Philosophers take themselves very very seriously. lol.

For the rest of us..

(August 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A conversation from another thread drove me to post this. In the wake of the evidentialist apologetic failures of late, this stuff is making a comeback. In my opinion, this type of approach to christianity is the one that's going to survive. It's the ultimate fingers in the ears defense. The WMD of disagreements. Seems these guys are banking on the success of this tactic in the playgrounds of their youth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposit...pologetics

Isn't this kind of begging the question and special pleading just boil down to one word: faith?

---

(August 19, 2011 at 3:05 am)padraic Wrote: Many of them are the same people who believed "Yes we can!" and who have now gotten their panties all out of focus because they have realised "No we haven't and ain't gonna"

The phrase I would use is "Aw, c'mon guys"

"Yes we can!"
(After the election)
"Aw, c'mon guys"
"No"
"Please?"
"No"
"It's our turn."
"No"
"The voters said we could."
"No"
"Here, we'll be nice to you and concede a bunch of stuff"
"*Grunt* *Pocket*"
"Now, it's time for you to return the favor"
"No"
"Aw, c'mon guys" [...]

And Democrat leaders wonder why we're so demoralized.

(August 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Isn't this kind of begging the question and special pleading just boil down to one word: faith?

---

This presupposition shit essentially boil down to "because we refuse to see our own fault, therefore you must humor us when we demand you treat us as perfect".

(August 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Isn't this kind of begging the question and special pleading just boil down to one word: faith?

---

This presupposition shit essentially boil down to "because we refuse to see our own fault, therefore you must humor us when we demand you treat us as perfect".

This thread has been pretty amusing, watching a bunch of atheists bash something they do not understand at all (not unlike when Christians say, “If evolution were true then why are there still monkeys!”). Rhythm had to Wiki this when I brought it up because he had no idea what it was, even though he claimed to be an "expert" on such matters. It's a completely rational way of defending the faith and has been giving atheists nightmares for decades. It points out how atheists are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it, so in turn they are proving the Christian worldview correct. Stop crying about it, and find a way to refute it.

Sorry Stat, it's not rational whatsoever. Nothing stops Muslims from using the same argument that intelligible thought is impossible without presupposing Allah is the source of all existence. This presupposition argument reeks of desperation and special pleading for the Christian God. I could come up with an infinite different definitions of god that would all be valid under presupposition apologetics by presupposing my definition to be true. It boils down to the fact that the bible cannot be proven to be true, so it must be assumed to be true to prove the Christian point of view.

(August 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: Sorry Stat, it's not rational whatsoever. Nothing stops Muslims from using the same argument that intelligible thought is impossible without presupposing Allah is the source of all existence. This presupposition argument reeks of desperation and special pleading for the Christian God. I could come up with an infinite different definitions of god that would all be valid under presupposition apologetics by presupposing my definition to be true. It boils down to the fact that the bible cannot be proven to be true, so it must be assumed to be true to prove the Christian point of view.

I have actually seen presupposition apologetics used very effectively against the Islamic faith. The Quran does not provide the same basis for the preconditions of intelligibility that the Bible does. Furthermore, even if it could be used to support other forms of theism (which it can’t), this still would not by default make atheism the rational choice. Atheists should still drop their atheism and start examining which form of theism is correct. This, "Well I know the answer has to be an even number but I don't know which one so I am going to stick with an odd number." approach is just irrational. Can you see the point I am getting at? Good to see you by the way, it's been awhile.

(August 19, 2011 at 3:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It's [the prepositional argument...] been giving atheists nightmares for decades.

Possibly because the proposition of this line of "reasoning" is a grim reminder that the battle for a rational society is far from over.

Quote:It points out how atheists are forced to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it, so in turn they are proving the Christian worldview correct. Stop crying about it, and find a way to refute it.

So we're going to add "shifting the burden of proof" to "special pleading" and "begging the question"? The burden is on you to demonstrate how I'm "borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it".

Just for fun, I'm underscoring FaithNoMore's point by reworking the "philosophy" slightly:

Quote:[Deism] is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the [Natural Universe] is divine revelation and claims to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-[deist]. In other words, presuppositionalists claim that a [deist] cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of [Nature's] God and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that [Yahweh may exist] and Biblical revelation [is] true.

(August 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Possibly because the proposition of this line of "reasoning" is a grim reminder that the battle for a rational society is far from over.

I don’t believe I have conversed with you on here before, nice to meet you.

You see though, right here you have borrowed from the Christian worldview, you made an appeal that people should be rational.

1. When you use the word “should” you are making a moral statememnt, where do you get your authority to make a statement telling everyone what they should and should not do?
2. There is no way to justify rationality (logic) in an atheistic universe, where did it come from? Why should we adhere to it?

Quote: So we're going to add "shifting the burden of proof" to "special pleading" and "begging the question"? The burden is on you to demonstrate how I'm "borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it".

We can have the burden of proof discussion later because I do not believe you can run from it as you have done here. See above though for how you have borrowed from the Christian worldview in this very post.

Quote:[Deism] is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the [Natural Universe] is divine revelation and claims to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-[deist]. In other words, presuppositionalists claim that a [deist] cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of [Nature's] God and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that [Yahweh may exist] and Biblical revelation [is] true.

A deist would still have trouble justifying morality, logic, the uniformity of nature, and the reliability of one’s senses and memory, so I do not believe he/she can use presuppositionalism to defend their position. These things can all be and only be justified by God’s revealed word.

(August 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have actually seen presupposition apologetics used very effectively against the Islamic faith. The Quran does not provide the same basis for the preconditions of intelligibility that the Bible does. Furthermore, even if it could be used to support other forms of theism (which it can’t), this still would not by default make atheism the rational choice. Atheists should still drop their atheism and start examining which form of theism is correct. This, "Well I know the answer has to be an even number but I don't know which one so I am going to stick with an odd number." approach is just irrational. Can you see the point I am getting at? Good to see you by the way, it's been awhile.

Actually, we agnostic atheists say we don't know if it is an even or an odd number so we choose not to speculate, but we do know that it can't be a specific value of '4' as the Christians claim. By saying one should choose which theism is right, you presuppose that a god is necessary, which we atheists are unwilling to do. The stance of the agnostic atheist is that no presuppositions on the existence of god should be made, therefore specific gods can only be judged on their nature, which is why we dismiss the Christian god.

Welcome back.

He's making a buddhist argument Stat, they have morality too. A christian whining about plagiarism is fucking rich.