Changes

Jump to: navigation, search
Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, [[ontological]] belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[Atheism and epistemology|epistemological deductions]]. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.<ref>[http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html ''Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose''] by Francois Tremblay</ref>}}
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}