Atheists Hate Dishonest Debates (Response to
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 фев 2025
- Original video: • Atheists HATE this ONE...
I was asked why I don't address Presuppositional Apologetics and instead focus on other arguments. The fact is, presuppositional apologetics don't present an argument and instead just offer dishonest roadblocks to real interlocution.
A god that actually exists does not need apologists. A god that actually exists would not tolerate these con artists exploiting that god for their own personal gains.
@@danwhite1198 Within the Christian worldview, God doesn't need apologists. Romans 1 tells us that all men know God exists through creation, but they suppress that knowledge. So he doesn't need apologists, the message got through, you're just keeping the message suppressed.
But let's assume your framework. Where did you get this knowledge? How do you know this about God?
@@PresupNinja How do I know this about god? By reading more than one book! I learned to think for my self and do not quote garbage from an old book of somebody said so.
@ I agreed with you that the God of the Bible does not need an apologist because all men know he exists through creation. My question was where did you get your information? "Other books" and "your mind" aren't really sources. What books and how do we know your mind is reliable?
@@PresupNinja You completely miss the point. Apologists are proof that the invented god of the buybull does not exist! Goat herders believed in the god that they were told existed because they did not know any better. Try this; learn what a solstice is and then learn the ancient Pagan story of the winter solstice. Then tell me how you think they came up with the story of Yashua. No one was ever named "Geesus" Seriously!
@@PresupNinja I'm surprised at your willingness to suppress the innate knowledge that every concept of god is a fabrication. This fact is very easy to access for even the weakest, laziest minded, and requires no apologetics. Simply stop accepting unsupported claims and fictional stories as true. Why is this so hard for you?
I used to wonder whether presuppism made people insufferably condescending and arrogant. I've since concluded that no, rather, presuppism attracts insecure and emotionally immature (mostly) men who have a need to dominate others, in conversation if not elsewhere. Philosophical weakness aside, presups are in debate almost universally snide, belligerent, and all too quick to insult critics' intelligence, impugn their motivation, talk over or mute them, and weaponise pedantry, tangents, and performative obtuseness in order to belittle and derail, often using an ensuing outburst or demand for time to competely and disingenuously dismiss an opponent.
In this way they echo one of the presup founding fathers, Cornelius van Til, who was infamous for being quick to anger and abuse when faced with criticism.
Philosophically, they're bankrupt. On some level I suspect many of them know it. Pragmatically, they're performative trolls.
TLDR presups tend to behave like insecure children who would rather win via insult and manipulation than via evidence and reasoned argument. They do not deserve our time or energy.
I believe I recently heard a presup say that presupposing god is "virtuously circular".
Nowadays, I shut this crap down with: "If you can't explain how we apply logic differently in the real world, whether or not god deserves credit for anything, I'm just going to keep ignoring your boring fiction."
As you said, it is truly just a waste of time.
Also, "virtuous circularity" is just the obfuscation of fallacious special pleading. Part of the presuppositionalist script is criticizing the circularity (ostensibly a bad thing) in their interlocutor's position but they just kind of hand wave away the circularity of their own position by characterizing it as "virtuous."
Like, the claim that "it's bad when you do it but good when I do it," sounds dumb to everyone, but maybe they can trick some people in the crowd with euphemisms!
Presupper: "Would you like to have a conversation about Jesus and the bible?"
Me: "Um, okay I find those topics interesting at times."
Presupper: "Okay, but before we begin, I will let you know that I can't possibly be mistaken on those issues and you can't possibly be correct."
Me: "So, just to clarify, your position is that you can't be incorrect and if I state I disagree, then I can't be correct on those matters?"
Presuper: "Yes, exactly!"
Me. "Then I find insufficient common basis upon which any conversation can take place between us. Good day sir."
I think a good way to address a presupper is not to engage with them at all.
Presupper: "Actually, you already believe in Jesus and God."
They short circuit if you're willing to grant god to move on to the real argument.
The whole point of presup is to dodge the burden of proof.
"Okay, let's presuppose I'm right. See? I'm right! I win."
I'm assuming that, "God, and", is a reference to the, "yes, and..." of improv. That made me laugh.
