Intuition is past experience and knowledge being checked by the unconscious...

Seems like Nietzsche knew it better than Mill. *shrugs*

already detailed that it was equivocation to a degree.

Not exactly, a quantum of force cannot actually be weaker than it is... you and T Clark have made me consider my perspective a bit more, and what I'm coming to is that ... but say St. Thomas's Quantum of Force in faith is already this grand mountain... we can say his Faith is still as strong... but say instead of St. Thomas being 100% faith-based, he's 60% Faith and 40% logic and perhaps a lack of clarifying here has caused all sorts of equivocations, perhaps of myself even... due to the quantum of force not actually being lesser... just because a persons intellect may be divided in a 60/40 split doesn't necessarily mean that because a persons thought moves to 55/45 split that the quantum of force behind faith grew less... but that the quantum of force behind reason grew more...
there IS a nuance to it... so for some people a quantum of force of faith may not be phased by reason... — DifferentiatingEgg

Though once something becomes absolutely true via syllogism I believe they convert a part of the quantum of force behind faith into knowledge... necessarily lessening faith.

However if the syllogism is fallacious then it's not really absolute truth... and we can show Thomas and Aquinas are both fallacious arguments for God... and thus they don't actually convert faith to absolute knowledge.

But the fact remains that some part of them yearns to take God from the realm of faith to knowledge... thus something inside of them in unsatisfied with their faith...

Thanks! I'll be a bit more verbose then. — unenlightened

I think N might be able to help you with that...

Human All Too Human § 415 on the Idolatry of Love... which was originally a device of the female intellect that over centuries women forgot the origin of love, and became ensnared and more deceived by it than men... basically the sophisticated slavery you're speaking about...

Love.—The love idolatry which women practise is fundamentally and originally an intelligent device, inasmuch as they increase their power by all the idealisings of love and exhibit themselves as so much the more desirable in the eyes of men. But by being accustomed for centuries to this exaggerated appreciation of love, it has come to pass that they have been caught in their own net and have forgotten the origin of the device. They themselves are now still more deceived than the men, and on that account also suffer more from the disillusionment which, almost necessarily, enters into the life of every woman—so far, at any rate, as she has sufficient imagination and intelligence to be able to be deceived and undeceived. — Nietzsche

Gay Science 68 on women molding themselves to mans ideal out of that need for love. Your quote

and enforced by the threat of rape. Uppity women are "asking for it". — unenlightened

reminds me of that last bit from 68 where some guy from the crowd says they need to educate women better (so they don't corrupt men)...

Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man, and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."—"You are too tender-hearted towards women," said one of the bystanders, "you do not know them!" The wise man answered: "Man's attribute is will, woman's attribute is willingness—such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!"—"What about salve! What about gentleness!" called out another person in the crowd, "we must educate women better!"—"We must educate men better," said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him.—The youth, however, did not follow him. — Nietzsche

But articles of faith are more like a premise. They aren’t something we conclude. We just know. Like the fact that my wife loves me. I just know it. I could never create a syllogism that shows “therefore wifey’s love for FireO exists.” — Fire Ologist

Pretty easily... define love then move to make the syllogism, if you need to make a syllogism to define love then do that also...

Something like:

P1: All people who consistently act with maximally positive interests, deep care, loyalty, and affection towards another person loves that person.

P2: FireO's wife acts with maximally positive interests, deep care, loyalty, and afrection towards FireOlogist

C: Therefore FireO's wife loves him.

is it possible to you for someone to know Nietzsche deeply (as you do, and I mean that) and also disagree with him? I think, if you are honest, you would say no — Fire Ologist

You mean like N did with Z?
Just because I don't detail my differences with Nietzsche doesn't mean we don't have them. I am Dionysian at my core. My first philosophy teacher noticed this and with a mild prophetic vision said that I would love him. And I do. That aside, Nietzsche is, but, one band of intensity within me.



