HRG

Which does not mean that I deny their authority; if X does not exist, there is nothing to deny or accept about X. First I'd have to believe that an entity X exists; only with this belief it is possible to accept or deny that X is an authority for me.

Similarly it is impossible to rebel against Y unless one believes that Y exists. When a conquistador landed on an unknown coast and occupied the whole territory in the name of the Spanish Crown, did that mean that all inhabitants suddenly became rebels ?

I disagree, since neutrality is an objective character, not to be determined by the consent of the parties (i.e. I would be objectively wrong in saying that a biased judge is neutral). Otherwise one side would only have to add to their claims "who is not for me is against me" to defeat automatically all claims of neutrality.

I wonder whether SeeKayaker realizes how analogous his line of argument is to a doctrine of orthodox Marxism-Leninism: there is no neutrality in class struggle. Unless you accepted the PoV of the proletariate (read: the Communist party) from the beginning, you simply were not able to make an objective judgment about economics, society and history.

It seems to be a hallmark of extremist positions to deny the possibility of a neutral position. Coincidentia oppositorum .....

Regards,
HRG.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

Notice how these sorts of statements always sound so archaic? Especially for those of us who no longer live in a monarchy? In a monarchy, the idea of a spiritual lord, who is nobler and better than any possible earthly lord, could be very appealing. Few earthly kings or dictators are going to be anywhere near ideal.

But from where I'm standing, in 21st century democratic America, there is no "lord" who can possibly be ideal enough. The old spiritual ideal of perfect government, with the highest of high kings sitting on a dais far above the rest of us, is no longer appealing. A liege, a lord, a master... I don't want any of that. I don't recognize that sort of set up as being perfection, at all. Anyway, what sort of universe would this be, if it doesn't matter much what you do as long as you just "swear fealty" to the High Lord? This whole image of Cosmic Feudalism just doesn't cut it anymore, does it?

Please consider this, SeaKayaker. Consider the possibility that peoples' conceptions of the spiritual on some level grow out of their own ideals. I think the fact that your statement (which I quoted above) sounds so archaic and old-fashioned is indicative of this. The Judeo-Christian religion grew out of cultures that had monarchs, in which subjects would humbly abase themselves before the throne.

To me, your variation on the Pascal's Wager, is: take a chance that this highly improbable set of myths cooked up by enslaved desert nomads from two to three thousand years ago are true, since you have nothing to lose -- but risk eternal damnation in case those highly improbable myths are true.

But... what do those potential outcomes have to do with whether it is true in the first place? The myths remain highly improbable. The Wager does not address this. When ascertaining whether something is true or not, shouldn't we be evaluating the probability that something is true, rather than the potential outcomes if it is true?

A big problem I have with Pascal's Wager is that it focuses on hypothetical outcomes to hypothetical situations... not the likelihood of those situations in the first place. The idea that someone is going to claim that they are a Christian, and try to believe something they really deep down don't believe, strikes me as a disingenous attempt to cover the spread. So, I guess your heaven (if it exists) is filled with not only the truly pious folks, but also the most practical horsetrack gamblers, card sharks and odds-makers, who knew a good bet when they saw it. Kind of like Vegas.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Ender

Seakayer

When will you put me out of my misery and address my response?

Or have you decided that your horseblinders are worth keeping?

~WiGGiN~

SeaKayaker

Ender the Theothanatologist,

Poor Ender, you must be just about starving by now. I will address your post as soon as I can, but that will probably not be before tomorrow evening but I hope to respond by the weekend at the latest. I do not intend to keep you waiting in front of your T-bone so long, but I have too much homework tonight to respond in such a way so as to deal with the issues you raise in the manner that they deserve.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi

Oh, you mean you're actually going to respond to the posts, Sea? Great.

Homework?

(edited to add, "Homework?" in a quizzical manner - Koy)

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Ender

Koyaanisqatsi

You willing to wager seakayaker will submit at least an attempt of a point-by-point rebuttal? The smart money says no.

By the way, the first person that forces Seakayaker into invoking ad hominems wins!

~WiGGiN~

SeaKayaker

I wrote this a while back but have held off posting in the hope of finishing it first. I have decided to just go ahead and post it, trying to post the rest later.

Koyaanisqatsi,

Thanks for the (thorough) reply. I will respond to as much of it as time allows.

I see no disagreement (beyond a possible verbal one) between our two statements.


