Atheism and Satanism

Post Reply New Topic

You're talking nonsense. One to one in commonly accepted speech (we are not speaking mathematically) indicates that there is an element in two situations which operate similarly. You can choose any other way of expressing that but it is obviously and significantly valid.

When dealing with faith truth values have no significance and the very term "faith" indicates that logic and reason have been totally discarded as a field of operation

I've never seen that term used in that way.



Yes they do

"God exists" is a proposition

Its truth value is neither 'true' nor 'false' but 'undefined'

End of story

On the topic of faith, religious people are beyond faith, you could have undeniable hard evidence that their beliefs are invalid and they'll still have faith. It goes from being faithful to delusional.

For someone who presents the appearance of an intelligence I have appreciated your approach to my statements seems surprisingly imperceptive. I was not in any way trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, I was evaluating the gullibility of people who accept the unproven promises of institutions that offered fabulous rewards with no concrete indications of the validity of those promises. Las Vegas and religions fit that pattern remarkably well. Las Vegas, of course, can be mathematically proven to be a fraud but although mathematics is not useful with religions, nevertheless the lack of any evidence supporting their claims is very indicative.

Is Don Knuth gullible?

One of the most widely noted observations of the mathematician Pascal was that it is wiser to declare one's faith in God and the afterlife than deny it because one has everything to gain and nothing to lose but it is based on the most peculiar assumption that one can deceive the all knowing Almighty in the matter of sincerity so it perhaps indicates the basic foolishness of the gambler's instinct that hopes can defeat reality.

No

I have looked through Google and discovered nothing to say about Knuth and religion except that he seems to be a Christian. There have been many very intelligent religious people who have, in my opinion, suspended their critical facilities when it came to the matter of faith. It is not a matter of looking to authorities which is a standard religious recourse. I examine the knowledge in the area and decide for myself on the matter from standards I have found valid.

There are no 'critical facilities' when it comes to the matter of faith

I mean duh

Give it a rest already.

Yes, and yesterday I was reading a paper that talked about why superstitions can be good. For example, rural people might equate rustling noises caused by the wind with the Tiger God. If you jump, look around and pay homage to the tiger god whenever you hear that sound, it doesn't cost you much, and if there really is a tiger there, it has tremendous value.

Why limit Pascal's wager only to monotheism or Christianity? Why not apply it to all religions, and choose to follow the one that offers the most extreme visions of reward or punishment?

Goodness gracious yes! Let's quickly sweep it under the rug since it's getting much too close to the vitals of why people permit themselves to be scammed into swallowing all sorts of foolishness.

Alright, based on the previous few posts I am going to conclude that you don't understand how logic or religion work. Since I am not a theologist, I can only point you in the right direction for the first field. Maybe you'd like Copi's Symbolic Logic?

But why does religion require a logic outside of sensible analysis and reasonable conclusions?

It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.
Bertrand Russell

I am confident that Bertrand Russell was acceptably good at all sorts of logic.

Many things do.

I've never seen a 'green', have you?

I've seen things that are green, but what is a green?

Many things are too intangible to be subject to this kind of analysis.



Yes, but many of his beliefs stemmed from logical positivism, which philosophers and logicians (both in some cases) now consider bunkum almost unanimously.

If you can worry over a simple silly question as "What is a green?" it indicates you have a great deal to learn about physiology and perception and also the nature of language.