What you said touches on something I read earlier about diaquotation and how it brings truth to something much simpler of a notion to what the sentence actually states vs all the mumbojumbo. Like my OP is kinda poorly written in the disquotational aspect. BUT what I mean, is a bit more nuanced mumbojumbo... to me, at first, I believed the OP directly states my deeper understanding but it did a pretty shitty job.

Veteran discounts pretty much cover sales tax and then a little extra.

The disability rating is from combined injuries and trauma from the military, I get paid quite a pretty penny from that alone also. Free healthcare, waiving of the first $40,000 in property taxes, pay yourself marginally from your business, and keep the rest in house and write off everything else.

If you were a 100% disabled military veteran, you'd not have to pay taxes either.

Pragmatic... you see, in high-school, all my Marxist friends made compelling critiques for me to do precisely what they said I shouldn't be doing... if capitalism and democracy are such exploitative systems then why shouldn't I position myself in a way that minimizes my exploitation? Plan ahead...

So you’re stealing from me. — T Clark

Whatever, so has every politician you've ever voted for... so too does your God... 0 fucks given. There are those who follow the rules and those who bend them to their will.

Just as obtaining knowledge comes as a crime against God. The highest presentment of man is always seemingly through some crime or another... blah blah blah... well it's only a crime to those who adhere to a model. And I don't adhere to your model of evaluations. Democracy has stolen enough in its name... just as all States have...

I can't go claim untamed land for my own? I gotta ask a state? Fuck off... just because it's a model doesn't mean I ever agreed to be born into American slavery...

Who did you vote for this time around? Me I don't cause politics is beneath me.

I'm kinda doubting you voted for Harris... and Trump's already stolen more from you than I ever will.

From just his time in office since January...

And if you voted Trump... that means you gave that imbecile the okay to steal from you, knowing how much he did the first time... and to steal from me.

Oh no a little language... what a Sin... :roll:

Im sitting here chilling to Quine, if Fire Ologist was here he'd be in another chair chilling legs up, kicked back. We're not here with guns to guts and swords to throats...

I mean, what greater criticism could I leverage at myself other than saying the words I used in my syllogism were too broad to allow for clarity? Such that it even caused me to equivocate that a shifting in percentage a person relies on faith to believe in something diminished their faith in something... literally an overturning of the original syllogism for something more nuanced...

The fuck more do you want?

Evaluations come through faith and knowledge. Just because you gain knowledge doesn't diminish the quantum of force behind your faith. Just means the evaluation has less reliance on faith. But how much faith do you need to know that in decimal based math 1+1=2? None.

But if I say 1+1=? And you say 2... you're taking it on faith that I'm in decimal based math not binary. Because you believe, rather than know, I'm talking about decimal based math.

If I said no it equals 0 then you wouldn't have faith that it equals 2... you know it doesn't because I'm using binary to equal 0.

Because I've established a necessary truth about my outlook...

Conclusions from valid and sound arguments do precisely the same, establish a necessary about an outlook.

Thus it takes some aspect of faith and converts it to knowledge... if it's logically valid and sound... all arguments for God aren't...so it's the case no conversion is actually achieved...

The attempt however points to a desire to convert belief to knowledge because the person feels knowledge is more substantial than faith, at least in the regards of the argument...

Aquinas and Thomas both show us that they had more of a desire to move God to a realm of absolute truth, rather than a belief...regardless of the quantum of force behind their faith is. They're really just proselytizing with fallacious arguments. Trying to make God something more concrete...

Even though I have no faith — Fire Ologist

I highly doubt you have 0 faith. That's just your clumsy handling.

You didn't even attempt to understand my perspective. You're grounded in your own.

boil it down, or do you think the Nazi were spewing knowledge? Rather than proselytizing with belief through logical fallacies...When you make a rational argument for something you're attempting to convert faith/belief into objective truth... Necessarily Objective Truth requires 0 faith. Thus making an argument for something as absolutely objectively true means you're taking faith and converting it to knowledge. If I had 10 dollars in bills and convert it to coins ... I no longer have 10 dollars of bills. I have LESS BILLS MORE COINS.

Thus converting faith into knowledge via trying to rationalize it means you're trying to rely less on faith for your outlook...

