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.

[rjh4 is back]

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.

Maybe then your faith is in logic itself. Or is logic proved also? I asked about this in another thread and nobody has yet showed me a proof for the laws of logic. Can you prove that logic is the appropriate standard for evaluating things?

[Autumnlicious]

---

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.

---

Maybe then your faith is in logic itself. Or is logic proved also? I asked about this in another thread and nobody has yet showed me a proof for the laws of logic. Can you prove that logic is the appropriate standard for evaluating things?

Wow, I really like repeating myself today.

There is not an ounce of faith in logic. Logic is a framework. Items evaluated by logic require evidence. If faith was defined as belief without evidence, and it were, as a whole, to be evaluated by logic, then it would be classified as unproven due to lack of evidence.

Your calculator has no faith in the calculations done on it. It simply evaluates statements using the logical framework on which mathematics is built.

There is no faith involved. Can you understand that? Faith does not enter into logic as a framework. Evidence is a component that is used by the framework, reason is one thing logic is used to evaluate.

You cannot put faith in a logical process.

[rjh4 is back]

Wow, I really like repeating myself today.

There is not an ounce of faith in logic. Logic is a framework. Items evaluated by logic require evidence. If faith was defined as belief without evidence, and it were, as a whole, to be evaluated by logic, then it would be classified as unproven due to lack of evidence.

Your calculator has no faith in the calculations done on it. It simply evaluates statements using the logical framework on which mathematics is built.

There is no faith involved. Can you understand that? Faith does not enter into logic as a framework. Evidence is a component that is used by the framework, reason is one thing logic is used to evaluate.

You cannot put faith in a logical process.

Except you did not answer my question:

Can you prove that logic is the appropriate standard for evaluating things?

[TruthWorthy]

There is no logical reason to believe in a god when you know full well that the very idea of god or gods is a product of mans own mind.

Keep saying that enough and maybe even you will believe it.

You come up with such broad sweeping statments like this, CP, that are totally unsupported. How in the world do you know that Tackattack or anyone else know this. I certainly do not know this nor do I think that your statement is accurate.

Think of it this way rjh4, if human's were to become extinct tomorrow who would be left to worship "him" on Earth? Would he give another organism the ability to talk and therefore pray?; Would there be a new organism arrive from another planet with a different concept of what god's about maybe?
And the logic can only proove things to be correct, incorrect or unknowable based on the information entered into the system (is what I thinks I heard).

[Autumnlicious]

Except you did not answer my question:

Can you prove that logic is the appropriate standard for evaluating things?

Interesting - so you want me to use the framework of logic, that which is developed to differentiate between patterns of thoughts and ideas to connote the correctness of a statement within context to prove if said framework is appropriate for evaluating things?

Ok, first off, you are getting negative repped for that jack-off of a statement. I thought there was a misunderstanding, but now I can see that you are merely wasting my time by pulling every trick you can think of. I am now expecting you to ask if we can prove reality is reality in some useless post-modernist masturbatory blatherfest because you cannot seem to accept that faith in a deity is baseless despite all definitions and examinations of it using critical thought.

Second, I am not going to waste my time proving logic is logical for evaluating what it was designed for. It is blatantly moronic, like asking if a generic hammer is good for the act of hammering a generic nail through a generic board of wood. A rigorous philosophy of science course at a reputable research university is suited for your questions upon the nature of logic - seriously, go ask these questions to someone who devotes their profession to answering these types of questions.

[rjh4 is back]

Interesting - so you want me to use the framework of logic, that which is developed to differentiate between patterns of thoughts and ideas to connote the correctness of a statement within context to prove if said framework is appropriate for evaluating things?

Ok, first off, you are getting negative repped for that jack-off of a statement. I thought there was a misunderstanding, but now I can see that you are merely wasting my time by pulling every trick you can think of. I am now expecting you to ask if we can prove reality is reality in some useless post-modernist masturbatory blatherfest because you cannot seem to accept that faith in a deity is baseless despite all definitions and examinations of it using critical thought.

Second, I am not going to waste my time proving logic is logical for evaluating what it was designed for. It is blatantly moronic, like asking if a generic hammer is good for the act of hammering a generic nail through a generic board of wood. A rigorous philosophy of science course at a reputable research university is suited for your questions upon the nature of logic - seriously, go ask these questions to someone who devotes their profession to answering these types of questions.

If you cannot prove logic with some evidence outside of logic itself, then it seems to me that you must take it on faith (if faith is taken as belief without evidence). If I am wrong, please tell me where I went wrong.

[chatpilot]

"If you cannot prove logic with some evidence outside of logic itself, then it seems to me that you must take it on faith (if faith is taken as belief without evidence). If I am wrong, please tell me where I went wrong."

Although this is not addressed to me directly I must agree with Synackaon that this in and of itself would be an exercise in futility. rjh4 it seems to me that you love circular reasoning as much as you love chasing your tail in circles trying to show us that faith is a viable from of proving the unprovable. Faith and logic are two entirely different systems of thought, well, in the case of faith lack of thought.

[rjh4 is back]

"If you cannot prove logic with some evidence outside of logic itself, then it seems to me that you must take it on faith (if faith is taken as belief without evidence). If I am wrong, please tell me where I went wrong."

Although this is not addressed to me directly I must agree with Synackaon that this in and of itself would be an exercise in futility. rjh4 it seems to me that you love circular reasoning as much as you love chasing your tail in circles trying to show us that faith is a viable from of proving the unprovable. Faith and logic are two entirely different systems of thought, well, in the case of faith lack of thought.

In other words, you cannot show me where my reasoning was wrong either.

[Autumnlicious]

"If you cannot prove logic with some evidence outside of logic itself, then it seems to me that you must take it on faith (if faith is taken as belief without evidence). If I am wrong, please tell me where I went wrong."

Although this is not addressed to me directly I must agree with Synackaon that this in and of itself would be an exercise in futility. rjh4 it seems to me that you love circular reasoning as much as you love chasing your tail in circles trying to show us that faith is a viable from of proving the unprovable. Faith and logic are two entirely different systems of thought, well, in the case of faith lack of thought.

In other words, you cannot show me where my reasoning was wrong either.

So reminded me of this: