Are Theist's Closet Atheists?

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

At 6/8/2012 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

Faith and reason govern divergent epistemological spheres. While both are faculties to belief, faith is the means to belief in that for which there is no evidence. Reason is the means to belief in that for which there is evidence. It is absurd to think that an argument would be sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God, because God is metaphysical. God's existence is simply unknown. (ergo, to believe in God at all is an act of faith, rather than reason.)

At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

At 6/8/2012 6:04:53 PM, YYW wrote:

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

Faith and reason govern divergent epistemological spheres. While both are faculties to belief, faith is the means to belief in that for which there is no evidence. Reason is the means to belief in that for which there is evidence. It is absurd to think that an argument would be sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of God, because God is metaphysical. God's existence is simply unknown. (ergo, to believe in God at all is an act of faith, rather than reason.)

At 6/11/2012 9:09:41 AM, WriterDave wrote:

At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

This wouldn't actually be a real argument, right? You say 'God-level' assumption, while God is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But God, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are logic-dependent. So then we have a necessary uniformity.

Your argument only pushes the parody to where we originally began.

At 6/11/2012 6:31:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/11/2012 9:09:41 AM, WriterDave wrote:

At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

This wouldn't actually be a real argument, right? You say 'God-level' assumption, while God is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But God, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are logic-dependent. So then we have a necessary uniformity.

Your argument only pushes the parody to where we originally began.

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. God isn't the explanandum, it's logic. In fact your attempt to parody actually reinforces my point!

At 6/12/2012 5:47:00 PM, WriterDave wrote:

At 6/11/2012 6:31:41 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/11/2012 9:09:41 AM, WriterDave wrote:

At 6/9/2012 1:53:53 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 6/8/2012 3:54:26 PM, WriterDave wrote:
My friend's though went this way,

All reasoned objections to atheism presume a logic-level assumption, which is left unmentioned.

But I'll mention it as an 'Ultimate Uniformity' over the objector's thinking... an Ultimate Uniformity that the objections were supposed to challenge for atheism in the first place.

For example, the atheist who gives reasons for disbelieving in God admits there is a higher uniformity than the conclusion itself, namely the reasons, criteria & logical relations along with certain background assumptions of the argument, which are epistemically logic-level in order to have the supervisory authority to arbitrate the issue of whether or not God exists.

By the same token, the argued affirmation of the existence of God does the same thing. It's a problem for both atheism and theism, but resolvable only by atheism.

*Now I'm an atheist but I'm skeptical over his argument. I just can't at the moment pick out what I find touble-some.

.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually write this way when I'm not parodying someone.)

This wouldn't actually be a real parody, right? You say 'logic-level' assumption, while logic is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But logic, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are Mind-dependent. So then we have a necessary mind.

Your parody only pushes the argument to where we originally began.

This wouldn't actually be a real argument, right? You say 'God-level' assumption, while God is the phenomena to be explained first either in a theistic or atheistic frame.

But God, as such, is a necessary concept. Concepts are logic-dependent. So then we have a necessary uniformity.

Your argument only pushes the parody to where we originally began.

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. God isn't the explanandum, it's logic. In fact your attempt to parody actually reinforces my point!

Well now it's no more than a verbal game. Logic isn't the explanandum, it's God. In fact your attempt to argue actually reinforces my point!