April 28, 2012

Atheists Debunked

Or as Dr. Greg Bahnsen puts it, "debunked by its philosophical arbitrariness"


The video was taken down but here is a link to it, even though I cannot embed it. For more argument in this debate watch this:



If you like to read, here is the transcript of the debate.

Here is the closing statement:


So, we seek in 'Debunking Atheists' by lovingly revealing this post's truth to them.

As Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You're right. As Dr. Bahnsen says, here is your evidence: When you talk about a claim which, when rejected, undermines the possibility of making intelligible all other claims. THAT is extraordinary! If I reject the idea of the amount of cereal in the world. That claim does not affect on a whole bunch of other claims. It is rather limited. But when you make the extraordinary claim that the philosophical precondition of intelligibility for anything, is based upon that worldview, that is a rather magnanimous thing which is Christianity. That is why the extraordinary claims of Christianity, about the existence of God and the supernatural, have been met with the extraordinary evidence that when you reject it, you undermine all philosophical possibility of making rationality, science, morality, possible. The supernatural if God is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.


bit.ly/AtheistsDebunked

55 comments:

  1. I'm sure you'll find someone who's still interested in this circular reasoning stupidity, but it's not me.

    You may want to note what the URL spells out in that link: I don't think that "doctor" Bahnsen has anything new to say to that guy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The supernatural is the presupposition of the integrability of the natural."

    Naked assertion. You have literally no evidence, beyond merely reasserting this proof free position, that the statement is true.

    FAIL.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If I reject the idea of the amount of cereal in the world. That does not affect on a whole bunch of other claims. It is rather limited."

    What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying that you reject the idea of any amount of cereal, or in other words there is no cereal. Or are you just rejecting the actual amount and you think there is either more or less cereal.

    Also which type of cereal are you referring to, if its breakfast cereal than its probably not very important, however if its the grain cereal that is the staple food of almost every civilization in the world, then it is a more serious problem if you deny the facts about it.

    Your comment that denying some fact about cereal will not affect any other claims is one of the most amusingly ignorant statements I've ever seen you make, which is impressive because you've set the bar pretty high.

    You may be under the impression that you can pick and choose random aspects of reality to deny and it will have no affect on anything else. The problem is that things in reality are interconnected and have relationships. You continually run into the unforeseen consequences of denying some seemingly unimportant aspect of reality. If you deny one part of reality all related aspects will no longer make sense. Like if I denied the existence of Dan, suddenly nothing on this blog makes any sense, and all the comments about this blog don't make any sense, and all the comments by Dan on other sites don't make any sense, and all the responses to comments by Dan don't make any sense.

    Even ignoring facts about random unimportant people will have many consequences and will make many other things no longer make any sense. Now imagine if you deny facts about something actually important, a food that is eaten all over the world, it has pretty far reaching consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  4.      The extraordinary claims of chritianity could meet its burden of proof if its god would simply show up. But it doesn't do that. So let me turn your claims back on you The necessary precondition for rationality and intellibibility is that the biblical god (or any god claimed to be omnipotent) cannot exist. Rationality exists, therefore your god does not. Any objections?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're spot on there, Pvbs

      Delete
    2. >>The extraordinary claims of [Christianity] could meet its burden of proof if its god would simply show up. But it doesn't do that.

      Are you certain of that? So you never heard of God, Christ, arriving in the flesh already? You will have to show some argument that God, as you said, "doesn't do that"

      Second, and once again, Bahnsen put it best, "I'm not sure. Perhaps you've been asleep at the wheel of your studies. The Christian claim is precisely that God has made direct appearance to us and He's done so in any number of ways. First of all, He has done so in every single one of your sensory experiences that you try to appeal to or to make intelligible in your reasoning. He does so because without His existence, you cannot make sense of the inductive principle by which you reason from past experience to the future."

      Delete
    3. I am a polytheist, I will get that out of the way right here... But, with that I must support the claim that rationality is a precondition of anticipating a supreme being, this is evident in the fact that dogs don't go to church, yet they are rational creatures in the fact that they are able to decipher pain from pleasure, as well as when they are in the wild they are able to decide which animal to take out for maximum effectiveness and minimal loss. This means that BibleGod is in fact not a precondition for anything, instead our own curiosity and skepticism is what creates a deity. Even current Wiccan beliefs presuppose that the energies of the universe were there, but we were compelled to create deities out of them, not the other way around. Man created deities to explain natural phenomenon and that ingrained sense of truth and morality within the majority of humanity.

      Now this doesn't mean that I am rejecting my polytheistic views, instead I use these views to understand my personal nature and the natural world around me, until a better explanation comes to my understanding.

      One of my favorite examples of how BibleGod is incapable of being the precondition of morality is the fact that not all Christians, or BibleGod worshiping (lumping Jews, Islam, Catholic, and the rest that follow something similar to the Old Testament and/or New Testament as their religious guide) have the same moral values, instead they are dependent upon social and cultural standards to guide them, then these are reflected back as being created due to religious influences, even in the U.S.

      So DAN, how do you explain the fact that your morality may differ from the Christian standing next to you if BibleGod is the precondition of morality?

      Delete
    4. >> So DAN, how do you explain the fact that your morality may differ from the Christian standing next to you if BibleGod is the precondition of morality?

      Morality is not subjective. If morality differs from Christ, then Christ is not Lord of our reasoning and the evidence that morality is not accomplished autonomously. Atheists, for example, have no moral ontology (foundation existence of morality).

      If we lie we're calling God a liar, since we're made in His image. That is blasphemous. So sanctification is the process of matching our reasoning to Christ's. Our morality to Christ's. Christianity is not a flu shot after all. It takes a lifetime. We fall short sometimes.

      How do you KNOW your reasoning about polytheism is valid?

      Delete
    5. Hmm, it seems that your claim, is that Christ is not your lord then. I have met many of christians willing to lie, willing to break what you consider morality codes, Sye for example, and a laundry list of politicians.

      Now, how do I KNOW?! my reasoning about polytheism is valid?

      Through questioning my beliefs and the guidance I am given by my gods/goddess', I do not take the word of a deity at face value, because we allow for the potential of a trickster deity. So we verify our experiences with both like and non-like minded individuals with no responsibility to validate our claims. This gives us an objective view as well as a secular view of the same experience. If I claimed Pan was a blond haired blue eyed man on a surf board, I would be laughed at by any Polytheist, instead I can make a direct claim of his looks as being a satyr carrying a reed pan flute (syrinx) and I would either be validated or invalidated based on the experience of not just myself but others, as I said, with no responsibility to claim the validity of my statement.

      Are you able to make the same claim? I doubt it, since most Monotheism religions require you to be a robot.

      Delete
  5. As Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Evidence, Dan, not proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Proof is reserved for alcoholic beverages and the mental retardation otherwise known as religious fundamentalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> Evidence, Dan, not proof.

      Once again you've gotten lost in your reasoning. It was Marcello Truzzi who originally coined the phrase, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

      Here is my PROOF:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

      Delete
    2. That would be an excellent rebuttal, except for the fact that atheists don't often quote Mr. Truzzi. Instead, they quote Carl Sagan

      Still, that's at least a plausible explanation, and it gives me someone to investigate. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. "Here is my PROOF:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi"


      Wow! Wikipedia is proof. Not just "proof", but "PROOF".

      Are you certain of that D.A.N? How does your worldview provide a basis for Wikipedia?

      Delete
    4. I linked to wiki as a mere convenient link. I could have provided many many more, but you know this. Wiki is wicked, I agree.

      Delete
    5. I don't know anything D.A.N.

      You still haven't PROVED anything though, at least not on your usage of the word "PROOF". You've given evidence. But that's not PROOF, is it? Or, even, commonplace "proof". If Whateverman (or whichever man) had given you such evidence of something you wouldn't accept it as proof. Although you've claimed that it's PROOF.

      From you, it's proof. From a non-presupper it's rubbish.

      I still don't know, but I'm beginning to understand.

