The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

[The Penitent Man]

Not an argument and projection. Which modern atheist has given a justification for knowledge, logic or reason?

Put up Sophist.

Here's how you do a syllogism, aka a logical argument:
1 Modern Atheism is materialist.
2 Materialism rejects the immaterial.
3 Logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method itself are immaterial.
Conclusion: Modern atheism rejects logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method.

If 1, 2 and 3 are true, the conclusion MUST be true.

I dare you Sophist, which one of the three premises are false?

Don’t waste your time with him, he’s just another plant. Ironically, these trolls never evolve.

 

[ByzCath]

Which modern atheist has given a justification for knowledge, logic or reason?

Bertrand Rusell, who literally wrote the book on why logic and mathematics are formally equivalent (Principles of Mathematics).

Conclusion: Modern atheism rejects logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method.

Name one atheist that said he is against logic, knowledge, or reason, on your grounds that it's immaterial. You're just putting up sophistic strawmen.

 

[josemiguel]

Bertrand Rusell, who literally wrote the book on why logic and mathematics are formally equivalent (Principles of Mathematics).

This doesn't justify the existence of logic and mathematics, it's a program to reduce one to the other. A cool goal, but not a justification for the existence of the two.

Name one atheist that said he is against logic, knowledge, or reason, on your grounds that it's immaterial. You're just putting up sophistic strawmen.

No need if they hold to a materialist paradigm and want to be logically consistent. Once you make that materialist move, you automatically reject all immaterial things. Unless you wish to argue sylogisms and consistency to be Sophist:

1 Modern Atheism is materialist.
2 Materialism rejects the immaterial.
3 Logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method itself are immaterial.
Conclusion: Modern atheism rejects logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method.

If 1, 2 and 3 are true, the conclusion MUST be true.

Address the argument, is it invalid? Is there a premise that isn't met? Be specific which premise you see as not being met, or demonstrate what is invalid about the argument.

For demonstration of what I mean by justifying the existence of knowledge, I've been in discussions where atheists I encounter day-to-day will pivot to saying:
1 Knowledge doesn't exist, it's all constructs
This runs into the problem of them not having a way to know this. I ran into this one three weeks ago in real life.
2 Knowledge is the material nerves in one's brain
This runs into the problem of communicating knowledge being impossible, since the nerves in their brain and the nerves in my brain are different and can't be the same.
3 knowledge is the pattern of nerves in ones brain
This runs into the problem of the pattern itself not being matter, thus the pattern itself being immaterial, thus rendering materialism incoherent and self-refuting.

I look forward to the day when I encounter a solid argument that knowledge is material. I've only personally known two atheists that decided to tackle the existence of the immaterial in an atheist framework, and both ended up adopting Plotinus' system. Hopefully God will bring them to Orthodoxy soon.

 

[Lawrence87]

Name one atheist that said he is against logic, knowledge, or reason, on your grounds that it's immaterial. You're just putting up sophistic strawmen.

It's amusing how people miss the point with this.

Of course no atheist is going to overtly deny logic and reason. They act like those things are the be all and end all of everything. But they don't realise that their own materialism cannot account for these things.

It's the same when atheists make moral arguments. They argue as though morals exist (for instance when they judge God as evil) but their worldview has no basis for any morality whatsoever.

Many atheists are so proud of their intellects that they don't realise how retarded their own position is.

 

[Thomas More]

It's amusing how people miss the point with this.

Of course no atheist is going to overtly deny logic and reason. They act like those things are the be all and end all of everything. But they don't realise that their own materialism cannot account for these things.

It's the same when atheists make moral arguments. They argue as though morals exist (for instance when they judge God as evil) but their worldview has no basis for any morality whatsoever.

Many atheists are so proud of their intellects that they don't realise how retarded their own position is.

I agree with this.

Atheists will certainly say they support logic and reason, and in some cases will deeply believe they really, really do. That is to say, some will be completely comfortable with being anti reason because there is no God, so pushing anti-reason rhetoric is fine, but other atheists will be fooling themselves and think their beliefs are based on reason.

However, the atheistic premises they start from are untrue, therefore, any conclusions they reach are not actually based on reason.

In reality, reason leads to a belief in God and the Biblical Christ, our Savior. Atheists take a wrong turn from the beginning, and they wrongly think that reason has lead them to their beliefs.

 

[WildMonke]

Two interesting books on this topic are:

The Mystery of Life's Origin

Probably the most devastating attack on abiogenic origin of life out there.

and

The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution

Very rare and effective takedown. Focuses more on the human elements of the evolution business and shows you how the sausage is actually made. W.R. Fix has an unusual (Esoteric Buddhist?) belief on origins - which he only details in the last chapter - but the overall book is fantastic.