Not exactly a bad thing... overcoming oneself in their opposite and all.

I knew the dialecticians would get butthurt though.

I thought logical fallacies, identified only by using reason, had nothing to do with faith. — Fire Ologist

Pretending FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE IS A LOGICAL FALLACY DUMBASS...

Using knowledge to show faith is a fallacy or your argument relies on a leap in logic has nothing to do with the identity of faith...

Dialecticians... :roll:

When a person continually defends fallacy and reasserting leaps in logic... IE FAITH... They're proselytizing... because they're asserting Faith as Absolute Objective Truth...

Something like energy is never created nor destroyed is, I think, is an absolute truth, (unless someone has recently discovered a way to overturn that law, dunno dont really give a shit about the law to keep up with the lore surrounding it.)

I’m not going to get into the weeds with someone who says they know what I think already and supports that observation “FireOlogist is nothing but this” with “my opinion”. — Fire Ologist

That's all you can do. Even your shit interpretation about Nietzsche...

You know what such a statement does allow for though? You to prove me wrong. Faith motivates beyond despair... and that's a beautiful thing. — DifferentiatingEgg

You're too much of a bonehead to prove me wrong is all.

Hence you detatch...

T Clark and Count Timothy were cunning enough to force a reevaluation.

That contradicts your whole “opinion”. — Fire Ologist

No it doesn't we can see your bonehead understanding of my opinion is nothing even close...

No I asserted my opinion in a few ways... that doesn't make it objective truth.

What I said is faith is not knowledge, it's not reasoned based thought. Unless you consider bad reasoning reasonable. Faith is belief not knowledge. You just can't accept that faith is little more than that...

Spewing logical fallacies for the existence of God is just faith based preaching... aka proselytizing. And it shows an attempt to rationalize faith into knowledge. You're too much of a bonehead to realize that your faith counts for little in a discussion on knowledge...

So you have faith a Unicorn is real... cool. Now you try to rationalize the Unicorn and project it as objective truth... well Objective Truth is absolute knowledge dumbass not may be this...

An argument to prove the absolute truth of God means you're no longer interested in faith but proving the actual factual...

You're too dense to understand that though... because you think faith is knowing... your relationship with God is 100% faith. Unless you yourself are God, but then we're changing the definition I'm using, that is consequently, we aren't God...

This is how faith works...
JUNG (from Nietzsche's Zarathustra pg 38&39):

But we must well understand when we make that formulation or any other, that it is always our formula, it is what we say or know, it is our impression, the picture which we paint. If you paint a picture of a landscape, say, you would never believe that it was the landscape; it is only what you make of the landscape. You paint a picture as well as you can, but it is probably never as beautiful as the landscape itself. Either you put something in that is not there, or you leave out something; at all events, you never make the mistake of confusing the one with the other. But when we make a formulation about God, everybody assumes that that is God. If I say, for instance, that god is an image, or a complex with a very great emotional intensity, or a supreme guiding principle, a psychological principle, then everybody asserts: Dr. Jung says God is nothing but this.. A theologian does exactly the same thing when he says God can only be good. And he has no idea of the blasphemy he is uttering. How does he know that God can only be good? He takes half of the world away from him. How can God he everything if he is denied the faculty of being evil too? — Dr. Jung

Faith is always a formula but it's not knowing... Christians happen to like to lie to themselves that it is knowing... it's literally simply what they say about faith... thus its faith in faith.

Hence St. Timmy says truth never contradicts truth because God is good. That not knowledge, that's him spewing fallacies wishing his faith was knowledge... thus something in him desires his faith to be more real...

I am so displeased with democracy as it exists in the USA — Brendan Golledge

I'm not, because I use it towards MY benefit. I don't pay taxes and I work for myself. In a capitalist system, if you want to get ahead, buy the rights to the surpluss of a company's value. Or create something of consumer value.

I thought you were trying to say something for Christians who are just people lying, — Fire Ologist

We weren't having a conversation, as I never said this once nor implied it... and it's the foundation of all your chatting here.

