Strong Atheism starts from faith

[Autumnlicious]

---

"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.

In short, you have been... selected!