I Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It! (Presuppositional Apologetics)

[raoul]

Another brand new trick they have to resort to.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VV7T4qVBWE

[Guest r3alchild]

You know what was the most amazing thing about that youtube clip. Is how natural you were in the end of that clip and how artificial the christians were in the begining.

 

I rather spend the rest of my life in hell with people like you, than one day in heaven with people like them.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Raoul, get real.  you can't even know that you exist, let alone that the laws of logic are valid, unless God provides us the ground of knowledge.  It's TAG all the way down, baby.

[raoul]

You know what was the most amazing thing about that youtube clip. Is how natural you were in the end of that clip and how artificial the christians were in the begining.

 

I rather spend the rest of my life in hell with people like you, than one day in heaven with people like them.

You humble me sir. And those thoughts have been uttered by me over and over once I came out 'from among them' as the bible says. Thanks. My wife thanks you too - I read your reply out loud to her.

[raoul]

Raoul, get real.  you can't even know that you exist, let alone that the laws of logic are valid, unless God provides us the ground of knowledge.  It's TAG all the way down, baby.

ROFL - spoken like a TRUE philospher! Ain't logic cool?

[Guest r3alchild]

[duderonomy]

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

[ContraBardus]

You can call a pile of shit a pile of chocolate and it's still a pile of shit.

 

They went an awful long way to relabel 'Ad hominem' fallacy as a valid means of debate. Calling it 'presupposition' doesn't change the fact that 'Attacking the Person' or their 'Worldview' as they put it, is the literal definition of an Ad Hominem argument. It's as if they think that no one will notice if they just use a different word to describe it.

 

...

 

I'm gonna have to take a moment to remember the kind of people I'm talking about here.

 

...

 

Okay. It's two idiots with blue tooth headsets and a web cam willfully and earnestly trying to justify a major logical fallacy as a valid means of debate and recommending it as a plausible strategy to push their idiocy upon others. My head hurts now.

 

[raoul]

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

I anticipated that and already have the rebuttal:

1. First off - what we offer is not apologetics - that's reserved solely for the cult

2. Yes, I totally agree that all of us, no matter what theological view or non-view begin with a presuppostion including science

3. The difference however is that while we begin with one, we don't conclude with the same view if proven to be wrong. This is especially true with science

4. The cultist, on the other hand, begins and end with the original presuppositional view. No testing or checking of facts changes this.

[raoul]

You can call a pile of shit a pile of chocolate and it's still a pile of shit.

 

They went an awful long way to relabel 'Ad hominem' fallacy as a valid means of debate. Calling it 'presupposition' doesn't change the fact that 'Attacking the Person' or their 'Worldview' as they put it, is the literal definition of an Ad Hominem argument. It's as if they think that no one will notice if they just use a different word to describe it.

 

...

 

I'm gonna have to take a moment to remember the kind of people I'm talking about here.

 

...

 

Okay. It's two idiots with blue tooth headsets and a web cam willfully and earnestly trying to justify a major logical fallacy as a valid means of debate and recommending it as a plausible strategy to push their idiocy upon others. My head hurts now.

 

Well now you have my head hurting as well with your indepth observations about them. lol

Seriously though, I try to avoid making descriptions about the cultists even though I share the same views as you and others. It keeps me focused on whatever point I was trying to make.

[duderonomy]

 

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

I anticipated that and already have the rebuttal:

1. First off - what we offer is not apologetics - that's reserved solely for the cult

2. Yes, I totally agree that all of us, no matter what theological view or non-view begin with a presuppostion including science

3. The difference however is that while we begin with one, we don't conclude with the same view if proven to be wrong. This is especially true with science

4. The cultist, on the other hand, begins and end with the original presuppositional view. No testing or checking of facts changes this.

 

 

Your link now takes me to "I Know I You Are but What Am I".   ??

 

1. What do you offer if not apologetics? You try to defend your position, don't you? That's what apologetics is.

 

3. How many Christians have been proven wrong?  Can't they stick to their view as easily as you? 

 

4. Actually, Christianity has changed with science. Sometimes kicking and screaming, sometimes gradually and sometimes gladly.

[raoul]

 

 

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

I anticipated that and already have the rebuttal:

1. First off - what we offer is not apologetics - that's reserved solely for the cult

2. Yes, I totally agree that all of us, no matter what theological view or non-view begin with a presuppostion including science

3. The difference however is that while we begin with one, we don't conclude with the same view if proven to be wrong. This is especially true with science

4. The cultist, on the other hand, begins and end with the original presuppositional view. No testing or checking of facts changes this.

