Classical Logic

[Statler Waldorf]

And here are "Matt Slick's credentials" from his own website.

#

Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA. 1987
#

Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA. 1991
#

Public Speaker on apologetics, cults, and Christian doctrine, 1985 to present
#

Prison Fellowship Volunteer, 1991-1997
#

Christian radio co-host, 1996-1998

He is, in short, nothing more than a bible-thumping asshole....there seems to be a lot of that going around, who will tell you anything you want to hear because he is a con man like all the rest.

Understand that when you post gibberish it will be checked out to determine its source and I suspect that you can come up with no better sources than this turkey,

I couldn't help but notice you did not address the issue. You just resorted to Ad Hominem attacks, as if this proves anything. A very lacking post.

---

You understand nothing about classical logic, so don't pretend you are smart by copy-pasting the Laws of thought in here. As to Matt Slick's rant, well its a bandwagon of fallacies, starting in baseless assertions, and ending in beating up a strawman. It seems to me all you apologetics have a minimum requirement of use of 3 fallacies per day.

I guess you and matt slick are in possession of the absolute truth huh?

I couldn't help but notice that your post was completely void of specifics. Pretty much a bunch of meaningless assertions. Another lacking post.

---

So how do atheists account for truth?

Oh dear, yet another apologist trying to shift the burden of proof:

Asserting only "I do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence", I make no claims, offer no answers,and need account for exactly nothing. That honour belongs to those who make claims about truth.

As a skeptic who is also an atheist, my position is as follows:

Logic 101: Logic does not guarantee truth. Hence ,I also demand evidence before I will accept a proposition.

I reject the notion of absolute truths,except in the abstract. Science claims no absolutes,nor have I run across any so far.

I do not believe in gods. I need not account for nor prove or falsify anything.In asserting 'there is a God" or" I believe there is a god you attract the burden of proof. God cannot be reasoned into or out of existence,his existence can only be proved or falsified. So far, no one has managed either,and THAT is why I need to assert "I do not believe"

Is this an absolute statement? Haha. You are trying to make a logical argument about logic. Circular argument. Post is lacking.