Kris

sigh, I dislike arguments.

Yes but all things are determined by chemical processes in the brain and thus are reduced to opinion. Why should I care what you think? Just because you think it doesn’t make it right.

I was really trying to let this slide. Why don’t we use that great statement you used earlier Vorkosigan.

1. Pantheist - A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena. Belief in and worship of all gods.
2. Buddhism - belief in reincarnation: the concept that one must go through many cycles of birth, living, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana.
Nirvana - The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom and compassion.
3. Confucianism – is humanism, a philosophy or attitude that is concerned with human beings, their achievements and interests. In Confucianism man is the center of the universe. Vorkosigan said that Confucianism believes in the eternal chi. What is chi? It’s a force. So Confucianism believes in the eternal force.
4. Atheism - Denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

I know it’s a shot in the dark that anyone will be able to see what I am showing above but it’s worth a try.

Are you paying attention?
Are they exactly the same? How do you know they are all pretty much the same? Have you seen all human brains?
Which viewpoint is correct, Burning or remarriage? I am not asking for your opinion. Which view is correct?
What was the recognized religion of the Soviet Union up until recently?
What is the recognized religion of china?
What is the recognized religion of Vietnam?
Before you start preaching you need to recognize that your sheets are not white as snow. I am not judging you by the actions of other Atheists so why should I be judged by the actions of other theists?
I have not murdered anyone. I have been fairly nice while talking on these forums and I have seen very little tact or understanding from you. I think you are wrong in your worldview but feel that I have treated you fairly. You think I am wrong and have not been kind or compassionate. Who is the bigot? The statement about people in my “worldview” is a very bigoted statement.

I would like to express my thanks for the kind non bigoted discussion offered by the atheists here by quoting the kind words of Vorkosigan
madmax2976 and Kyle Smyth I have noticed your posts and will read through them when I have more time.

Thanks for posting
Kris

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kris ]</p>

Kris

Jack,
What specific logical fallacies and double standards are you looking at? I don't need anything indepth. I will look them up and check them out.
Thanks
Kris

Kris

madmax2976 if you do not like my definition of what your belief is please provide one that you agree with and I will use that one.

Thanks
Kris

Vorkosigan

Yes but all things are determined by chemical processes in the brain and thus are reduced to opinion. Why should I care what you think? Just because you think it doesn’t make it right.

There are many reasons you might care what I think. We're both members of the same society. We're both human beings. We might have shared interests of one kind or another. You might find my perspective useful in formulating your own.

But that's the rub, Kris. Since you claim to possess an "absolute" standard, you have short-circuited any "caring" about what I think. From your perspective, you can simply blunder forward, ignoring the moral beliefs of others. From the perspective of a diverse and tolerant society, that makes your beliefs dangerous.

1. Pantheist - A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena. Belief in and worship of all gods.
2. Buddhism - belief in reincarnation: the concept that one must go through many cycles of birth, living, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana.
Nirvana - The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom and compassion.
3. Confucianism – is humanism, a philosophy or attitude that is concerned with human beings, their achievements and interests. In Confucianism man is the center of the universe. Vorkosigan said that Confucianism believes in the eternal chi. What is chi? It’s a force. So Confucianism believes in the eternal force.
4. Atheism - Denial of the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
I know it’s a shot in the dark that anyone will be able to see what I am showing above but it’s worth a try.

You've mis-defined "atheism" for starters. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It characterizes numerous belief systems, including certain strains of Confucianism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Wicca, ESP, New Age beliefs, metaphysical naturalism, and so on. All atheists have different beliefs.

Are they exactly the same? How do you know they are all pretty much the same? Have you seen all human brains?

Don't need to. A significant portion of the human race is sampled in medical schools all over the world every day, and the results published in journals. Since humans are one species....well, you do the rest.

Kris, I have put up two major arguments. One of them showed how "abstract entities" -- there are no "invariant" abstract entities, as quantum physics has shown -- arose through the processes of evolution. Please critique or discuss in an informed way. I am tired of you ignoring what I write, and simply repeating arguments already trashed.

Which viewpoint is correct, Burning or remarriage? I am not asking for your opinion. Which view is correct?

Remarriage, of course. What do you want, proof? Morality is subjective, Kris. Even if you believe in god, all you've done is replaced your own subjectivity with god's. In your case you are even worse, for your very belief is completely subjective -- as a presupposition, it does not rest on any evidence or argument.

