How to beat a presupp at their own game

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sorry if I broke terms of service, I clearly didn't read through them very carefully. I wont mention Discord again.

lol, you can mention it all you like. It's the urging people to join that's at issue. No worries.

Boru

[Belacqua]

[...] every time I listen I feel like I might be getting closer to figuring out how to dismantle his  argument. I don't feel I'm at that point yet, but I only joined Discord a few days ago. [...]

This is how they keep you listening. They tantalize with the possibility that if you just say the right thing, or pose the right argument, that you have a chance of winning against them. 

But on their own turf that will never happen. They can change the subject, they can pretend you said something you didn't really say, they can just walk off and ignore the fact that you've said something important. The Internet makes it possible to argue in bad faith as never before in history. 

Every counter argument that's been suggested on this thread is something they've heard before, and have a ready reply to. It may or may not be a good reply, but they've done it before. They will take pleasure in repeating against you what they think is a knockdown argument. 

In my opinion it makes more sense to take some specific argument they've made and research it away from their site. They're not doing anything original, so there will be arguments available if you look around. 

You have to keep an open mind and above all else, not become like them. That is, don't play team sports where the only goal is to make the other side look foolish. The goal ought to be clarity, not victory.

[The Grand Nudger]

The chat server is filled with presupps and the number one objection for atheism that I hear is what grounds our atheism?

Very simple.   Atheism is "grounded" when we have no personal impetus to believe in gods.  That's all that the word means, so that's all that it takes.  

What grounds do we have for facts and knowledge?

The same grounds for facts and knowledge that anyone else has, whatever those are - for better and for worse.  Adding or removing a divine friend has no effect on knowledge claims or their basis.

How can we know anything in a godless world?

The same way we know things, if we know things, in a god-ed world.  To say that we know something is, like atheism or theism, primarily, a claim about ourselves - not a claim about a god.  In a godless or god-ed world we either know the thing, anything, or we do not.  Really, though, the questioner would have to be more specific.  You know your own name and what ice cream tastes like for reasons not at all similar to how you know that william lead the norman conquest.

From their view, God is the foundation of knowledge. It's self-justifying - how do they know? God revealed it through special and divine revelation and therefore they cannot be wrong. So to deny this, means that atheists are appealing to a non-personal universe (??) (I'm probably not stating this argument 100%, I"m tired and haven't slept)

If you say the universe is my starting point as an atheist, they'll say what grounds the universe?

One of the primary presupps there is Darth Darkins. Anyone know how to dismantle this type of argument?

Well, rather than arguing this point, ask them to explain what they mean by it.  How, in what way, is god the foundation of knowledge?  Who's knowledge?  What knowledge?  The foundation of knowledge of my own name or what ice cream tastes like? You'll reach a point where..either what they have to say on the subject convinces you, or it does not..and then you have an even more specific answer for the very first question.

If a person has attempted and failed to convince you of a gods existence..they too are now part of the "grounding" of your atheism.  Congratulate them on a job well done.

[Fake Messiah]

join the Reformation channel on Discord and listen to their argument.

I have enough religious people on this forum, thank you very much, and every day in stuff like politics, crime section in the newspapers, ringing on the door, so I don't need any more than that because even that is too much insanity.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Always asks Presups how they know it's a special revelation and not just some hyper-advanced group of aliens just making them believe it's a special revelation while giving them false information? Then just to mess with them ask them how they know those same aliens aren't giving you all correct answers?

[Superjock]

The chat server is filled with presupps and the number one objection for atheism that I hear is what grounds our atheism?

Very simple.   Atheism is "grounded" when we have no personal impetus to believe in gods.  That's all that the word means, so that's all that it takes.  

What grounds do we have for facts and knowledge?

The same grounds for facts and knowledge that anyone else has, whatever those are - for better and for worse.  Adding or removing a divine friend has no effect on knowledge claims or their basis.

How can we know anything in a godless world?

The same way we know things, if we know things, in a god-ed world.  To say that we know something is, like atheism or theism, primarily, a claim about ourselves - not a claim about a god.  In a godless or god-ed world we either know the thing, anything, or we do not.  Really, though, the questioner would have to be more specific.  You know your own name and what ice cream tastes like for reasons not at all similar to how you know that william lead the norman conquest.

From their view, God is the foundation of knowledge. It's self-justifying - how do they know? God revealed it through special and divine revelation and therefore they cannot be wrong. So to deny this, means that atheists are appealing to a non-personal universe (??) (I'm probably not stating this argument 100%, I"m tired and haven't slept)

If you say the universe is my starting point as an atheist, they'll say what grounds the universe?

One of the primary presupps there is Darth Darkins. Anyone know how to dismantle this type of argument?

