I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

And atheism is not a worldview. Unless you consider 'the view of absolutely anybody who does not believe in God' to be a worldview.

A worldview means a view of the world. Any person who is living has a view of the world.

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

It is an atheistic worldview, insofar as it does not affirm the existence of God. I am not making generalisations about any other part of the worldview, than what is signified by "atheist".

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.

Exactly.

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

I have said more often, "atheistic worldviews", signifying that all they have in common is the non-affirmation of God's existence. "The atheist worldview" only signifies a worldview which explicitly does not affirm the existence of God, in other words, exactly what is required to live up to the definition of "atheism", and nothing more.

You can't apply any attributes to atheism by definiton, other tahn non-belief in God.

And that's exactly the only defining attribute I have predicated of atheistic worldviews, namely the non-affirmation of God's existence, nothing more than can be summarised by the word "atheist".

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'...

Atheism is not a belief system. I never said that it was. I was myself annoyed when some ignorant Christians called it that, when I was an atheist, and I did not commit this mistake.

Whether a thing is a belief system or not, is not the point with the term "worldview". The term "worldview" refers to the view of the world that a person has, and any person has such a view. It refers to the lenses through which we interpret reality.

An atheist interprets reality through Godless lenses, which implies an atheist worldview, namely one without God. That has epistemic consequences, namely the consequence of non affirmation of Gods existence in the epistemic structure of an atheists worldview.

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

Of course not! I have not shown that atheists do not believe in it, because they obviously do in praxis. It is exactly in theory I have been dealing with, because atheism is a designation referring to the theoretical position of a persons non-affirmation of God's existence.

What I have shown is that the epistemic structure of an atheistic worldview, or in otherwords, any godless epistemic structure, is unable to perform that which atheists themselves require of it - the objective validity and rational integrity of logical truths, for instance.

Which is entirely different from the obvious contradictions of exactly that epistemic structure which atheists commit all the time.

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.

That's not what I meant. I did not mean that atheists ontologically interpret reality without God, or that Christians ontologically do so. I meant that atheists epistemically interpret reality without God, like Christians epistemically interpret reality with God.

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.

Objective truth does not "support God somehow". I am not arguing from objective truth->God, in which case I should have presented evidence for objective truth (which would be literally, an epistemological impossibility). A misunderstanding of the argument, yet again.

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?

We are not speaking about the ontological demonstration of objective truth. It's not like atheists have refuted the ontological possibility for objective truth. They have rejected, epistemically, the ontological requirements for objective truth. That does not mean that their epistemic structure shows the truth. In fact, it means the opposite, since their epistemic structure cannot support such a truth, because it reduces truth to the inclinations of individual brain chemistry.

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

I would not be able to ever pretend to have demonstrated anything logically, if logical truth and objectivity, the authority of the very standards of argumentation we use to distinguish between fallacy and truth, is not first coherently integrally basic in my epistemic structure.

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?

I can logically assert that objective truth exists, if it is integral and basic to my epistemic structure that it so does.

Whereas, one cannot logically assert that objective truth does not exist, because then the law of noncontradiction is not objectively true, and then the claim itself is just as false as it is true.

you haven't demonstrated objectivity in anywway. You say don't need to and that's a fallacy.

No, it's not a fallacy. It's exactly you who are committing a fallacy by thinking you can take a leap from subjective notion of evidence of objective truth->actual objective truth.

None of the professional atheists rebuttals of TAG have built on this, because it is a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcenden...nce_of_God

You can only go from subjective notion of evidence of objective truth->subjective notion of objective truth. Only if objective truth is taken as properly basic belief in the sense of belief in it's origin outside subjective discourse, in an objective mind, then you can achieve objective truth.

You cannot deny it and maintain logical discourse with another subjective person, just like you cannot have logical discourse which denies the law of contradiction, because then the position you are advocating is as false as it is true. And that logical law is also subjective and therefore logical discourse impossible, without the objective transcendence of logical order being integrate in your epistemic structure, as a premise for any other logical proposition.

The issue is there, that the proposition "the law of contradiction is false" refutes itself, because then the falsity of the proposition is still the case, and it equals to affirming the truth of it. It is a self-refuting proposition, much like the failure to affirm the existence of God.

---

How do you explain the fact that the Earth and rocks from our solar sytem have been dated through radioactive isotopes to be 4.5 billion years old? If you don't know what an isotope is or anything about dating a rock then don't answer. I've yet to ask a Christian that question and get one that even knew what I was talking about.

I'm a Geology major...don't give me a BS answer because I'll eat you alive.

There is no need to "explain it", if explaining it entails refuting it. I am not from an evangelical American protestant sect, and so, I don't adhere to the perverse "literalist" rape of Genesis that the six days are literal days, and the thousand years are literal thousand years, rather than idioms for signifying aeons, which I consider the hermeneutically and exegetically correct interpretation.