Hello.....I have a little problem

[Sam]

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.

You're just equivocating Statler. 'Christian Theism' as a worldview, necessitates certain positions being upheld as dogmatic these propositions required in order to be classified as a Christian. I do not doubt that many Christian vary is some of their stances but the fact remains that their entire cognitive belief system is structured around the supposed facts that; (a) God Exists and (b) The bible is his inerrant word. These fundamental similarities are the core of the 'worldview' as it were.

Atheists on the other hand can only be grouped by the fact that (with varying degrees of certainity) they do not hold a belief in God. Aside from that there is absolutely nothing linking them and one atheist could hold philosophical positions which are completely irrational to another.

I understand that you would like everyone to accept that all atheists share a worldview Statler, I'm sure you're under the impression that once you get someone to concede that fact you can critique the 'atheist worldview' and prove how you've been right all along. Unfortunately that has no bearing on the reality of the situation. I'm also sure that you are sincere in your belief that atheism as a philosophical position is weak, that is your opinion and I respect that but stating it as fact does not make it so, as I'm sure you are aware.

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.

I'm well aware of your opinions on the superiority of Christian Theism Statler. Unfortunately your opinion on the issue is superfluous to the discussion.

The problem is you seem intent on shoe-horning in your own personal value judgements. The existence of God, for you, is the fundamental and axiomatic basis of your entire philosophy. My position as an agnostic atheist is a result of my personal philosophy and understanding not vice versa.

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.

In what possible way did I make that suggestion? That has to be the most fatuous interpretation of what I said.

I suggested that you have no knowledge of my own or anyone else’s morality or anything else and thus no knowledge of how we justify them. The fact that some of us do not use 'God' as part of that justification does not mean that our individual’s philosophies are related. Again, you assume God axiomatically, some of us do not and as such the proposition is inconsequential to us.

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.

So you do see the problem with your argument then?

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?

I can't speak for 'everyone' but I was aware that you were referring to Shell because you admit it in the thread; I began reading after that had been established.

Statler, you took what she said, gave it your own spin and then drew the Dahmer comparison. I'm making the point that in a supposedly civilised discussion that is more than a little weak.

I'm not outraged by your comparison. I think it's an unfair and pathetic route to take in a discussion and as such I think you owe her that admission and an apology. That being said, that is only my opinion and I respect your right to free speech.

An individual’s morality is entirely a personal affair, being within their consciousness they have an absolute liberty to whatever standard of morality they like. Once you enter into a social situation though your moral choices will be judged by intention and consequence and if you interfere with the rights of another you can legitimately be called to account.

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'm sure you're aware that one philosopher publishing a critique does not ultimately prove their assertions. From what I've seen so far their own positions are just as roundly criticised. I'll certainly have a look at their work though.

In the meantime I think it's reasonable to assume you were equivocating when you claimed all other worldviews had been proven false.

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

Considering there is already a presuppositional apologetics thread that would seem the appropriate place. Why don't you pick one of your supposed preconditions and post your rationalisation of it there and I’ll respond in due course?

Sam