If you can define "absolute" or "objective" in morality, than by all means do so. Remember that your own position is totally subjective; your morality is a presupposition you've adopted for no reason at all (if there were reasons, it wouldn't be a presupposition).

What was the recognized religion of the Soviet Union up until recently?
What is the recognized religion of china?
What is the recognized religion of Vietnam?
Before you start preaching you need to recognize that your sheets are not white as snow. I am not judging you by the actions of other Atheists so why should I be judged by the actions of other theists?
I have not murdered anyone. I have been fairly nice while talking on these forums and I have seen very little tact or understanding from you. I think you are wrong in your worldview but feel that I have treated you fairly. You think I am wrong and have not been kind or compassionate. Who is the bigot? The statement about people in my “worldview” is a very bigoted statement.

Sorry Kris, but you have studiously ignored the replies to you. You have failed to grapple with (a) the argument from evolution (b) arguments that morality is subjective. For example, despite several posters' requests, we haven't seen your definition of "objective" morality.

When people engage with you -- and you cannot complain that you have been ignored -- it behooves you to listen and respond. You have done neither. For example, after several posts, you are still writing "Atheists are....." when you do not mean atheists, but "metaphysical naturalists." "Atheists" are people with many different beliefs, only a few of them are total skeptics like myself. "Atheism" is just a word to describe a particular slant on gods. It is not a worldview or a belief system. What worldview do Confucians, Socialists, Communists, Budddhists, Wiccans, Pantheists, Skeptics and New Agers all have in common?

If you had shown any willingness to learn, you would be taken more seriously. But all you do is repeat points already discussed.

Further, as a matter of historical fact, the recognized religion of the Soviet Union was "freedom of religion." Numerous faiths were permitted in the old USSR. However, the Communist Party itself required atheism for membership. So your question, "what is the recognized religion...." is the wrong question. This is also true of China and Vietnam, where religion is legal, although Communist party members are not allowed to be religious. In fact, in "atheist" China more people practice religion (some 90+% according to recent government figures) than in the US! Communists persecute religion because they are Communists, not because they are atheists. There are no historical cases of atheists persecuting people for the sake of atheism. There are, however, numerous cases of authority beliefs like Communism, Christianity or Islam persecuting others for the sake of those beliefs.

Now, to your specific points -- notice that I have addressed ALL of your specific points, although you have ignored mine -- Communism is an authority belief just like Christianity, Islam or Facism. The issue with Communists isn't atheism -- Communists execute atheists who aren't Communists -- but authority. Same as Christianity, Islam, or Facism. Presuppositionalism has the same view of authority as Communism. That is why it is so terrifying to us. In fact, it is worse than Communism, since Communism rests on evidence and argument, but presuppositionalism simply IS.

You asked why we oppose your belief. I told you. It is not bigoted to point out a historical fact. And the bloodthirstiness of Christianity is an undeniable historical fact. I did not accuse you personally of anything. So get down off your high horse. Do not confuse attacks on your religion with attacks on you. And don't ask questions whose answers you may not like.

Finally, YOU started out saying in that post before last, and have dropped several hints along the way, that WE are too dense to understand you. Whatever happened to this discussion -- and in my view nothing has -- was started by you.

Now, I'd like to see a definition of "objective morality" so we can have a serious discussion. Additionlly, a couple of posts ago I posted a list of items not covered by your alleged "absolute morality." You have studiously ignored it Please respond to that. Provide the correct Presuppositionalist Christian answer for the moral questions of Jones Act Subsidies or River Basin Management and the others I posted there.

Vorkosigan

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

MaxMainspring

Kris,
I have a quick question. In your view, what is the relation of God to logic. You are claiming that the validity of our thought processes depend on the existence of a soveriegn God. So I am interested to know if you think the validity of logic depends on divine fiat or is it something to which he is subservient? Or is that a false dichotomy? If so please explain.

Bill Snedden

Then why are you here?

It is certainly true that simply thinking something doesn't make it right(or true). However, what leads you to believe that just because thoughts are the result of chemical processes that there can be no necessary truths? If all human thought is indeed the result of chemical processes, then that in itself is a necessary truth.

Well, apparently it didn't work.

The point Vorkosigan and others are attempting to make is that atheism is not a worldview. Not all atheists are materialists (Buddhists & Confucianists are two examples of atheistic worldviews that are not materialistic), so Dr. Bahnsen's definition is clearly wrong.

The states that you mention have no "recognized religion". Neither does the United States. What's your point?

If you're trying to defend Christianity's bloody history with a tu quoque, you're barking up the wrong tree. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). To say that atheism is responsible for Stalin or Pol Pot is to say that theism was responsible for the crusades. Obviously, neither statement would be true.

Really? Do you consider it polite or fair to walk into a room full of people, call them all delusional, and then proceed to slander them?

"Presuppositionalism" is not really an argument at all, but rather a statement of the form, "I'm right, you're wrong, nyah, nyah."

Even if you didn't mean your posts to be seen in this light (and I feel sure that you didn't), you must recognize that for many of us, this is simply another in long series of discussions over an "argument" that really amounts to little more than pure sophistry.

Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, et al may be or have been very intelligent men, but their dream of creating an unassailable Christian apologetic remains a dream.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Plump-DJ

To Bill.

I think that is an unfair reduction of what the presup is all about. As far as i'm aware the presupper argues that atheism and epistemology don't gel. If atheism is true then no knowledge is possible. The atheist cannot join the neccessary dots beteeen the knower and that which he is trying to know. Wether they can pull this off is up to those who wish to argue the point, but it is much more then saying "I win nyah nyah." There are arguments invovled.

And i also get the impression that the Presupper takes a great deal of his argument's strength not from theistic thinkers as you would think but from *atheistic* philosophers and thinkers *and* the skepticism of David Hume et al

Bill Snedden

Of course it's a reduction, but "unfair" is surely within the eyes of the beholder.

Certainly there are arguments involved. My point is that the "presuppositional argument" is not in itself an argument at all. It is the worldview which the Christian presuppositionalist attempts to defend by other arguments.

In order to defend his worldview, the CP must argue retortively ("all other worldviews are self-contradictory"). This is what you mean by "if atheism is true then no knowledge is possible." Unfortunately, I have yet to see a CP successfully defend that proposition. On these boards and in published debates, in dozens of arguments, I have seen atheists offer numerous "justifications" of human knowledge, based in evolutionary theory, in axiomatic meta-principles, even in mysticism. However, it seems that no matter what alternative non-CP "foundation" is offered, the common CP retort seems to be "No, you forgot to include God, therefore I win." In short, I've not met a CP yet who would concede even in principle that knowledge could be possible without God. Given that, there's simply no way to argue with such a person; even if faced with evidence that would convince any other rational human, they would ostensibly still cling to their presupposition.

That's where the "nyah, nyah" bit comes in. There also seems to be a great deal of arrogance in the presentation of these arguments. The language used is generally quite denigrating of atheistic philosophy and heavy on the sarcasm. While that may have something to do with the generally pompous and patronizing writing styles of Van Til and Bahnsen both, it certainly doesn't endear the proponent to non-believing readers.

Oooh! Now who's borrowing from whose worldview, hmmm?

Certainly that's true. Problems in epistemology raised by Hume and others represent significant issues which both theists and atheists alike must face. It seems to me, however, that 20th century philosophers (like Wittgenstein, Russell, Searle, Quine, et al) have made significant contributions that seem to be consistently ignored by CP's. The fact is that there are a great many non-theists, many of them philosophers, who do not agree that the proposition "God does not exist" entails a logical contradiction. Until the CP can effectively demonstrate that it does, her retortive strategy will most likely continue to fail (you see, unlike the CP, I can admit that, in principle, I might be wrong ).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Steven Carr

Certainly, we could all be brains in vats and our 'knowledge' not be knowledge at all.

What worldview is immune from Cartesian doubt?

And what is your point in pointing out that naturalism does not allow you to know things with total certainty?

Plump-DJ

But no presupper argues in such a way. They argue that no knowledge is posslbe if atheism is true. Wether they can pull it off is up to them.

I mean let's say that you contend that the earth is round, but your basic philosophy denies the existence of curves. That's sorta how i see the presupper argument. If curves exist, then your basic philosophy is wrong.

1) I never said that. I was simply responding to Bill's claim that presupeprs go "I win nyah nyah!". In doing that i was simply stating what i thought presup was all about and that they actually make arguments for their position.

2) It's not total certainty, but no knowledge at all. That is the argument i believe. Now if one can show that one's basic philosophy is wrong
then clearly, if there is only 2 choices we must be drawn to the one remaining. It's like the curves example above.

And one of the respondants (to the question asked above) argued that perhaps knowledge is a part of nature. Built in somehow. But if nature has such an attribute then it looks to me as if we've gone from naturalism to pantheism here. We've brough in something capable of knowing. That requires a mind, it requires reason. Inert matter and natural laws do not know stuff.