Regarding Presupposition [Trollville]
Offline The true presuppositions are as follows:
1) There exists no rational proof for or against anything at all. No such proof is available to individual humans. Therefore it is irrational to try to prove or disprove God's existence.
2) There is no such thing as an athiest.
3) Those who refer to themselves as atheists are actually just theists who in their heart have said, "No!" to the God they already know exists.
4) Therefore the question of God's existence and by implication responsibility to Him is not an intellectual question but instead a moral question (specifically shall I say, "Yes!" or shall I say "No!" to God).
Note ~ This post was originally in freethinking anonymous. The terms of posting there are impossible to achieve (the term I refer to is that no theist can post there) as all are theists. However I have moved this post in accordance with the forum leaders understanding of the terms atheist and theist.
{ACTUAL NOTE, FROM MOD: You won't defend your position like an adult? Then you don't get to play in our field.}
- Login to post comments
Your Kung Fu is weak. Many have attempted arguments similar to these, and so far I don't know of a single attempt that hasn't been torn apart past the third or fourth comment.
Waits for Mattshizzle to post lolcats picture "Not this sh*t again"
Your god's silence speaks loud and clear
This is not an argument. See the title of the post.
Presuppositionalism, as far as I've seen, generally relies on some variation of TAG. That's, as far as I know, the commonly recognized justification for the position, but there could be others. What basis do you have to call yours, which I've never heard of, "true?"
There's the view of what Bertrand Russell called "scientific truths." Whatever can be repeatedly demonstrated via some observable phenomena based on some theoretical model of how it works. Our daily lives are ruled by this practical approach to reality, so even if it breaks down, say, at some subatomic level where individual particles don't obey physical laws as we do at the macro level, this has no perceptible bearing on the human experience. I don't know your specific justification, since you merely asserted, but I expect it to come down either to a composition fallacy or appeal from ignorance. If your position held water, there would be absolutely nothing cohering reality together sufficiently for us to wipe our asses.
This is begging the question, as it relies wholly on two undemonstrated points: that there is an ultimate reality which eludes us, and that there is potentially some conscious agent capable of experiencing reality on this base level.
With the acceptance of your criteria, there's no distinction between rational or irrational, and any logical inference becomes a stolen concept, and your particular reference to a god is special pleading.
The distinction would be moot.
And you show your biblically-rationalizing hand in the most awkward way possible.
Right, based on your special presuppositionalist definition that no one recognizes. Also, that's not a note -- it's another assertion on your part, and you'll get no free pass on it.
And the kettle turns disdainfully from the pot.
Being as that "there is no rational proof for or against anything at all", everything you just said can be dismissed without consideration. Thanks for your time. Bye.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Not so. Your misunderstanding of the ontological status of induction is no threat to its objective existence.
What I really want to say is "Fuck off, and then read some of the site before you post this shit again."
What I will say instead is this:
Keremeikos, you have displayed an intense amount of ignorance about philosophy, etymology, and logic in just two presuppositions. You would do a lot better to stop talking and listen for a bit.
Now I'll tell you to fuck off.
What an arrogant prick you must be to presuppose that you're 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong when....
You just said there's no proof for god.
Seriously, you are one of the most arrogant pricks I've seen on here in a while. This is fucking rich. You're actually coming in here and saying, "Nobody knows anything about anything, so I'm right."
What a maroon.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Wrong. I can prove that I exist. I can prove that reality as I perceive it is reality as I perceive it.
There is no such thing as a thiest.
Those who refer to themselves as theists are actually atheists who in their brain have said "No" to the reality they know exists.
(First, you shouldn't use therefor as this is not a conclusion following from your numbered assertions above. In fact you have just posted a string of non-sequiturs.)
Now, in what way is the existence or non-existence of an entity a moral question?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
I will not engage in argumentation for proof of presuppositions as it is impossible to do.
You have made your moral choice.
*Claps dust from hands*
Some things are possible to prove. Come over to my place. I'll prove bashing you in the head with a rock hurts. Some humans are dead, why else grave robbers? 1 + 1 = 2. But for the moment let's assume this first statment is true.
Well, by your first presuppostion, you can't prove anything, including the non-existence of atheists
You can't prove that theists exist either, according to #1
Prove the existence of moral questions without violating #1
Shall I continue or have I made my point?My Artwork
So... um... you're wasting our bandwidth... why?
Well, I've made many choices that have involved questions of morality. My observation that induction is valid is not moral, but logical.
Thanks for playing. Have fun with your Buddy Jesus doll and self crucifiction play set.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Again the above is not an argument attempting to create a proof, see the title.
Read above again and please read the title of this post first.
I see. Anything else you'd like to assert on the basis of failed reasoning?
Aw fuck. I didn't understand what you meant. You are so right. I'll follow you to hell and back. Where do I send the money?
My Artwork
Lastly I will repeat myself this time.
There is no argumentation attempting a proof involved. It is impossible for one to exist (see above).
Referring to that crap as any kind of reasoning is being overly generous.
I have a feeling it won't be long before we are in the fertile fields of Trollville.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
*Note - this isn't from lolcats - it's a picture of one of my cats (Miss Callie) and I added the text.
Actually he is right that there's no such thing as "athiest" - as there is no such quality as "athi" so there is no way to be "athiest," or the "most athi."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
It's axiomatic that you're a dick-nose.
You're just claiming that the statements you opened with are true.
You expect us to believe them on your say-so alone?"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Let's do some equal reasoning:
This is what your logic looks like. Silly, isn't it? As I stated in my first response,
YOUR KUNG FU IS WEAK!!!
Your god's silence speaks loud and clear
keremeikos:
If you come back, would you mind answering a question for me? (not this one, though you can answer it before you answer the other question, which is the actual question I would like an answer to)
What is the intent behind posting this? Surely, if you are going to take the time to actually type out sentences and post them on a forum you have some reason for doing so. I would have to guess you had some hope of accomplishing something as I can't understand why anyone would waste their time in such a manner with no 'goal'. is it entertaining to you? Did you think something like this would be eye opening to someone? Did you just want to try and irritate people? I'm really interested.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins