Religious Views?

[Katamari007]

But if the Laws of Logic are just thoughts then how could they be laws?

you act as that the five sense that humans have are the only five senses that exist

[Ad Bot]

[Firecycle]

you act as that the five sense that humans have are the only five senses that exist

No, I'm saying that if you believe in only things you can sense then you can't believe in the laws of logic.

[Katamari007]

No, I'm saying that if you believe in only things you can sense then you can't believe in the laws of logic.

however, they are LAWS

it's obvious that they exist through psychology and brain waves and brain patterns

[Freeze]

Then the Laws of Logic would be inconsistent throughout different cultures.

I don't think you understand how the human race works.

We think for ourselves and share ideas from brain to brain using our bodies. Without the brains these 'ideas' would not exist, thus meaning you need material for them to work. The forces as say gravity only work because of physical things, the brain just figures these sort of things out and makes them into an idea. For the brain to make an idea something has to be either seen or thought of and this is one reason god simply isn't real. God is just an idea, nothing more. The way you found out about god was from one person.

ONE person. For all you know, he was bloody drunk. God is just his idea, just think about it for a sec. God goes against all logic ever so believing in god is not logical nor smart.

End. Of.

[Firecycle]

however, they are LAWS

it's obvious that they exist through psychology and brain waves and brain patterns

We've already been over this.

But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

No, because we can see mars and think about mars, and we sent robots up to mars

But if the Laws of Logic are just thoughts then how could they be laws?

Because society makes them laws.

Then the Laws of Logic would be inconsistent throughout different cultures.

[Freeze]

No, I'm saying that if you believe in only things you can sense then you can't believe in the laws of logic.

You sense ideas (laws) with the brain thus it being a material use.

[Firecycle]

--snip--

So the laws of logic are just human conventions?

[Headcrab Zombie]

I would like to submit that the reason you do not believe in God is because you can not see, hear, smell, taste, feel or sense him or any of his effects

This is the reason that a choose to not believe in the concept of a god, generalized as much as possible.
The reason I choose to not believe in your specific God, is that countless claims from the Bible has been proven false. There's no way for the final structure to stand when the foundation is gone.

[Freeze]

So the laws of logic are just human conventions?

Some of them, yes.

[Firecycle]

Some of them, yes.

The problem with that is that is that human conventions are, by definition, conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

[Firecycle]

This is the reason that a choose to not believe in the concept of a god, generalized as much as possible.
The reason I choose to not believe in your specific God, is that countless claims from the Bible has been proven false, and I see no reason for their to be a final structure when the foundation is gone.

Link to a list, please.

[Katadeus]

All right, lets clear this up.
Logical thought and science are a premise, one that I will not leave except for the occasional passing dream. They are based off of what we as humans can sense. It is possible that all that we think we know is wrong, but the premise of science is the best one we have, the one that explains almost everything. There are things that are outside of current science but that is because we have not progressed far enough yet. Gravity was all just silly thoughts and could and would be denied, but now we have an explanation of it; results come slowly. Religion is also a premise, just an unsupported one. The only "proof" that can be given is biased and unsupported.
Savvy?

[Kalphiter]

All right, lets clear this up.
Logical thought and science are a premise, one that I will not leave except for the occasional passing dream. They are based off of what we as humans can sense. It is possible that all that we think we know is wrong, but the premise of science is the best one we have, the one that explains almost everything. There are things that are outside of current science but that is because we have not progressed far enough yet. Gravity was all just silly thoughts and could and would be denied, but now we have an explanation of it; results come slowly. Religion is also a premise, just an unsupported one. The only "proof" that can be given is biased and unsupported.
Savvy?

You forgot to add that God isn't a premise.

[Firecycle]

All right, lets clear this up.
Logical thought and science are a premise, one that I will not leave except for the occasional passing dream. They are based off of what we as humans can sense. It is possible that all that we think we know is wrong, but the premise of science is the best one we have, the one that explains almost everything. There are things that are outside of current science but that is because we have not progressed far enough yet. Gravity was all just silly thoughts and could and would be denied, but now we have an explanation of it; results come slowly. Religion is also a premise, just an unsupported one. The only "proof" that can be given is biased and unsupported.
Savvy?

This is the only part I don't understand.  Could you explain what you meant?

EDIT: Trying to tell if you are advocating subjectivism.

[Bravo]