122 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tin-Man's picture
@The Intruder (Dun-dun

@The Intruder (Dun-dun-dunnnnn...) Re: OP statement - "On the other side, how can we verify that 1+1=2?"

Oh, damn... That's a toughy... *tapping lips with index finger*... *look of deep contemplation*... But, hey, what the hell... I'll give it the good ol' college try.... *stepping up to chalk board with a piece of chalk*... Uh, you might want to take notes... Oh, and Nyar, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may make...

So, we start with the theoretical concept of zero and imagine a singular item within it making that arbitrary nothing into a something because it cannot be nothing if something is in it. (Oh, as a quick side note, try not to get zero confused with infinity.) Anyway, with a singular something somewhat firmly established at this point, we are now able to use the Pythagorean Theorem to determine the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two sides that equal the length of that singular something. Then, upon calculating the length of the hypotenuse, we would need to plug that value into the equation for gravitational acceleration as the distance of the fall so we can determine the speed at impact. Now, here's the tricky part. (By the way, if you need me to slow down so you can catch up, just let me know.) Okay, now we have the speed at time of impact. With that speed, we can easily determine how long it would take to pull a head out of an ass, depending on the length of the head in question. Once the head is removed from the ass and all the fecal matter is sufficiently wiped away from the eyes, hold one finger in front of the eyes. Then, after a brief pause, hold another finger next to the first finger in front of the eyes. Then ask the owner of the head to count the number of fingers he sees. If all other calculations were correct, the answer should be, "Two." I'm afraid I can't explain it more simply than that. Fret not, though, because others here are far better at mathematics than I am. No doubt they could make it easier to understand.

Edit to add:
My sincerest apologies. In my haste to complete this post last night, I neglected to stress how incredibly vital it is to thoroughly cleanse the fecal matter from the eyes after removing the head from the ass. For if there are any obstructions impairing the vision of the eyes, the test results could potentially be skewed, and therefore inaccurate. Meaning you would have to start over from the very beginning, during which time the head is likely to embed itself even deeper into the ass, thus further complicating the procedure. Again, my apologies for the oversight.

pap45murf's picture
If the Wright brothers had

If the Wright brothers had faith, they would have taken their first prototype and without any testing, rode it off a cliff, having faith that the truth of flight would reveal itself.

You don't have faith that the commercial flight you're on won't crash; you have confidence of the high probability that it won't crash based on past statistics. If Southwest airlines had never flown a successful flight, if every plane had crashed, having faith and climbing aboard would be insane.

Same goes for your mother. You know you have had arguments in the past and she has never tried to poison you. If you saw her poisoning the food (observable evidence) but had faith that she didn't, again you would be insane.

Same goes for the boat sinking.

If you want to argue that faith is confidence, it's confidence without any statistics. A god has never been proven. The religions we have now have beliefs that can be disproven. There is zero evidence so faith in it is insane.

And mathematicians don't have faith in numbers. At some point an early human probably thought "I want this piece of meat, but I also want this other piece of meat. I need a word to let the others know I want this meat and this meat."

Cognostic's picture
@Faith: The outward

@Faith: The outward manifestation of internal ignorance.

Randomhero1982's picture
I'll ask again, Please form

I'll ask again, Please form one deductive logical arguement to support the assertion for the existence of of a god(s).

Sheldon's picture
The Intruder

The Intruder


Let's get one thing out of the way... Faith is tested and trusted.

Rubbish, and since you're too lazy or dishonest to do it, here's the dictionary definition of faith.


1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

So you're using a personal, and entirely subjective definition, that directly contradicts the commonly understood definition in the dictionary. So explain why anyone should care?

David Killens's picture
"Faith is me eating my mother

"Faith is me eating my mother's meal after receiving serious scolding from her without any any fear of food poisoning."

I have a quick question for anyone willing to respond. Have you ever been in a situation where you suspected your mother was either incompetent enough to allow food poisoning, or that she would put poison in your food?

I loved my mother, she loved me, and our trust was 100%. Never in my entire life would I suspect her of poisoning me. And there was never an instant where I suspected she was incompetent, stoned, or drunk enough to allow food poisoning to occur.

Sheldon's picture
D Killens "I loved my mother

D Killens "I loved my mother, she loved me, and our trust was 100%. Never in my entire life would I suspect her of poisoning me. And there was never an instant where I suspected she was incompetent, stoned, or drunk enough to allow food poisoning to occur."