      Delete
    6. >>I don't know anything D.A.N. You still haven't PROVED anything though,...

      Do you KNOW that? Are you absolutely certain of that?

      Sye's gem, "Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions."

      Delete
    7. Sye can't "account for knowledge" either.

      Neither can you.

      Delete
    8. >>I don't know anything D.A.N. You still haven't PROVED anything though,...

      Do you KNOW that? Are you absolutely certain of that?


      One of the things I can’t be absolutely certain of is that those are not two utterly idiotic questions. “I don’t know”, “do you know?”

      Sye's “gem”, “futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge”

      Explaining to someone who cannot account for knowledge is perfectly reasonable. We all explain things to children unable to grasp the foundations of knowledge (“before I tell you that you’re not to go near the cooker because it’s hot, please give me a brief overview of your epistemological position”).

      You will try to explain things to people (like us) who “cannot account for knowledge”, so will Sye.

      The implication, that it is futile, is a lie.

      I can't help that.

      Here we see just why he lies. He (and you) cannot explain your presupposition that we cannot operate without certainty. Probably because we can operate quite well without “accounting for knowledge”. So, at this point, Sye stops explaining (because he cannot explain) and stops making sense (because there is no sense to make). Often he stops making statements and just repeats the same questions (“how do you know?” etc. )

      “You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions."

      And then Sye uses the “Criminals Defence”. Notorious criminal A has robbed a bank. He’s in the police station being interviewed.

      Copper: You robbed that bank.
      Criminal A: You can’t prove nuffin, copper.

      Both statements are true, the criminal did rob the bank and the copper can prove nothing. (Note the differences between x being the case and x being proven to be the case).

      Sye operates it like this:

      Sye: [Says something utterly dishonest]
      Everyone else: That’s utterly dishonest!
      Sye: You can’t prove nuffin, atheist.

      Delete
    9. So 'prove' equates to "account" now?

      Go ahead, you have the floor, no more "lip service".

      How do you know your reasoning is valid?

      Delete
    10. "How do you know your reasoning is valid?"

      Oh for crying out loud!

      "I don't know anything D.A.N"

      See that? See that little bitty clue-ette? Able to read it? Able to get it into your thick skull?

      "I don't know anything"

      What of it? http://bit.ly/IoFRMC

      Delete
    11. >>"I don't know anything"

      Are you absolutely certain you don't know anything? If so, how?

      If my job is to expose the inconsistency of your atheistic worldview then,...accomplished.

      http://youtu.be/m_9Y9Xhh7Hc

      Delete
    12. "Are you absolutely certain you don't know anything?"

      No.

      If my job is to expose the inconsistency of your atheistic worldview then,...accomplished

      No inconsistency has been shown. You haven't even attempted to show any inconsistency. You have posted a "gem" rejecting any attempt to show inconsistency.

      And you can't show any inconsistency:

      1. There is no inconsistency
      2. You can't even get it in your head that someone is a knowledge sceptic even when they've twice told you in clear terms. (You're actually not familiar with logic and philosophy, are you? Your "position" is just a bluff, worked by a few rhetorical tricks picked up from Sye).

      Delete
  6. Pv,

    Have you perceived everything there is to perceive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you perceived everything there is to perceive?

      aka. "when uncertain about whether a question reveals flaws in your world view, ignore it".

      Delete
  7. The problem is Wv your boy Pv doesn't know what rationality is.

    So, if he thinks he does "know it" let him answer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. pvblivs is more than capable of answering questions if he so chooses, and own his own schedule. I don't speak for him.

    What's interesting, however, is that you've ignored his point in order to ask pointless questions as you do to everyone else. What was it about his question that scares you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan:

         I've heard stories. However, this god of yours has never appeared to me. Now, there are a few possibilities that would explain this. The simplest possibility is that your god doesn't appear because it doesn't actually exist. Another possibility is that it can't make an appearance. This could be either a complete inability or an effective inability (e.g. it cannot make that appearance and still meet other obligations.) Unfortunately, people like you deny this one. A third possibility is that it doesn't care. But if your god doesn't care whether I believe or not, why should I?

