The inexpressibility factor: finding proofs for the ineffable was always going to be a problem for non logicians. Does being a good mathematician make for a better, truer, more rational philosopher?
~Symon~

Within philosophy logic has remained approximately stagnant throughout it's entire history being based primarily on two state propositional logic.

Philosophy of science being the primary exception where propositional logic has been almost completly abandoned for bayesian logic and probability theory to fantastic success.

This seems to be true in many other categories of philosophical endeavor including epistemology and metaphysics as examples, where more formal academic philosophy seems to have lagged with the general advancement of societies overall knowledge.

Why do you think it is that philosophy has failed to encompass more general knowledge into it's methods and adapt and grow as a field?

Far too many times do I see discussions based on philosophical premises that are thousands of years old and too little do I see discussions based on these stagnant methodologies.

We seem to enjoy asking questions, but philosophy so seldom turns on the why we're asking the questions the way we do and are their better ways of asking questions in general based on what we have come to learn more broadly about the world.

There are many topic about the faith,
I try my demostration exist, to me it's very simple, a piece of cake,
(even though I personally don't follow religion, I can't' stand aggresivity and arrogance I see agaist who follow religion, so i'm going to provocate atheists here)

Supposing I enter in a room with other people, if i'm really a rational person, and science is the paradigma I follow for believe everything, I should check the chimical substances of the ceiling or check how architect built the edifice, this for being scientifically and rational sure the ceiling is not going to fall apart and kill me (expecially if I'm atheist, I suppose i'm quite scared to die).

Why don't happen?
Why people enter in the room without check nothing scientific,
using something near the exactly the concept of faith.

When they clam they are scientific, how many time they check something in their day and how many time enter in rooms check nothing?

Now, i hope there is no need to explain the room it's a metaphora, you have to extend meaning with your imagination, I prefer say clear after other orwellian experiences.

I personally, have to admit I enter in the mataphoric room lot of times using nothing than faith (not consciouss), I also don't ask if someone have check and it's not going to fall apart, everything it's automatics like an anmal istinct, in a psychological delegation of meaning and thinking in a loop and a chain of faith in the faith and so one

The strange thing is that I'm one trust nothing and nobody from beginning of my life, I'm a checher, but how many thing i'm not cheking? i could think i'm checling only what I like to check.

But I want to be too hard with myself, i cant' check everything, shouldn't I?
So i need faith, relax, or I will explode checking things, I'm going to get crazy.

So, I enter in the metaphoric room, too tired to check everything inside,
and I fell, nothing happen, the sun is going to shininng and the ceiling is not going to fall apart.

Now if this is truer, the metaphiric room it's not something I KNOW, it's something i FEEL.

Here we have our demostration, i'm lazy about fatih so i stop here and let other continue the work.

When you arrive that everything works with faith, you don't have to understand what is, but why this human way to feel take different shapes inside everyone fo us, why we fight each other in order to demostrate something exist don't exist.

So thinking in this way, I ealborated the idea that spiritual people are not differents because they have faith and other dont't have, but probably only because they don't remove the feeling of faith.

Remotion of faith, shoudl be explained by atheist, not by these spiritual people, and this would reverse the concept we usually need to handle.

There is no such thing as good bad or evil only the thought there of

Do you think the universe is best described by ternary logic or binary logic? Is there a hazard to relying on one more than the other?

Is religious search for truth and philosophical search for truth fundamentally different? One can choose to believe or not, but I think the goals are the same. Where do I err?

proof by contradiction: where something cannot be both true and false thus if something is not false it must be true. Here your proof is in the fact that something is not false and does not depend on you proving it is true.

So what do you think?

Let's talk about bandwagoning.

Bandwagoning is appealing to the emotions of the crowd.

If this is a huge error in logic, why do we as a human race always fall for it?

To answer this question please use reference to major authors in philosophy.

How should we distinguish fear and stupidity? I.E. I am afraid of spiders versus I am not afraid of that giant man eating spider that is drawing ever closer?

Proof by intimidation (argumentum verbosium)

Making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to intimidate your audience into accepting it, or accepting an argument without evidence or being intimidated to question the authority or a priori assumptions of the one making the argument.

Within a subjective acceptance of evidence and understanding, how responsible are people for their own feelings of intimidation?