I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

By the way, EvF: the reason my reply to you didn't come before this post, is that I just spent at least 20 minutes writing a reply, and then my browser crashed. I will re-write it as soon as my frustration over my computer allows me to.

No problem mate, I myself have (amazingly!) took like 2 or 3 days off from these forums myself. Been busy with stuff. I don't expect immediate replies. And if you're just being polite then that's no problem too.

Nothing is wrong with subjectivity. Something is wrong with the epistemic structure of atheism.

How exactly does atheism have an epistemic structure?

No, I did not exclude any options because I hadn't conceived of them, but because the nature of the matter itself mandates an option which lives up to particular criteria which subjective minds do not live up to.

Okay then. So you're not claiming absolute proof there right?

Of course you say that neither exist, because you are an atheist.

Yes, I say both objective morality and God don't exist because I know of no evidence for either.

By bringing the reasons or grounds on which people accepted a certain worldview into the analysis of the epistemic structure of the worldview, you are committing something like the genetic fallacy, since we are not dealing with an evidential question, but one of "which theory fits the data" - of logical coherence.

If it's subjective that doesn't mean all is equal. It doesn't mean that someone in a nuthouse is just as logical and intelligent as a scientific genius, for example.

Now, because it's all subjective; the nutcase could think the scientist was the nutty one and that he was in fact the genius, and he couldn't be proven wrong - I just don't think many people world agree, with good reason. By what we mean by the words "Nutcase" and "Genius" I'd argue that the logical and intelligent scientist was the smarter one and not the guy in the nuthouse who did not demonstrate such genius.

I understand you maybe either simply can't comprehend this, or maybe you are just not willing to accept it.

Well, I just find your argument gratuitous. If indeed there definitely is no other way that subjecitve minds can be transcended, than having an objective mind, and that would indeed have to be God...I find this completely gratuitous regardless of if it's true or not becasue there's no evidence for God or objective morality.

[...]so it's not just me, the "big bad" theist who is talking nonsense.

For the record I certaintly didn't call you as such and certaintly have never intended to imply such a thing. I don't see it that way at all.

I'm not anti-theist, I'm only anti-theism. The difference? I hate the beliefs and the belief system cos I'd rather they weren't around, but I don't hate the theists because I pretty much hate no one and blame no one, regardless of their "beliefs".

It seems you are appealing to a transcendent factor. It seems you think that, "the truth is that 2+2=4 regardless of what any subjective minds think about it".

"2+2=4" is true by definition. '2 and 2' is the same as four when put together. Now, on the matter of the definitions, that's all subjective yes. These are just lables, it's all in the mind. So what? Mathmatics is a way of measuing things.

"2+2" doesn't actually exist outside the mind, in computers or down on paper, etc, etc...it's just a way of measuing what actually does exist, or rather - a way of us measuing what we percieve to exist.

Indeed it is, and it's exactly the kind of epistemological problem the epistemic structure of an atheist worldview gives. Because you have only subjective minds.

Your view has the same problem then mate. You may not believe it's all subjective but there's still no evidence that I know of for absolute objective truth, objective moraltiy, etc, etc... - so you can believe what you like but we all live in the same world! I know of no evidence for an "objective mind".

Between the scientist and the psychofreak, you don't have a nr. 3, transcendent objective factor to appeal to, "the objective truth regardless of what subjective minds think of it". You don't have anything outside of the two subjective minds in question to appeal to, except other subjective minds.

True, and I'd pick the scientist to trust lol. I think I'd have to be a psychofreak myself to pick the psychofreak!

I still completely fail to see why on earth any of this has to be objective, when we live in one world and whichever it is it makes no practical difference. I know of no evidence for any absolute objective truths so I don't believe in such a thing.

And then the subjective convention that 2+2=5 is just as true insofar as it is thought to be so, as 2+2=4 is true insofar as it is thought to be so.

This is semantic though. Cos whether there's an oibjective mind in this world or not, in practice it's the same. Either way I'd personally, subjectively, think it's indeed more rational to believe when you add 'two and two together' you get four and not five. As it happens I know of no eivdence for absolute objective truth.

And truth is only true insofar as it is thought to be so if it is not true because of a transcending, objective factor, wholly independent of what is thought about the truth.

Ok, let's take existence as an example.

By definition, something either exists or doesn't. So it is a fact whether 'X' (whatever it is to represent) exists or not. The evidence or lack thereof for 'X' is subjective.....but it's still an objective matter whether 'X' exists or not simply because the question is an objective one by definition. By definition 'X either exists or doesn't'. Whatever we mean when we say 'objective', that's an objective question in the sense, indeed, by definition 'X either exists or doesn't'.

Yes the evidence for X is ultimatately subjective, any strong body of evidencve for 'X' that is thought as 'objective', the whole consensus, is ultimately subjective, yes....but who cares? Why does that matter? At all? It seems gratutious semantics to me, untill there's actually any evidence for any "objective mind".

Say, subject 1 ("Scientist") thinks that 2+2=5. According to his notion of truth, this is true. Subject 2 (say, "Psychofreak") thinks that 2+2=4. Vice versa. If there are only subjective minds, no objective truth existing apart from subjective minds, then what factor do you appeal to in order to decide who is right and who is wrong?

My sanity?

Who has the truth and who has not? Since there are only subjective minds, you can only appeal to another subjective factor, another subjective notion of truth, originating in another subjective mind. But you have not, thereby, epistemologically achieved anything more than subject 1 (Scientist) who thought that 2+2=5.

Well mate, life isn't always rational, but it indeed can be. This is all experienced in my life despite the fact I know of no evidence for any "objective mind(s)" - I don't see how any of this effects me. Untill there's any evidence for any so-called "objective minds", I consider the argument a semantic and gratuitous one.

When I subjecitvely choose, who I subjectively believe to be rational, over who subjectively - at least to me- appears to be a psychofreak, yes I am not ashamed by that, no I don't see why on earth I'd need any 'objective minds' in my life... And yes, as I have said - I find your argument to be gratuitous untill there's any evidence for this "Objective mind", this "God" that you speak of.

And yes, I will subjectively judge what is evidence just like everyone else does. I can only think with my mind. Yes it's subjective, so what?

That is the problem, and it is just one of many incoherencies the epistemic structure of atheism necessarily leads to.

Atheism=Not believing in God and having no religion, and it's not a belief system.

So I wonder what on earth this 'epistemic struture of atheism' you speak of is? Could you define it precisely?

What my epistemological argument then concludes, is that atheism is a theory which "does not fit the data" (in my metaphor), or in preciser words, a worldview with an incoherent epistemic structure which contradicts and refutes itself. So it does not pass the test of logical coherence, before the question of evidentiality/what is evident.

I fail to see how not believing in a Supernatural being when you know of no such evidence, is self-contradictory.

By what logic do you seem to believe that it's necessarily that truth isn't understood entirely subjectively?

EvF