What I've gathered from most of your comments in various posts is that your worldview is primarily rooted in existentialism ("existence precedes essence"). Your worldview attempts to find purpose and meaning ultimately from the particulars (i.e. specific details of life and the physical or observed world) or inside the "cosmic cube".
Yes, my worldview is rooted primarily in existentialism, but I disagree with what you say about it. One does not find purpose and meaning, one creates purpose and meaning. Meaning and purpose are not limited to particulars, but can also be in transcendent and immaterial things (for example in God), so it is not limited to physical reality.
That is why Christianity is primarily rooted in biblical ontology and all the particulars become secondary. That's what makes Christianity unique from all other worldviews.
Okay, thank you for clarifying, I understand a little better what you were trying to say initially. Though I cannot list specific examples, I think that at least some other worldviews have a similar basis (i.e. that God is truth, constant, eternal, etc.)
Note: It appears that you made an erroneous statement here: "In existentialism "being" is fundamental to, and precedes the meaning of life."
Being or Essence by definition are ontological, NOT existential. In other words ontology (the study of being, existence and reality) primarily deals with the ultimate "meaning of life". On the other hand, existentialism (a philosophical movement) primarily deals with the subjective conditions of existence.
Perhaps my original post was not clear, I was not calling "being" or "essence" existential ideas. As you point out, these are a part of ontology, which is more generally a branch of philosophy. What I was trying to say is that ontology is very important in existentialism (just as other philosophies give more/less importance to metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc.). Existentialism is an attempt to define the ultimate meaning of life, which it says is subjective, and not objective or absolute.
The above two examples you referred to do not make a positive case for the claim that logic is empirical. Instead it illustrates an irrational worldview attempting to dismiss the reality of absolute truths.
Again, I am not trying to make the case that logic is empirical. Frankly, I do not care so much if it is empirical, because I do not think it is necessary that it is so for my worldview. There are two people (in the article) that espouse the idea that logical may be empirical, and their ideas are based on the questions/ideas of other people that classical logic may need to be revised in light of the "new reality" of quantum mechanics. So though the link refers to the title of two papers that were published, the idea extends beyond just those papers.
As for the assumptive language in the title, I completely agree with you. Nothing annoys me more when I see the news and they say something like: "is eating chocolate/being a little overweight/drinking red wine/sleeping in/etc. really as bad for you as you think? More on that after this break!"
My intention in pointing out those two examples was not to argue that they are true, but to present opposing ideas because they may help you better understand your own. To know only one position (i.e. only your own) and no others is plain and willful ignorance. (Please do not misunderstand what I just said, I am not calling you ignorant. Obviously you read the article, but if you had refused to read it simply because you think logic cannot possibly be empirical, then I would call that willful ignorance) If you are a Republican, don't you know the positions of the Democrats? "Know your enemy", otherwise you are impotent to defend your own position, much less attack another position! So in a way, even though we disagree we are helping each other by exposing each other to other arguments. 
I apologize for the delay I have been busy lately in due time I will respond to your post I will appreciate your patience.
No worries, and I see that you have already responded. Initially I was not sure if you would respond or not, that is why I asked you again . Right now I am working on a response to your new post (just a warning: it's a long one!).
From Scripture we can learn multiple or layered meanings, however, the actual events of the Bible did literally occur. By those actual events literally occuring, the Bible is not just a mere storybook, but it is an acual text that can be applied to reality.
The apparent contradictions between the Bible and archaeological evidence led to the rise of the Copenhagen School of Biblical Minimalism in the 1960s. They view the Bible as literature describing the relationship between God and man, not as literal history. From Wikipedia: "[The Copenhagen School] arose in the late 1960s from the need to deal with the increasing contradictions between the findings of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the Bible's version of history: For decades ... scholars interpreted archaeology in light of what the Bible said ... [taking] for granted that what the Bible said, was true—not just morally and religiously, but historically and scientifically. So, as an archaeologist back in the 19th century, you would pick up your Bible and expect to find Noah's Ark somewhere on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey, just as the Bible said; or that you could dig in Jerusalem and find the remains of David's and Solomon's palace."
If I were Christian, a nonliteral interpretation of the Bible is one that I would most likely adhere to. As I have said before in another thread, I see the Bible as an allegory describing our relationship with God, not a literal history.
In fact, only the Bible makes sense of reality because I am absolutely sure that it provides the only worldview that can account for the fact that we have knowledge. Also, when comparing other religious doctrines to the Bible, the other doctrines are contradictory, not consisitent, not self-attesting.
I look forward to continuing our discussion about this in the .
Actually as long as we do not agree on the same presuppositions, we will be talking past each other. I am glad that you acknowledge the existence of God, but do you acknowledge the existence of the true God? What is it that stops you from believing in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit? Please post a thread to ask questions as TTP said.
When I referred to a "theistic version" of my worldview, I meant a Christian theistic version. So for the sake of many of these arguments, I will assume that God exists and communicates to us through the Bible. How to make sense of and interpret the Bible is another step, and one in which I obviously disagree with you.
I intend to post some threads in the future, but I would like to see how some of these discussions play out - and hopefully end! - first (and I do not want to get too bogged down in writing responses!). In a nutshell, I could not rationally justify my belief in God or the Bible. I will elaborate on this in other existing threads and possibly new threads in the future.
Your worldview is inheretly irrational as an atheist thus the claims that stem from your worldview logically follows as irrational. If you have an unreliable worldview, your claims or bias are unreliable.
First, one can have incorrect assumptions and still make correct claims. For example, Newtonian mechanics makes fundamentally erroneous assumptions about the natural world, but it still makes correct predictions about some physical systems. Second, I do not claim to have absolute and complete philosophical belief system (I am still working on it), I just see flaws in the Christian beliefs which led me to reject them. And third, I have just pointed out several "holes" in your absolute interpretation of the Bible, which I think you have not reasonably "patched up" in your response (I will elaborate in my response to that particular post). So I can just as easily say the same thing about you and your worldview (but just calling each other irrational gets us nowhere).
Here is how though many of my ideas are consistent with a Christian worldview (again I refer you to Kierkegaard). When you say though many of your ideas are consistent with the Christian worldview you are borrowing from that worldview.
Just because many of my ideas are consistent with a Christian worldview does not mean that they are borrowed. You and theistic evolutionists have the similar ideas in your worldviews, but your worldviews are clearly different! Perhaps you think Nietzsche borrowed his ideas from Kierkegaard, but gave them an atheistic twist? Just because core ideas are similar does not mean that they have the same source or that one is borrowed from the other. There is usually more than one way to arrive at a certain conclusion (for example, in school I never "did math" the way the teachers taught it, but I still got the right answers).
Dr. Strangelove,
In the interests of defending Biblical accuracy, most evangelical Christians believe Noah's Ark will still be found on Mt. Ararat, as there are several theories about where it may be, and several sightings seeming to confirm something there. There is additional evidence that suggest it was there, even if it's not there now.
And I'm not absolutely sure about David's or Solomon's Temples for sure, but I believe archaeologists have confirmed finding parts of them in Jerusalem. They're not easy to find because they're underground, underneath other things which are there now which can't be moved to do full excavations. But, just like the Pool of Siloam, modern archaeology has done more to support Biblical claims than to undermine them. I'm not aware of a single direct contradiction that has been confirmed.
TTPAdmin1