Atheism is Inherently Self-Defeating pt. 2, by Pastor Scott Mitchell

Pastor Scott Mitchell walks through part 2 of a presentation to logically follow the process of discovering why atheism is a self-defeating philosophy. In part 2 atheists represent their own views and they are responded to by Pastor Scott.

[absquereligione]

@5:05 No. Atheism is not a worldview. We have been saying this only thousands of times, but apparently, talking about things you don’t understand is theistic logic 😳

[Bill_Garthright]

Atheism isn't a self-defeating philosophy, because atheism isn't a philosophy _at all._ It's just not accepting the claims of theists about one single thing: that their gods are real.

Reasoning requires the laws of logic? No, I don't think so. First, _we_ created the "laws of logic." The laws of logic, like natural laws, are just how we attempt to describe the universe we live in. But people could still reason before that happened. Sometimes, they could even reason correctly. People _today_ can reason even if they couldn't tell you a single "law of logic."

Now, we do need to reason correctly, of course. But I've never met _anyone, _ no matter _what_ they believed, who didn't think that they were reasoning correctly. Flat-Earthers think that they're reasoning correctly. Creationists think that they're reasoning correctly. Conspiracy enthusiasts think that they're reasoning correctly.


By and large, it's the people who are _ignorant_ of philosophy who buy arguments like this - because, of course, they were almost always taught to believe in their god as a child, and they really, really _want_ it to be true. And it's easy to accept an argument that you _want_ to be true.

No, to my mind, the problem is evidence. Evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one, * but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?

You know how I pointed out that _everyone_ thinks that they're reasoning correctly? Well, that's the problem when it's _just_ reasoning, without any evidence backing up your claims. Of course, this is _me_ reasoning, huh? And you may disagree with me.

That's your right. But if you want _me_ to believe your religious claims, I'm going to need evidence that your claims are actually _true._ Maybe other people won't, but I do. And none of the rest of this makes any difference at all.

PS. You do make some wild claims about "the absolute nature of truth" - claims that _don't_ seem to follow from the law of non-contradiction, as far as I can tell, though you implied that they do. But my question is this: How are you defining "truth"? And then, what makes it "absolute"?

[absquereligione]

And there we go. @4:40 the apologetic straw man nonsense starts.
- When you need to straw man atheism to make a point ‘against’ atheism…you don’t have a point

[matthewtaylorbrown]

Look, Scott, we just don't believe. Get over it. Send a positive message for a change and please, please, leave the little boys alone.

[Adamskyize]

This is really only strawmen, arguments from consequence and abductive arguments.
It doesn't matter if atheism is self-defeating, it can still be true.

[absquereligione]

@6:12 He is comparing a theistic inverse (an unsupported assertion) to an atheistic worldview (that is not a thing)
- Yes, that is how weak these fallacious arguments are. Comparing things that don’t exist and claiming victory
- So again this is just another theist who can’t make any argument ‘against’ atheism without straw manning and misrepresenting it first.
- Remember, ALL HE HAS TO DO to get rid of atheism is to demonstrate that his preferred god actually exists. Instead we get 3 hours of lies, misrepresentations, straw man, assertions and lame apologetic platitudes. What would these ‘lectures’ look like if this boy had actual undeniable evidence for the existence of his preferred god? Think about that

[absquereligione]

@5:45 “their brain is just chemical reactions’. More dishonest apologetic platitudes.
- Meanwhile his argument starts with IF god exists. Yes, he connects his lies to his unsupported assertions 😳 Theistic logic 🤣