Well, you may notice that this is the belief against which I am arguing.

I think that a person’s worldview has a great impact on how he does science. However, as I said before, this is the view against which I am arguing (applying scientific criteria to questions of worldviews).

My whole argument is that there is no such thing as this neutrality that agnostics claim to have.

I am sorry if my style of writing confused you, but I did not define agnosticism as neutral. I said (and you agreed) that agnostics consider themselves neutral, but my argument is that this neutrality does not exist.

If my argument is true, this is not so. Therefore, I will wait until I find something of yours that decisively counters my argument before judging this statement of yours.

When I refer to atheism as a worldview, I am referring to metaphysical naturalism. Thus, metaphysical naturalism would be a more precise term, but I do think that the same statement applies to all atheistic worldviews, for which reason I used atheism instead of metaphysical naturalism.

If my argument stands, this statement is false, since it is impossible not to have a worldview. If neutrality is impossible, then the person who claims to not have a worldview (to be neutral), is really not neutral. Therefore, I will suspend judgment on this statement as well.

Actually, the Christian claims much more than that God exists. Namely, he also claims that the person who does not accept this is reduced to foolishness and his thinking is futile. The Christian says that it is impossible to reason apart from God; the agnostic and atheists claim that it is possible to reason apart from God (because they do not believe that He exists). These are two different ways of thinking, each of which is foolish by the definitions of the other.

I am referring to the very idea of knowledge. This involves the ability to know something, but it also refers to the existence of “knowledge.”

To presuppose something is to hold it as a fundamental belief in one’s life. This has nothing to do with “pre-consciousness” thought. Indeed, it is possible to hold, reject, or change one’s presuppositions, but this does result in a massive re-ordering of one’s life. Presuppositions, according to this definition, are assumptions people make with which they challenge propositions, instead of challenging the presuppositions.

Well, I deal with that in the first of my three points, so I will read what you have to say about that argument there.

I will finish this as soon as I can

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi

I'd normally wait until you finish it, but I already see how off track it's going, so I'll respond piecemeal.

The disagreement is fundamental. Scientists do not evaluate "neutrally," they apply a rigorous standard of falsification/verification resulting in a conclusion that is inherently and expected to be mutable. What you should have said was scientists attempt to focus only on the evidence, leaving their prejudice (aka, "beliefs") out of the equation.

The reason I brought this up in the first place was to point out that a more accurate description of what scientists do yields the conclusion that any comparison to what scientists do (or don't do) is entirely irrelevant to the nature of irrational beliefs, or, as you put it, "worldviews," a magical catch-all and largely meaningless phrase that cult members have leapt upon of late, by the way, as you have done here IMO, as a means to force an argument that does not exist.

Hence, you're building a straw man.

And you should have noticed my questioning your argument and answered those questions. You have not answered them in your arguments or subsequent posts, so I'll ask them again.

Why must one "neutrally evaluate each worldview and then come to a reasoned conclusion as to the truth?"

What has any of this to do with the scientific method?

You're attempting in a circuitous manner to establish that there is no neutrality in the agnostic position (which you falsely equivocate with theism by using the largely meaningless, blanket phrase "worldview," as if be putting the two under a single umbrella, they can now be equally evaluated, which is a fallacy).

In other words, you have not adequately established the validity (or purpose) of your opening premise upon which your subsequent argument and conclusion was based. Stating, "I know, that's what I'm arguing," is to, once again, miss the point. You aren't arguing them as much as you are simply declaring them.

Then you've hopelessly confused me, because as far as I can figure out from what you just said, you are arguing that a person's "worldview" has no impact on how that person "does" science.

Yes, I know (or thought I did initially, because that crap about science apparently still throws me), which is why I disagreed with you and pointed out that their "neutrality" is a direct result of awaiting evidence. In other words, your whole argument is incorrect based on the fact that agnostics make no "claim" of neutrality.

The "neutrality" of an agnostic is not a claim or a positive assertion of their "worldview" or any other such nonsense. The "neutrality" of agnosticism comes from inaction.

Quite right. My mistake.

What I just typed decisively counters your argument. You claimed, "The dichotomy between Christianity and agnosticism make an impartial evaluation of the two worldviews impossible."

I countered that by pointing out an atheist is perfectly impartial to evaluate the alleged dichotomy between the "christian worldview" and the "agnostic worldview."