    Hezekiah:

         I do not really want to waste my time with you as you cannot distinguish the real from the imaginary, and I do not wish you to imagine that I am somehow "harrassing" you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why does that question scare you, Hezekiah?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Because it's asked in ignorance.

    the gauntlet is dropped .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Because it's asked in ignorance."

      Most genuine questions are asked "in ignorance". Most questions are asked to to gain information, clarification or explanation. The lack of all of these (and, thus, need to get them) amounts to ignorance.

      Delete
    2. Me: Why does that question scare you, Hezekiah?

      Hezekiah: Because it's asked in ignorance

      Why would a question asked in ignorance scare you? As Tony mentioned, all questions (in principal) are asked in ignorance...

      Delete
    3. Thank you Tony, that is one of the most amazing statements I have seen from either side of this argument. Questions are not typically asked to prove we have the answer, that's narcissistic and egotistical, instead questions are asked to gain knowledge and understanding not to prove them.

      Delete
  12. And yet Bahnsen is using concepts he's first had to steal from the objectivist atheist worldview in order to try and deny it's truth.

    It would be funny if only people didn't fall for this presuppositional bullshit hook, line and sinker.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another Bahnsen quote:

    When someone comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man) – when some one tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state – then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate. ...those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed. You would, therefore, be open, I believe, to hold Muslim views or Hindu views in the privacy of your home, provided it was not a Christian home that you’ve now come into to subvert and draw away from Jehovah. You would be able to hold these views as a private conviction. But you would not be allowed to proselytize and undermine the order of the state.

    Bahnsen is also on the (slightly) more relaxed end of Reconstructionism - other of his fellow travelers have advocated for the return to public stonings as a great way to build a sense of Christian community while getting rid of those pesky atheists, gays, women who have sex before marriage, etc.

    Dan - since I'm obviously breaking Bahnsen's view of the law by making this comment, do you prefer just a fine or should I be executed for doing so? And would you suggest that this be done by individual communities or would it be better to ship non-believers in train cars to some central location to be processed? I seem to recall that worked successfully in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, I am not afraid to voice my opinions about my beliefs. I couldn't think of a better punishment for Goldman Sacs executives then a public stoning. The practice of deconstructing our economy would stop in its tracts.

      I also fight to restore our constitution, so I believe your individual freedoms and rights should stay sacred. If done right, the two positions would not conflict.

      Delete
    2. Dan:

      I also fight to restore our constitution, so I believe your individual freedoms and rights should stay sacred. If done right, the two positions would not conflict.

      Yet you post a clip from a person who clearly believes that all laws should be based on the Old Testament and that anyone who disagrees is "punished" and "repressed". I challenge you to demonstrate how this doesn't conflict with the first amendment.

      Delete
    3. >>I challenge you to demonstrate how this doesn't conflict with the first amendment.

      First, show evidence for your bare assertion that he "believes that all laws should be based on the Old Testament and that anyone who disagrees is "punished" and "repressed"."

      Second, I believe if you murder someone you "shall be put to death", is that conflicting? Punishment for wickedness is fair and just.

      Is "I want to murder the president" free speech? [Relax homeland security, I am merely making a point here. Go about your business elsewhere]

      Delete
    4. First, show evidence for your bare assertion that he "believes that all laws should be based on the Old Testament and that anyone who disagrees is "punished" and "repressed"."

      Why don't YOU show YOUR "bare assertion" that Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      Or better yet, shut the fuck up with demanding people for proof for their assertions when you refuse to provide the same for yours.

      Delete
    5. >>Why don't YOU show YOUR "bare assertion" that Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      You're right, I get it now. I updated it to be more accurate. Thank you. Moving on.

      Delete
    6. Worth pointing out for that misattributed maxim, "In recent years Marcello had come to conclude that the phrase was a non sequitur, meaningless and question-begging, and he intended to write a debunking of his own words. "

      Delete
    7. In recent years Marcello had come to conclude that the phrase was a non sequitur, meaningless and question-begging, and he intended to write a debunking of his own words

      I can't know what he was thinking when he wrote that (or at the very least, I haven't tried to research it). It seems to me that he merely misused some of the words. For example, what exactly is meant by "extraordinary proof"? Is one proof more special than another? Probably not - proof (whatever the standard) is proof.

