(October 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Atheism isn't supposed to account for rationality, atheism is nothing more than disbelief in God.

Atheism can be more. Sometimes it is defined as denial of the existence of God, not just disbelief in God. Those atheists amongst us who deny the existence of God must fall back on the same combination of reason and emotion that theists do to arrive at this conclusion.

I'm interested in this idea of "accounting for rationality" and "accounting for truth". If your position is that the lack of evidence for the existence of God means that you cannot believe in God, this means that you require evidence for a thing to be a crucial requirement for believing in it. If that's the case then you need to account for the rationality by which you arrive at that requirement. How do you do that?

If you're the sort of atheist who denies the existence of God - i.e. you say God does not exist, you cannot do this on the basis of any kind of evidence of his non-existence, because there isn't any. Therefore you don't take the position that evidence is a requirement of belief, therefore this kind of atheist has no need to account for rationality.

Any logical laws created by God would be mind-contingent. So invoking God doesn't help at all. Maybe a form of Platonism would be more effective, but then I see no evidence for this worldview.

(October 8, 2010 at 6:51 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Thanks VOID I like the video - all these arguments for the existence of God are fallacious IMO and I'm in total agreement with AE. How people making these arguments can make those arguments beggars belief, because if they were right it would contradict the nature of God as revealed in the Christian bible. Fact is it has to be non proven and an option to be given assent rather than be known.

Too right fr0d0

Matt Slick and his cronies are pretty much destroying all the good work by Plantinga and Siwneburn etc, who know that while they cannot possibly necessitate God through logic, they can at least shoot down the objections (Such as Rowe's argument) and come off looking well thought out and highly respectable.

Matt Slick's other argument of favor is the modal form of the ontological argument for the existence of God that Plantinga developed, even though Plantinga abandoned it in the 70's.

To the original post, atheism can account for these simple facts, merely because they are, indeed, simple. You seem to imply that a god must be required for A to equal A, when in reality an object is itself merely because if an object was not itself, for example, if a chair was actually a table, then it wouldn't be a chair. It would still be itself; a table. There is no way, with or without gods to turn something into something that isn't itself, because then the new self is itself without pause.

Yes, these simple laws are logical, but they exist in logic without a god.

(October 8, 2010 at 3:20 am)Minimalist Wrote: And here are "Matt Slick's credentials" from his own website.

Quote:#

Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA. 1987
#

Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA. 1991
#

Public Speaker on apologetics, cults, and Christian doctrine, 1985 to present
#

Prison Fellowship Volunteer, 1991-1997
#

Christian radio co-host, 1996-1998

He is, in short, nothing more than a bible-thumping asshole....there seems to be a lot of that going around, who will tell you anything you want to hear because he is a con man like all the rest.

Understand that when you post gibberish it will be checked out to determine its source and I suspect that you can come up with no better sources than this turkey,

I couldn't help but notice you did not address the issue. You just resorted to Ad Hominem attacks, as if this proves anything. A very lacking post.

---

(October 8, 2010 at 3:53 am)LastPoet Wrote: You understand nothing about classical logic, so don't pretend you are smart by copy-pasting the Laws of thought in here. As to Matt Slick's rant, well its a bandwagon of fallacies, starting in baseless assertions, and ending in beating up a strawman. It seems to me all you apologetics have a minimum requirement of use of 3 fallacies per day.

I guess you and matt slick are in possession of the absolute truth huh?

I couldn't help but notice that your post was completely void of specifics. Pretty much a bunch of meaningless assertions. Another lacking post.

---

(October 8, 2010 at 4:53 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:So how do atheists account for truth?

Oh dear, yet another apologist trying to shift the burden of proof:

Asserting only "I do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence", I make no claims, offer no answers,and need account for exactly nothing. That honour belongs to those who make claims about truth.

As a skeptic who is also an atheist, my position is as follows:

Logic 101: Logic does not guarantee truth. Hence ,I also demand evidence before I will accept a proposition.

I reject the notion of absolute truths,except in the abstract. Science claims no absolutes,nor have I run across any so far.

I do not believe in gods. I need not account for nor prove or falsify anything.In asserting 'there is a God" or" I believe there is a god you attract the burden of proof. God cannot be reasoned into or out of existence,his existence can only be proved or falsified. So far, no one has managed either,and THAT is why I need to assert "I do not believe"

Is this an absolute statement? Haha. You are trying to make a logical argument about logic. Circular argument. Post is lacking.

Quote:I couldn't help but notice you did not address the issue.

Excuse me, young fellow, but am I supposed to address every crackpot theory that some xtian shithead throws out simply because he posts it? We have every right to question the motivations ( and integrity) of the con artists who sell religion to gullible fools.


Anything else?

(October 8, 2010 at 7:51 am)IceSage Wrote:

(October 8, 2010 at 2:37 am)blood_pardon Wrote: Atheism is deficient in accounting for rationality and should be dismissed as a worldview.

Despite all the other stuff I could totally demolish in your non-sense post that you are literally copying from other websites you probably recently read...

...Atheism is not a "worldview."

It's a response to the theist claim that there is a god, etc.

One atheist person could believe the world is composed of puppies and lollipops, and the other could be some hardcore scientist constantly in a lab all day.

PS. I'll probably be avoiding this thread from now on, because I've been through the whole mindfuck of this argument several times before, and have watched several Atheist Experience episodes, especially the one posted above, that make me palmface several times, so much, that I constantly need trips to the emergency room due to head trauma.

Talk a good game, play a bad one. Very cowardly too, post and run.

---

(October 13, 2010 at 12:48 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I couldn't help but notice you did not address the issue.

Excuse me, young fellow, but am I supposed to address every crackpot theory that some xtian shithead throws out simply because he posts it? We have every right to question the motivations ( and integrity) of the con artists who sell religion to gullible fools.


Anything else?

I am new to this site, not new to the topic. Well if you want to run from the issue and just go the Ad Hominem route, be my guest. Those of us who understand logic recognize you for what you really are though. Someone who is insecure in their beliefs, suppresses the Truth and is on shaky (at best) logical ground.

---

(October 11, 2010 at 7:08 pm)R-e-n-n-a-t Wrote: To the original post, atheism can account for these simple facts, merely because they are, indeed, simple. You seem to imply that a god must be required for A to equal A, when in reality an object is itself merely because if an object was not itself, for example, if a chair was actually a table, then it wouldn't be a chair. It would still be itself; a table. There is no way, with or without gods to turn something into something that isn't itself, because then the new self is itself without pause.

Yes, these simple laws are logical, but they exist in logic without a god.

That argument made no sense. "The laws of logic could not be created by God because they are the laws of logic." Huh? You did not address the issue, where di the laws of Logic come from?

Quote:I am new to this site,

I noticed. Is someone holding a gun to your head to prevent you from dealing with the issue any way you want?

Don't show up here and tell me what to do. For all I know you are nothing more than one of blood-pardon's asshole buddies.

Feel free to waste your time dealing with nonsense.

(October 13, 2010 at 1:02 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I am new to this site,

I noticed. Is someone holding a gun to your head to prevent you from dealing with the issue any way you want?

Don't show up here and tell me what to do. For all I know you are nothing more than one of blood-pardon's asshole buddies.

Feel free to waste your time dealing with nonsense.

That's why I am dealing with you right? I can already tell that you are one of the guys on here who really doesn't have any way to back his posts up so he just slings mud and pretends it proves something.