Are you referring to your larger argument, that agnostics are not "neutral," because my counter argument here is directly applicable to your assertion about the "dichotomy" making an impartial evaluation of the two worldviews impossible?

Nor, by the way, is there a "dichotomy" between christians (I fully believe goddidit) and agnostics (I haven't enough evidence yet to fully believe goddidit, but I'm not ruling that out based on not having enough evidence yet). A dichotomy suggests mutually exclusive and/or contradictory divisions between two positions. Here there is no such division, because they're both predicated on uncertainty; the uncertainty of "belief."

Then you should have stated, "Because of the antithetical nature of Christian and agnostic or metaphysical naturalism thought…" since one is not necessarily another.

For the umpteenth time, "atheism" is not a "worldview." It is the absence of belief in deity. It is not a positive claim or even a collection of beliefs of any kind. I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.

A = Without.
Theism = Belief in a god or gods.

Atheism= Without belief in a god or gods.

So, yes, you're correct, you should have used "metaphysical naturalism" since that could, arguably be classified as a "worldview," though agnosticism still cannot be. How is, "I'm not convinced mystical fairy god kings magically blinked everything into existence in order to punish it, but I won't dismiss such an idea as impossible" a "worldview?"

I guess, in general, if you're going to build straw men, use the right straw.

<ol type="1">[*] Your argument does not stand[*] That isn't your argument and it certainly is possible to not have a "worldview."[/list=a]

Your "argument" does not establish or support any of your statements so to keep stating these non-responses accordingly serves no purpose.

You're not "suspending judgment;" you're avoiding the questions and hiding behind semantics. Atheism isn't a worldview except to a cult member who has been indoctrinated into believing that the world was created by a magical fairy god kind. Agnosticism is simply the withholding of judgment (as you are doing, ironically) because there isn't any compelling evidence of magical fairy god kings for the agnostic, but that fact isn't going to make them dismiss the idea as impossible.

In that regard, you can't get more neutral than an agnostic in regard to the question of whether or not a mystical fairy god king magically blinked everything into existence.

Do you know what it means to "build a straw man," by the way? That's an argument that is forced by stretching definitions and twisting context and meaning into something that resembles a legitimate argument, but upon closer inspection is not.

That's what you're doing here. For example, if a person states, "I am neutral on the existence of a god," and you come along and say, "You cannot be neutral, because it's not possible to actually be neutral about something, etc.," is to build a straw man argument out of someone's declarative position.

If they say they're neutral, then they're neutral. Getting into a pointless semantics dance with the word "neutral" and "worldviews" and "metaphysical naturalism" and any other pointlessness is to build a straw man argument where no legitimate argument exists.

Good for the christian. What has this to do with my counter-argument, other than to further establish that only the christian has the burden of proof?

Which only demonstrates how simplistic and easily falsified is the christian thinking.

Right, a positive claim that requires compelling evidence to support, of which the christian has none, thereby negating their claim and rendering their "worldview" unsupportable; aka, worthless.

Incorrect. Agnostics and atheists make absolutely no claims. Stop misusing terminology to stuff your straw man.

Do you understand what you're doing now? Your straw man is to force everyone into simply accepting that everyone involved is making a claim of some nature and therefore everyone involved is on some sort of equal footing (the misnomer of the phrase "worldview").

This is incorrect. Your reasoning is faulty and not applicable in the manner you are attempting. Do you understand what that means?

I'm seriously asking you if you understand what that means, by the way? Do you?

There is only one claim being made and that is by the christian. Do you understand that? It's important that you understand this before going any further, which is why I'm asking it repeatedly. Only the christian is making a claim.

The claim is, "Knowledge is not possible without the factual existence of a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked us all into existence."

That is the claim. There are no other claims. This claim must then be supported with compelling evidence or else it is worthless and effectively no longer a claim.

A claim without supporting evidence is, primarily, a dead claim. Do you understand that?

Now, if I say, "Knowledge is possible without the factual existence of a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked us all into existence," and pay close attention here, THAT IS NOT A CLAIM. That is an observation based on the facts in evidence.

I'll repeat that. That is an observation based on the facts in evidence.

Do you follow that? The christians made a claim that they cannot support, which means that their claim is worthless and should be discarded accordingly. That, in turn, means that there is no claim, got it? This, also in turn, means that my statement is not a claim, but merely an observation based on the facts in evidence.

