I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

What happened with the earlier posts in this thread, about TAG (as cited at the bottom of this post), was that I got you to admit that the epistemic structure of atheism allows no objective truth to exist

You've failed to show that atheism itself even has a epistemic structure, is a belief system, or a worldview. Atheism is what happens when a group of people get together who don't believe in God. So although there are common similarities, the definition is very very wide. So to speak of 'the epistemic structure of atheism' is to speak of 'the epistemic structure of anyone who doesn't believe in God'...

And you have not shown that all atheists don't believe in objective truth.

within a worldview, and their epistemic relations to each other and to other epistemes and epistemic attitudes in the worldview of the person.

And atheism is not a worldview. Unless you consider 'the view of absolutely anybody who does not believe in God' to be a worldview. In which case, it's very vague and you can't exactly talk about about what it's 'like', so I don't see how it's a worldview. You can't apply any attributes to atheism by definiton, other tahn non-belief in God.

Not believing in God is not a 'belief system', and how exactly is 1 mere absence of a belief a 'worldview'?

Atheism =not believing in God, plus and minus anything else. Not exactly a 'view', anything else is just correlation and not causation. Not part of the definition.

You can talk about an atheist's worldview, but I don't see how you can accurately talk about an atheist worldview.

How exactly does atheism have an epistemic structure?

Any worldview has an epistemic structure, whether the worldview be atheistic or Christian. To say that atheistic worldviews are exempt from having an epistemic structure, would literally equal saying that atheists do not interpret reality without God

As far as I'm concerned you do the same though. You interpret reality without God too because he doesn't exist. The fact you believe he does is irrelevant. An no - I don't claim to 'know' this.

It does no good to say I have to establish the logic before the evidence. Because whether I do or don't, you've still failed to show objective truth exists, and that it supports 'God' somehow.

Atheism refutes even the possibility of it's own objective truth.

If that's the case, then so does theism - because the fact you and other theists alike believe in 'objective truth' (at least in the 'absolute' sense - the only sense you seem to accept it), doesn't mean you've in anyway demonstrated that it actually exists. Because you haven't, have you?

If does no good to say 'oh but I don't need to do that because the logic has to be set up before you can even speak of evidence' - because you still can't pretend to have shown that objective truth exists. How on earth does it? (At least in the absolute sense you will seeminly only except it, as I said).

There would be no difference in degree of truth since there would be no outside truth apart from what is thought to be true, making the contradiction of them just as true insofar as it is thought to be.

Show me how logic can be any more logical if it can be shown to absolute and objective as you say. We live in this one world, and it's just as logical by our experience whether it's absolutely 'objective' or not...it just so happens that you and everyone else it seems, from my perspective - have completely failed to demonstrate that there is objective truth.

If it's ridiculous for me to ask for evidence of objective truth itself, then that doesn't mean you can logically assert that it somehow exists, How does it?

Though of course I don't accept this subjectivism, just to support that Christianity is true

How exactly does ultimately objective truth exist then?

You have not escaped the subjectivism.

I don't need to - how have you demonstrated the existence of ultimately objective truth exactly?

Dude, all I can say about the rest of your post really is...you keep banging on and on about the flaws of my 'subjectivism' but you haven't demonstrated objectivity in anywway. You say don't need to and that's a fallacy. But I fail to see how on earth ulitmately objective truth exists, that's the thing. And so I do think you need to demonstrate it before it's rational to believe in it.

That word 'believe' is the key...

Because to ask for evidence for objective truth may indeed be a fallacy, may indeed be impossible...but whether there can be evidence for it or not, if there isn't any - why believe in it?

It does no good to say 'Oh, it's a fallacy to ask for evidence for objective truth so I'll just go ahead and believe in it anyway' - why believe in it? How exactly does it exist?

EvF