Darth Dawkins is infuriating to listen to. The discussion/debate between him and ShannonQ is a joy to watch though.
Guys like Dawkins aren't intellectually honest, they only present false dichotomies to force you into their conclusion.
ShannonQ was iconic in that debate.
St-Doug-of-PineCreek also brought Daft (listen-to-me) Dorky to his knees.
It's fun to ask presuppositionalists two important questions:
- Can you falsify solipsism and, if so, how?
- Could your god have created an unintelligible, chaotic universe?
"How do you distinguish divine revelation from satanic misdirection?"
This is why I can't stand Jordan Peterson.
What do you mean by why?
What do you mean by stand?
What do you mean...
😂😂😂😂😂😂 I can't keep that up without laughing!
@@johnburn8031 I know, right? Except the pert little bundle of twigs does it with a straight face, and declares himself the winner every goddam time.
You don't understand him
@RabornTau the ability to use complex words is not an indication of profundity.
Romans 14:1: "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but NOT to quarrel over opinions." All those apologists and people claiming to be religious are violating their own god's word when they argue with you over religion. It's NOT their place to argue with you, they are just to accept your opinion and not try to change it.
I don't mind discussing things intellectually and I've found quite a few theists who have a solid grasp of what their religion means. Many don't even *try* to argue it critically and just say they have faith, which is also a position I can respect. Others, though, seem hell bent on proving their god to be true and that confuses me.
The best response is:
"TOAST!"
This is as intelligent and clear a critique of presup apologetics as I’ve heard. Glad to hear a quality new voice in the atheist RUclips universe.
Wonder if you’d consider having me write you some theme music? (I’m a film composer-and the father of a transgender son, trying to be the best ally I can be.)
Let me know if I should send you a reel of my work!
Anyway, I have looked largely in vain for a really good discussion of presuppositionalism. Most atheists just don’t want to take it on. You’ve done a splendid job here.
While I'd *love* something like that, I cannot, unfortunately pay at this time as I'm between jobs, but I will keep your name in mind once I get back on my feet. Thank you.
What is funny is that the opposite is true, if God does exist and creates miracles, that is an act of deception because he would be breaking the very laws we use to reason, induction is literally impossible if God is tampering with the laws. So if miracles exist we can not reason.
If god exists and he is the embodiment of logic we wouldn't need olympic level hermaneutics to prove his existence, it would just be part of basal logic.
Funny how presupninja is in the comments but not answering strong arguments like yours.
@ yeah this argument I made to combat presups, but I was still thinking on how to criticize it too, for instance is deduction (as opposed to induction) still possible? and is under a deistic single miracle (deception) God still possible? that led to a rabbit hole of reframing, until I concluded maybe miracles no longer occur because God decided to stop lying to us.
@ Miracles, the devil and the looming end of days make induction impossible, the devil alone can make deduction impossible. I think the existence of the devil alone would make any attempt to sole the problem of hard solipsism impossible for the christian worldview.
I wonder what would happen if someone straight up claimed to be an absurdist. And that they embrace the dialectic between the apparent meaninglessness of the universe and the human desire to find meaning in said universe.
Would they short circuit or just call that person a liar?
Great video BTW!
Calling you a liar, probably, because their magic book tells them that you already know the truth of their god, but hide it, because you're actually evil.
presuppers, flerfers, lizardists - I ignore them
How can one have any meaningful dialogue if one party states from the outset that their *belief* is true?
Anything after that is potential word salad for "nuh-uh" to any response that does not affirm that presupposition.
Note that apologists are always ready to point out that we cannot have logic and reason without god.
The irony!
They will counterclaim by insisting that science is a religion too ignoring the fact that if a better hypothesis based on new research is found, then it will replace the old one after rigorous analysis.
TBH the tedium of apologists spouting the same tired old logical fallacies is enough to test the patience of a...erm...saint lol
Although it's ridiculous, you've gotta admit the courage of someone to say "God is real 'cause he is"
Imagine the courage of someone that makes a logical argument without being able to ground logic.
Nah i dont. You can call it courage i call it silliness
@@PresupNinjaright? We should absolutely ground our logic in a god.... That we cannot prove is not just a thought beamed into our brain thats actually in a vat
@@socialmediaisterrible Instead of argumentative conversations, how about asking questions and learning?