No evidence for god=no evidence that knowledge is dependant upon god. Capisca?

Until the christian can prove their god factually exists, then I can state as a matter of extant fact that knowledge is indeed possible without the factual existence of a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked us all into existence.

Do you understand why that is not a claim of any kind on my behalf, but is, in fact, a pointless, largely unnecessary declaration of extant fact?

Incorrect. The christian claims something they cannot support, rendering their claim null and void. No evidence for god=no evidence that knowledge is dependant upon god.

Since we have no evidence to support the christian claim, then the christian has no claim and there exists some other explanation for how the human mind is capable of reasoning.

Perhaps this is where you're getting all hung up? Mistaking the fact that one "worldview" (the christian's) answers a question, while another "worldview," in your opinion, does not answer the question does not mean that the "worldview" that provides an answer to the question is correct or somehow preferable to the "worldview" that does not answer the same question.

In this case, for example, we know that the christian "worldview" answers the question, but the answer is incorrect, childishly simplistic and down right ludicrous, not to mention (though I certainly have and will again) unsupportable.

For you (or anyone else) to just turn around and say, "Well, what's your answer to the question," is certainly legitimate, I suppose, but ultimately pointless. It's not a contest of who can answer the question; it's a question of which answers truly address the question?

Question: "How does man have the ability to reason?"
Cult member: Goddidit.
Intelligent freethinker: Fictional characters in ancient mythology don't exist, so your answer, dear cult member, is not an answer.
Cult member: Then what's your answer.
Intelligent freethinker: What are you, five?

Incorrect. Only one group would label something "foolish" (thereby risking "hellfire"), the other would state that a claim was made and demonstrated to be incorrect based upon a lack of supporting evidence, thereby rendering that claim worthless.

In other words, one group would be incorrect and the other correct. Which do you think is which?

The agnostic, by the way, whom you seem to have neglected in this tidbit, would simply take the neutral position by not labeling one group "foolish" or basing any change in their beliefs upon the irrefutable findings of the "foolish" group.

See how it all comes around when you first start arguing in circles?

Thanks for clarifying. So now your task is to explain precisely how one presupposes the "idea" of knowledge.

No, to hold something as a fundamental belief in one's life is to hold something as a fundamental belief in one's life.

I still have never been able to get someone arguing presuppositionalism to explain precisely how one "presupposes" something and I presuppose I never will .

I'm not talking about the requirement of an antecedent in a syllogism, by the way. I am asking you to detail precisely how someone can "pre" supposes the "idea" of knowledge?

Take me through the steps, don't just use the words you've seen others use. You're arguing about the "idea of knowledge" as a presupposition, so tell me precisely how one goes about presupposing such a thing? Is it like booting up a computer with a floppy disk held into the port?

Then in what context is it pre supposed and not simply supposed? Where does the "pre" come into it? Do you wake up and say, "Now is the time for me to presuppose that the idea of knowledge comes from my irrational acceptance of a mystical fairy god king who magically blinked everything into existence, including the idea of knowledge?"

You're throwing that word around awfully liberally. What you're should be saying is, "Indeed, it is possible to hold, reject, or change one's beliefs," since that's what you're actually referring to.

The verb, to presuppose, simply means to suppose beforehand, but without a proper context it means nothing. So, tell me precisely how it is possible to "suppose beforehand" that the "idea of knowledge," which gives me the ability to know something, is god dependent if you're not talking about pre-conscious thought?

The implication is that I can’t think (or have the ability of knowledge) without presupposing God, which would necessarily mean that I have presupposed His existence from birth, which is patently absurd, so please, by all means, take me to school on this.

If you're not talking about pre-conscious thought, then there is absolutely no relevant point in using the word "presupposing" in any of its forms in this context.

:brickwall: You're sort of using the terminology correctly here, only not applying it properly to what you've been arguing. If I assume knowledge is god dependent, then how am I presupposing the "idea of knowledge?"

Let's make this crystal clear and use the correct terminology so that none of this pointless semantics shuffle gets us off track, yes? Christians claim knowledge is god dependent. This claim is not supported and therefore discarded accordingly. End of discussion regarding knowledge being god dependent.

There. That was simple, direct and demonstrable and no one had to assume or suppose or presuppose a goddamned thing.

Ok. I'll deal with you dealing with that there. Wherever there will end up being.

No rush. Trust me.