 

 

Your link now takes me to "I Know I You Are but What Am I".   ??

 

1. What do you offer if not apologetics? You try to defend your position, don't you? That's what apologetics is.

 

3. How many Christians have been proven wrong?  Can't they stick to their view as easily as you? 

 

4. Actually, Christianity has changed with science. Sometimes kicking and screaming, sometimes gradually and sometimes gladly.

 

I guess you're not familar with my methods of debate - I don't defend as much as I attack the cult's blind belief system along with its odious doctrines of sin and guilt. How many cultists have been proven wrong? Can't speak for the rest of the world but the debates and battles I and my collegues have been involved in always end the same - circular reasoning, ofuscation, and avoidance are the trinity of their modus operandi. And no, the basic fundamentalist sect of the cult has NOT changed with science. In fact, it's been my experience to see that many of them still cling to a young earth creation of 2 humans, etc.

 

Lastly, you posit a false equivalency by suggesting we (atheists) practice apologetics - that's reserved for the cult. We merely cite fact after fact based on empiricalism whereas they resort to blindly quoting from the bible - that's apologetics in its classical form. Merriam-Webster definition of apologetics: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine) 2: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin

[florduh]

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

This wasn't directed at me but...... no.

 

The theist actively proposes that there is an invisible, undetectable supernatural being in charge of everything in the universe. The atheist merely responds with, "Is there any evidence for this? If not, I have no reason to believe it."

 

There is no pre-supposition that no gods exist; why would there be? It first takes someone asserting an improbable and unprovable claim to create an atheist. The unfounded claims for gods just started so long ago we forget there are no atheists without theists who need to be challenged on their claims that various gods actually exist somewhere beyond our perception.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Augustine said that when the unbeliever sits down with the chair BEHIND him (Aug. didn't think of women in his examples), he shows faith that the chair will exist when his butt hits the wood.  

 

Doesn't matter if "faith" means something quite different from what Augie is arguing for.  Equivocation be damned.  It's TAG all the way down.

[3DollarBill]

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

 

Not only do I not "presuppose" that no god exists, I do not make that claim, period.  I merely reject god-claims on the basis that not a single one of them I've heard so far has a shred of credible evidence to support it.

 

That's what atheism is, dude.  Nothing more.  And given how much this is discussed on this site, I'm really wondering why this is so difficult to understand.

[raoul]

 

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

 

Not only do I not "presuppose" that no god exists, I do not make that claim, period.  I merely reject god-claims on the basis that not a single one of them I've heard so far has a shred of credible evidence to support it.

 

That's what atheism is, dude.  Nothing more.  And given how much this is discussed on this site, I'm really wondering why this is so difficult to understand.

 

It perplexes me as well - why are we even discussing the most basic truth? Smith, in his classic work 'Atheism, the case against god', puts it very well. He defines atheism as 'LACK or ABSENCE  of belief in god(s). He does not believe in the existence of a god(s).' (page 7). And as I add,  God belief, Theism, is a positive which must be proven. Non-belief, is a negative, which doesn't have to be proven.

[duderonomy]

 

 

Raoul,

 

This is nothing new. Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

If you are privy to some grand knowledge that I'm not privy to, please let me know.

 

Not only do I not "presuppose" that no god exists, I do not make that claim, period.  I merely reject god-claims on the basis that not a single one of them I've heard so far has a shred of credible evidence to support it.

 

That's what atheism is, dude.  Nothing more.  And given how much this is discussed on this site, I'm really wondering why this is so difficult to understand.

 

It perplexes me as well - why are we even discussing the most basic truth? Smith, in his classic work 'Atheism, the case against god', puts it very well. He defines atheism as 'LACK or ABSENCE  of belief in god(s). He does not believe in the existence of a god(s).' (page 7). And as I add,  God belief, Theism, is a positive which must be proven. Non-belief, is a negative, which doesn't have to be proven.

 

 

This reply is to 3D, raoul, and blah blah blah (sorry, I'm just in a mood)...

 

I think a lot of confusion is caused by semantics. For example, from my understanding (and the definition of the word), 'apologetics', while mostly used to defend a theological position, also means a defense of any claimed truth or viewpoint. I could say that Ford is better than Chevy, for example, and the arguments and etc. that I use to prove my position would be my 'apologetics'.

