Peter wrote:
"You are claiming that these philosophical systems that come after the idea of "no god" are what is properly defined as a worldview."

I have nowhere claimed this, Peter. And you cannot link this summation with anything I've stated without misrepresenting my words. Again, dishonest. No wonder others are not interacting with you, you have no integrity in debate. Your entire side of the debate is built on misrepresenting the statements of others. You are not concerned with truth, you are concerned with saving face. But what face does a dishonest man preserve? A dishonest face.

Peter wrote:
"Fine, I can accept that statement too, as long as you realize that the fundamental idea overarching all atheistic philosophy is that god doesn't exist or is unproven."

Again, you drop context and highlight only that which is personally important to you as a theist. Do you think anyone else really cares? Since the claim "god exists" is certainly not perceptually self-evident (theists themselves claim that God is invisible; this only begs the question: how does the theist distinguish between the invisible and the non-existent?), those who claim that there is a god must bear the onus of proving this claim. Without a proof, one is certainly justified in not accepting it. Proof is the process of logically relating that which is not perceptually self-evident to that which is perceptually self-evident. Peter has not provided such a proof. Instead, he simply rejects reason and tells others that reason is not possible (though he does not come out and say this, he prefers a course of subterfuge in order to camouflage his stolen concepts and other cognitive errors, which I have repeatedly exposed and corrected in prior posts). In the end, Peter's god-belief is irrelevant to rational individuals. And this simply gets on his nerves. Nothing more.

Peter wrote:
"That, to me, makes it the primary worldview."

Again, to you. But we've seen now how your "reasoning" on all these matters cannot endure critical examination.

Peter wrote:
"We can simply call it the primary presupposition if you'd rather."

Not in my case, and if you would refrain from misrepresenting what others write, then perhaps you would see this. But, I don't think that's about to happen any time soon.

I wrote:
<<<Furthermore, atheism, for me anyhow, is not a primary. It is a consequence of my allegiance to reason. In other words, I do not begin my philosophizing with "the assumption that God does not exist" as many theists claim to be the case. It should be very clear to everyone who has been reading that I begin my philosophizing with the axioms, and reason from there onwards. I do not begin with "the assumption that God does not exist" any more than I begin with "the assumption that Allah does not exist" or "the assumption that Scooby Doo is not a real dog." Negations are not properly axiomatic; they are only possible in contrast to affirmations.>>>

Peter wrote:
"You say atheism is a consequence of your "allegiance to reason."  But how would you test your reason?"

By reference to reality.

Peter wrote:
"How would you know if your reasoning was flawed or not?"

By a process of objectivity, as defined by the philosophy of Objectivism.

Peter wrote:
"If you simply accept it as valid, then obviously you are going to find ways to substantiate it."

In other words, you're talking about rationalization. You're describing yourself here, Peter.

Peter wrote:
"But nothing that you use to substatiate it is evidence for it."

Evidence for what? My initial assumptions? Existence exists. There's evidence all around for this. You yourself take it for granted on a moment-by-moment basis.

Peter wrote:
"In other words, reason is yet another axiom that you must assume without proof."

See, I have nowhere stated this. You have to misrepresent my views yet again in order to try to debunk them. What a laugh!

Peter wrote:
"But because you can merely assume it, then there is no way that you can argue against my postion: God exists"

Not if existence exists. And indeed, nowhere have you established the claim "god exists." Indeed, this statement itself contradicts itself performatively. You are assuming the primacy of existence in the act of making this statement, but you are siding with the primacy of consciousness in the content of what you are stating. Thus, you checkmate yourself. All invalid. Again, you claim that a god exists simply because you want there to be a god. Nowhere have you been able to distinguish between your god which you claim exists, and your emotions and desires, which are forms of your consciousness.

Peter wrote:
"and because of that, reason exists."

This is most ironic, since we've seen repeatedly that you reject reason. This is all on record on the Theism vs. Atheism Web.

Peter wrote:
"You have reason existing as an unproven assumption."

Where have you established this? And just above you affirmed that reason exists (though as part of a post hoc argument "god exist, and because of that, reason exists"), and at numerous points in past posts you've been caught rejecting reason. So again, you have a problem with reason, not with me per se. Thus, you have a problem trying to make your own mind function, for nowhere have I seen evidence that you can get it operating properly. You don't know where your starting point is, and you have nowhere identified the means by which you are aware of what you might be calling your starting point. You are a man without intellectual foundations, Peter. There is a better way to live, if you want to live better.