Think. Comprehend. Apply. And don't use unnecessary or misconstrued terminology.

That's all I'm asking.

SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi,

Thanks for the post.

By saying that they are neutral, I was saying that they “focus only on the evidence, leaving their prejudice (aka, "beliefs") out of the equation.” Is there some other meaning of neutrality to you?

I was merely pointing out that people seek to evaluate Christianity from a stance of agnosticism and that such an evaluation is fundamentally flawed.

If one belief is true and the others are false, I would believe it advantageous to believe the true one. I am not trying to say that you should believe in Christianity for that reason; rather, I am saying that everyone ought to try to come to a reasoned conclusion as to what the true worldview is.

Evaluating worldviews is far different from evaluating cellular structure, so actually very little. However, it is tempting for us to evaluate them in the same way, which is what I do not support.

There may be neutrality in the agnostic position between other worldviews, but between agnosticism and Christianity I do not believe that there can be neutrality. You say that I am equating Christianity and agnosticism unfairly, but I am not saying that they are equal. Indeed, I am maintaining that there is the condition of supercontrariety between them, so at least one must be false.

How one does science reflects upon his worldview; it does not determine it.

That is true, but I am saying that in their very inaction they assume (take on) an antitheistic position.

Do you claim that the atheist who does not believe that God exists (or outright denies God’s existence) is neutral on the issue of God’s existence?

My point is that your two examples are actually antithetical positions. I believe that the agnostic, in order to make his statement, must hold that God does not exist.

I understand your claim, but disagree with it. Belief in a deity (or lack thereof) is a central aspect of any worldview. Therefore, “atheism” is a very handy term when referring to those worldviews that deny God’s existence. This does not mean that it is the only acceptable or even the only accurate term, but it is merely a convenient and logical one.

That is not the entire worldview, but because of the significance of a belief in a deity, it is a handy way to refer to the worldview.

The person who does not affirm Christianity denies it. This in itself leads to a worldview. A person cannot function without some view on what knowledge is and how he ought to gain it, on what reality is, and on what morality is.

The person who does not accept belief in Christianity denies it. The act of suspending judgment goes against the very idea of Christianity, so the person who attempts to do so is denying Christianity.

I am familiar with fallacious straw man arguments. For instance, if you were to equate your “mystical fairy god king” who “magically blinked everything into existence” with the Christian God, that would be an example of a straw man.

I am only maintaining that it is truly impossible to be neutral between Christianity and other religions or worldviews, particularly agnosticism (that was not a straw man you presented, was it?).

You seem to equate a claim of neutrality to a self-report (a form of tautology). If this were the case, you are correct in stating that I would have no right to deny their statement. However, I do not think that neutrality is possible on this issue, and so, knowing that the person is a freethinker who wants to know the truth, I will attempt to point out this to him. I am not trying to say that he must believe Christianity, but just that he ought to recognize that he is not neutral.

I did not begin this thread for the purpose of presenting the transcendental argument for the existence of God, but for arguing that neutrality is impossible, thus I have not yet presented the arguments for that statement, although you are right in asking for them before accepting it.

I do not claim that worldviews are equal, merely that they are exclusive.

The Christian does claim that all knowledge comes from a belief in God. As you say, it is necessary to evaluate this claim. My argument here is not about that claim: my argument about neutrality stands whether or not Christianity is true. I am not yet arguing that it is. Rather, I am making an appeal to you, as freethinkers earnestly seeking the truth, to evaluate whether a particular aspect of your philosophy (worldview) is sound. I am not asking you to abandon your worldview, but merely to pursue the truth, as you claim to do. I am just saying that the method you use to evaluate worldviews is unsound, and therefore a different method is necessary.

Okay, let us look at this statement then and see if it requires us to believe any claims (substituting “the Christian God for “a mystical fairy god king that magically blinked us all into existence” to avoid the possibility of arguing a straw man). A basic proposition of this statement is that knowledge is possible. This affirms the existence of the self, through which you come to know propositions, the item being known, and a standard of truth. I argued earlier that it also requires a system of morality. You say that this is based on the facts, which requires a method of evaluating propositions to determine whether they are factual. If I offered you information from a dream that the planet Mars does not exist, would you give it the same credence that you would give scientific evidence? If not, why is that so? How do you judge what evidence is permissible? How can you say that your judgments of what is permissible evidence are superior to anyone else’s? Why do you believe that perception is an accurate reflection of reality?