      And when you get down to it, do we really ever "prove" a claim? No, we simply offer evidence that supports the claim; the better the evidence (quality, amount, etc), the more the claim can be trusted.

      I suspect he would have revised the quote to be more Sagan-like.

      Delete
  14. Dan:

    First, show evidence for your bare assertion that he "believes that all laws should be based on the Old Testament and that anyone who disagrees is "punished" and "repressed"."

    The quote comes from an interview with Bahnsen and Calvinism Today. However, it's not a 'bare assertion' - it's a direct quote. Furthermore, I've seen it expressed in other Bahnsen writings - it's a core part of his philosophy.

    Second, I believe if you murder someone you "shall be put to death", is that conflicting? Punishment for wickedness is fair and just.

    Bahnsen isn't talking about murder. He advocated punishment for crimes like apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, and so on. Read the quote again - he's not just promoting punishment for violating a law; he's promoting punishment for questioning even the source of those laws. This is clearly against any current understanding of the First Amendment, so you have a choice: support Bahnsen or support the Constitution - you clearly can't do both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> This is clearly against any current understanding of the First Amendment, so you have a choice: support Bahnsen or support the Constitution - you clearly can't do both.

      That is a false deliemma fallacy. A third choice is that I do support Christian Reconstructionism because you will someday soon anyway. That is in a perfect world. In this world with our complete morally corrupt government it would be impossible for them to perform such judgments. SO, for now, I advocate following the constitution at a minimum. I do believe we're failing at that even because we have gotten away from the perfect teachings of Scripture.

      Delete
    2. You mean you want them to bring in such things as stoning for adultery and "blasphemy"?

      No fucking way in hell will I ever support that shit, even if you think ...you will someday soon anyway.

      Delete
  15. Dan:

    You and Bahnsen are not on the same page. From this quote and other writings, Bahnsen clearly expects to have his Mosaic law system in place before everyone agrees with it - why else would he spend so much time talking about punishing people? Whatever it is you believe, Bahnsen's perfect society has no room for the First Amendment.

    And when you say I will soon agree with your view, do you mean that I will become a believer, or that I will be forced to 'agree' from fear of punishment? This latter option seems more likely.

    From what I can see your only regard for the Constitution is to support it now while while it protects you but discard it once you've achieved your goal and it becomes an inconvenience.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I love that at the beginning he spent close to 90 seconds making it clear that he was supporting the Christian Theist view, not the "theist" view. Meaning that he recognizes that other Theism's completely conflict with their belief and may hold different (or better) answers, typically it is by embracing what most Christians refuse to accept.

    ReplyDelete
  17. People here is another website that debunks atheism

    http://atheistpill.blogspot.in

    ReplyDelete
  18. Confused gent here. Atheism has nothing to do with claiming the world is intelligible. I, for instance, do not believe that immaterial, conscious, beings exist, and I make claim as to the intelligibility of the world. Also, theism doesn't entail an intelligible world. The Gods could be tricking us.

    Some theists need validation from other people that their beliefs in the supernatural are true, and these type of websites are the result. Personally, I find that appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow. Mind blown.

    Here's your evidence ... seriously?

    This makes absolutely no sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No sense? Why? Is English not your first language? :)

      Delete
  20. That's all you have: "This video is private"? It is not terribly convincing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, right. No, they did a big crackdown on Bahnsen's material and went internet wife shutting things down. It was a shame really. Fortunately, I spelled the argument out above as the small part of the complete argument for now. Maybe they will lift the stranglehold someday. God willing. For now, you will just have to contend with the above, which is fast more than your plate can hold. :)

      Delete
    2. *Wide, not "wife". Thanks auto correct!

      Delete
  21. So much logical fallacies...
    Not sure... where... to ... begin...

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>