus. Faith is belief without evidence. Clearly atheists don't allow for intangible evidence like intuition, spirit, visions, miracles or historically unfounded documents. They allow for mathmatical proofs of scientific theories though. Clearly the type of evidence required is variable and in my opinion should be relative to the subject of proof.
Intuition is a real phenomenon based upon assertions that one feels or an incomplete model that one has built up by any means necessary. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. Critical thought is right in point out how unreliable intuition is - it isn't just "Atheists".
Like self produced manias and highs, visions are just as suspect as the ones induced through drugs. Historically unfounded documents exist in bargain bookstores, with names like Twilight. After all, it takes place in a historical time (modern day) and is unfounded because it is fiction.
The rest of your post, I will leave to someone else. There are simply too many ridiculous statements for me to confront, but I can call you out on drawing a link between fiction and mathematical proofs.
OK then Syn, How is your faith in mathmatical formulae different from my faith in existance in God then, please?
Mathematics is based on logic. Logical statements are qualified through whether a statement is true or false. A 1 or a 0 if you will. Mathematical proofs do not require anything except a logical progression than can be verified each step of the way in a contextual manner. Every step can be taken apart of examine the logic of that.
There is no faith there. If a statement made in math is proven contextually true, then it is true in that context. Unproven statements are unproven, and false statements are false. There are no exceptions. It is about as dry as you can get.
Your 'faith' in God is not justified, is unprovable. It cannot be broken down to a True/False decision with context, nor can be taken apart. It is merely an expression for what one wants to be true, generated without regard to the actual veracity. We have logic to deal with such expressions, so as to sift out what is unproven, false from that which is proven and therefore "True" with context.
If you noticed, the word 'context' is very, very important. No faith there - it is all reason, flowing from the well spring of logic, an evaluation of a pattern of statements under a context to determine whether it is correct or incorrect.
Gödel's incompleteness? My point syn was that mathmatics are intangible and subjective, while contextually proven to a point that point isn't immutable. You also use contextual mathmatical logical framework to prove mathmatical truth. I've seen many atheists claim that using God for evidence of God is a fallacy. I can't reconcile the double standard and that's what rj is probably trying to badly get at.
(January 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm)tackattack Wrote: "faith is the abandonment of logic and reason and the subjugation of ones mind and true self "
Utterly ridiculus. Faith is belief without evidence. Clearly atheists don't allow for intangible evidence like intuition, spirit, visions, miracles or historically unfounded documents. They allow for mathmatical proofs of scientific theories though. Clearly the type of evidence required is variable and in my opinion should be relative to the subject of proof.
Intuition is a real phenomenon based upon assertions that one feels or an incomplete model that one has built up by any means necessary. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. Critical thought is right in point out how unreliable intuition is - it isn't just "Atheists".
Like self produced manias and highs, visions are just as suspect as the ones induced through drugs. Historically unfounded documents exist in bargain bookstores, with names like Twilight. After all, it takes place in a historical time (modern day) and is unfounded because it is fiction.
The rest of your post, I will leave to someone else. There are simply too many ridiculous statements for me to confront, but I can call you out on drawing a link between fiction and mathematical proofs.
OK then Syn, How is your faith in mathmatical formulae different from my faith in existance in God then, please?
Mathematics is based on logic. Logical statements are qualified through whether a statement is true or false. A 1 or a 0 if you will. Mathematical proofs do not require anything except a logical progression than can be verified each step of the way in a contextual manner. Every step can be taken apart of examine the logic of that.
There is no faith there. If a statement made in math is proven contextually true, then it is true in that context. Unproven statements are unproven, and false statements are false. There are no exceptions. It is about as dry as you can get.
Your 'faith' in God is not justified, is unprovable. It cannot be broken down to a True/False decision with context, nor can be taken apart. It is merely an expression for what one wants to be true, generated without regard to the actual veracity. We have logic to deal with such expressions, so as to sift out what is unproven, false from that which is proven and therefore "True" with context.
If you noticed, the word 'context' is very, very important. No faith there - it is all reason, flowing from the well spring of logic, an evaluation of a pattern of statements under a context to determine whether it is correct or incorrect.
Gödel's incompleteness? My point syn was that mathmatics are intangible and subjective, while contextually proven to a point that point isn't immutable. You also use contextual mathmatical logical framework to prove mathmatical truth. I've seen many atheists claim that using God for evidence of God is a fallacy. I can't reconcile the double standard and that's what rj is probably trying to badly get at.
Such a bad comparison - you cannot accurately compare a logical framework, developed to compare patterns of thought for correctness under context, to the bald-face assertion of God.
Also, it is blatantly disingenuous to lump mathematics in with the ideological developments of early childhood dualism. It is not qualified nor related by any significance. Mathematics are not subjective - they do not differ from person to person, or culture to culture; if there was extra terrestrial contact, I assure you that mathematics would be at the forefront of establishing a rapport, because mathematics itself has no anthropocentric components.
In addition, you "loaded" your reply with "double standard", "intangible", "subjective" in an attempt to make either topic seem related, when they are not. A double standard only applies when two items are fundamentally and significantly related in a manner where they cannot be separated apart for a reliable set of two or more standards - this does not apply to the two items at hand held in comparison. Intangible is correct to state, but by the same token, since strong atheism of "I know there is no deity" is an intangible idea, then it is fair to that everything you have spoken of so far can be substituted in with "no god" in place of "god." Henceforth, it is unreliable that "intangibility" be used as a qualifier in this discussion. Subjective is a false statement, as I spoke of earlier in this post - I have no wish in rehashing the same information in this post.
rjh4 and you, if your statement about "what... [you] are trying to reach", are simply incorrect in your assertions. Since rational thought and logical discourse appear to be doing nothing, I am left to wonder if you are intentionally wasting my time through making irrational, unprovable or irrelevant statements.
I don't know, maybe it's just me but has anyone ever noticed how logically sound some theists seem until it comes to the point of describing their deity and the reasons why they believe in him? That is where all logic ends and myth takes over.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
(January 27, 2010 at 7:16 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
(January 26, 2010 at 2:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Asking for evidence of something that requires that there be no evidence seems like utter stupidity to me. Please explain to me how it isn't.
What's really fucking retarded is the fact you continuously contradict yourself on this matter.
Sometimes it's "No evidence" other times it's "no empirical" or "no corroborative" evidence.
Do you have evidence OF ANY KIND or not?
Because if you don't then you're believing on no rational logical or reasonable reason whatsoever, and that's as delusional a basis of belief of any kind as it completely, totally, utterly and absolutely fucking gets.
EvF
Use your brain for a change Evie instead of your typing fingers... you may eventually work something out.
Is it fun being such a spineless little runt fr0d0?
Seems to me like you're too damn dishonest to even conceded the point, that's what people who have real intellectual honesty do when they are utterly unable to refute the arguments or explain their contradictions, they don't keep dodging the questions with idiotic, cowardly statements riddled with contradiction.
(January 27, 2010 at 9:29 pm)theVOID Wrote: Is it fun being such a spineless little runt fr0d0?
Seems to me like you're too damn dishonest to even conceded the point, that's what people who have real intellectual honesty do when they are utterly unable to refute the arguments or explain their contradictions, they don't keep dodging the questions with idiotic, cowardly statements riddled with contradiction.
^^^^^^
It would be safe then to conclude (generally speaking) that people who are atheists (or lean in that direction) have come to that point in their lives that they will no longer accept intellectual dishonesty??
Intellectual dishonesty is a prerequisite to faith??
Works for me
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
![[Image: 20091110.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=zs1.smbc-comics.com%2Fcomics%2F20091110.gif)