Our disagreement is not so much over the what the facts are, but over what makes facts themselves possible. This is a far deeper issue than the definition of the facts themselves.

How is this different from ad ignorantiam?
I am not asking that you believe for yourself that knowledge is dependant upon God, but merely that you be willing to assume its truth for the sake of argument when evaluating Christianity.


The act of answering a question does not guarantee that the answer is correct. However, I still maintain that the agnostic’s worldview does answer the question. I am not saying that this makes it false, but just that it does provide a definite answer on the question of God’s existence.

I agree that fictional characters do not exist, but I do not think that this agreement helps us very much. I am not trying to determine the best method of reasoning here. Instead, I am trying to point out a way that freethinkers could make their reasoning more sound. Why is this such a sensitive issue?

I would say that an incorrect and worthless claim is foolish.

The two different methods of reasoning are the agnostic’s and the Christian’s.

We seem to not be using the same definition for “presupposition.”
I am defining presuppositions as those epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie all areas of your life, including your reasoning. This has nothing to do with believing something subconsciously (etymological information is often helpful, but the processes of pejoration, melioration, and simple linguistic evolution can limit its preciseness).

Some beliefs you hold more firmly than you do others. For instance, you may in the face of even a small amount of evidence change your belief as to the price of gas at the local gas station. However, it would take a lot more evidence to convince you that the Olympics are not currently being held at Salt Lake City, Utah. There are some beliefs that would require even more evidence for you to reject. Well, a presupposition is as high up that list as you can go. In fact, presuppositions determine what you will accept as a fact, so you dismiss propositions that go against your presuppositions. Because of the impact presuppositions have in your life, I am asking that you fairly evaluate them.

Etymologies can lead to confusion. The “pre-” indicates not the order of belief, but the fundamental importance of these beliefs (prae- can refer to eminence or intensity in addition to order). You are referring to a valid definition of the word “presuppose” but not the definition that I am using.

I am willing to discuss this, but I think that we still have too many other loose ends to go to that point with our discussion.

You are presupposing what knowledge is, which, for the lack of a better term, I am calling the idea of knowledge.

I am not attempting to evaluate this claim at the time being. We can get into that later if you wish.

Actually, it presupposed many things…
See the earlier time that this came up.

Thanks for the post, but I would ask that you remember that I am trying to help you improve your philosophical system. I am not now presenting an argument that the Christian worldview is true, but am rather just trying to help you to stand on firmer ground so that we can more easily discuss worldviews.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi

Don't mention it. Especially under court subpoena.

Yes, obviously. Another meaning of neutrality is to remain non-commital to a claim until compelling evidence is presented, while at the same time not dismissing the claim based upon the fact that there is no compelling evidence to support the claim, hence "agnosticism."

Hence, you're building a straw man. Agnostics don't "seek to evaluate" any form of theism and that's the point of being an agnostic. At best, they await compelling evidence, hence their neutrality.

Again, I would urge you to consider the terminology you are using and think about its application before forcing an argument that does not exist.

So, one "mustn't;" just you feel that's what should happen.

Ok, then present the evidence for christianity. I don't see the problem here, other than my feeling that you are doing little more than building a straw man.

Your terminology is implying that people don't already come to reasoned conclusions regarding either christianity or agnosticism (or atheism, for that matter). Since this is not true, your stated purpose is already shown to be fallacious.

So, in other words, your straw man is predicated on declaring that when it comes to christianity, one shouldn't apply the "scientific method," i.e., rigorous evaluation, falsfication and verification of the evidence in support of the claim, always with the understanding that any conclusions drawn are mutable.

Hence, your straw man.

In essence, you're attempting to dismiss the application of established and proven methods of evaluating a positive claim for the simple reason that such a method demonstrates that the claim is baseless.

It's good work if you can get it, but there's already a name for it. Preaching.

[quote]ME: You're attempting in a circuitous manner to establish that there is no neutrality in the agnostic position (which you falsely equivocate with theism by using the largely meaningless, blanket phrase "worldview," as if be putting the two under a single umbrella, they can now be equally evaluated, which is a fallacy).

Hence, your straw man.

How is it possible for a neutral position--a position, which, in essence, merely states, "We await the evidence"--to be contrary to christianity's claim that no evidence is required (faith), except in the mind of the christian who has deluded him or herself into thinking that no evidence is required?