The OP author's rather facile claim misses a few other pertinent facts as well. Firstly as a baby you'd be unable to reason such things, and would be entirely reliant on your mother, even if she were murderous or incompetent, secondly our confidence she wouldn't poison us later on, would be based on a large body of objective evidence, and lastly where the alternatives are the certainty of starving to death, or the unlikely scenario your own mother is going to suddenly poison you, only a moron would think that a child eating nourishing, and food it had been given many thousands of times before was working entirely on blind faith, as religions do in their entirely unevidenced belief in deities and the supernatural. Rather than acting on survival instincts evolved over billions of years.

It's amusing that theists come here either trying to redefine faith in order to offer a fatuous defence of its efficacy at validating claims, and beliefs, then the rest of the time arrogantly and bombastically decry us all for ignoring the "evidence."

One wonders if these two separate groups of theists ever talk, and why the latter group haven't shared this "evidence" that would render the first group's faith entirely redundant? It does sound like a rather shabby trick to play on them, by remaining reticent. Or are we to assume even many theists can see there is demonstrably no evidence, and pitch their tent on the thinnest possible ice of faith?

Can both groups have failed to notice each other? Or failed to notice that for millennia religious faith has reflected geography and culture as surely as if different societies and cultures create deities to reflect their changing attitudes to existence?

Sheldon's picture
@The Intruder

@The Intruder

If I simply claimed to have absolute faith that your beliefs are hokum superstition, and without any validity, why in your opinion would that faith be less compelling than yours? If you rely on the vapid use of faith as a yardstick for belief, then one could quite literally believe anything. How many beliefs do you hold that are nothing to do with your religious beliefs, that are based solely on faith?

If someone built a commercial jet using prayer and faith in a deity to make it work safely, rather than the strict regulations based on the best scientific evidence, would you be happy to get on board, and try and fly somewhere? If not then why not? If you would then bon voyage, as I couldn't possibly ask for a better example of the idiocy of using faith to determine the veracity of something.

David Killens's picture
Franz Reichelt had faith his

Franz Reichelt had faith his parachute design would work, despite failures with test dummy drops. He is well know because his death was filmed as he jumped off the Eiffel tower.

Faith got him to the morgue much sooner than lack of faith would have.

Cognostic's picture
Absolute faith = Absolute

Absolute faith = Absolute ignorance.

Cognostic's picture
@The Intruder: If mommy

@The Intruder: If mommy really loved you, she would not have fed you bullshit for so many years or sent you so school ill prepared for a learning environment. How does a loving mother allow a child to waste away in ignorance? I don't get it?

FievelJ's picture
What the hell is this all

What the hell is this all about? Faith isn't proof of a god, as there's really no proof a god exists. I don't understand Christians how they think there's some sort of evidence of some sort of a god. If a god exists wouldn't that god have come out by now and made sure we knew which it was to follow? The existence of a god would be scientifically proven if there was by now.

But as it stands, there's really no proof, as there's millions of Gods.

Christians are hypocrites as they say only believe in one God. GOD? If god had a son, he would be a god too, making the ten commandments contradictory of itself.

I just don't understand how you could call one a god, without calling its son a god. They would both be gods.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel better not believing in any.

Grinseed's picture
@ the Intruder

@ the Intruder

"philosophy is a twin sister of religion, it has always been"

This is just personal interpretation that lacks credence. If they were sisters then christianity is guilty of wilfully attempted fratricide. They are no more sisters than Tinman is my mother.

Philosophy as distinct from christian theology had its roots in ancient Greek civilization. After the conquests of Alexander it was introduced to Judaism which had transformative and lasting effects on both.

In the first century, the early gentile christian church was dismissive of pagan Greek philosophy, particularly because of its association with Judaism. Philo of Alexandria, for example, was a Hellenised non-christian Jew well-versed in Greek knowledge and is best known for a treatise on the afterlife. He was a contemporary of Jesus and in his history of Palestine and of the governorship of Pontius Pilate he made no mention of him. This did not make him popular among christians.

The emerging Petros/Pauline christianity demanded faith only in the resurrection of Yeshua and his imminent return. They conducted a bitter rivalry with early christian gnostics, who with their love of secret knowledge, adopted pagan Greek philosophies out of the need for critical review of life in what they believed was an imperfectly created reality.