 

Some other confusion comes about because, as raoul says in point #2 in post 9, we all begin with a presupposition.

 

Thus, presuppositional apologetics are not the exclusive domain of theists, unless raoul is incorrect. Some "most basic truth" is not so basic, and that's why it is being discussed, at least on my part.

[raoul]

Duderon... If you're going to quote me please use the ENTIRE comment stated and NOT what you want to use to try and prove an unprovable point. Yes, I formulated a premise with those comments but then I drew the conclusion that the cultists REMAIN with the premise without any testing, empiricalism, evidence, et.al. whereas we rigorous test any presuppositional views - at least most of us, non-theists, do.

[duderonomy]

Duderon... If you're going to quote me please use the ENTIRE comment stated and NOT what you want to use to try and prove an unprovable point. Yes, I formulated a premise with those comments but then I drew the conclusion that the cultists REMAIN with the premise without any testing, empiricalism, evidence, et.al. whereas we rigorous test any presuppositional views - at least most of us, non-theists, do.

 

Where did I quote only part of what you said and then use it to try and prove something? You imply that I'm twisting your words or something, and that's just not cool.  Can you please show me where I did that?

 

I pointed out that everyone begins with a presupposition, and you agreed. I pointed out that apologetics aren't just the domain of the religious. I don't know if you agree with this or not, but any good dictionary will tell you the same. 

Thus, everyone uses presuppositional apologetics when they argue or debate to defend their position.

 

It doesn't matter what conclusion you posit if your apologetics are based on an incorrect presupposition, and I believe they are in this case, just as I said clearly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[raoul]

I attempted to show how both sides differ - yes we start out with presup. but we put them through some kind of testing or evaluation via empirical processes whereas the cultists do not - they simply take those views all the way to a conclusion without ever evaluating them - that's been my experience with them in numerous debates. What's been YOUR experience with them for you to make such a sweeping generalization as you have?

 

I and others also tried to correct your faulty view regarding an atheist's presup that there is no god. As already said here and in other topics, we simply have no belief one way or another - the same as we have regarding blue fairies, unicorns, et.al.

 

You've not only taken what I said out of context (yes, the charge still stands), but you now change, once more, what you initially said in your first posting. You initially said Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

The 'change' occurs when you now write:

It doesn't matter what conclusion you posit if your apologetics are based on an incorrect presupposition, and I believe they are in this case, just as I said clearly.

 

The subtle change should be obvious, at least for those of us who take the time to study an opponent's words. You obviously are not doing this so I'll explain. 

 

1. if our apologetics are based on INCORRECT presups? That was never stated in your initial faulty views. You now suggest the atheist's presups are incorrect, hence, the implication is that the conclusion is also incorrect. This leads to

2. By your moniker you declare you are an agnostic - your statement then suggests you are defending the agnostic position. If you are not then why the shift in the initial comment? If you are then I'll leave it to someone else to debate the validity of agnosticm. I personally feel agnostics are practicing a backhand form of Pascal's wager, ie: playing it safe.

 

Now, unless you're willing to concede your shifting your argument, I feel any more dialogue would be useless. I'll just end by saying I've seen your tactics used by the xtian cultists over and over to evade certain challenges issued by me and other atheists. Perhaps you might be waving more towards theism but lack the intellectual honesty to admit this? This is not an ad hominem, merely an observation based on years of experience in various debates from BOTH sides of the fence.

[BlooKazzoo445]

...I honestly don't understand that form of apologetics. I mean...wow...wouldn't the whole argument just go in a complete circle? "The Bible says God exsits, therefore, He does." "But, I don't believe in the Bible" "The Bible says you're an idiot then...and...are probably a horrible sinner too." "That's nice, but I don't believe in the Bible." "The Bible says you suck." "But..." Besides, how would that work if you were trying to gain a convert from another religion, who could use the same arguments on you? And ya, we all may presuppose...but, it's usually not a very good thing when you're presupossing someone's viewpoint is evil and sinful without even giving the other's viewpoint a chance. It's not even a debate then...it's just a way for someone to feel they've one the argument no matter what. Never though of Christianity as a cult before, though. Maybe because when I think of cults, I normally think of people drinking posion Kool-Aide, though I suppose in reality a cult doesn't literally have to be trying to kill you...I guess it could more mentally.