That being said, how would you know, given your worldview framework, that you aren't a brain in a vat?
@@PresupNinja because i have been hearing presupp for years now. I did take the time to learn about it and it has fundamental flaws which are silly.
And heres the thing, i cannot demonstrate that i am not a brain in a vat. Neither can you. Demonstrate that you are not a brain in a vat being fed information that a god exists and you must ground everything on pressupposing that a god exists
Volume feels much better this video
Wow! Thank you. This probably is the most clarifying video I have ever watched on the tactic of presuppositionalism. Very well done. I learned a ton and when you included your focus on LGBTQIA+, i literally shouted YEAH! Thank you!
it's circular and uninteresting, plus the presup is lazy. You assume the position and think you know what people are thinking, as well as it can be applied to any religion which makes it useless. Sloppy thinkers. There is a reason why it is not used in serious philosophy circles as when you get down to brass tacks presup is circular, question-begging and shifts the burden of proof, all of which is fallacious.
We all have to rely on our reason, even the presup and they aren't honest interlocutors. Why I say presup isn't apologetics is if you presuppose a 'god' and make the arrogant assumption that we are in denial and know there is a 'god' you are saying you know our minds better than we do and calling us liars.
You also operate under the 'god' universe model, which I reject outright as it has a supernatural component to it, for my perspective all the evidence leads me to believe we live in a 'no god universe' as no supernatural has ever been demonstrated, let alone a 'god' or 'gods'
Bahnsen (a well-known presup) has been quoted as saying, that its purpose was not to convert the heart of the unbeliever, it's to shut their mouths. This sums up the presup.
Best way to handle presuppers? Use their own method against them. Tell them if they can simply presuppose that they are right, then you can do the same and presuppose that they are wrong. This brings discussion to a conplete halt which is good because discussing with them to any extent is giving their presupposition way more credibility and consideration than it has ANY business to ever recieve.
Since presup definitionally requires that the presupposition is assumed to be true WITHOUT DEMONSTRATION OR ARGUMENTATION, then any attempts to justify why THEIR presupposition is valid while yours isn't will necessarily involve demonstration and or argumentation on why their presup stands and therefore their stance will no longer be presuppositional. Now they are going into and attempting their formerly presup premise which not only is it something they should be doing in any rational discussion, it also renders their presup not a presup.
More fun is the confirmed fact that our "rationality" is subject to distortions and errors. Am I right in thinking that since "God" is the "foundation" of rationality, then the fact that our rationality is flawed means that "God" does not exist? That's just stupid.
According to their arguments, you're absolutely right. Just like if you take Plantinga's modal ontological argument, you can show that God can't be necessary, only sufficient. Because they're bad arguments.
If your position cannot be shown to be wrong, it cannot be shown to be right, either. It's also usually (almost always) wrong as there usually IS a way to check and, since it was a blind guess, is true very, very rarely.
As for the TAG side of presup? A simple question to ask would be how they came to even know of their god in the first place without any sort of grounding in their logic and such because in order for them to acknowledge their god as any sort of grounding for anything, they have to acknowledge that such a god acually exists and the descriptions for it are accurate. This REQUIRES the very things that they are claiming and presupposing to be grounded in their god to already be grounded, from their perspective, in some way shaoe or form.
In summary, in order to even acknowledge the existence of their god much less that it is as they claim it to be, they would have had to have relied on logic, rationality or anything else that they are claiming through presuppostion to be only possible to be grounded by that very god BEFORE even knowing of that god's existence.
This highlights perfectly the sort of post-hoc rationalization that their stance demands. Before they can even acknowledge that their god exists, they have to rely on things that they claim can only be grounded by such a god.
And if they were to say "so what that just proves that logic works and it works because of God!", then they would be proving that logic works regardless of whether or not we believe it to be grounded by a god. What makes logic etc work has nothing to do with what grounds them and THAT makes their question of grounding logic etc pointless. It would be like saying you need to ground how your car works by the place that made it befire you can drive it.
