Today's reading for the irrationalists and superstitious atheists of USMB

[BreezeWood]

Sorry but that's just your Cracker Jack Box philosophy. Absolutists deal with the complexities of reality. Relativists think it makes sense to say that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are not absolutes, which is contradictory and irrational. Relativists don't to the heavy lifting of real thought. They don't do logical consistency or rationality. Relativism is irrationalism, so relativists just make black-and-white statements that no one need take seriously because according to them nothing they say is true or has to be rational. Relativists are idiots.

That's exactly right. Agit8r doesn't have the first clue about what epistemological relativism really is at all.

Relativists are bores, slogan spouters, the essence of simple-minded, black-and-white speak, and, of course, most atheists are relativists.

Take that smug as a bug simpleton TheOldSchool, for example, babbling about turtles: that's about as deep as the intellect of most, though not all, atheists get.

Question: Now what is the idea of God really?

Answer: In terms of the problems of existence and origin, it's the transcendent alternative for ultimate origin derived from the incontrovertible axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. In more general terms, this same axiom is also the foundation of absolute objectivity for logic and science. But don't expect the relativist to ever get beyond his black-and-white slogan speak, let alone scratch the surface of this axiom, even though, like all axioms, it's self-evident; don't expect him to grasp the fact that the declaration that all is gray is just a simple-minded slogan, not a complex, rational proof of anything. Relativists just go in circles around the same mulberry tree because, of course, there can be no progression in thought predicated on an absurdity that violates the law of contradiction.

But like I said, not all atheists are imbecilic, black-and-white-think relativists.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253778/
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Absolutists (theists and atheists) regard relativists with contempt


The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/
On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/
On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

I can see that you have given this subject more thought than I have, so let me ask; was Jesus an absolutist, or a relativist? And why?

An absolutist, of course. Premised on the universally immutable absolute of God Himself, the Bible asserts a balanced, rational-empirical epistemology for justified true belief/knowledge and, therefore, the metaphysics of methodological naturalism for science.

Relativism is irrationalism, and materialism as an epistemological absolute is unsustainable.

Only if an immutable God exists and is the very essence of the Principle of Identity (comprehensively, the universal laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) is absolute certainty possible. How can the materialist assert anything to be absolutely certain on the basis that ever-mutable materiality has primacy over the absolute laws of conscious thought? (Mind you, this is not the same thing as saying that mere human consciousness has primacy over existence.) And since the assertion, as Justin pointed out, that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are not absolutes is absurd . . . why would we assume God does not exist? More to the point: if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false; hence, relativism is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite must be true.

The relativist can bark at the moon all he wants: "All is relative! All is relative!" Every time he barks, he actually barks: "Truth is absolute! Truth is absolute!"

No one escapes the laws of human thought. If somehow or another truth is not absolute outside the confines of human consciousness and the logic thereof, if the apparent synchronization between the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the apparent properties, processes and physical laws of nature, is an illusion, if the imperatives of human thought do not hold ultimately or transcendently beyond the empirical realm of being: how could we possibly know that and what possible difference what it make to us?

In the face of the axioms of human thought, why is it sensible to hold that God does not exist?

In the face of the axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, why is it sensible to hold that God does not exist?

In the face of the theological axioms that (1) God must be, and that (2) God must be the very essence and the ground of rationality, why is it sensible to hold that God does not exist?

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

AVG-JOE: Of course, if we're really going to get anywhere, step one is to name the God that's up for discussion. I've been ass-u-me-ing that this thread references The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran. Let me know if that's wrong.

mdr: An absolutist, of course. Premised on the universally immutable absolute of God Himself, the Bible asserts a balanced, rational-empirical epistemology for justified true belief/knowledge and, therefore, the metaphysics of methodological naturalism for science.

Only if an immutable God exists and is the very essence of the Principle of Identity ... is absolute certainty possible.

.
yes Joe, those two surreptitiously are speaking about the christan god.

.