Grudgingly, by the early second century, the mainstream christian church began to adopt some of the amalgamated Greek philosophy and amended Jewish theology. Writers like Justin Martyr, despite their anti-semitism, found them useful, without too much revision, to promote and defend their faith against the many reasoned arguments of heretics and pagans critics.

After the Edict of Milan, 325AD, the christian church, bolstered by its new political power embarked on a successful two hundred year long selective persecution and eradication of all opposing belief systems and knowledge, upending the several millennia of general religious tolerance of the ancient world. St. Augustine defended and encouraged the ensuing empire-wide vandalism, torture, and murders as "merciful savagery" required to save souls, forget humanity. Temples and academies and libraries were destroyed, pagan priests, disciples, academics and philosophers were massacred, and unforgivably, millions of scrolls and books deemed sacrilegious were burned and lost to history. The transformative powers of the Holy Spirit were by-passed with that of the sword, club, and torch.

Ultimately to complete the dominance of total christian ideology, under the rule of Justinian, on advice from his christian advisors, it was decided that under pain of punishment or death "the teaching of any doctrine by those who labour under the insanity of paganism" was declared illegal. This was 'thought crime' and ended the free practice and study of philosophy in the west. It is considered by most historians to mark the beginning of the 'intellectual' Dark Ages.

In the next several centuries, the hopes for Jesus' imminent return were fading, and the christian apocalyptic outlook of personal sacrifice, not giving a thought to tomorrow, or promoting familial relations, nor taking responsibilities for one's own welfare, were recognised as being no longer sustainable. And so the Church Fathers fell back onto the few tolerated surviving pagan Greek writings, rediscovered and adapted old philosophies to create a 'new look' christianity to instruct the faithful on how life should be lived in patient piety while awaiting the long-overdue Lord. Philo of Alexandria the Jew was rediscovered and his view on the afterlife was conveniently adapted. And when the Muslims generously reintroduced Aristotle to chrisitianity this provoked a further shakeup led by Aquinus's attempted synthesis of the spirituality of Platonism and the materialism of Aristotle to redefine the religion.

This sister image you have concocted that gives equal power and endurance to both the Christian religion in particular and to Greek philosophy is simply incorrect. Religion dictates how we should live life according to the commands, proffered rewards and threatened punishments of a supernatural deity. Philosophy provides tools to examine how life should be lived in the light of free investigation and reason.

Greek philosophy existed and flourished long before Christianity. On its own, it still remains relevant today. History has shown Christianity has been forced to constantly change and adapt which has led to violent schisms and the proliferation of many diverse opposing sects. It has also shamelessly had to depend on accommodating the critical self-evaluation of real philosophy that it still demonises, to remain relevant.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Grinseed

@ Grinseed

Long and loud applause.

Cognostic's picture
@Grinseed: I think he meant

@Grinseed: I think he meant to say Theologians have always attempted to usurp philosophical axioms (Statementd that are so evident or well-established, that they are accepted without controversy or question.) to postulate bullshit.

Axiom: The universe looks ordered,
Postulate.... um,,, Bullshit: Therefore God

Axiom: The universe appears to have had a beginning.
Bullshit: Therefore god.

Axiom: The laws of logic exist
Bullshit: Therefore god.

Axiom: People have personal experiences
Bullshit: Therefore god.

Axiom: DNA acts like a code.
Bullshit: Therefore god.

Axiom: Nothing can both be and not be at the same time.
Bullshit: Except God.

Grinseed's picture
I don't disagree Cog, but I

I don't disagree Cog, but I do think he means that his god holds all copyright on all ideas by dint of being eternal, which is patent bullshit (see what I did? lol) unless he can prove his god exists in the first place.
In any case, the twin sisters image fails. It is much more like one sister copying her step-sister's homework, feeding it to the family dog and then smothering her sibling in bed.

Proxyhookr's picture
Faith is best described by

Faith is best described by American Ambrose Bierce who stated:

Faith is belief without evidence told by those without knowledge about events without

Nyarlathotep's picture
The Intruder - can we

The Intruder - can we verify that 1+1=2?

Most of what you've posted seems like word salad, but that part is a good question that I think deserves an answer:

It's definitional. There are other sensible ways to define addition; but the common definition is arguably the most useful; no accident there.

