Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Intelligible Argumentation?; or "irrational+incoherent=atheism?"
Topic Started: Dec 16 2011, 05:34 PM (478 Views)
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
Over here Jason tells us:
Quote:
 
...atheism is irrational and incoherent because it has no ultimate criteria by which to determine truth.


True statement? I think so. Do you?

Discuss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marv
Member Avatar
THE EVIL ONE
quid est veritas?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
Marv
Dec 16 2011, 08:43 PM
quid est veritas?
God is good. He saved me. He sent his Son to die for those who believe. Christ rose on the third day after being crucified.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I don't see it as a true statement. I ultimately see the "If there is no God there is no truth" argument to be not only false, but really bad apologetic.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The phrase Intelligible Argumentation on the other thread referred to and linked to a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson and I kinda thought that the phrase was meant to mean Wilson's contributions.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
xulon
Dec 17 2011, 01:51 AM
The phrase Intelligible Argumentation on the other thread referred to and linked to a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson and I kinda thought that the phrase was meant to mean Wilson's contributions.
When I used the phrase I meant that the whole exchange between Wilson and Hitchens was intelligible. Good or bad, at least it wasn't complete nonsense. I've read and listened to a lot of apologetic debate. Too often the debate is less a debate than unintelligible bombast from either side (usually the atheist side - but that really depends on the theist, too).

When Jason used it, I took it as questioning whether Hitchens' arguments were intelligible.
Edited by Ray Nearhood, Dec 17 2011, 11:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
xulon
Dec 17 2011, 01:39 AM
I don't see it as a true statement. I ultimately see the "If there is no God there is no truth" argument to be not only false, but really bad apologetic.
I'm not sure that that is quite the way the argument is Framed (geeky rimshot).

It's more like:

God is real. God, being God, is the standard of all truth. Suppressing the truth that God is necessarily denies the standard by which all truth is understood. Therefore, any system that denies God cannot account for truth - not that one cannot know whether something is true or not, only that one cannot account for that which is true being true - and is ultimately incoherent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I still don't buy it. If atheism is correct, there is no problem knowing what is true.

But I think the real issue is not truth, whether your framing it or the original on the other thread, but morality (maybe metaphysical truth) and I still don't buy that either, though perhaps a case could be made.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ray Nearhood
Member Avatar
THE Bald Assertion
So, I had a long response prepared that started with "Truth, morality, logic... all return to the basic presuppositions we have," and had somewhere in the middle "'IF atheism is correct' is a poor place to start, because atheism is not correct. 'If' assumes a neutral ground, which does not exist." Then I walked away (for dinner) and returned after many hours. I reread the last reply, reread what I had started, then reread the Hitchens v. Wilson debate, and finally decided against posting my response. Instead, I have questions.

What are we talking about? Are we discussing the moral argument (which, I think, Hitchens attempts to address)? Or are we discussing presuppositionalism (which is the road down which Wilson attempts to take Hitchens -- which is, BTW, where I tend to travel and why I say atheism is incoherent)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I have to admit that my reaction to the original statement was more visceral than reasoning for a couple of reasons, both stated in my first post. First, I think it's wrong. Not sure how to clarify that, but there it is. I think it is a quick dismissal and somewhat less than intellectually honest, being more a power grab than engagement.

Second, I said it was bad apologetic. This is where the visceral really comes in. I have a hard time reading it and not hearing "Nyu'uh! You're the real moron, moron." and I think the person thus lovingly engaged will see it similarly to me and probably not be convicted of the empty, moronic moronity of his life and repent. I also question it's value even if it is only used "in house" to encourage fellow believers with "Nyu'uh! they're the real morons, the morons".
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply