Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[deisik]

And, "so what?"  Well, for starters this eliminates infinite regression precisely because any attempt to falsify it would necessarily challenge self-reference itself and evoke self-inconsistency, thereby serving to reinforce the original model.

Personally, I am in favor of indeterminism, since it can potentially explain why something exists at all. Neither determinism nor your idea of it can explain this rationally. Pure determinism gets lost in an infinite recursion, your self-determinism just makes no sense (at least, to me), since it actually evades providing an answer through tautology (logic trickery) while in fact being the same endless (and meaningless) recursion...

In short, I don't particularly care which breed of determinism you stick to

[1714000586]

1714000586

[1714000586]

1714000586

[the joint]

And, "so what?"  Well, for starters this eliminates infinite regression precisely because any attempt to falsify it would necessarily challenge self-reference itself and evoke self-inconsistency, thereby serving to reinforce the original model.

Personally, I am in favor of indeterminism, since it can potentially explain why something exists at all. Neither determinism nor your idea of it can explain this rationally. Pure determinism gets lost in an infinite recursion, your self-determinism just makes no sense (at least, to me), since it actually evades providing an answer through tautology (logic trickery) while in fact being the same endless (and meaningless) recursion...

In short, I don't particularly care which breed of determinism you stick to

But such a perspective evokes self-contradicition, for if your argument exists as an abstract model, then you must conclude that it, too, is indeterminate, and thus provides absolutely zero determinate value upon anything that you would describe as indeterminate.  You shoot yourself in the foot by precluding any possibility of objectively describing anything.  Your indeterminate model would be mutually exclusive from anything you attempt to squeeze into its scope.  And that's aside from the more simple fact that the word "indeterminism" axiomatically implies you can't use it as a determinate cause for something else.

But, in general you're still missing the point.  A model or theory of something, such as an indeterministic one or any other, is self-apparently an abstract construct.  It is a construct of your mind, as is the nature of any theory or model.  You fail to consider any basis by which you can even arrive at such a model, which is unfortunate.  You talk like a Positivist, as if there is some concrete truth of Reality independent of our minds and the models/theories we construct therefrom, and if we only had more knowledge we could arrive at a definitive conclusion -- of what kind, I don't know, and perhaps you could explain to me what, exactly, is the kind of knowledge we would need that would enable us to arrive at some definitive conclusion.  In my previous post, I described the kind of knowledge needed to arrive at such a definitive conclusion, and also the process by which we could utilize this knowledge to construct a viable model.

Any model/theory is constructed out of a relationship of mind to reality, and so your consideration of indeterminism as an viable model must necessarily be able to also explain how you are able to construct an indeterminate model to begin with.  You're putting the cart before the horse, so-to-speak, by effectively taking the abstract rules of theorization for granted.  Consequently, your indeterminate model, which in your words would serve as explanation for why things exist at all, fails to include the existence of itself, thereby rendering it self-inconsistent and invalid.

[deisik]

And, "so what?"  Well, for starters this eliminates infinite regression precisely because any attempt to falsify it would necessarily challenge self-reference itself and evoke self-inconsistency, thereby serving to reinforce the original model.

Personally, I am in favor of indeterminism, since it can potentially explain why something exists at all. Neither determinism nor your idea of it can explain this rationally. Pure determinism gets lost in an infinite recursion, your self-determinism just makes no sense (at least, to me), since it actually evades providing an answer through tautology (logic trickery) while in fact being the same endless (and meaningless) recursion...

In short, I don't particularly care which breed of determinism you stick to

But such a perspective evokes self-contradicition, for if your argument exists as an abstract model, then you must conclude that it, too, is indeterminate, and thus provides absolutely zero determinate value upon anything that you would describe as indeterminate.  You shoot yourself in the foot by precluding any possibility of objectively describing anything.  Your indeterminate model would be mutually exclusive from anything you attempt to squeeze into its scope.  And that's aside from the more simple fact that the word "indeterminism" axiomatically implies you can't use it as a determinate cause for something else.

But, in general you're still missing the point.  A model or theory of something, such as an indeterministic one or any other, is self-apparently an abstract construct.  It is a construct of your mind, as is the nature of any theory or model.  You fail to consider any basis by which you can even arrive at such a model, which is unfortunate.  You talk like a Positivist, as if there is some concrete truth of Reality independent of our minds and the models/theories we construct therefrom, and if we only had more knowledge -- of what kind, I don't know, and perhaps you could explain to me what, exactly, is the kind of knowledge we would need that would enable us to arrive at some definitive conclusion.  In my previous post, I described the kind of knowledge needed to arrive at such a definitive conclusion.

I am singularly curious whether you understand that your logic (irresistibly leading to conclusions of "zero determinate value" sorts), or any logic known to us for that matter (which we think universally applicable), is also a product of mind, and, as any such product, can potentially be falsified (or expanded) from beyond human mind. In other words, it is not given that there is only one, unique logic, or our logic is particularly true (complete). Thereby, it may be you who is shooting himself in the foot...

But it doesn't actually matter here at all, since reality is not an abstract model (a product of mind), so it is in no way tied by our reasoning limitations (which we are obviously not able to grasp, let alone overcome)

[the joint]

And, "so what?"  Well, for starters this eliminates infinite regression precisely because any attempt to falsify it would necessarily challenge self-reference itself and evoke self-inconsistency, thereby serving to reinforce the original model.

Personally, I am in favor of indeterminism, since it can potentially explain why something exists at all. Neither determinism nor your idea of it can explain this rationally. Pure determinism gets lost in an infinite recursion, your self-determinism just makes no sense (at least, to me), since it actually evades providing an answer through tautology (logic trickery) while in fact being the same endless (and meaningless) recursion...

In short, I don't particularly care which breed of determinism you stick to

But such a perspective evokes self-contradicition, for if your argument exists as an abstract model, then you must conclude that it, too, is indeterminate, and thus provides absolutely zero determinate value upon anything that you would describe as indeterminate.  You shoot yourself in the foot by precluding any possibility of objectively describing anything.  Your indeterminate model would be mutually exclusive from anything you attempt to squeeze into its scope.  And that's aside from the more simple fact that the word "indeterminism" axiomatically implies you can't use it as a determinate cause for something else.

But, in general you're still missing the point.  A model or theory of something, such as an indeterministic one or any other, is self-apparently an abstract construct.  It is a construct of your mind, as is the nature of any theory or model.  You fail to consider any basis by which you can even arrive at such a model, which is unfortunate.  You talk like a Positivist, as if there is some concrete truth of Reality independent of our minds and the models/theories we construct therefrom, and if we only had more knowledge -- of what kind, I don't know, and perhaps you could explain to me what, exactly, is the kind of knowledge we would need that would enable us to arrive at some definitive conclusion.  In my previous post, I described the kind of knowledge needed to arrive at such a definitive conclusion.

I am singularly curious whether you understand that your logic (irresistibly leading to conclusions of "zero determinate value" sorts), or any logic known to us for that matter (which we think universally applicable), is also a product of mind, and, as any such product, can potentially be falsified (or expanded) from beyond human mind. In other words, it is not given that there is only one, unique logic, or our logic is particularly true (complete). Thereby, it may be you who is shooting himself in the foot...

But it doesn't actually matter here at all, since reality is not an abstract model (a product of mind), so it is in no way tied by our reasoning limitations (which we are obviously not able to grasp, let alone overcome)

Addressing the emboldened passages in order:

1) Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.  Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?"  Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.

2)  This statement negates itself.  When you say, "Reality is not an abstract model," that in itself is an abstract model.  Even simply saying  'Reality exists' is an abstract model.

A theory/model is simply a description of something.  That's it.  For example, if you open a dictionary, every single definition is an abstract theory of the thing described. This is inescapable. You cannot talk about Reality's existence outside of the abstract models we describe.  Phrased another way, no model/theory of Reality means that we can't even affirm Reality exists.  The existence of Reality is totally dependent upon a theory of it; no theory --> no Reality (that we can affirm or is of any relevance to us).

Edit:  When I say that theories/models are simply a description of something, I would clarify this by further noting that it is precisely due to theories/models that Reality and its constituents are defined.  In the lack of a theory/model, there is no definition -- literally.  Reality gains its definition in a literal sense via theories/models, and the mechanism by which this occurs is a metrical one.  That is, theories/models employ metrics, i.e. abstract scales of measurement, to define Reality.  This starts getting into the reasons why I believe in Intelligent Design, for without a mind to employ metrics with which to define Reality, Reality entirely lacks any definition, including the fundamental definition of "existence."  "Existence" is born of a simple difference metric, i.e. "1 vs. 0," or "yes, existence vs. no, not-existence."

Edit 2:  To exemplify my first edit, consider space.  If a metric is employed which can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If instead a metric is employed which cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

[deisik]

2)  This statement negates itself.  When you say, "Reality is not an abstract model," that in itself is an abstract model.  Even simply saying  'Reality exists' is an abstract model.

A theory/model is simply a description of something.  That's it.  For example, if you open a dictionary, every single definition is an abstract theory of the thing described.

This in no way means that the thing described cannot exist beyond our abstract modelling of it. In fact, your reasons make no sense to me, it looks more like demagogy. I guess the next thing that you are going to say is that Reality exists only in our mind, or it exists only as long as we exist (which is essentially the same)...

No, I don't follow these ideas

[deisik]

1) Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.  Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?"  Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.

It doesn't really matter, since, as I said before, we most likely won't be able to find out whether the world is true random or not. And that would be not because our logic could be at fail (but it would be enough to throw away any inconsistency of the sorts you are trying to find, if there is any at all), but because of a pure lack of knowledge, even entirely within our comprehension limits. We may never know whether we are dealing with a true randomness or a seeming one...

So we are left either to speculate or just believe (that's why atheists are miserable losers)

[the joint]

2)  This statement negates itself.  When you say, "Reality is not an abstract model," that in itself is an abstract model.  Even simply saying  'Reality exists' is an abstract model.

A theory/model is simply a description of something.  That's it.  For example, if you open a dictionary, every single definition is an abstract theory of the thing described.

This in no way means that the thing described cannot exist beyond our abstract modelling of it. In fact, your reasons make no sense to me, it looks more like demagogy. I guess the next thing that you going to say is that Reality exists only in our mind, or it exists only as long as we exist (which is essentially the same)...

No, I don't follow these ideas

Again:

Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.

It's not a matter about excluding the possibility of a higher logic or something of the sort that exists beyond the human mind.  It's about recognizing that you are posing a consideration which we know will forever be impossible to answer aside from, "We don't know, we can't know, and we will never be able to know."  It's a totally irrelevant consideration to us.  I'm not saying one way or the other because our brand of logic specifically inhibits our ability to do so.  

We simply have to do the best we can, i.e. by identifying the logical limits of theorization, and relating those limits to Real phenomena in order to reach a tautological and fundamental understanding of Reality in terms of mind.  That's it.  That is the best we can do, and will forever be the best we can do.  You're hypothesizing in La-la Land.

[deisik]

2)  This statement negates itself.  When you say, "Reality is not an abstract model," that in itself is an abstract model.  Even simply saying  'Reality exists' is an abstract model.

A theory/model is simply a description of something.  That's it.  For example, if you open a dictionary, every single definition is an abstract theory of the thing described.

This in no way means that the thing described cannot exist beyond our abstract modelling of it. In fact, your reasons make no sense to me, it looks more like demagogy. I guess the next thing that you going to say is that Reality exists only in our mind, or it exists only as long as we exist (which is essentially the same)...

No, I don't follow these ideas

Again:

Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.

It's not a matter about excluding the possibility of a higher logic or something of the sort that exists beyond the human mind.  It's about recognizing that you are posing a consideration which we know will forever be impossible to answer aside from, "We don't know, we can't know, and we will never be able to know."  It's a totally irrelevant consideration to us.  I'm not saying one way or the other because our brand of logic specifically inhibits our ability to do so. 

But should we totally exclude such a possibility (that we may never know)? Since such a possibility is not equal to zero, how can it be totally irrelevant? And if we can't really know, what are we left with, and what is the value of other considerations then?

Wouldn't they be just hypothesizing in La-La Land, as you put it?

[the joint]

1) Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.  Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?"  Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.

It doesn't really matter, since, as I said before, we most likely won't be able to find out whether the world is true random or not. And that would be not because our logic could be at fail (but it would be enough to throw away any inconsistency of the sorts you are trying to find, if there is any), but because pure lack of knowledge, even entirely within our comprehension limits. We may never know whether we deal with a true randomness or a seeming one...

So we are left either to speculate or just believe (that's why atheists are miserable losers)

Again, wrong question, and false dichotomy.  I provided a method by which we can form an understanding of how "true random" relates to "non-random."  Random and non-random are, again, simply abstract models that provide an explanation.  But, they fail to account for themselves, and thus carry only relative -- not objective -- descriptive power.  Self-determinism describes how "true random" and "non-random" are both interrelated and exclusionary, in an objective manner.  It provides a cause for the formation of "true random" and "non-random" models in general.  

"Random" and "non-random" are theoretic models...a product of mind.  These things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory.

Correction:  You are left to speculate.  I am correct.