Supposing a god exists... but it's a complete idiot. Presupps are obliged to accept (& defend) revealed nonsense. 😀
I love what you're saying, but honestly I can't tolerate your voice. Please don't take that personally... keep the videos coming.
You're a POS...
But, don't take that personally.
Same. I love the content, but the voice makes me uncomfortable. Like i'm listening to someone speak while choking.
My issue with apologetics of this kind is simple.
If we are not using an evidentiary standard, then I can literally presuppose the polar opposite of your view and you can't then deny it.
Therefore we end up with A and not A being possible at the same time with no method of resolving it since both arguments are equally sound according to the set standard.
In this case, the presupotionalist states: "God is required to be real for logic and reason to work" and I can counterstate "God is required to be not real for logic and reason to work", I can invert any argument they give me and it'll be correct according to the standard set.
I presuppose Dracula
I presuppose the X-Men
Presup is just "It's true because I say it's true." Might as well debate a wall. At least the echo coming off of it can form coherent sentences.
Thank you for the great informational video!
presup. Therefore: Artemis.
I mean, IF I presup magic, then why genocidal magic? Why not athletic, attractive, sweet accent brunette magic? Something is so wrong with abrahamists.
I'm not sure Artemis would be the best deity to invoke. Ahura Mazda, Alkah, Brahma, or a deity like them might be better. That's not because Artemis is female. Apollo or Thor, for example, would face the same issues as Artemis.
Presups in a nutshell: asking for evidence is evidence of God! 🥴
Really well done video!! I just found your channel and sub'd. Omni-libreum is a very interesting idea, very thoughtful provoking. I will keep an eye out for your videos.
Thank you, I put a lot of thought into my nonsense
I know this is not relevant, but I am trying to place your accent. I think it's from New England. Would you mind saying?
Thank you.
I was born and raised in new york city, lived there for over 30 years, but I reside in northern new hampshire now. Is the NE accent actually showing through? hah
@@FeliciaByNature Yes, a bit. But, I could hear you had a bit of a New York accent too. That's what was throwing me. You sounded like you were from New England when you say "hold" but roll your r's like a New Yorker.
Thank you for letting me know. By the way I'm from Sussex in England. Also, I have just subscribed to your channel today.
@@johnburn8031 Thanks so much! It's great to have you on board.
You're more than welcome.
Hi there tiny channel that has a perfectly good, well-reasoned video about talking to people on this platform. Have some algorithm, as a treat.
Would you like to be a guest on my podcast?
It is sad that so many people are religious because their parents just continued a family tradition. God cannot exist, for, if God created the universe, there was no place to be. The bible is so totally bound by the behavior of man, and it just man's unreliable observations and a hope for a place free of suffering and punishment. God is a belief in an afterlife so they can escape the misery of an ancient earth. It is amazing how easily people can put aside logic for a promise of eternal life, for we no longer live in a miserable world. Nobody really dies; the chemicals of our bodies change and just redistributed. It is just our conscience that dies.
And another atheist cannot handle us pre-suppers - the atheist casualties are mounting up, slain by the pre-supps.
Care to put that to the test?
I'm game 🙋🏻♂️
@@johnburn8031 What you got for me boy?
Firstly, please do not refer to me as boy. I am neither a child nor your servant. Thank you.
How do you know that your deity exists?
Why is your deity the best ground for knowledge?
@@johnburn8031 because atheism doesn't exist
Although I am an agnostic atheist, for the sake of our conversation, I will assume a deity of some kind exists. Now, let's return to the two questions I originally asked:
How do you know that your deity exists?
Why is your deity the best ground for knowledge?
I’d appreciate it if you could address these questions directly, as they are central to our conversation. Thank you."
Awwww snap!
Nothing personal, your short is the one that just showed up first and helped me illustrate my points as to why I keep presup at arms length.
@FeliciaByNature all good! We don't mind at all. I'm sure we'll probably talk about your feedback soon and enjoy the back and forth
@@FeliciaByNatureThanks for the shout out! You're the first person (besides me) to call me Presup Ninja. Lol. When we do respond, I think this will be a good teachable moment and an opportunity to clear up a lot of the confusion you have about presuppositionalism. I look forward to it!