Axioms for simplifying the discussion:
I don't know everything. As with every worldview there are "pieces" to this puzzle we call reality that I do not have or know where they fit. When comparing my worldview to other worldviews, however, more pieces of "this puzzle" fit together and I have more points of reference that correspond with my experience here. I will include a picture that illustrates what I am talking about.
Common sense--Do you believe in "common sense"? Some things are just "common sense". If you want justification for everything, even that which should be considered "common sense" then this discussion is going to be too cumbersome to continue. Consider the parent explaining to their 12 year old child why they should change directions when they are walking barefoot toward a bunch of broken glass and the child continually responds with, "why OUGHT I change directions?" ...why OUGHT I not want to feel pain?"... "The question still remains about why one should [walk] in a way to avoid [pain]." Either this child is "special" and shouldn't be left to their own devices, or the child is just being difficult for his own amusement. The bottom line is self-interest=common sense. If we can't agree on this we should probably just part ways now and not waste any more of each other's time. Asking why doing what's in your self-interest is in your self-interest is about as meaningful as "why ask why?" or "how do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?" It's useless, pointless and it serves no purpose except for being a conversation stopper.
I don't know everything. As with every worldview there are "pieces" to this puzzle we call reality that I do not have or know where they fit. When comparing my worldview to other worldviews, however, more pieces of "this puzzle" fit together and I have more points of reference that correspond with my experience here. I will include a picture that illustrates what I am talking about.
Common sense--Do you believe in "common sense"? Some things are just "common sense". If you want justification for everything, even that which should be considered "common sense" then this discussion is going to be too cumbersome to continue. Consider the parent explaining to their 12 year old child why they should change directions when they are walking barefoot toward a bunch of broken glass and the child continually responds with, "why OUGHT I change directions?" ...why OUGHT I not want to feel pain?"... "The question still remains about why one should [walk] in a way to avoid [pain]." Either this child is "special" and shouldn't be left to their own devices, or the child is just being difficult for his own amusement. The bottom line is self-interest=common sense. If we can't agree on this we should probably just part ways now and not waste any more of each other's time. Asking why doing what's in your self-interest is in your self-interest is about as meaningful as "why ask why?" or "how do we know we are not just a brain in a vat?" It's useless, pointless and it serves no purpose except for being a conversation stopper.
Speaking of conversation stoppers, I have had many discussions/debates with atheists and the things that always become conversation stoppers are one of the following:
1. They run out of ammo and result to slander (they commit intellectual suicide and blow their intellectual credibility up).
2. They are stumped by a question/ counter-argument; they make like Houdini and disappear.
3. They get careless/sloppy and contradict themselves or commit too many logical fallacies. Since they have lost too much intellectual credibility I dismiss myself from further discussion.
4. They slither back into their vacuous hole of "isn't". When faced with the implications (logical outworking) of their worldview which is nothing short of absurd, they become intellectually lazy and result to comments such as, "Atheism isn't even an is, it's an "isn't ".
5. Every question that challenges the coherency, consistency, and intelligibility of their worldview is answered with, "what about God?"
"What about God?" is a deflection tactic used to bring the attention away from the atheist's worldview that is coming under pressure from someone bringing to light the incoherence and flat out impossibility of their worldview. "What about Bush" is the go-to tactic for all Obama supporters when any complaint (over fumbling, incompetence, duplicity, and untrustworthiness) is raised against Obama and how he is handling his business/owning his commitment. It is an intellectually dishonest tactic used to avoid any accountability, responsibility, or candid admission of short comings. This tactic is very special (in its effectiveness at bringing an uncomfortable conversation to an abrupt halt) for both Obama supporters and atheists alike.
6. They result to childish antics of asking, "but why, but why, but why" or "how do you know, how do you know, how do you know", on and on ad infinitum. There is nothing wrong with asking “why?" or "how do you know". But when those questions are repeated over and over in redundant succession over the same idea you inch closer and closer to the black hole of infinite skepticism--where no amount of reason or evidence can match the infinite capacity for skepticism. These tactics reflect irrational cynicism, not rational skepticism. In short, they disintegrate the conversation into meaninglessness.
1. They run out of ammo and result to slander (they commit intellectual suicide and blow their intellectual credibility up).
2. They are stumped by a question/ counter-argument; they make like Houdini and disappear.
3. They get careless/sloppy and contradict themselves or commit too many logical fallacies. Since they have lost too much intellectual credibility I dismiss myself from further discussion.
4. They slither back into their vacuous hole of "isn't". When faced with the implications (logical outworking) of their worldview which is nothing short of absurd, they become intellectually lazy and result to comments such as, "Atheism isn't even an is, it's an "isn't ".
5. Every question that challenges the coherency, consistency, and intelligibility of their worldview is answered with, "what about God?"
"What about God?" is a deflection tactic used to bring the attention away from the atheist's worldview that is coming under pressure from someone bringing to light the incoherence and flat out impossibility of their worldview. "What about Bush" is the go-to tactic for all Obama supporters when any complaint (over fumbling, incompetence, duplicity, and untrustworthiness) is raised against Obama and how he is handling his business/owning his commitment. It is an intellectually dishonest tactic used to avoid any accountability, responsibility, or candid admission of short comings. This tactic is very special (in its effectiveness at bringing an uncomfortable conversation to an abrupt halt) for both Obama supporters and atheists alike.
6. They result to childish antics of asking, "but why, but why, but why" or "how do you know, how do you know, how do you know", on and on ad infinitum. There is nothing wrong with asking “why?" or "how do you know". But when those questions are repeated over and over in redundant succession over the same idea you inch closer and closer to the black hole of infinite skepticism--where no amount of reason or evidence can match the infinite capacity for skepticism. These tactics reflect irrational cynicism, not rational skepticism. In short, they disintegrate the conversation into meaninglessness.