[the joint]

2)  This statement negates itself.  When you say, "Reality is not an abstract model," that in itself is an abstract model.  Even simply saying  'Reality exists' is an abstract model.

A theory/model is simply a description of something.  That's it.  For example, if you open a dictionary, every single definition is an abstract theory of the thing described.

This in no way means that the thing described cannot exist beyond our abstract modelling of it. In fact, your reasons make no sense to me, it looks more like demagogy. I guess the next thing that you going to say is that Reality exists only in our mind, or it exists only as long as we exist (which is essentially the same)...

No, I don't follow these ideas

Again:

Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.

It's not a matter about excluding the possibility of a higher logic or something of the sort that exists beyond the human mind.  It's about recognizing that you are posing a consideration which we know will forever be impossible to answer aside from, "We don't know, we can't know, and we will never be able to know."  It's a totally irrelevant consideration to us.  I'm not saying one way or the other because our brand of logic specifically inhibits our ability to do so.  

But should we totally exclude such a possibility (that we may never know)? And if we can't really know, what are we left with?

Absolutely we should exclude the possibility as a relevant consideration to us.  Why should you voluntarily jump down a never-ending rabbit hole when you can simply step over it?

If we can't really know (anything existing outside the boundaries of mindful comprehension), we are left with what we can know, and what I do know.

[deisik]

1) Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.  Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?"  Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.

It doesn't really matter, since, as I said before, we most likely won't be able to find out whether the world is true random or not. And that would be not because our logic could be at fail (but it would be enough to throw away any inconsistency of the sorts you are trying to find, if there is any), but because pure lack of knowledge, even entirely within our comprehension limits. We may never know whether we deal with a true randomness or a seeming one...

So we are left either to speculate or just believe (that's why atheists are miserable losers)

Again, wrong question, and false dichotomy.  I provided a method by which we can form an understanding of how "true random" relates to "non-random."  Random and non-random are, again, simply abstract models that provide an explanation.  But, they fail to account for themselves, and thus carry only relative -- not objective -- descriptive power.  Self-determinism describes how "true random" and "non-random" are both interrelated and exclusionary, in an objective manner.  It provides a cause for the formation of "true random" and "non-random" models in general.   

"Random" and "non-random" are theoretic models...a product of mind.  These things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory.

Correction:  You are left to speculate.  I am correct.

As I said, I don't follow your ideas of random and non-random being just abstract models, therefore your method is not my method, wtf. I assume that the world exists independent of our existence (or our mind). You seem to be of the opposite opinion. So your idea may be correct in your perception of the world ("these things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory"), okay. But this in no case makes such a perception valid per se or the only one in a set, which may also include such where you (and your ideas) are flat-out wrong (or even don't exist at all, sorry)...

I guess you insist that your understanding of the world should be the only "legal" one?

[the joint]

1) Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.  Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?"  Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.

It doesn't really matter, since, as I said before, we most likely won't be able to find out whether the world is true random or not. And that would be not because our logic could be at fail (but it would be enough to throw away any inconsistency of the sorts you are trying to find, if there is any), but because pure lack of knowledge, even entirely within our comprehension limits. We may never know whether we deal with a true randomness or a seeming one...

So we are left either to speculate or just believe (that's why atheists are miserable losers)

Again, wrong question, and false dichotomy.  I provided a method by which we can form an understanding of how "true random" relates to "non-random."  Random and non-random are, again, simply abstract models that provide an explanation.  But, they fail to account for themselves, and thus carry only relative -- not objective -- descriptive power.  Self-determinism describes how "true random" and "non-random" are both interrelated and exclusionary, in an objective manner.  It provides a cause for the formation of "true random" and "non-random" models in general.  

"Random" and "non-random" are theoretic models...a product of mind.  These things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory.

Correction:  You are left to speculate.  I am correct.

As I said, I don't follow your ideas of random and non-random being just abstract models, therefore your method is not my method, wtf. I assume that the world exists independent of our existence (or our mind). You seem to be of the opposite opinion. So your idea may be correct in your perception of the world ("these things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory"), okay. But this in no case makes such a perception valid per se or the only one in a set, which may also include such where you (and your ideas) are flat-out wrong (or even don't exist at all, sorry)...

I guess you insist that your understanding of the world should be the only "legal" one?

It is self-apparent that random and non-random are abstract models.  You can continue to ignore the obvious, or just simply accept what is right in front of you at all times.  You can never get away from this.