Peter wrote:
"I say reason exists because of God."

Here we have another unsupported assertion on Peter's part. And it's quite perverse: he's already gone on record that he rejects reason, and here he makes the fantastic claim that "reason exists because of God." Where has he defined what he means by 'reason'? Surely, if Peter is a Christian, and he believes that "reason exists because of God," he should be able to find this statement in his Bible, no? On that matter, how does the Bible define 'reason'? Peter has not stated, even though he's had ample opportunity to show us. More borrowings and more stolen concepts. I do not accept it, and for good reason: it's all fallacy.

Peter wrote:
"You will say that my statement is an unproven assumption."

Well, if you haven't proven it, then I am right to say this.

Peter wrote:
"But why should yours be right and mine wrong?"

Because existence exists.

Peter wrote:
"It is just your assertion that it is so, nothing more."

See! Peter's on the ropes here. He wants me to go away with the wave of his hand. Why? Because he doesn't like the fact that I have an ironclad case for my rejection of his god-beliefs. Simply, it bugs the snot out of him. (That's why he continually comes back for more self-abuse.)

Peter wrote:
"If you are assuming reason, then there is no way for you to argue for or against reason coming from God."

Where does Peter establish this assertion? Indeed, nowhere does he even argue for it. He simply asserts it, and expects its truth value to be self-evident. It is not. The stolen concepts on which it is based have already been exposed for a matter of public record.

Peter wrote:
"It is impossible for you to make any statement either way."

Obviously, that is wrong, for I've made my statements plenty of times now, and further, if it were true, we wouldn't be having this joust in the first place. It's quite humorous to watch Peter argue himself into his own uncomfortable corners like this. The entertainment value of watching theists try to regain their social and intellectual credibility (whatever there might be of it) far outranks "I Dream of Jeanie" reruns.

Peter wrote:
"Therefore, it is not reasonable to say that God does not exist"

Sure it's reasonable to say this. It's just as reasonable to say this as it is to say that Allah doesn't exist. Indeed, if something in fact does not exist, then it is reasonable to point it out in relevant circumstances.

Peter wrote:
"--at most, all you can say is that it is impossible to know, because if God does exist and does form reason then there would be no way for you to test it using reason."

But I do know. So I would not say "it is impossible to know" - that's simply an expression of your own antagonism toward intellectual certainty. And what would an omniscient god need reason for anyhow? Reason is a means of validating new knowledge by reference to previously validated knowledge (beginning with the axioms). An omniscient being, if there were such a thing, would have no need for reason; it would already know which knowledge is valid and which is not. Good grief! Don't theists ever try to integrate their own claims????

Peter wrote:
"However, as my entire other post demonstrated, reason (using logic, etc) forces one to come to the conclusion that God exists."

For one thing, Peter has gone on record rejecting reason. Second, he has not put forward any argument for the existence of a god which has endured my scrutiny, or the scrutiny of anyone else. Third, reason and force are opposites. It's clear that Peter would prefer to force people to agree with him, just as his primitive ancestors did. Faith and force are natural corollaries: when one asserts something on the basis of faith, he naturally rejects reason (as Peter has done), and this leaves him with no rational means by which to deal with others. Thus, he must resort to force, or the threat of force, in order to get his "points" across. That is why the general ethos of the entire Bible is reducible to the commandment, "Believe, or suffer." This is exactly what happens when people reject reason, and this is precisely the prevailing attitude of the Dark Ages when Christianity had its heyday in the west.

Peter wrote:
"I will respond to that other thread later today as my lunch break is starting to run short!"

Oh boy! That will be a first!

I wrote:
<<<Point taken. But then again, if the Bible does not address many of the philosophical issues which come up in debate (and indeed, we know that it does not; it does not even define its own key terms!), then naturally Bible-believers must go outside their Bible in order to find answers (indeed, earlier you were referencing Descartes rather than Jesus!), and this naturally leads to borrowing from non-biblical worldviews in order for modern theists to play. These facts only go to reinforce the spirit of lordbyron's characterization above, which you have rejected.>>>

Peter wrote:
"If I stay within the context of the Bible, you will simply accuse me of circular reasoning."

Tough titties.

