Atheism: a faith based belief.

[Thorham]

When I wake up, my dreams, cease to exist, yet a square has four corners and a ball is still round.

 

Dreams exist while your brain is generating them.

[dimreepr]

Exactly... Now think of an axiom.

Edited March 30, 2016 by dimreepr

[Thorham]

Exactly... Now think of an axiom.

 

Just get to the point.

[dimreepr]

OK, just to be obvious, an axiom is something that dreams can't change...

[Thorham]

OK, just to be obvious, an axiom is something that dreams can't change...

What does that mean, and how is it relevant?

[dimreepr]

It means some things are true, whatever we think/believe, for instance, when does a square have less than four corners?

[Thorham]

It means some things are true, whatever we think/believe, for instance, when does a square have less than four corners?

But how is it relevant?

[dimreepr]

When a square is trying to be round?

Edited March 30, 2016 by dimreepr

[Thorham]

When a square is trying to be round?

I have absolutely no idea of what you're trying to tell me

[Strange]

Yes, and because of that we know that something exists.

 

Maybe. But that doesn't tell us anything about the nature (or existence) of any external reality. Which was all I was saying.

[Thorham]

Maybe. But that doesn't tell us anything about the nature (or existence) of any external reality.

 

Of course it doesn't. It just tells us that something exists, not what it is. Therefore you can know at least two things about reality, namely that it exists, and that reality consists of everything that exists.

[swansont]

Because logic is logic. It's not our logic system, it's just logic, and we've learned how to use it.

 

 

You might say something similar about maths. But there are different kinds of maths, which disagree with each other (Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry, for instance). So are we so sure that the logic we know is the only logic that exists?

[iNow]

Further, conclusions arrived upon using logic is only as valid as the starting premises.

If those are flawed, then your conclusions can only ever be correct by accident.

Edited March 31, 2016 by iNow

[Thorham]

You might say something similar about maths. But there are different kinds of maths, which disagree with each other (Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry, for instance).

 

Are they different, or are they just two different parts of maths, each with their own different use cases?

 

So are we so sure that the logic we know is the only logic that exists?

 

Perhaps not, but perhaps we have figured out and discovered part of logic.

 

Anyway, is it so unreasonable to say that it's impossible be immortal and die at the same time? I don't see (yeah, that doesn't necessarily mean much) how extremely simple logic like that is different anywhere. Of course it depends entirely on the definition of those words, so it really does seem extremely obvious, because something that's both immortal and can die at the same is simply neither immortal nor mortal, but something else for which we probably don't have a word.

 

 

[swansont]

 

Are they different, or are they just two different parts of maths, each with their own different use cases?

 

 

 

You have a geometry where the angles of a triangle add to 180º, and ones where they don't. So I'm wondering if there might be an analogue for logic. Something where a boolean condition exists in one format, but not another. And maybe we just haven't stumbled across it yet.

[dimreepr]

I have absolutely no idea of what you're trying to tell me

 

 

Sorry, I slipped down the rabbit hole too (lubricated by a few doom bar ales), but the gist was there are some truths we can be certain of but your idea isn’t one of them.

[Thorham]

You have a geometry where the angles of a triangle add to 180º, and ones where they don't. So I'm wondering if there might be an analogue for logic. Something where a boolean condition exists in one format, but not another. And maybe we just haven't stumbled across it yet.

Okay, that seems very reasonable.

 

Sorry, I slipped down the rabbit hole too (lubricated by a few doom bar ales), but the gist was there are some truths we can be certain of but your idea isn’t one of them.

 

That may be reasonable as well.

 

However, gods who need to be worshiped still seem like a human notion. I somehow doubt beings who are truly beyond us have a need for us to drop on our knees and sing about how damned fantastic they are. That's why I now say that I'm not religious, because I don't see any need for that, regardless of who may or may not be out there.

 

 

 

 

[dimreepr]

“His philosophy was a mixture of three famous schools -- the Cynics, the Stoics and the Epicureans -- and summed up all three of them in his famous phrase, 'You can't trust any bugger further than you can throw him, and there's nothing you can do about it, so let's have a drink.”
― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

[Bill Angel]

You have a geometry where the angles of a triangle add to 180º, and ones where they don't. So I'm wondering if there might be an analogue for logic. Something where a boolean condition exists in one format, but not another. And maybe we just haven't stumbled across it yet.

Are you thinking about something like "fuzzy logic"?

Fuzzy logic is an approach to computing based on "degrees of truth" rather than the usual "true or false" (1 or 0) Boolean logic on which the modern computer is based. The idea of fuzzy logic was first advanced by Dr. Lotfi Zadeh of the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s.

[swansont]

Are you thinking about something like "fuzzy logic"?

 

 

More along the lines of something where "this statement is false" is not a conundrum.

[Daecon]

More along the lines of something where "this statement is false" is not a conundrum.

I was going to add a YouTube clip from Portal 2 but I couldn't get it to work...

[Ten oz]

I don't believe in God(s) which is different than than affirming that one believes there must not be God(s). For example; I do not believe in bigfoot. They theoretically could exist. I have just never seen any good evidence and don't believe they do. There is no associated leap of faith made in that assessment.

[Phi for All]

I don't believe in God(s) which is different than than affirming that one believes there must not be God(s). For example; I do not believe in bigfoot. They theoretically could exist. I have just never seen any good evidence and don't believe they do. There is no associated leap of faith made in that assessment.

 

Careful there. According to the OP, using words like "big" and "must" and "never" turns your whole reasoned argument into one big emotional, faith-based belief. Atheists apparently aren't allowed to talk about god(s), or they automatically become some form of anti-worshiper using faith to disbelieve.

[Sirona]

I don't believe in God(s) which is different than than affirming that one believes there must not be God(s). For example; I do not believe in bigfoot. They theoretically could exist. I have just never seen any good evidence and don't believe they do. There is no associated leap of faith made in that assessment.

I've always been in the same position and feel there is little point into delving too much thought into religion for that reason. Sure, it's theoretically possible if we lived in a simulated reality. How likely is that? I don't even think there is a point in asking because it's not particularly useful? It's too philosophical. I personally don't ponder too deeply about things there is no good evidence of.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Sirona

[dimreepr]

I've always been in the same position and feel there is little point into delving too much thought into religion for that reason. Sure, it's theoretically possible if we lived in a simulated reality. How likely is that? I don't even think there is a point in asking because it's not particularly useful? It's too philosophical. I personally don't ponder too deeply about things there is no good evidence of.

 

 

Except that religion may not only be about a god or gods but was designed to describe a better way to live.

 

The god element, for me, just provides a means to provide those that don’t understand concepts such as forgiveness and acceptance, an anchor that simulates meaning.

Edited April 2, 2016 by dimreepr