“Not for me”. Conversation ended. — Fire Ologist

Read Genealogy of Morals 10, you'll learn the difference between you, and I, and even Nietzsche, it's why you gravitate to the objective...and also why you'll never be able to really love Nietzsche, you love your bad interpretation of Nietzsche. Though...perhaps I'm wrong and am only exaggerating. I don't know absolutely, so I require a certain faith to say that...doesn't mean Im any less adamant...

You know what such a statement does allow for though? You to prove me wrong. Faith motivates beyond despair... and that's a beautiful thing. Absolute knowledge is objective... Wasn't there an amateur physicist lately who remodel classic physics? Just cause a model works, doesn't make it the only one.

If you want to change my evaluation, then offer something more.

Not less...

Like T Clark and Count Timothy offered me enough thought provoking material that did alter my evaluation.

I did admit there was some ambiguity due to the simplicity of my syllogism, such that it's easily equivocated.

The more nuanced understanding is the quantum of force behind faith isn't necessarily diminished just because the % between faith/knowledge about a particular topic shifts in percent towards the gradiant of knowledge. It means the percentage of reliance on faith decreases, but not necessarily the quantum of force behind faith decreases.

Those In Power have no ability to stop women from working, I believe. — fdrake

What happened after women joined the work force? The people in power raised prices to match a double income.

Now a family is expected to have high double incomes to be fairly stable... now both the parents are absent the child's life... and the childreb have to be watched by people who really don't give a fuck cause they're watching 20 other screaming shitting lasses and lads...

My sister found her child face down and unconscious at a daycare when she went to pick him up. Kid has a brain injury now.

Jobs were practically made for men to become more complete... because ancient man looked at women and evaluated they have menstruation to show they've reached adulthood. Jobs and all that shit were for men to become more complete, to become adults...and serve their society. Women were intrinsically complete...

That women want to find a purpose other than baby machine is one thing... but Nietzsche warned about the masculinization of the feminine instincts further... and now Transgenderism is popping off (vast majority of which is mtf) because the feminine instinct of humanity is so repressed...that it's having a spasmodic release of built up tension...

Slave morality idolizes the masculine in this way.

I think if anyone takes faith and converts it as "a known truth" then they're guilty of Hume's Guillotine.

This sounds like knowledge (science/reason) has to be on a different scale than a faith would — Fire Ologist

Perhaps for some, but not me. I can understand why the religious type lie to themselves about faith. It's a prominent feature of their thought so they want it to count for something more. Faith in faith.

The real friction between reason and faith manifests later with Protestantism, where salvation by faith alone — Wayfarer

Could be the case a few influenced my decision, but I never care to ask someone their religion because it's something that matters 0 to me. But I feel like a lot of people think because they have faith in faith they think it's knowledge. They find it some form of reasoned knowledge... the more knowledge you have of something the less faith you have in it because the more you know...

A scientist doesn't need to have faith in his model after showing it works...he knows it does.

Bet most the religious here serve themselves not their God...

Brcause their knowledge of themselves is greater than their faith in their God.

"God thinks and I obey?" More like "I think and it obeys," after the death of God...

Yes. Even in science, man places much faith.

Though, to be fair, the mischievousness in me wanted to say "No" to create absurdity...

Basically I'm saying you either have absolute faith in something everything less than absolute faith brings some knowledge with it.

Having absolute faith in God requires nothing more than belief. Having faith doesn't even require routine or doctrine...

The more knowledge I have the less faith I have in the statement yet.

Know how counting cards works?

Even a 5% margin of error is requires great faith in a machine that RPMS 10000 times a minute...

"NO I KNOW MY WIFE WOULD NEVER CHEAT!" *He shrieked in despair after hearing the news that she did just that* Well obviously there was a gap in the knowledge... that gap was faith... that the man lied to himself about there being a gap in knowledge...