Well, rather than arguing this point, ask them to explain what they mean by it.  How, in what way, is god the foundation of knowledge?  Who's knowledge?  What knowledge?  The foundation of knowledge of my own name or what ice cream tastes like?  You'll reach a point where..either what they have to say on the subject convinces you, or it does not..and then you have an even more specific answer for the very first question.

If a person has attempted and failed to convince you of a gods existence..they too are now part of the "grounding" of your atheism.  Congratulate them on a job well done.

Thanks for your reply! The answer I've heard from Darth is that whatever conforms to the mind of God is knowledge. You can only know that it is true if it conforms to the mind of God. And God has revealed himself through divine and special revelation in such a way that I know it cannot be false. He is also omniscient. This is his justication.

That is sort of the gist of it. Now Darth will say, sure, you can deny my position, but then how does "insert whatever" from the atheist have any ultimate grounding because without God you're living in a world of chance, and you don't know what is possible or impossible etc etc. It's completely arbitrary.

Side note : I'm may not be framing this in the best way. It's all over Youtube and Discord though. The argument always goes the same way, but it hurts my head just thinking about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for your reply! The answer I've heard from Darth is that whatever conforms to the mind of God is knowledge. You can only know that it is true if it conforms to the mind of God. And God has revealed himself through divine and special revelation in such a way that I know it cannot be false. He is also omniscient. This is his justication.

Then you can wish him good luck with that foundation of knowledge.  Hopefully he finds it productive. 

That is sort of the gist of it. Now Darth will say, sure, you can deny my position, but then how does "insert whatever" from the atheist have any ultimate grounding because without God you're living in a world of chance, and you don't know what is possible or impossible etc etc. It's completely arbitrary.

Side note : I'm may not be framing this in the best way. It's all over Youtube and Discord though. The argument always goes the same way, but it hurts my head just thinking about it.

He should be more specific.  Asking for grounds, then rejecting those grounds and asking for ultimate grounding is pointless.  What is his gods ultimate ground? Perhaps there simply is no such thing as the ultimate grounds he seeks.

Just as pointless -insisting that a world without god is a world of chance, or that we don't know what is or isn't possible.  Atheism isn't the belief in a chance based universe, and I know that it's not possible to convince me of the existence of a god with arguments like these.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Very simple.   Atheism is "grounded" when we have no personal impetus to believe in gods.  That's all that the word means, so that's all that it takes.  

The same grounds for facts and knowledge that anyone else has, whatever those are - for better and for worse.  Adding or removing a divine friend has no effect on knowledge claims or their basis.

The same way we know things, if we know things, in a god-ed world.  To say that we know something is, like atheism or theism, primarily, a claim about ourselves - not a claim about a god.  In a godless or god-ed world we either know the thing, anything, or we do not.  Really, though, the questioner would have to be more specific.  You know your own name and what ice cream tastes like for reasons not at all similar to how you know that william lead the norman conquest.

Well, rather than arguing this point, ask them to explain what they mean by it.  How, in what way, is god the foundation of knowledge?  Who's knowledge?  What knowledge?  The foundation of knowledge of my own name or what ice cream tastes like?  You'll reach a point where..either what they have to say on the subject convinces you, or it does not..and then you have an even more specific answer for the very first question.

If a person has attempted and failed to convince you of a gods existence..they too are now part of the "grounding" of your atheism.  Congratulate them on a job well done.

Thanks for your reply! The answer I've heard from Darth is that whatever conforms to the mind of God is knowledge. You can only know that it is true if it conforms to the mind of God. And God has revealed himself through divine and special revelation in such a way that I know it cannot be false. He is also omniscient. This is his justication.

That is sort of the gist of it. Now Darth will say, sure, you can deny my position, but then how does "insert whatever" from the atheist have any ultimate grounding because without God you're living in a world of chance, and you don't know what is possible or impossible etc etc. It's completely arbitrary.

Side note : I'm may not be framing this in the best way. It's all over Youtube and Discord though. The argument always goes the same way, but it hurts my head just thinking about it.

Yup Presups are a frustrating bunch. Nothing but making up their own rules. Insisting their rules are right because they say so. Appealing to magic to confirm what they say so is right. Then like a child, they will bombard you with infantile questions to distract away from their failure.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you're talking about kids on the internet trying to argue for a god - yeah..they're failures..by presuppositionalisms own grounds. Presuppositionalism is a rationalization for a thing accepted to be true, not an argument that it is. Any argument that it is... is a breach of presuppositionalism. You're supposed to start there, not end there.

Hence...pre supposition

[The Architect Of Fate]

If you're talking about kids on the internet trying to argue for a god - yeah..they're failures..by presuppositionalisms own grounds.  Presuppositionalism is a rationalization for a thing accepted to be true, not an argument that it is.  Any argument that it is... is a breach of presuppositionalism.  You're supposed to start there, not end there.

Hence...pre supposition

I meant their usual trolling questions generally stumble.