Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
Likely story.
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality
No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread
: Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.
All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it’s possible to refute these things?
In your dreams, Missy.
The real argument is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.
The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares,
refute each other, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.
BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the potential validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.
Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!
I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.
But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.
(I'm reminded of
The Mummy starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." Relativists.)
Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're trying to defend against Boss' assault.
In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into the sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.
And why is that true?
Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary,
a priori axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.
Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply shift to or adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now, even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical
a priorities that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.
These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.
Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism teach that God created logic? Pantheists believe God created logic? Since when? Cracker Jack theology.