It's as self-apparent and simple as recognizing your own existence.  When you're thinking of what "random" and "non-random" are, those thoughts are models of those things.  Period.  Any word corresponds to a theory of that word, and we use these words -- which themselves are self-contained within a coherent, consistent language -- to describe what we perceive in a consistent way.  This is so incredibly simple because it is self-evident at all times that absolutely everything real corresponds to, and interdependent with, its theory.  Theories give rise to a coherent, consistent reality.  

It's in front of your nose.  It's...right...there.

Here's a task for you: Name one -- just one -- example of something that has been affirmed to exist outside a theory of that thing existing.  Anything!  Just one!  Never in the history of human kind has something been affirmed to be true outside of a theory, because what is true corresponds to a true theory!

Logic is a predicate for truth, NOT vice-versa. The only way something true exists is by way of a relational statement.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and truth ONLY exists inasmuch as sound, rational statements exist.  It is logically self-apparent that no truth exists outside of logical statements.  Therefore, what is "true" is a product of an understanding of mind set in ratio to what is being described as "true."  True things exist only because they are inherently related to, and described by, mind according to the rules of logic.

I don't know how many ways I can try to explain something so incredibly simple and obvious.  Again.  It's.  Right.  There.  This is knowable at a 100% level of confidence at all times.

To answer your final question, is demonstrable that 1) absolute truth exists, 2) absolute truth is knowable (i.e. we can be 100% certain that we have arrived at the best answer we can possibly hope to achieve), and thus 3) there is a correct answer.

[deisik]

As I said, I don't follow your ideas of random and non-random being just abstract models, therefore your method is not my method, wtf. I assume that the world exists independent of our existence (or our mind). You seem to be of the opposite opinion. So your idea may be correct in your perception of the world ("these things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory"), okay. But this in no case makes such a perception valid per se or the only one in a set, which may also include such where you (and your ideas) are flat-out wrong (or even don't exist at all, sorry)...

I guess you insist that your understanding of the world should be the only "legal" one?

It is self-apparent that random and non-random are abstract models.  You can continue to ignore the obvious, or just simply accept what is right in front of you at all times.  You can never get away from this.

Look, yesterday you were pretending that your reasoning cannot be falsified by any means, as well as making bold statements that you were telling the absolute truths (or something to that tune). Today you seem to have agreed about a possibility (I'd rather say a necessity) that there might (I'd say should) exist higher logic that may render your assertions either incomplete or outright invalid. Should I conclude that what you said yesterday may not be true (about the infallibility of your logic)?

This is what I see

[AJMax]

Atheism is at its core a reactionary whining that thrives on destruction of established ideas chiefly founded by those who had daddy/mommy issues with strict christian parental 'oppression'.

Done.

/thread

[deisik]

Here's a task for you: Name one -- just one -- example of something that has been affirmed to exist outside a theory of that thing existing.  Anything!  Just one!  Never in the history of human kind has something been affirmed to be true outside of a theory, because what is true corresponds to a true theory!

Something that exists needs neither theory nor confirmation. It exists since it exists (as you would put it), independent of whether I believe in it or not, whether I build theories around it or not. It may exist though I might prefer that it didn't...

Or I may not even know about it

[oblivi]

Atheism is at its core a reactionary whining that thrives on destruction of established ideas chiefly founded by those who had daddy/mommy issues with strict christian parental 'oppression'.

Done.

/thread

Not really, it atheism just requires proof to believe in something, and all religions seem to be bullshit that ancient people used to have the pleb working and not complaining about inequalities.

[the joint]

As I said, I don't follow your ideas of random and non-random being just abstract models, therefore your method is not my method, wtf. I assume that the world exists independent of our existence (or our mind). You seem to be of the opposite opinion. So your idea may be correct in your perception of the world ("these things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory"), okay. But this in no case makes such a perception valid per se or the only one in a set, which may also include such where you (and your ideas) are flat-out wrong (or even don't exist at all, sorry)...

I guess you insist that your understanding of the world should be the only "legal" one?

It is self-apparent that random and non-random are abstract models.  You can continue to ignore the obvious, or just simply accept what is right in front of you at all times.  You can never get away from this.

Look, yesterday you were pretending that your reasoning cannot be falsified by any means, as well as making bold statements that you were telling the absolute truths (or something to that tune). Today you seem to have agreed about a possibility (I'd rather say a necessity) that there might (I'd say should) exist higher logic that may render your assertions either incomplete or outright invalid. Should I conclude that what you said yesterday may not be true (about the infallibility of your logic)?

