Malaclypse the Younger

Resolved: Theistic premises are superior to freethought premises.

Premise 1: The theist defines an authority by divine revelation. Therefore any premise that authority declares is, by definition, known to be absolutely true.

Premise 2: The freethinker either does or does not define an authority. These alternatives are obviously mutually exclusive and complete.

Case A:

Premise 2a: The freethinker does not define an authority, thus the freethinker's premises are, by definition, not known to be absolutely true.

Conclusion A: The theist's premises, by virtue of being known to be absolutely true, are superior to the premises of the freethinker, which are not known to be absolutely true.


Case B:

Premise 2b: The freethinker does define an authority.

Conclusion B: The freethinker, defined as one who rejects authority, is thus contradictory. The theist's premises, since their underlying definition is noncontradictory, are superior.

Conclusion: Whether the freethinker does or does not define an authority, the theist's premises are shown to be superior to the freethinker's. Q.E.D.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

mac_philo

If your intention was to prove that begging the question guarantees the truth of the conclusion, you've succeeded admirably.

Premise 2 begs the question by appealing to a divine authority revealing some premiss that is, by definition, absolutely true.

No doubt, if such is the case, God exists, and theistic reasoning is superior.

Now try to obtain the same conclusion without building it into your premisses.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: mac_philo ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

It should be noted that, as I am an atheist, the OP is presented as satire.

mac_philo

Truly, perspective trumps all.

For us, this is satire. For the believer, I'd reckon they would judge it an honest presentation of their views.

Kassiana

Depends upon who the believer is, Mac. For those of us with liberal religious views, like myself, I do not find it to be an honest presentation of my views. I happen to find it representative of the conservatives who post here, however, and I doubt Malaclypse meant me in what he said.

If you did, Malaclypse, I assure you I don't find my premises better than those of atheists and agnostics. I just like them more for myself. I wouldn't dream of forcing them on you or using them as if they were objective arguments.

So there. Hail Airheads! All Hail Accordions!

--semi-Discordian Pagan Kass

Malaclypse the Younger

Kassiana

You are, of course, correct.

Do what thou wilt shall be the holes in your nose!

John Page

Theorem: God is a concept and will continue to exist so long as the concept is believed.

The concept of god will continue to be believed while people are convinced such belief will benefit them.

While atheism may have access to stronger logic, the practical benefits of religions will continue to have sway through the 'feelgood' factor.

Unless atheism can offer support for people's non-materialistic needs, it will never become the modus operandi of the human race.

Theistic reasoning can be as superior as it likes, even to the point of proving itself wrong, but without comfy traditions, heart warming songs, joyous and solemn rituals, heros and martyrs, all combined with a rich tapestry of gossip and scandal, atheism will fail to be an institution that changes to world - whether that change is for the better or not.

I like Malyclypse's theme, but in the end the authority comes from the masses.

Cheers

Megatron

&lt;waves oxymoron flag&gt;

Malaclypse the Younger

Glad someone caught that!

Jayhawker Soule

... it must be a slow day. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">