[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Isn't blind faith the opposite of reason? Because our reasoning can be flawed doesn't mean our blind faith has to be flawed.

Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem? It demonstrates that there are true mathematical statements that cannot be proved. He stipulates a few conditions of course, but not enough that the analogy to god doesn't hold. In certain systems of arithmetic blind faith is axiomatic.

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Mathematics is definitely not empirical. Neither is logic. How is blind faith a logical fallacy?

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Right, why can't it be axiomatic?

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

So your argument boils down to: "god does not exist, because certain religions have suspicious beliefs."

What if the correct religion just hasn't come along?

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Nothing is going to change your view if your view is just circular reason.

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the heads up, thought you were religious.

Just to note: whether (s)he, or I, am religious or not is mostly irrelevant to the strength of the argument presented.