A large dose of knowledge makes the certainty of faith FEEL and APPEAR like knowledge...Hence St. Thomas thinks "nor can truth ever contradict truth." His gap in knowledge (faith) appears to him as knowledge... sadly the truth of Paradox were far before his time, and something he willingly ignored, probably to maintain his faith that truth never contradicts itself... I don't know, I can't ask him, so I suppose I will just have to have faith in my opinion that he willingly ignored the truth of paradox so he could say "truth never contradicts truth"

[But if I say I knew for sure ... that's] Hume's Guillotine — DifferentiatingEgg

So basically we end up with knowledge on Paradoxes and Knowledge on St. Thomas, to make an "educated guess."

But if I got to ask him, and fill that gap... well, I would know then wouldn't I?

Faith is not opposite reason — Fire Ologist

Yall in that Dialectical thought of antithesis of values...

Also

The more I know/understand that my wife won't cheat on me the less faith I have in her? This seems bizarre to me. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It seems Bizarre to you that the more you know your wife won't cheat on you the less faith you have in believing that she wont? You don't even comprehend what I'm saying with that example.

So everything you believe in is a known fact? If I know my wife won't cheat on me then it's no longer a question about faith... because it's known.

It's bizarre to me that you equivocate beliefs with knowing...

Just because I believe I have the biggest penis in the world doesn't mean plenty of others don't dwarf me in reality.

Knowing I have the biggest penis in the world entails something completely different than just believing I do...

I can make shit up about you right here on the fly and believe it...

Just because you fall into the trap that Christians are like "your belief is your personal relationship with God" doesn't mean you know God...

Do you collect Faith or Intelligence in war? For the purpose of knowing the plans of your adversary?

After a scientist has faith in his work and makes a discovery... and can recreate said experiment...sorry but... it's no longer faith but repeatable knowledge...

He no longer needs faith it will work... he knows it does work...

The reason a Christian feels faith is knowing is because they attempt to relay every perspective through the "womb of being"... "faith in God is knowing cause God is everything."

"NO I KNOW MY WIFE WOULD NEVER CHEAT!" *He shrieked in despair after hearing the news that she did just that* Well obviously there was a gap in the knowledge... that gap was faith... that the man lied to himself about there being a gap in knowledge...

A large dose of knowledge makes the certainty of faith FEEL and APPEAR like knowledge...Hence St. Thomas thinks "nor can truth ever contradict truth." His gap in knowledge (faith) appears to him as knowledge... sadly the truth of Paradox were far before his time, and something he willingly ignored, probably to maintain his faith that truth never contradicts itself... I don't know, I can't ask him, so I suppose I will just have to have faith in my opinion that he willingly ignored the truth of paradox so he could say "truth never contradicts truth"

Hume's Guillotine

So, St. Thomas's Five Ways demonstrate a lack of faith and are contrary to Church doctrine? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not exactly, a quantum of force cannot actually be weaker than it is... you and T Clark have made me consider my perspective a bit more, and what I'm coming to is that ... but say St. Thomas's Quantum of Force in faith is already this grand mountain... we can say his Faith is still as strong... but say instead of St. Thomas being 100% faith-based, he's 60% Faith and 40% logic and perhaps a lack of clarifying here has caused all sorts of equivocations, perhaps of myself even... due to the quantum of force not actually being lesser... just because a persons intellect may be divided in a 60/40 split doesn't necessarily mean that because a persons thought moves to 55/45 split that the quantum of force behind faith grew less... but that the quantum of force behind reason grew more...
there IS a nuance to it... so for some people a quantum of force of faith may not be phased by reason...

Not a blanket quality for all or even most though...

And knowing is not an act of the intellect? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just because two things are an act of another doesn't mean you can equivocate them... unless you do so under the umbrella term, which is a hybrid of a multiplicity...

Like Pooping and Thinking... both an act of the body.

faith is not achieved through reason." However, it involves the intellect and understanding — Count Timothy von Icarus

Believing is an act of the intellect — Count Timothy von Icarus

Believing, not knowing...

that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason — Count Timothy von Icarus

Submission to faith... a faith that happens to run parallel to reason, just as male and female are parallel antagonist...

Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge

You realize all your quotes are about the difference between Faith and Knowledge/Reason...

