Well, then I do disagree with you. Atheism has perfectly sound foundations, and the question of "What are our Origins" can be summed up in the rather pithy phrase: hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
As we notice, Ventus has (once again) made several statements that he cannot (or has yet to) back up with any facts (as the OP called for). He continually does this within the forum, but especially on this thread, which particularly prohibits such, with succinct and cogent questions devised to expose such prevarications.
First, he makes the statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“Atheism has perfectly sound foundationsÃ¢â‚¬Â, and then makes absolutely no attempt to provide evidence for his statement. He further admitted (on several occasions) that atheism is faith based, and yet attempts to submit that it has solid foundations.
Second, he makes another baseless, fact-less and rather non-pithy assertion about Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialisticÃ¢â‚¬Â origins, and yet, once again, makes absolutely no attempt to provide evidence for his statement.
Third, since both statements are merely presupposed opinion and the second statement is an attempt to posit an Ã¢â‚¬Å“abiogenesisÃ¢â‚¬Â like origin; both statements fail the OP, and the second statement totally fails the forum rules in particular.
Conclusion: [Mod hat] Ventus receives a warning to review and adhere to the forum rules AND the context of the thread rules (all of which he agreed to prior to being accepted to this forum) prior to making any more posts at this forum, or this thread! [Mod Hat Off].
In your OP you point to a few aspects of experience, specifically math, logic, love and thoughts as being metaphysical and therefore somehow demonstrative that the sum of human existence then requires a metaphysical aspect, the origin of which cannot be materialistic.
All of which are logical, rational and scientific factsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
You are demonstrably wrong in this. All four of those examples are materialistic in nature and can be shown to have no metaphysical qualities.
Really? Show me a Ã¢â‚¬Å“mathematicsÃ¢â‚¬Â, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“logicÃ¢â‚¬Â, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“loveÃ¢â‚¬Â and a Ã¢â‚¬Å“thoughtÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ In fact, provide one of each, and paint it green, take a picture of it, and post it at this thread.
HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a hintÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ You cannotÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ because, as a fact, you can ONLY provide the resultant of each of these CLEARLY metaphysical phenomena!
Logic and Mathematics are NOT laws as you claim. They are methods of describing materialistic reality. One plus one is two, not because of some fundamental metaphysical Truth, but because when one materialistic object is placed with another materialistic object, you have two materialistic objects. Also, mathematics are ONLY capable of describing the materialistic world, if there was a metaphysical component to math the language should suffice to explain metaphysical things. It doesn't. Mathematics is materialist, not metaphysical.
Incorrect. And your relativistic side is finally showing itself.
First, show me a Logic!
Second, show me a Mathematic!
You cannot, because BOTH are immaterial!
At best, you can only show me the resultant of each; therefore your hypothesis is invalid and moot. As a Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialistic atheistÃ¢â‚¬Â You cannot account for the metaphysical, yet you attempt to explain it from a purely physical viewpoint. What kills your argument is that you are forced to use the Ã¢â‚¬Å“incorporealÃ¢â‚¬Â to do so! And yet you cannot use these abstract phenomena to verify the same! For example, you cannot even use the verification principle to VERIFY the verification principle! Therefore you are on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma!
Anyway: You can deny the Laws of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Logic and MathematicsÃ¢â‚¬Â all you wish, but they will be:FIRST Ã¢â‚¬â€œ
ExposedÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ SECOND Ã¢â‚¬â€œ
Thereafter disallowed. Here are some examples of the laws of logic:http://www.stanford....ded.middle.htmlhttp://www.britannic...laws-of-thoughthttp://plato.stanfor...ncontradiction/http://psychology.wi.../wiki/CausalitySome of the mathematical laws:http://www.britannic...associative-lawhttp://www.chacha.co...m-in-math-termshttp://www.ecalc.com...etry-identitieshttp://www.mathsteac...09_dist/law.htmhttp://imajna.oxford...006.short?rss=1Combinations of the two:http://plato.stanfor...ogic-tradition/
Conclusion: [MOD HAT] If you continue to argue irrationally via your own non-empirical opinion and fact-less presuppositions, you will be removed from this forum. [MOD HAT OFF]
The balance of your post is moot, as you have totally failed to provide a shred of evidence for any of your asertions. As usual, you have only provided mere opinion.