[raoul]

...I honestly don't understand that form of apologetics. I mean...wow...wouldn't the whole argument just go in a complete circle? "The Bible says God exsits, therefore, He does." "But, I don't believe in the Bible" "The Bible says you're an idiot then...and...are probably a horrible sinner too." "That's nice, but I don't believe in the Bible." "The Bible says you suck." "But..." Besides, how would that work if you were trying to gain a convert from another religion, who could use the same arguments on you? And ya, we all may presuppose...but, it's usually not a very good thing when you're presupossing someone's viewpoint is evil and sinful without even giving the other's viewpoint a chance. It's not even a debate then...it's just a way for someone to feel they've one the argument no matter what. Never though of Christianity as a cult before, though. Maybe because when I think of cults, I normally think of people drinking posion Kool-Aide, though I suppose in reality a cult doesn't literally have to be trying to kill you...I guess it could more mentally.

You raise a couple of very good points there.

1. Yes, they do the circular argument dance with such ease without ever realizing what they're doing. It's like you said - the bible says it so it must be true therefore you are such and such because the bible says it - without ever investigating

a. did the bible actually state it in the way being used?

b. just because the bible states something, does that make it absolutely true?

c. was the biblical verse used altered or changed from earlier, more reliable manuscripts and if so, why?

and so on...

2. Yes, they are a cult, no different than any other cult. Just because they haven't drank the cool aid as you so aptly put it, this does not negate the premise since their behavior is no different than any other cult they love to attack. Traits such as

a. having strange doctrines and beliefs are the primary indicators of a cult (dead people coming back to life, parting of the Red Sea, talking serpents, 2 people causing the world's entire population we have now, et.al.)

b. blindly following the teachings and/or leadership of one person without questioning anything about the person's motives or whatever. In this case, they follow the apostle Paul's teachings without realizing it

c. Anti-social behavior towards society - they constantly decry 'the world, the flesh, and the devil' over and over. I've lost count of the times I've heard them say this or some other variation of it.

 

I could go on with more but I think I made my point.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

You raise a couple of very good points there.

1. Yes, they do the circular argument dance with such ease without ever realizing what they're doing. It's like you said - the bible says it so it must be true therefore you are such and such because the bible says it - without ever investigating

 

 

Amazingly, some of the more sophisticated ones do realize the circularity of their argument.  When I was in a Calvinist seminary, we were much taken with Cornelius Van Til as a proponent of TAG.  I remember one of my fellow students quoting his own pastor as saying, "it depends on which circle you want to stand in."  They maintained that the circular system of Christianity (esp. Calvinism) brought a good life, to say nothing of salvation, while the "world's" circular system brought despair (and of course, hellfire).  It was in fact a technique of that sort of apologetic to get the unbeliever to a point of despair about finding any ground of knowledge, and then push him/her to a leap of faith to the Bible as that ground.  the circularity was felt as OK because the witness of the Holy Spirit was supposedly what drew each one of the elect into God's circle, out of the devil's/world's/man's circle.

 

It's circles all the way down.

[raoul]

 

 

You raise a couple of very good points there.

1. Yes, they do the circular argument dance with such ease without ever realizing what they're doing. It's like you said - the bible says it so it must be true therefore you are such and such because the bible says it - without ever investigating

 

 

Amazingly, some of the more sophisticated ones do realize the circularity of their argument.  When I was in a Calvinist seminary, we were much taken with Cornelius Van Til as a proponent of TAG.  I remember one of my fellow students quoting his own pastor as saying, "it depends on which circle you want to stand in."  They maintained that the circular system of Christianity (esp. Calvinism) brought a good life, to say nothing of salvation, while the "world's" circular system brought despair (and of course, hellfire).  It was in fact a technique of that sort of apologetic to get the unbeliever to a point of despair about finding any ground of knowledge, and then push him/her to a leap of faith to the Bible as that ground.  the circularity was felt as OK because the witness of the Holy Spirit was supposedly what drew each one of the elect into God's circle, out of the devil's/world's/man's circle.

 

It's circles all the way down.

 

Geez, will it ever end? So, some circular arguments are more applicable or relevant than others? Silly me - and here I thought ANY argument that is circular ought to be tossed into the trash. Thanks for giving me some MORE things to ponder... lol

It's kinda similar to the acceptance of presuppositionalism in a perverse sort of way.

[♦ ficino ♦]

What I was talking about is precisely full-blown Calvinistic presuppositionalism.  Arguing with them is like arguing with someone who claims you don't exist.  Aargh.