Faith seeks understanding

No it doesn't.

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.

The above sentence is great because the author obviously forgot that paradox "this sentence is a lie." Because his faith was stronger than his knowledge about Truth and its paradoxes... Also a showing that Faith doesn't seek understanding... otherwise author would understand Truth is Enmeshed in Deception... via Paradox.

The OP has a view of faith that is only consistent with an austere sort of fideism — Count Timothy von Icarus

Faith is relaint on faith alone... Faith = Faith. When was Faith equated to Knowing? I don't know of any meaning of the word that suggests knowing.

Just because people here are used to their two to three quarters faith acting as absolute faith doesn't mean they're correct about Faith... Most "Christians" today aren't even 3/4ths Christian...

Nietzsche discusses Christ in AC, and regardless of the madness of Christ he discusses... we can see from AC 33, all the qualities of Jesus that Nietzsche utilized in his equation of the Ubermensch. So with Jesus as the basis of the Ubermensch and Amor Fati as a style of the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ. Can compared AC 39 with GS 276 or is it 271 (the one ob Amor Fati). I can't say I agree with Deleuze on that.

Nah

I think the confusion here is thinking knowledge is more powerful than belief. — Fire Ologist

Nah one end of the spectrum is Faith, the other is Rationalism. I believe the mis understanding is on your end. It's a sliding scale. The more of one you need the less of the other you require.

Meh, we will have to disagree from nuance in perspective... Sure sure ...

The most careful ask to-day: “How is man to be maintained?” Zarathustra however asketh, as the first and only one: “How is man to be SURPASSED?”

The Superman, I have at heart; THAT is the first and only thing to me—and NOT man — Zarathustra

But what is Man to Nietzsche?

Zarathustra defines as strictly as possible what to him alone "man" can be,—not a subject for love nor yet for pity—Zarathustra became master even of his loathing of man: man is to him a thing unshaped, raw material, an ugly stone that needs the sculptor's chisel... — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Away from God and Gods did this will allure me; what would there be to create if there were—Gods!

But to man doth it ever impel me anew, my fervent creative will; thus impelleth it the hammer to the stone.

Ah, ye men, within the stone slumbereth an image for me, the image of my visions! Ah, that it should slumber in the hardest, ugliest stone!

Now rageth my hammer ruthlessly against its prison. From the stone fly the fragments: what’s that to me?

I will complete it: for a shadow came unto me—the stillest and lightest of all things once came unto me!

The beauty of the Superman came unto me as a shadow. Ah, my brethren! Of what account now are—the Gods to me!— — Zarathustra

What is the only time in which Nietzsche points directly to the Superman becoming reality?

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man.  — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Or more precisely "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet" to over come the animal compulsion to destroy but rather suffer with them from them... IE to "Suffer the fool," said Mr. Z "not pity the fool, Mr. T!"...

And the final nail in the coffin is from solving the riddles from The Vision and the Enigma within TSZ... we can clearly see the transformed being is one who overcomes their bad conscience, their shame and guilt...

And verily, what I saw, the like had I never seen. A young shepherd did I see, writhing, choking, quivering, with distorted countenance, and with a heavy black serpent hanging out of his mouth.

Had I ever seen so much loathing and pale horror on one countenance? He had perhaps gone to sleep? Then had the serpent crawled into his throat—there had it bitten itself fast.

My hand pulled at the serpent, and pulled:—in vain! I failed to pull the serpent out of his throat. Then there cried out of me: “Bite! Bite!

Its head off! Bite!”—so cried it out of me; my horror, my hatred, my loathing, my pity, all my good and my bad cried with one voice out of me.—

Ye daring ones around me! Ye venturers and adventurers, and whoever of you have embarked with cunning sails on unexplored seas! Ye enigma-enjoyers!

Solve unto me the enigma that I then beheld, interpret unto me the vision of the lonesomest one!

For it was a vision and a foresight:—WHAT did I then behold in parable? And WHO is it that must come some day?