The christian claims goddidit. The agnostic says, "Ok, what's your evidence?" For the christian to do anything other than present the evidence (including what you're attempting) is to engage in straw man concoction.

How? How is it "antitheistic" to await compelling evidence? You keep claiming this, but the only way you could claim such a thing is if christianity (or theism) were already proven to be true, which it is not.

If you make the claim, "The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo exists," and I say, "Ok, what is your evidence?" How is that contrary to your claim?

Atheists are without a belief in a god or gods. Read that again. We are without a belief in god or gods. That means that we are perfectly impartial to evaluate any alleged dichotomy between a theist's claim and the agnostic position, because the only difference between the two is one states, "God exists," and the other asks, "Ok, but what is your evidence?"

The impartial evaluation would be in the evidence presented. What is your evidence?

The reason you don't present it is the same reason you're trying to build this straw man by attempting to dismiss the scientific method as a means to evaluate christian claims.

You're attempting to state, "Christians don't need to present any evidence," which is false.

We're not children and we're not idiots. That's precisely what you're attempting to establish with this whole straw man and it won't wash.

The christian has a burden of proof and no one else in this issue. Period.

[quote]ME: Nor, by the way, is there a "dichotomy" between christians (I fully believe goddidit) and agnostics (I haven't enough evidence yet to fully believe goddidit, but I'm not ruling that out based on not having enough evidence yet).

A dichotomy suggests mutually exclusive and/or contradictory divisions between two positions. Here there is no such division, because they're both predicated on uncertainty; the uncertainty of "belief."

Then you are simply incorrect in your belief. There is no other way to put it.

It isn't open for your agreement or disagreement, since it isn't a "claim." It is a statement of fact.

No, it is not. That is nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinion and it is not valid.

It is not possible to deny something that has not been demonstrated to exist. Well, it's "possible," in a pointless semantical way, but utterly unnecessary.

YOU ARE BUILDING AN INVALID STRAW MAN.

Again, you are misapplying terms. Why? To what end?

To force an argument that does not exist. How ironic.

Only a theist considers their belief "significant." Again, you are forcing a straw man that does not exist except in the mind of a cult member.

Bullshit. Forced, illegitimate, bullshit.

None of which has anything to do with the question of whether or not the christian claims are true or not.

Again, the straw man. You are trying to force an argument that only exists in the mind of the christian cult member. Prove that the christian "worldview" is true and then (and ONLY then) would you be able to declare that someone is denying that truth.

You can't just state, "It's true." That statement has no force behind it; no impact whatsoever. You must demonstrate "it's true" and then challenge someone to disprove your supported claim.

Do you understand that?

Incorrect. Christianity has no basis to make any such declarations since it is an uproved "worldview."

Who gives a shit? Christians! So it is incumbant upon christians to prove their claim.

I suggest you re-equate yourself with the definition.

How so? Jesus is "mystical," claimed to be "god" and the "king of the Jews" and one third of the trinity, meaning he is god, who is alleged in a fairy tale to have created everything ex nihilo; i.e., "magically." Since there is no description of how he accomplished such a thing, "magically blinked into existence" is merely a legitimate description of what was claimed to have occurred.

Christians affirm all of this, with the exception that they claim the story is not a fairy tale, but since they have no proof for this claim, it remains a fairy tale.

See what happens when you correctly apply terminology and the immutable laws of logic?

Yes, you certainly are maintaining this. Unfortunately you aren't demonstrating it to be true.

No, it was not.

Then you are simply incorrect in your opinion based on the application of flawed logic.

Gee, thanks.

Then you need to amend that claim since it cannot be supported. The only correct claim to make in this regard is that the christian claim is exclusive, which is entirely irrelevant, since it has never been demonstrated to be a "true" worldview.

Then present the evidence for us to evaluate. What is the problem?

Abundantly clear.

Since we have presented no worldviews, you should ask us a direct question, such as, "Why do you feel disbelief in the christian claim is sound?"

Since there is no worldview in contention, we cannot either abondon it or affirm it.

Atheism is the absence of belief in deity. It is not possible to abandon the absence of belief, except in meaningless semantical word play.

No, that is not what you are saying. You are saying that the scientific method demonstrates the christian claim to be invalid, so abandon that method and use yours instead. Considering you haven't presented a "different method" to evaluate the christian claim, however, that is obviously going to be exceedingly difficult, yes?