Peter wrote:
"You will say I have no reason to accept the Bible and am arguing in circles, begging the question, etc. and so forth."

And you know I would be right in that case. Good call!

Peter wrote:
"But when  I accuse you of the same thing and you say it's necessarily true."

Gee, when have I argued from the basis of the Bible?

Peter wrote:
"Not very fair from my standpoint."

There there. You're just upset that I do not accept your arbitrary beliefs.

Peter wrote:
"Why is it that you are allowed to argue circularly but I am not?"

I've provided no circular arguments. I don't have to. I'm not arguing for something that's not true!

Peter wrote:
"Secondly, the Bible is an old book and there were certain concepts that the Bible assumed that were not yet formally defined in philosophy."

No, really??? That's an understatement!

Peter wrote:
"Naturally, it's not going to use the words nor provide a definition of them."

Thus, necessitating modern theists to seek outside the Bible to clarify their own concepts. This results in borrowing from better-informed worldviews, as we have seen.

Peter wrote:
"It doesn't need to."

Which either means "Definitions are unimportant, so who needs 'em?" or "Why would the Bible need to define its own key terms when we can borrow from better-informed worldviews?"

Christians are second-handers, and they don't even realize it.

Peter wrote:
"I can simply claim that you stole the concept from the Bible to begin with anyway."

Like the concept of individual rights? Good luck proving that one, smart guy.

Peter wrote:
"Thirdly, this claim of stealing the concepts gets your position too.  The term "objective" meant something philosophically for years before Ayn Rand "stole the concept" for her philosophy."

First of all, when Rand uses the term 'objective', she assumes the definition which she provided it, not the definition which others have provided it. Besides, if this is what you think is meant by the fallacy of the stolen concept, you haven't been reading. So again, you're showing your own lack of understanding here.

Peter wrote:
"Am I going to insist that you use the definition of "objective" that the 17th Century philosophers used--or why not the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle?--or do I not allow you to define the term the way that you are using it?"

You should definitely take the time to try to understand the term as it is used in the context which Objectivism gives it. Objectivism is very careful to inform the definitions of its key terms, unlike the Bible. When the Bible uses key terms, however, its authors do not identify the definitions which they are assuming. Apologists have to come along and fill in the blanks where careless, primitive authors defaulted. That's just the facts of the matter. You don't have to like it.

Peter wrote:
"The same should be extended to me."

I am expecting the same standards from you as I expect from myself. Rand defined her terms rigorously within the context of her philosophy. This was a standard to which she as an author and a thinker held herself. Did the authors hold themselves to this standard? Obviously they did not, and now you want an intellectual blank check in order to evade this fact. I do not write blank checks, Peter, especially to those who have proven themselves to be as dishonest as you.

Peter wrote:
"If I use a term, it is my definitions that are in the debate, not yours or any other philosopher's."

Well, if that's the case, then why don't you give us those definitions, argue for their validity and point to the source of those definitions which are assuming. This has been requested of you numerous times, and here you complain that you feel things are unfair, rather than fulfilling the request. What's the problem? I think I know what the problem is: You're philosophically unprepared and intellectually defenseless, and you don't like it when people point this out. Go write your book and hoodwink someone who isn't prepared for your cheap sophistry, Peter. At best, it's annoying.

Peter wrote:
"You can show my definitions to be inconsistent, but claiming that I am "stealing" them does nothing for the debate."

Again, the term I've used in this context is "borrowing" not stealing. Concept-stealing is something completely different, and far worse!

Peter wrote:
"The definitions I use are the ones I use,"

And which nobody knows but you, apparently, since you have not stated them even though you've been requested to state them.

Peter wrote:
"and my argument depends on them and them alone,"

Indeed, they do! Perhaps that's why you guard those definitions so close to your chest. You don't want anyone to expose your own inconsistencies! (Or borrowings!)

Peter wrote:
"not on any other philosopher or any other usage of the term."

So, in other words, you're operating in a philosophical vacuum. I think careful readers have noted this.

Peter wrote:
"If you'd rather, I can invent my own terms:"

You might as well if you are not willing to divulge the identity of the definitions which your arguments assume.

Peter wrote:
"would you care to debate about vladistity and neumartia? Let's debate vladistity and neumartia:  I win by default because no matter what you say, you will be wrong about what vladistity and neumartia are...."

This pretty much resembles your arguments so far, so don't change on my account.

CertainVerdict