>>510737941
>Sorry if i sound condecending
i've been extremely condescending this entire thread, it's fun.
i'll try to dial it back since you give a shit.
alright, so you're accusing me of strawmanning.
that is, misrepresenting an argument or position in order to more easily attack it.
however, "atheism" is sort of a nebulous term.
there's strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism, gnostic atheism, agnostic atheism, blah blah blah blah.
i went out of my way earlier in this thread to qualify it with "materialism" (atheist materialism) to make my case that atheist materialism implies moral antirealism.
notice i kept adding the word "inherently" to things like "nothing inherently wrong with XYZ under atheist materialism"
that's important. an atheist moral antirealist can still say he's against rape or homosexuality, my view is that under this worldview it can't be "inherently" true because under materialism morality cannot inherently exist.
anyway, back to my beautiful deductive argument i'd laid out.
you took umbrage at the fact that i used the definition of positive atheism or gnostic atheism in my first premise,
>atheism says there is no god
because you yourself are a "weak atheist" (i'm assuming)
>as far as the question of "does god exist" i do not feel as though there is enough evidence to warrant belief
what i was trying to say to you, is that if changed the p1 to your "weak atheism," the conclusion, assuming p2 holds, would more or less be the same, just qualified with "i do not feel as though there is enough evidence"
there's no straw man.
