huh. so "leviathan" and "behemoth" makes the bible a work of paleontology. and the concepts of isotropy and homogeneity are just like a god thing. wow! this science stuff is easy!

"I raised the notion that atheists have no basis for reason."

what the hell does "basis of reason" even mean? how does appealing to an arbitrary god help? if the god is not arbitrary, how do you jusitfy that? any chance you plan to reason? if not, why should anyone care?

"It was such thinking that allowed for the possibility of modern scientific thinking to take off."

yep. first there was god. then we wallowed in a mud-filled ditch for a few thousands years. and then the science. but let's give god the credit.

"I accused the naturalist of believing that reasoning within logic is merely our brain’s chemical reactions."

and i can do the strawman thing, too. i can accuse literalist christians of believing the bible deals with dinosaurs, but ...
no, hold on a second ...

wow busche basher such big words[they souund real clever[till you search them up to know whats being said

Definitions of isotropy on the Web:

(physics)the property of being isotropic;..having the same value when measured in different directions..being identical..from Greek iso/(equal) and tropos ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy

but what was the topic/oh bipolar one-minded non-rebuttal by ridicle and big meaningless/words..lol..<<huh...so"leviathan"and"behemoth" makes the bible a work of paleontology>>..such a hilarious comeback..[as usual..lol]

<<..''and the concepts of isotropy and homogeneity are just like a god thing...>>..no doudt it seems to be..[so why cant you guys rebut god without your supiror/sounding word play?]

your next comeback...lol..is even more revealing<<..what the hell does"basis of reason"even mean?>>..i think it likely that you guys claim to disbelieve a negative..[your failure to reason being based on denial of the very fact..you dispute..egsists..lol.

as you/yourself point out...lol.<<..if the god is not arbitrary,..how do you jusitfy that?>>...well look at it from our side[you claim nonegsistance..[yet accord arbitrary as an attribute..[quality]..to that you claim not to egsist...lol..[and still fail to see your own absurd position]..you seem to..lol...rebut to someone about that you claim dont egsist..[ah you A/thiests...lol]

i could keep on pointing out the bipolar responses your posting
but will let your[selective]..quote..have the final laugh

<<Yep...first there was god...
then we wallowed in a mud-filled ditch for a few thousands years.
and then the science...but let's give god the credit...>>..yes [even i sacasm..see..even from athiests some truth from god is allowed be revealed..[in ridicule you prove nothing]..[in ridicule you rebut nothing..[in ridiculing others you reveal the joke upon thyself]..IF SCIENCE REVEAL SCIENCE

love ya bro..but..cant resist quotiong you again...lol

<<..and i can do the strawman thing, too.>>..yet fail to prove/rebut/..say nothing about nuthin

its sad to see one as clever as you being fooled/by..science..[and not able to rebut a claimed/negative]..even if only a negative in your own mind...lol

yeah i know its not very xtian..to laugh at your futile foolish-ness..[but mate its so funny]...lol

UOG! Mate you have figured it all out for me! God put everything on this planet, then waited for man to eventually evolve, and the only catch is, that you have to follow a book not written by god himself and obey everything he or she says, so we don't have to come back to earth to be recycled in hell. OK then what? we just hang around spreading Philadelphia cream cheese work for ten minutes, then go back and do some more hanging around.

Have I missed anything. lol

Or can you tell me what really happens in heaven.

P\S I had a look at your web site, so you must be the man to ask?

EVO

[if you are willing to tar "islam" with such data, i am equally justified in tarring "christianity" with its sordid history. i don't give a damn whether it's "christianity/islam", or if it's "in the name of christianity/islam". what's good for the goose is good for the gander]

OK, look through Christianity's history, then look through the history of Godless regimes, and tell me which fared worse, who committed worse atrocities etc. Hint: It's not Christianity.

["My justification is that regardless of which theism you use, the existence of a God makes complete sense of rationality. "

cool! i'll give the flying spaghetti monster a whirl, and let you know how it goes.]

1. FSM is not a theistic God. FSM is more of a deity. So your point is completely irrelevant.

2. As should have been clear from the context, I'm referring to any theism which anyone actually subscribes to. No one seriously worships FSM.

3. Lets make it simple and use the Christian God. My contention is that the Christian God makes complete sense of rationality. Naturalism does not.

re: Atheists and naturalism. Strawman. Simply goto a few atheist websites or talk to anyone who proclaims their atheism and you'll see most of them are naturalists. (Note: I'm avoiding your tangent about consciousness and the "wonders of the world" because although it's an interesting topic, it isn't actually related to my original point about the argument from reason)

DSM and Trav,

I have not proposed a "basis" for reasoning by non-theists, simply because the term used for this basis is "prejudice"

If you look at any decision with a pre ordained "basis" you cannot reach any conclusion that conficts with that basis.

For example, if a judge has the "basis" that all black people are theives and murderers, the reasoning behind his decision will be questionable, as possibility of the black man's innocence is excluded. (which is why a judge that is found to have pre conceived ideas in a matter is expected to recuse himself.)

Like wise your "basis" for looking at science is that the bible is 100% correct and that anything that contradicts it must be wrong.

I find your reasoning extremely flawed due to the inflexible prejudice that you are burdened with.

One more thing, re: Christianity and Islam. I just re read my post. Unfortunatly, again we got off the original point I made, which was that Dawkins is NOT justified in lumping Christianity and Islam into the same boat and saying "All religion is bad".

That's about as logical as saying that all sports should be banned because sport is dangerous. Yes, bullriding and parkour are dangerous, but are synchronised swimming and croquet dangerous? No. Clearly, each sport needs to be considered on its own merits. Likewise, each religion needs to be judged on it's own history and it's own teaching when determining, from a purely sociological point of view, how dangerous and bad it really is.