Unchained Radio Show tonight - why Atheism is irrational

[Dee Dee Warren]

I received this notification:

From: Unchained Radio



Tonight my Guest Paul Manata and I will be discussing why atheism is SO irrational. We will be addressing some of the posts from atheist on the UR Forum.

We will also take a few calls if time permits at 1-800-466-1873

To listen to the stream click here .. http://live.str3am.com:2540/listen.pls

The webcast begins at 6:00 PM (PST)


- Unchained Radio Staff


Also this is livecast on Paltalk.

Both Gene and Paul are dynamic speakers.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am in the paltalk room

[Minnesota]

Maybe you could relate the high points.

[Xavier]

Maybe you could relate the high points.

Argument from Logic and Reason... mostly.

[DivineOb]

Pastor Gene Cook(e?) is a one trick pony. TAG blah blah. Desafortunademente TAG is a less potent than Bush after a pretzel and trivially disproved by appealing to the nature of the world and the inherent survival benefits that logic comprehension brings.

[Xavier]

Pastor Gene Cook(e?) is a one trick pony. TAG blah blah. Desafortunademente TAG is a less potent than Bush after a pretzel and trivially disproved by appealing to the nature of the world and the inherent survival benefits that logic comprehension brings.

So your solution has left us with two options:

1) Logic is herely a human construct and has no objective basis in reality.

OR

2) You've missed the entire point of TAG by merely accounting for human use of logic and not its objective universal existance.

Yours,
Xavier

[EvoUK]

Logic is herely a human construct and has no objective basis in reality.

It's not a human construct in the same sense that our language is a human construct- it's an evolved awareness based on making sense out of the world by drawing connections and relationships.

And define, in this context, how you mean "objective". I can never tell what a christian theist means when they say this- as sometimes they're using it based on the assumption of some kind of eternal law-giver, thus making it irrelevent to anyone who doesn't share that assumption.


You've missed the entire point of TAG by merely accounting for human use of logic and not its objective universal existance.

Again, explain what you mean by "objective universal existence" so that the question may be answered properly.

TAG isn't really an argument as such- it doesn't actually ground anyone's faith - it's something adopted after an emotional commitment is made to Christianity. It's been critiqued in the naturalism forum if I remeber correctly.

[Xavier]

This is in the Dean's Office...

I forgot that it was here. We can't debate here. We'll have to take it elsewhere.

Yours,
Xavier

[EvoUK]

My apologies- I did not realise either.