Straw man. We have no reason to agree with your (lack of) terms; aka, you have not presented anything salient that would justify your forced position.

No.

Because it can be easily demonstrated to be a false claim. All I would need is a telescope. Actually, I wouldn't even need that, since if Mars were to suddenly not exist, it would throw our entire solar system out of orbital stasis and effect our entire global ecosphere.

Through rigorous falsfication and verification of the evidence in support of the claim.

Here, let's take your straw man. You claim you dreamed that Mars does not exist. We then take several different methods of confirming your claim, demonstrating your claim to be false.

Why are you interjecting the qualitative term "superior" into this? To stuff your straw man.

Permissible evidence is any evidence you have. Evaluating that evidence is then done once the evidence is presented.

If you present a dream of Mars no longer existing and we evaluate that evidence by confirming that Mars still exists, then your claim has been demonstrated to be false.

What is the problem?

Read that question twenty times in a row and then buy any high school textbook on "What is Philosophy?"

The point is, we don't "believe" perception is an accurate reflection of reality! That's why we seek to rigorously falsify and verify claims through a careful and concerted evalution of the evidence presented in support of any perceptionally based claim (such as christianity).

If you say, "I dreamed Jesus was god," then you have, in essence, presented no evidence to evaluate; you have only told us what you dreamed. Are you arguing that we should just accept your dream as sufficient evidence to effectively conclude that Jesus was, in fact, a "god?"

Why in the world should we do that? Because you're such a great person and if we really knew you and had grown up with you we would just magically know that your dreams are always true and therefore a standard to measure reality by?

I beg of you, consider your terminology carefully before you continue to post anything regarding this straw man, because all you've done so far is say, in essence, "The christian claim should be considered true just because christians say it is true."

No, your claim is that a god is required to make facts "possible." What is your evidence in support of this claim?

Only in your own mind.

So, we've finally gotten down to it. You're trying to state that facts cannot "exist" without a god-like creature somehow mandating their existence. This is your claim.

You must now present evidence to support your claim or otherwise demonstrate why anyone should consider this claim as a legitimate argument. Why is it necessary that a god-like creature exist for facts to be facts?

If you cannot support your claim then you have no claim to make. You are claiming that knowledge is dependent on a god-like creature. Prove that this is true or rescind your claim as unsupportable.

Why would we assume something is true that cannot be demonstrated to be true when evaluating whether or not christianity is true? That's absurd. You're "asking" us to assume the very question in contention.

And what is that answer? "I do not know whether or not a god exists, but I remain open to any evidence that would be presented that demonstrates that a god exists."

Sure it does. It means that we agree fictional creatures don't exist.

Au contraire, mon frer. That is precisely what you are trying to do by claiming that the scientific method is not the correct method to use and that the only correct method to use is to assume the question is already answered by fiat.

How? By assuming something is true when the very question is whether or not something is true? How is that "more sound?"

It isn't. It's fallacious, not sensitive.

[quote]YOU: These are two different ways of thinking, each of which is foolish by the definitions of the other.

ME: Incorrect. Only one group would label something "foolish" (thereby risking "hellfire"), the other would state that a claim was made and demonstrated to be incorrect based upon a lack of supporting evidence, thereby rendering that claim worthless.

I agree. An incorrect and worthless claim is indeed foolish so, arguably, no one should ever make a claim that can be demonstrated to be incorrect, thereby rendering it worthless.

No. The different method of reasoning is the christian's, who, basing everything on faith, do rarelly employ reason.

Clearly.

Then you had better demonstrate that such principles exist in a "metaphysical" manner, I would say.

Regardless, why define presupposition in this way only to then misapply it in the manner you are doing? The christian claim cannot possibly be a "metaphysical principle that underlies all areas of your life," since it is not fundamentally proved to be true; it is only pretended to be true.

Then, in other words, you aren't arguing presupposition at all, you're merely claiming that christians pretend that which has not been demonstrated to be true is true anyway.

Your arguing for self-delusion.

Yes, so what has this to do with presupposition?

No, you may not. You don't "believe" that the price of gas is a dollar when the price of gas is two dollars (unless you're delusional). Seeing the sign that states, "Gas is two dollars" is not subject to your beliefs, it is a fact in evidence.

More later. I'm tired and teaching you remedial logic and language is grating.