WHO is the shepherd into whose throat the serpent thus crawled? WHO is the man into whose throat all the heaviest and blackest will thus crawl?

—The shepherd however bit as my cry had admonished him; he bit with a strong bite! Far away did he spit the head of the serpent—: and sprang up.—

No longer shepherd, no longer man—a transfigured being, a light-surrounded being, that LAUGHED! Never on earth laughed a man as HE laughed! — Zarathustra

So, I think, I'll have to go with the greater nuance of my understanding...

And by the way... WHO IS THE SHEPHERD?... Well none other than ...

A light hath dawned upon me. Not to the people is Zarathustra to speak, but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be the herd’s herdsman and hound! — Zarathustra

He says this after hiding his "dead" "companion" or rather a metaphor for Nietzsche himself...the transformation of himself in his opposite. The following is a further example...

People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist... Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Fatality § 3

A mighty perhaps, what is more religious than a binding to ones own evaluations? How else should one evaluate?

Nah, I just have a stricter identity to my understanding of the word faith.

Argument, discourse, proof—these are all means of understanding. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Understanding is knowing. It's why all great leaders are natural psychologist.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth

Exactly the human spirit is the rope between two opposites faith and reason...

Though I suppose I could have clarified "absolute" faith. The more you require reason and knowledge for God the less faith you have.

Another translation of this sentence could be "You have to be crazy to believe God exists." Because I don't really know what "belief without reason-based thought" means. — Fire Ologist

Crazy is a deep end of that, from Foucault's Madness and Civilization pg 78/79:

"Christian unreason was relegated by Christians themselves into the margins of a reason that had become identical with the wisdom of God incarnate. After Port-Royal, men would have to wait two centuries-until Dostoievsky and Nietzsche-for Christ to regain the glory of his madness, for scandal to recover its power as revelation, for unreason to cease being merely the public shame of reason... Further: Christ did not merely choose to be surrounded by lunatics; he himself chose to pass in their eyes for a mad-man, thus experiencing, in his incarnation, all the sufferings of human misfortune. Madness thus became the ultimate form, the final degree of God in man's image."

That’s not the question on the table. — T Clark

Fair enough, I see your point now that you're less ambiguous with it other than "prove you're smarter than." I'll ruminate over it and get back to you. But know what will likely come is a deeper nuance of my perspective that bridges with yours because that's currently already underway, but it will take time to express. It will likely be in the realm of something like why Nietzsche considers science a morality of resessentiment for most practitioners rather than people truly passionate about it.

Minds and words intersect at more than just language and communication. As Quine puts it in Pursuit of Truth: "in psychology, one may or may not be a behavioralist, but in language one has no choice..." Words are made with individual letters and accents that tyrannize the rhyme and rhythm of their form and flow. Their meaning in a community of words is ultimately determined by several factors intrinsic to the word, its definition superficially changed by external factors. And every word has its own set of forces behind it that triggers a set of total receptors in the brain.

I had perceived this quite some time before I even started delving into Nietzsche, let alone Deleuze, whom details that every mind has a set of total forces in possession of it... one can reflect and ruminate upon something from a different set of "total receptors" (total forces) just as one can approach a problem from a new total set of receptors that make up a different perspective. Normally these changes are gradual, and a when another person finally notices and declares "you're a completely different person than you were when we first ...!"

Well, one can learn to do this at a much more rapid pace. One can master such a skill, just as they can master self-abnegation, as self-abnegation is the first step. It's not that you are identified with this other, but you don the mask of its forces. Especially after getting acquainted with Schizo Analysis and Rhizomatic Thought mastery is relatively simple.

people believe they ought to believe — 180 Proof

Exactly, so believe... no need to try and to hide behind rationalism. That's my point, not everything needs to be. I firmly believe more than one mind can occupy a body... I dont give a fuck what others believe about that...

The only presupposition I’ve made is that you don’t know enough about religious doctrine to make a meaningful statement about it. — T Clark

... you asked me to overcome Aquinas, not you. That was towards Aquinas. Hence why I responded to your quote "prove you're smarter than Aquinas" with that...