Argument against atheism

[Darwinning]

Darwinning:
logical argument:

all men are mortal
socrates is a man

therefore
socrates is mortal

Oh! My First Inference ™. Sure let's play this game.

"all men are mortal" - Probably true. Cannot be confirmed completely.
"socrates is a man" - If true, at least "was" not "is". Probably right also.
"therefore socrates is mortal" - Probably true, because the assumptions seem sound.

Note how the last statement refers to the previous claims.

Awesome! Next one.

If it is a bird
Then it has wings
It is a bird

Therefor it has wings

"if it is a bird then it has wings" - Probably, but not by definition. A Kiwi has almost no wings, but is a bird. I consider it entirely possible there can be birds without wings. Also, I think Big Bird has hands, not wings.
"it is a bird" - If you say so. I do not understand how you can be so certain, but alright.
"therefore it has wings" - Probable, but not by definition.

Note that, because I cannot fully confirm the first premise, I cannot fully accept your conclusion. The logic might work, but that does not make the conclusion true.

My argument is based on premises and conclusions, like all arguments. those premises you can accept or reject, but whether or not you accept or reject my premises has no bearing on the logical validity of the argument.

It has bearing on the validity of the conclusion.

You are being intellectually dishonest saying that I have not made an argument...

Well, let's examine your latest post, shall we?

Logically, a belief that objective reality exists then is contrary to atheism.
Therefore, it is illogical for atheists to believe in objective morality

Logically, squares are round
Therefore, kiwi.

Hmm. See the idea with inference is that the statements relate to each other. I fail to see the relation between objective reality and objective morality. Also, I think the premise is false.

Let's try your initial argument.

A belief that value judgements are true necessitates consciousness as a primary function of the universe, rather than a purely mechanical universe.

A belief that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, that consciousness pervades everything and is true apart from time or space, that things are in fact "real", that some things are inherently bad or good, right or wrong, true or not true, would be correctly termed a belief in "God".

I could probably go along with the first statement, but you are equating moral reality (good or bad) with objective reality (true or not true) in the second. I would like to see some motivation for why you think that is so.

If consciouness is a primary function of the universe; if there is a particle that peervades everything, if any of our observations are actually correct, that particle or consciousness would be best described as a singular and constant thing rather than multiple different things. If consciousness exists outside the sphere of humanity, and is inherent rather than an emergent function of complex systems, that necessitates a belief in what would be correctly termed a monotheistic deity.

I see no reason to assume or believe the initial premise, so I disregard anything that follows. It's science, bitches!

A belief that this "God" does not exist is illogical. it is committing a fallicy of ignorance and contrary to all scientific observation and acheivment.

Does not follow from the previous claims (even if they were true). This is a baseless assumption you make that is part of the reason so many of us are offended. You are assuming we are illogical without providing any motivation or evidence for that claim. We don't like that.

A belief that objective truth does not exist is a belief that nothing actually exists outside of our own consciousness. That the only reason things are real is due to our perceptions and out brain, chemical reactions, neuroscience. A truely atheistic world view necessitates that gravity does not "exist", laws of physics are mere conscious observations that have no inherent truth besides that which humans ascribe them. Atheism can not coexist in a sceintifically objective worldview.

There you go confusing truth and morality again. Please make sure the assumptions in your argument are consistent.

Also, please consider that there may be a difference between the existence of objective truth and a person being able to know said truth.

Atheism is a belief that things are not real. Most atheists, with their limited intellects (which usually surpass the intellects of their theist counterparts) believe that they attack or disbelieve iin "God" when in reality they are simply attacking religion.

You have no idea how offensive that paragraph is.

Reality is not subject to the limits of human knowledge

That actually made me laugh out loud. Think it over a few times and then provide me with some evidence that proves beyond a doubt that you know that there are things beyond what you know. Silly person.


You "argument" is not an argument through inference, because the statements do not logically follow from each other and thus are merely baseless claims. Please fix that and then we'll talk.

Constructing this response took more time than I was initially willing to invest. I presume that is why many of the other posters on this forum have resorted to shorthand responses like "word-salad". I think what they mean is something along the lines of the above.

---

a belief that rules of logic actaully exists neecessitates a belief in something that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity.

Why?

I think because he assumes objective truth and objective morality are the same thing. But it's hard to tell with all the word-salad.