STEM fields do not argue for atheism. Specific individuals do, some of whom work in STEM fields.
Jeezus is everyone going to pick on my way with words... I do not mean that STEM fields argue for atheism. I mean these are the fields people turn to when they are atheists. Atheists want to credit science all the time as being an absolute truth and I was saying there are experts in STEM fields that are not even convinced.. so to take science with a grain of salt. Most science that once was has changed, and it will continue to change.
Atheists are not the only ones who rely on science. Moreover, scientists do recognize the interconnections among all things, we just often describe it in much different terms from those speaking from a religious perspective. Atheism is based just as much on belief as is any religion. Agnosticism is the only logically defensible perspective, but a perspective need not be 100% logically defensible to be worthwhile and useful.
This is my point entirely. The kid is telling this guy absolutes like "But there is no God" and "You hear voices in your head, not God's voice" but this is a belief based on faith in what they feel to be true just like any religion. This is why I think (regardless of what the Christian dude said) I felt the need to comment that the kid seems a little too self-entitled and cocky during the debate. I didn't get into what the Christian dude said because that's a whole other pile of worms. But I also think he was at a disadvantage in the way he was pitted up against a kid of the guy he was debating, and that he probably was chosen for his inability to speak under pressure. I think debates are sort of set up that way when it comes to religion. It is never a discussion, always a dick-measuring contest of who's right and who's stupid.
Instead of complaining about what the Christian dude said, I focused on something else. What the Christian dude is saying is not shocking or new to anyone that knows Christians.
Their positions are in no way equivalent. The boy is pointing out a logical inconsistency in the man's statement. "Reasonable" answers would be to explain how it is not logically inconsistent and the boy is therefore in error; or to explain that faith statements do not require logical consistency. This man did not have the mental wherewithal to do either.
The boy's position is that he is an atheist asking the question to a Christian about where his evidence is for God existing. Immediately he says the man is hearing voices in his head, not God's voice. The boy is not looking for evidence--he is already confident that it does not exist. He is just waiting for whatever Christian thing the Christian would bring out, and then he'll parrot whatever his dad's been teaching him his whole life in return.
They both have positions based on faith. That is why I feel they are in the same position. The boy has a blind-faith approach to this the same way he feels the Christian man does about his faith. Refusing to 'see the truth' as it were. They are no different to me.. except one was in a really bad social position and clearly is not used to debate, and the other was well scripted.
Logic is a process. Provide different inputs to the process, and it will deliver a different outcome. This is not subjectivity, but rather using the facts relevant to the problem.
It is still a construct of humanity, and thus it will be subjective in nature. Logic changes as humanity changes, it grows, shrinks, gets focus, or gets scoffed at as culture changes. Logic is different for everyone. What is logical to one group of people is not for another. Even if something is logical to all of us in the whole world, it does not mean it will stay logical for all of time. It isn't an algorithm of thought process. It is very relative and full of subjectivity.. it's not as calculated and precise as people give it credit for being.
That is not to discount its usefulness or credibility.. I'm an ENFP, we tend to not want to invalidate anything if we can help it. I am just saying that it is overly emphasized as this end-all show stopper and it really isn't as precise and scientific as people want to give it credit for, to take the example of this thread. "It is just logic." But it really isn't just logic. It is logic constructed by beliefs and faith and nurturing of one's surroundings and culture.. it is a belief, and it is just as prone to change and subjectivity.
Logic is molded by our society like anything else. It is an idea, and a concept. It is not a hard fast, absolute construct.