Hello.....I have a little problem

[Statler Waldorf]

If that is what you wish to call them.

You don’t know all of the theistic proofs proposed through the centuries?

There is no god to believe in or disbelieve. It has nothing to do with proof or lack thereof. There just really is no such thing as a god.

How do you know this?

Contrary to my statement in jest, I believe anything I see, but even if there were a god, it could not possibly appear before me anymore than it could make a rock so big that it could not move it.

False analogy, the rock point is a logical contradiction; God appearing before you is not a logical contradiction so you are going to have to expand on this point if you wish it to be logically coherent.

The same way I know fairies do not exist and the same way you know Mars, Jupiter, Apollo and Zeus do not exist.

Wait, I know that Mars, Jupiter, Apollo, and Zeus do not exist because scripture says they do not, so you know Yahweh does not exist because scriptures says He does not? Scripture says he does though.

No need to, as it is not circular.

It is more just logically incoherent really; I need to know how you know that God, Zeus, and fairies do not exist if it is not a “lack of proof or evidence” as you stated above.

It was his only role!

How does that apply to believers today?

Then obviously you did not read it or you do not know who the Borg are. As to a losing team, I will always fight on the side of freedom, regardless.

I know enough to know they are cybernetic, I see know reference to cybernetics in Revelation. Satan is not free, he is currently bound by the preaching of the Gospel, so maybe you should choose a different side.

Is not that what I just said??

No, you said something about the evils of the atheistic worldview, which I agree it, is evil but I was more pointing out its inconsistencies.

It only ended less that 200 years ago. And the relevance is the fact that the source of morals does not in any way determine the quality of the morals.

The dates I saw put the end of the inquisition farther back than that, be careful though Shell will jump in here and start calling you dumb for believing there was only one “inquisition”. Well the leaders of the inquisition morals were not based on scripture they were based on the heads of the church, so I would argue that they made the same error that Dahmer did, they made men their final moral authority.

(And BTW.
As you missed the Borg episode and do not see the psychopathy, then you did not read it well or you did not read it all. Explain again the reason to "dash babies heads on the rocks" or the flood thing. This god was not smart enough to come up with a better solution than killing all the living things on the face of the earth? I think babble-god did it for fun. Psychopath. Look it up. If you are going to defend a god, my recommendation would be to pick a different one. JMHO.

You still have not explained how a God could suffer from psychopathy which of course is a human mental illness. I will wait for you to do that. I also still want you to explain how you determine your moral standard that you seem to think applies to God. Thanks.

In this sense 'Christian Theism' as a worldview provides these things directly as prescribed in scripture and other sources of authority. Atheism on the other hand, only serves to influence the individual’s tendencies towards some of these philosophical positions over others. It does not prescribe any one of these positions on any issue as dogmatic as 'Christian Theism' or in your case 'Reformed Christian Theism' seems to.

I disagree, Christians disagree on such matters just as much as atheists do, and Christian Theism is still a worldview, it just has many subclasses much like atheism does. Some atheists are empiricists, some are naturalists some are relativists but they are all part of the grander worldview known as atheism. Unfortunately many atheists try to run from this fact because they realize that in the court of philosophical ideas atheism is rather weak.

In light of this I would suggest that your claim that Atheism is a worldview in the same sense that your Reformed Christian Theism is a worldview is false and that an individual’s atheism is one of a number of beliefs which form their worldview.

Well I don’t believe that atheism and Christian Theism are similiar in every way, I think Christian Theism is a far superior worldview, but atheism is a worldview for the exact same reasons solipsism is. When you deny the existence of something that fundamentally influences your belief system as a whole (God for atheists, anything outside of one’s own mind for solipsists), that denial becomes your primary worldview.

This is a bare assertion not supported by the reality of the situation. You don't know what beliefs myself, Shell or anyone else ground their lives in and your claim that the foundation is our mutual 'disbelief in the God of Scripture' can be shown to be false by parallel

So you are suggesting that you hold a standard of morality, existence and purpose that is in fact grounded in the existence of God? I doubt it; I bet all of them exclude the existence of God.

The foundation of your life Statler is your disbelief in Raw, Apophis, Nirrti & Co. I know this because you live your life as if they are not your rightful masters and that belief influences all your other beliefs.

Not quite, I do not believe in those other gods because my God says they do not exist, so in fact my Christian Theism drives my disbelief in those gods, not the other way around.

One would think that comparing someone to Jeffery Dahmer based on a casual remark in a discussion is unfounded and unfair Statler. It is also a form of the 'Question Begging Epithet' fallacy whereby you are trying to belittle Shells argument by drawing an unfounded and emotive comparison. In short, I think you owe her an apology.

If the comparison was unfounded then why did everyone know I was making it to Shell when all I did was post the quote by Dahmer? I didn’t say anything; just posted the quote and everyone (even Shell) realized that I was making a comparison with her remarks because they were so similar to Dahmer’s. If you don’t wish to be compared to Dahmer then I would avoid justifying your concepts of morality exactly like he did. While we are on the topic, maybe you can answer this question since everyone else has dodged it. If nobody really does own us and we really can adopt our own concepts of morality as Shell suggested then why are you so outraged by my comparison? Can’t I just adopt a concept of morality where I can compare people to Dahmer and it is just different strokes for different folks?

If you had said that they can be shown to be inadequate you would have a point. However, you have said on several occasions that they have been shown to be inadequate. In order to support that assertion I am asking you to sight your sources.

Oh I see what you mean now, well Van Til, Clark, and Bahnsen have all written numerous essays that demonstrate the failures of secular worldviews. Rather than making you poke through all of them I think it’s just easier to propose a worldview and critique it.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I would suggest that it might be easier to take each of the preconditions you think Christianity can be the sole source for and discuss them in succession with reference to both my own and your position on them. It would probably be best if we do this somewhere other than an Introduction thread though

Absolutely! I think it’d be fun, let me know where you’d like to discuss this.

[quote='IATIA' pid='179787' dateline='1316213523']
It will probably one of the

tags. It took me three shots on mine.

It was! Thanks!