grace2u responds to Chiroptera:
quote:
Again, atheism can not sustain a rational debate. Therefore I once again maintain that atheism is an unitelligable worldview that can not account for the realities of the world in which we live.
And yet, the existence of rational atheists proves you wrong.
You can whine all you want about how there cannot be a mailbox on the corner of Main and Elm, but the mere fact that we are looking at it proves you wrong.
quote:
I have demonstrated evidence for these premises repeatedly on our other thread
No, you haven't.
You have merely asserted them.
quote:
How could I even begin to give a mathematical proof that would provide any relevance to what we are talking about.
You could start by supporting your propositions. For example, how do you establish that something is "absolute"? Even better, you could start by defining your terms. What do you mean by "morality"?
Don't worry about the level of math. I am a trained mathematician and will be able to understand most of what you would write.
quote:
I contend at a minimum I have provided a loosely compiled set of logical inductive proofs for my claims.
No, you haven't.
You've merely spewed a list of assertions.
quote:
Demonstrate to me using inductive or deductive reasoning, how the atheist universe can account for absolute truths, logic or morality as two of the many I claim to exist.
The mere existence of atheists is proof. Atheists have morality, some of those tenets of their morality are considered absolute, therefore the atheist universe can account for absolute truths, logic, and morality.
The fact that you do not understand how they do this is not sufficient. It merely requires that those traits exist. They do, ergo, the claim is proven.
quote:
quote:
There is no universal standard of right and wrong.
This claim is counter intuitive.
Incorrect.
This claim is an observation.
Even on such basic things such as killing, there is no universal standard. Some people claim that it is never, ever OK to kill somebody. Not even in self-defense. Others think that defending your own life is worth taking someone else's. Look at the debate over the death penalty. If there were a universal standard, then we would all be in agreement.
Since we're not, then there isn't.
quote:
You can make this claim, but in doing so you defy the realities of this world.
Incorrect.
You have it exactly backwards. Denying this claim defies the realities of this world.
There is no universal standard of right and wrong.
quote:
This violates the simplest concepts that govern reality.
Incorrect. It is an observation of the most fundamental reality.
quote:
How can you say there is no universal standard of right and wrong while our intuitive nature says there is.
Because intuition is the worst standard to judge anything. Intuitively, the sun goes around the earth.
Observation is much better.
Since observation tells us that there is no universal standard of right and wrong, then intuition is wrong.
quote:
Again, you have to twist the reality of the world to fit into your worldview.
Incorrect.
In fact, you have it exactly backwards. You are the one twisting the reality of the world to fit into your worldview. You are certain that atheists are...well...insane (or did you mean something else when you said, "they deny simple truths and loose their ability to speak rationaly or to even sustain a rational debate"?) And yet, simple observation shows that they are not.
Therefore, the only way to maintain the claim that atheists are insane is to twist reality to suit your worldview.
The mere existence of atheists shows you to be wrong.
quote:
This is irrational at best.
You just proved my point.
Is there a particular reason why you feel the need to call atheists insane?
quote:
You choose to abide by the laws of logic when its convenient but altogether deny the laws of morality to fit into your worldview.
Incorrect.
Atheists have laws of morality.
Therefore, your claim is proven incorrect.
quote:
This is not science. This is not a logical approach to dealing with reality.
You mean observation isn't science? Observation isn't a logical approach?
You just said that your standard is intuition.
Given how counter-intuitive the universe actually is (the earth goes around the sun, velocity is relative instead of linear, most everything is quantized rather than analog), what on earth makes you think that following your intuition is sufficient evidence for anything?
quote:
quote:
but as a mathematics instructor, if anyone were to write a mathematical proof this poorly they would get a zero for their efforts
Again, you should know better. I am sure even your (unbiased)atheist comrades would agree with me on this one.
Well, I am a mathematician, grace2u (whether or not I am an atheist being immaterial).
I, too, would fail you. You have not proven your claim. You haven't even defined your terms. All you have done is spew a list of assertions.
quote:
I am not attempting to insult your intelligence in this discussion.
No, you're just insulting.
Or is there some other way to take being called a lunatic?
quote:
I am simply suggesting that if one examines these concepts with more thought than what is typically exerted, one would see that the philisophical and logical implications of atheism, in context with the observed realities of this world make for an unintelligable system of thought.
But the fact that they exist and are intelligible proves you wrong.
quote:
Not that atheists are unintelligable, but that their philosophy of the world is filled with logical fallacies (or unnatural apriori assumptions at best) which are far more complex to deal with than any alleged problem with the concept of hell.
Prove it.
quote:
Suppressing the truth....
Yes.
You are.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2