Atheism is manifestly irrational.

Alex Jones said he Tweeted it, so I know it's true!

To claim that complex systems such as intelligence cannot ultimately derive from "chaos" is just a meaningless assertion. What demonstrable principle is there by which one can make such a claim?

The rules and laws of logic which must accompany intelligence if it is to be thought ineligible - , and the fact that these immaterial, universal, and immutable laws can not be accounted for in a nihilistic world view and epistemology, only a theistic one.

If atheism is true - You're nothing more than a cosmic accident - a highly evolved animal derived from a piece of protoplasm which washed up on the beach one day for no reason whatsoever - Which means - there are no laws of thought - At least none that are not purely subjective and arbitrary.

I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "ineligible" in this context, but regardless...

Logic is simply the method by which information is evaluated in terms of how intelligence categorically perceives and interprets the world around it. It is a computational method of inference determined by categorical arbitration. Such is not contingent on a theistic worldview, nor would it function any differently if intelligence were a "cosmic accident."

Do you deny that humans are matter, that we are self aware, that intelligence ultimately arose autonomously, that I am still inside your head since our last exchange hence you poking around in my image history, and by what moral obligation do you as an atheist have for adhering to rules and laws of logic your world view and epistemology can not account for? I look forward with enthusiasm to your replies.

It's better than believing that an entity made it. Why don't you believe in Islam yet?

Can't we all agree god gave up on us.

We clearly do, we also understand those characteristics making up atheism have implications atheists like yourself consistently and conveniently deny not to have to defend them.

Which holds many other implications. Also,what atheists claim it is and what their actions dictates is another issue.

As is usually the case - you missed the point of the meme entirely. Go back and read read it, come back, and we'll see if we can't help you out.

"Atheism is not a belief"

It in fact is. All knowledge claims are. This is basic philosophy.

"Atheism says nothing about magic"

I know, which is precisely the point. The world view of an atheist is that It's all just random occurrences.

"Atheism says nothing about things becoming self-aware"

Which is once again, missing the point. Things are self aware, atheism can't account for this. The point of the meme you obviously missed.

"Atheism says nothing about intelligence arising from chaos"

I know, which again, is you missing the point. In their world view, it does arise from chaos. This is irrational.

"You made a big strawman fallacy"

On the contrary - you missed the point of the entire meme. Your failure to understand and numerous argument from silence fallacies doesn't equal my committing a strawman fallacy. It equals your needing to better apply logical skill sets.

“Atheism is not being convinced a god exists. That's not a knowledge claim. I don't claim to know a god does or doesn't exist.”

A negative claim in the affirmative is still a knowledge claim. This was settled in philosophy years ago. Now, if you're going to claim you don't know if God exists – you're not in fact an atheist, but an agnostic.

“No, atheists don't all have the same worldview. “

They in fact do. Whether they self identify with that world view is an entirely separate issue from their rejection of God implying it. Now, if you're going to attempt to bring up nuances in atheist positions that would counter argue that position – you had better make sure they're systemic in nature.

“Atheism is a position on one issue only: the existence of a god. “

With direct implications on several others. Denial of this makes it no less true.

“The atheists I know don't believe in any supernatural causes for things, though. And natural causes is not the same as "random occurrences". You're making another straw man. “

Ok, go ahead and tell me then. What force is guiding the universe. And if you're going to say none. How is that not random?

“Atheism is a position on one issue only: the existence of a god. “

With implications regarding several others. Repeated denial of this makes it no less true.

“Things being self-aware is an entirely separate issue.”

No, it's not. It's directly relevant to the topic of God and evolution. Our being self aware is what distinguishes men created in God's image from animals.

“Another straw man fallacy. Atheism isn't a worldview “

It's not a strawman fallacy and Atheism is in fact a view of the world. God alone accounts for truth, reality, morality, and the epistemic means by which they're known. When you reject God, you reject an objective basis and epistemological source to determine these categories of knowledge.

“and the worldview of atheists doesn't necessarily say things arise from chaos.”

It doesn't have to say it – it directly implies it by virtue of it's rejection of God. This is one of many argument from silence fallacies you've committed.

“Even if you say I did, that doesn't change the fact that you made numerous strawman fallacies “

It's not a fact until you have counter argued the points. Denial as a counter argument or perspective is no counter argument or perspective at all. You simply slapping the term “ strawmn fallacies” is an attempt to throw up your hands and declare victory.

You win. I have not the time to reply to all this. This is my weekend and I can't use it arguing on the net all weekend. Besides that, I'm tired. You had the last word. Bravo !

It's not any of these things, but since I conceded the position because I"m tired and see my weekend too valuable to waste on petty arguments with someone who is more than likely not going to change their mind anyways. - you're now getting on your high horse. That's your prerogative if you want to display that kind of immaturity. Know that this says more about you than me.

Thanks, I will. You do the same.

Once again. It is 4 am where I live. Why are you stalking my posts at the wee hours of he morning? It's kinda creepy.

Take that atheist.

This is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. By the way. This post is 2 yrs old. Why are you stalking my profile? Are you holding private musings about me in the wee hours of the night?

In trying to excuse one fallacy you - ended up committing another. This is an argument from silence fallacy. That a text does not explicitly state something does not argue that it doesn't directly imply it.

They're basically the same thing. Words and actions have implications. Do you deny this? A thief does not have to say " I am a thief and here to rob you " for his actions or words to directly imply that this is what he's doing.

It's both an an action and implies intent which is not explicitly stated. The fact that the intent is visual vs abstract still requires deduction of the act or intent which is not explicitly stated. The comparison is valid, your objection is not.

Not necessarily. People deny identifying evil acts all the time. The Democrat party is all about this. Also, So is abstract intent obvious, but people deny it anyways.