Since there are atheists with different views on physicalism, time, and grounding, it sounds like you don't have your facts straight. Starting with that controversial (I'd say obviously wrong) entailment of atheism, totally unargued, makes your article a waste of time.
Imagine reading something that begins, "Theism says an invisible man made the universe because he wanted something to play with. Now you're thinking that's silly, I don't think that. Then I say you're required to reduce whatever you think that you think into the absurd thing that I say you must think. Without argument. Now, how interested are you in reading me refute the thing I just made up? Exactly.
Lol you have pretty obviously moved the goalposts by omitting the word "just." This is soooo obvious. There are atheists platonists. Or, who cares, an atheist who believes in an atemporal pink ice cube. Any atemporal anything in their ontology is enough to make your statement obviously false.
Besides that, sure, you could explore process ontology. Like the book Every Thing Must Go. Or anyone with a Parmenidean view that denies the reality of change.
Don't know how many more examples you could possibly need when the initial claim should have looked obviously wrong on its face. Atheism says there isn't a a God.
“Atheism says the universe is just stuff moving in time."
I stopped reading here.
dope.
but atheism is required to reduce their thinking to those levels. That is why its an absurd worldview.
Since there are atheists with different views on physicalism, time, and grounding, it sounds like you don't have your facts straight. Starting with that controversial (I'd say obviously wrong) entailment of atheism, totally unargued, makes your article a waste of time.
Imagine reading something that begins, "Theism says an invisible man made the universe because he wanted something to play with. Now you're thinking that's silly, I don't think that. Then I say you're required to reduce whatever you think that you think into the absurd thing that I say you must think. Without argument. Now, how interested are you in reading me refute the thing I just made up? Exactly.
Dude, you're attacking a TLDR summarized common language section.
Stick your nose up somewhere else
Right, and I thought I won't finish a paper that begins with an obvious mischaracterization of what it's attacking. That is common sense
Ok for fun, explain to me how you do not believe “things” in any sense move thru time.
Thanks.
Lol you have pretty obviously moved the goalposts by omitting the word "just." This is soooo obvious. There are atheists platonists. Or, who cares, an atheist who believes in an atemporal pink ice cube. Any atemporal anything in their ontology is enough to make your statement obviously false.
Besides that, sure, you could explore process ontology. Like the book Every Thing Must Go. Or anyone with a Parmenidean view that denies the reality of change.
Don't know how many more examples you could possibly need when the initial claim should have looked obviously wrong on its face. Atheism says there isn't a a God.