Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

A devotee of Ra may have offered the axiom that Ra is god, and that it is self evident as the sun in the sky....Axioms do change, they're often modified by the proponents of hardcore axiomatic reasoning (and very often in the service of apologetics) to fit an argument that fails them, but could work much better if a better axiom were offered. Look at all of the variations of the god axiom and how they have developed over time. See what I did here, I invoked something which can be demonstrated by evidence as a criticism of a concept, rather than responding with a concept.

As I mentioned in my post, the idea of an axiom is something that must be accepted or not in and of itself, and the definition of an axiom would state that these things do not change, but they clearly do, and have. And again, many things that were once defined as "axiomatic" have lost that status as more information has become available to us. This is a great example of "no one gives a shit what can be imagined". "Axioms" have been imagined, now lets put them to the test, let's see if they are anything more than ideas, and lets see if they even live up to the definition of the idea.

By definition, axioms cannot change. They are simply true. Everything is inferred by these axioms. You, right now, are following the axiom that reasoning is the source of all truth. You can't apply reason to that axiom, because it is assumed to be true.

Axioms have no value when analyzed against each other. They are simply imagined to be true. Which brings us back to the fact that we know nothing.

I will say, however, that some axioms are more necessary than others. Such as the axiom: I exist, and the axiom: reasoning is the source of all truth.