This is what I see

The two do not contradict each other.  Conceding to a possibility of some higher level of logic is not inconsistent with saying that we can know absolutely what is true and not true in terms of our own mind and brand of logic in relation to Reality (Edit: Or, to absolutely know what we absolutely cannot know).  For example, we can know absolutely that this possibility is totally irrelevant of consideration inasmuch as we know we will never, ever, be able to address the question.  This is absolutely infallible.  We need to first identify a limit of theorization so that we know our boundaries and don't overstep them.  We are limited to playing in a sandbox with impenetrable boundaries, and you keep entertaining the idea of somehow penetrating them.  The idea is to identify exactly where and why these boundaries exist so that we don't needlessly waste our time pursuing the impossible.  Providing a resolution to the possibility of some concrete logic higher than our own outside of "we'll never know because it is impossible" is, well...impossible.

[the joint]

Here's a task for you: Name one -- just one -- example of something that has been affirmed to exist outside a theory of that thing existing.  Anything!  Just one!  Never in the history of human kind has something been affirmed to be true outside of a theory, because what is true corresponds to a true theory!

Something that exists needs neither theory nor confirmation. It exists since it exists (as you would put it), independent of whether I believe in it or not, whether I build theories around it or not. It may exist though I might prefer that it didn't...

Or I may not even know about it

Asserting something exists is a theoretical confirmation.  "It exists" is a theory of "it."  

I don't know why you keep thinking that something can just exist in the absence of an abstract (i.e. mental) metric to differentiate between existence and non-existence.  If I ask you "does it exist?" and you can't choose between "1" and "0," i.e. "yes" or "no," then you have no idea whether it exists or not.  You can't just assume it does, else you have created a new theory of "it" with zero rational basis.  Again, there have been exactly zero cases where anything has been affirmed to exist outside of its corresponding theory of existence.  All you're doing is throwing out an unnecessary and wholly unfalsifable assumption.  To falsify it would require that you can affirm it's true in the absence of affirmation.  Good luck with that one.

An analogy is the unfalsifiable assumption of a Positivistic Universe upon which the entirety of the Scientific Method rests.  The Positivistic Universe assumption states that all objects have a static, concrete nature that perseverates independent of observation.  This assumption is empirically unfalsifiable, for to falsify it would require obtaining empirical data via observation in a Universe totally void of any observers.  The only reason it works is because the Scientific Method defers to Philosophy -- specifically, the rules of sound inference and an awareness of the limits of logical induction -- to justify its continued use (i.e. by blaring its limitations at every conceivable turn).  However, the Positivistic Universe assumption was logically falsified thousands of years ago, a la Plato (see my earlier post a few pages back referencing his work on sameness and difference) and likely others before him.  We know logically, that all things different reduce to a common medium, which includes differential entities such as empirical phenomena and the mental theories/models we use to describe them.

Edit:  Reworded.

[the joint]

Atheism is at its core a reactionary whining that thrives on destruction of established ideas chiefly founded by those who had daddy/mommy issues with strict christian parental 'oppression'.

Done.

/thread

Not really, it atheism just requires proof to believe in something, and all religions seem to be bullshit that ancient people used to have the pleb working and not complaining about inequalities.

Yet, unfortunately, most atheists falsely believe that empirical proof is required to believe in something, when in fact empirical proof is only required to believe in something empirical.  This is a huge and fundamental error given that real, abstract structures (e.g. mathematical ones, etc. ) self-apparently exist and require zero empirical proof to confirm.

[deisik]

Look, yesterday you were pretending that your reasoning cannot be falsified by any means, as well as making bold statements that you were telling the absolute truths (or something to that tune). Today you seem to have agreed about a possibility (I'd rather say a necessity) that there might (I'd say should) exist higher logic that may render your assertions either incomplete or outright invalid. Should I conclude that what you said yesterday may not be true (about the infallibility of your logic)?

This is what I see

The two do not contradict each other.  Conceding to a possibility of some higher level of logic is not inconsistent with saying that we can know absolutely what is true and not true in terms of our own mind and brand of logic in relation to Reality (Edit: Or, to absolutely know what we absolutely cannot know).

I suspect this is not quite the same what you were previously saying. You didn't say that you could know what is true and what is not. In fact, you claimed that you actually knew what is true ("Maybe you will never know, but I do. Sorry"), such was the tone of posts. Do you see the difference, or should I start quoting your whole posts?

Now you are apparently backpedaling this issue