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar Re: 1+1=2

@Nyar Re: 1+1=2

Hey, don't worry. I've covered that already just a few posts back. Although, I wouldn't mind if you were to read through it and correct any mistakes I might have made... *grin*...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well I'll give a sensible

Well I'll give a sensible example of addition that some might find surprising:

Consider a system of 5 boxes in a ring, labelled 0 though 4. Now imagine you start off in box 3, and you want to move to the next box in the series 4 times. So you move to box 4, then to box 0, then box 1, then box 2. In this system:
3 ⊕ 4 = (3+4)mod5 = 2.

Where "+" is the symbol for the "ordinary" operation of addition we all learned as kids, and "⊕" is for this "new" operation of addition.

Calilasseia's picture
Heh, I've been using the

Heh, I've been using the application of elementary operators to the entities in different fields, rings and groups, to expose the naivety of certain notions for some time. Though my favourite choice is multiplication rather than addition. Not least because in the case of matrices, if A and B are two arbitrary matrices, chosen so that one can compute the product A×B, there is no guarantee that B×A even exists, let alone equals A×B. Even in the case of square matrices, where A×B and B×A both exist, the two products are almost always vastly different from each other. Somewhat less startling, but counter-intuitive to anyone other than a student of pure mathematics, is the multiplication of quaternions, which again does not obey the commutative axiom applicable to elementary arithmetic.

Quirkiest of all are the Steinitz Numbers, sometimes referred to in the mathematical literature in a tongue in cheek manner as the "supernatural numbers", on the basis of their constituting one possible extension of the natural numbers. Multiplication is readily defined for these numbers, but there is no universal definition of addition that works with them.

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar Re: 3+4=2

@Nyar Re: 3+4=2

Hey, that's pretty cool. So, with that system (if I understand it correctly), 2+2=4, but 2+3=0. I like that! It's kinda fun... *grin*...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Tin-Man - Hey, that's pretty

Tin-Man - Hey, that's pretty cool. So, with that system (if I understand it correctly), 2+2=4, but 2+3=0.

Yeah, that's right!

Randomhero1982's picture
You know.... somewhere in the

You know.... somewhere in the world, ken ham has just read this, lost his mind and kicked over a t-rex in his ark museum.

Tin-Man's picture


That would be a great way to make a simple/basic code for sending secret messages. Wish I had known about that as a kid... lol...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Tin-Man - That would be a

Tin-Man - That would be a great way to make a simple/basic code for sending secret messages.

There is an unbreakable form of encryption based largely on your idea.

ilovechloe's picture
Practically every religion

Practically every religion ever invented relies on faith. How do we know when a religion is FALSE? We know that a religion is false when it says that you have to believe based on faith!

Any TRUE religion will present plenty of evidence, yet none do. Faith can lead you to believe in anything, so it is impossible to choose a true religion based on faith. This makes faith completely useless as a belief system.

Vex_Man's picture
You've forgotten to add one

You've forgotten to add one important thing- faith is a belief without evidence.
Lets play a game. Suppose you are interviewing a theist, this is how the interview goes-

You- Sir, what do you think about islam ?

Christian- Islam is not a true religion. In contrast to jesus, Muhammad war warlike man. He beheaded 700 jews. The koran has more than 8 percent verses reflecting for belligerence and violence. The Koran is an excellent source for homophobia, adultery, polygamy, child abuse, intolerance, historical and scientific contradictions etc. The Koran wasn't even written after 100 years of Muhammad's alledged death.

This interview ends up here. You substitute some words while publishing your book, for example- the koran with the Bible, Muhammad with Jesus.
When the Christian guy will read your book, he might be tense. He will criticize you with his ad-hominum arguments. You can interview with a muslim and he will say the same about christianity.
The problem with theistic religions is, they consider their own religion is true and other ones are false.

Cognostic's picture
@All - Each and every time I

@All - Each and every time I see the depths of stupidity to which theists are willing to reach in defense of their idiocy, I think I have actually reached the bottom. And then another one comes along with the most moronic shit I have ever heard.. How in the hell do these people manage to feed and clothe themselves?

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "How in the hell do

@Cog Re: "How in the hell do these people manage to feed and clothe themselves?"

Well, through faith, obviously. Duh!


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.