It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The purpose of Atheism destroyed and the argument explained.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I wrote a thread called Atheism destroyed, and many people got upset as they thought it was just a troll thread. Atheist have a problem with accepting the argument I am about to present because it demonstrates the internal incoherency within the atheistic world view. The purpose of the thread I wrote before was to see what atheist believed and if any of them could produce a justification for their beliefs in the laws of logic, and the belief that the past will be like the future. None did. Of course it was partially on me as I was indeed using that OP to gain more insight as to how atheist believe, but you must understand that as a Christian I come into a conversation at the disadvantage in that my beliefs are written down. Every atheist is different, but every person has a world view. Neutrality is a myth. Anyone who claims to adhere to an atheistic world view however is grounded in naturalism and reductionism. This leaves the atheist in a tough spot, because that means from their world view humans are nothing but star dust evolved into bags of flesh and chemicals that fizz. This however leaves the atheist in a tougher spot because it denies their world view from having any ultimate justification for the uniformity in nature and their use of inductive reasoning, or any of the laws of logic . Actually an atheist cannot accept any type of absolute as they have no justification for such.

In order to reason anything, a person must first start with God as He is the objective standard of Truth.

How does an atheist justify the thought that the past will act like the future?

One gentleman told me that logic justifies that the past will act like the future, but this is a logical fallacy as it is begging the question. The statement B="the past will act like the future" is presupposed when a person attempts A=inductive reasoning. Just because A presupposes B does not make B true. The atheist must justify statement B before inductive reasoning can occur.

The first thread was the scope this thread is the Shot. Atheist live there lives in the theistic world view because their sin blocks them from recognizing the God they already know. Atheist use inductive reasoning everyday. Everyone does. However only the Christian world view has an ultimate justification for uniformity in nature, inductive reasoning, the laws of logic, and absolutes in general.

Questions?




posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why is your book any more true then any other religion?




In order to reason anything, a person must first start with God as He is the objective standard of Truth.


Wow.... Whats the point of going any further if this is your square one?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm sorry but you have a very poor understanding of what an atheist is.

Question: Is the only explanation for our existence and intelligence God?
edit on 29-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




Wow.... Whats the point of going any further if this is your square one?


Thats the main point of the argument, and why I think it shuts atheism down. We can enter conversation and I can show you why the argument works.




Why is your book any more true then any other religion?


How many religions claim that the creator of the universe is the embodiment of all Truth?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No questions from me. After reading

In order to reason anything, a person must first start with God as He is the objective standard of Truth.

i read a little farther and found

only the Christian world view has an ultimate justification for uniformity in nature, inductive reasoning, the laws of logic, and absolutes in general.
and realized I have no reason to question you at all.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God or Gods. can you explain to me how this doesn't leave a person grounded to a naturalistic world view?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I wrote a thread called Atheism destroyed, and many people got upset as they thought it was just a troll thread. Atheist have a problem with accepting the argument I am about to present because it demonstrates the internal incoherency within the atheistic world view. The purpose of the thread I wrote before was to see what atheist believed and if any of them could produce a justification for their beliefs in the laws of logic, and the belief that the past will be like the future. None did. Of course it was partially on me as I was indeed using that OP to gain more insight as to how atheist believe, but you must understand that as a Christian I come into a conversation at the disadvantage in that my beliefs are written down. Every atheist is different, but every person has a world view. Neutrality is a myth. Anyone who claims to adhere to an atheistic world view however is grounded in naturalism and reductionism. This leaves the atheist in a tough spot, because that means from their world view humans are nothing but star dust evolved into bags of flesh and chemicals that fizz. This however leaves the atheist in a tougher spot because it denies their world view from having any ultimate justification for the uniformity in nature and their use of inductive reasoning, or any of the laws of logic . Actually an atheist cannot accept any type of absolute as they have no justification for such.

In order to reason anything, a person must first start with God as He is the objective standard of Truth.

How does an atheist justify the thought that the past will act like the future?

One gentleman told me that logic justifies that the past will act like the future, but this is a logical fallacy as it is begging the question. The statement B="the past will act like the future" is presupposed when a person attempts A=inductive reasoning. Just because A presupposes B does not make B true. The atheist must justify statement B before inductive reasoning can occur.

The first thread was the scope this thread is the Shot. Atheist live there lives in the theistic world view because their sin blocks them from recognizing the God they already know. Atheist use inductive reasoning everyday. Everyone does. However only the Christian world view has an ultimate justification for uniformity in nature, inductive reasoning, the laws of logic, and absolutes in general.

Questions?


Surprisingly (And you'll find more), I'm a good person without accepting Jesus or God for that matter, into my life. As a matter of fact I'm better as I'm not blinded by what a book tells me I should believe. I believe in god, but I don't necessarily believe in him the way most do.

And the past doesn't affect the future. That's basic thinking. All of time happens simultaneously and is subject to the laws of Probability. Which have been proven time and time again.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

One thread is enough for bashing the lack of beliefs of others.


Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join