“Damien, I want to read some discussions or debate you’ve been through.” – Challenger


Damien Marie AtHope, ok, no problem, I have lots of different mediums, which would you like I will give you 7 types. (1)A formal debate video of my taking on one of Canada’s most annoying street preacher; Artur Pawlowski but this was my only so-called formal debate actually the first for both of us I was sick of him after my first question but I still I think I did relatively good, (2) to a written discussion turning what is a hater telling me “fuck you” to one acknowledging me respectfully, (3) including an informal debate with 7 different theists one after another for 3 hours showing them up, (4) to me helping a new agnostic/atheist with questions which I help make into a much stronger ignostic atheist, (5) to me challenging someone trying to avoid responsibility for their bad actions claiming NIHILISM (as an Axiological (value theory) Atheist myself; Nihilism (anti-value theory) my opposition) I help them reason, (6) to me in a street debate where I dominate a street preacher just by my asking them: “what is a god?” and holding them to offer a good ontology, and (7) to me talking with another atheist about Outreach q & a about doing debates/discussions.
 
(1) American Atheist Challenges Calgary Street Church
 
(2) Turning a Theist Attack into a Chance for Their New Learning: “an open dialog.”
 
(3) Axiological Atheism: A Conversation with Atheist Damien AtHope (Apologetics Academy)
 
(4) Talking with a newish atheist
 
(5) Atheist in a Wheelchair challenges a street preacher.
 
(6) Addressing One’s Message?
 
(7) Outreach q & a about doing debates/discussions

“Let’s have a friendly debate sometimes.” – Challenger 


Damien Marie AtHope Ok, Ethical atheism: Addressing the Ethics of Belief: God claims all totally lack a standard of meeting any warrant or justification in their burden of proof, thus the claim as offered debunks itself as any kind of viable claim. Would you be intellectually honest enough to want to know if your belief was completely false, and once knowing it was an unjustified belief, realize it lacks warrant and the qualities needed for belief-retention, as well as grasp the rationality that certain beliefs are epistemically unfounded which compels belief-relinquishment due to the beliefs insufficient supporting reason and evidence, realizing that belief. To me, belief in gods is intellectually flawed and dishonest compared to the evidence of the natural world being not only explainable on every level as only natural, but also there is not a shred of anything supernatural and every claim tested ever has time and again debunked such nonsense. If anything supernatural or paranormal was provable, the believers would have taken James Randi’s famous million-dollar challenge, or they would have gone and got their Nobel Prize in proving the supernatural or open up a 100% faith-based prayer and miracles hospital. Where the cure for anything and everything is guaranteed because “prayer and miracles works” and the only education was being a religious or spiritual leader. Prove it or it is not really worthy for true belief and if there was actual scientific proof it would silence us rationalists, atheists, and skeptics forever. However, nothing of the sort has ever happened. List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal or supernatural woo-woo go back to at least 1922 with Scientific American. But it did not stop there instead there has been many individuals and groups have offered similar monetary awards for proof of the paranormal or supernatural with some reaching over a million dollars yet as of February 2016, not one prizes have been claimed. Therefore, belief in supernatural or paranormal are not realistic nor are they reasonable. And what’s even crazier is it’s nonsense and they act like it is us rationalists, atheists, and skeptics that have to disprove something they have never proved.

 “Damien, one at a time. Lol I’m not sure that all theists based their belief on faith. Great many of them, yes but Leibniz, Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, Suarez, Ockham, Al Hazen, Al Ghazali and others spent a great deal of ink discussing these matters.” – Challenger

Damien Marie AtHope Yes, I said it how I wanted as “ALL” and every theist has “theism” as an unjustified blind faith belief just some try to defend it with quick talk or big words, that in the end are all the same not evidence of anything but human thinking folly. I am trying to help understand my thinking I am not like most others I am a self-taught very big picture thinker so I get I can seem confusing to some as I am not easily found in a textbook, well not yet as I will be someday soon. lol

“It is word salad because I think you are presupposing a Theory of Knowledge of Empiricism(Scientific Proof) which is not how they treated it but with inductive inferences a priori and personal experience.” – Challenger

Damien Marie AtHope Yep, still not one proof of god, again what is a god or do I need to post the burden of proof (the obligation to prove one’s assertion) as I assume you know you have not yet given me evidence of this god you wish me to consider.

“Read Leibniz, Kant, Descartes: https://youtu.be/s2ULF5WixMM & https://youtu.be/xBmAKCvWl74” – Challenger

“Damien, don’t just rely on secular people. You have to read both sides. I do read both sides and its fun, read the inductive arguments and see if anything works for you. Some work for me and others don’t.” – Challenger 

Damien Marie AtHope Well, empty beliefs of historical thinkers are but nothing, in reality, just more empty claims that are not evidence of a hypothetical anything, so evidence, please.

“If you always presuppose empiricism then it would always lead to skepticism since radical empiricism is insufficient in itself.” – Challenger


 

“Empiricism in itself is self-defeating. There is no empirical evidence to back up that claim.” – Challenger 


Damien Marie AtHope So seem to again you wish to make yet another claim trying to again shift the burden of your need for proof on me, and you think this is reasonable, why would you think you can claim? What is a god? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof


“I did not. You don’t understand what I’m saying I think.  Empirical science as a method if not supplied by philosophy and if taken as a metaphysics lacks ontological justification(no empirical evidence for empiricism).” – Challenger


 

“Damien, begging the question fallacy for asking an omnipotent Being such a thing would be a logical contradiction.” – Challenger  


Damien Marie AtHope So, you have not offered proof of the term god, so please offer evidence of the term you are using titled god as to me it’s animistic daydreaming just a word, that says nothing in reality.


“I am not a Professional Philosopher lol. Go read Kant, Leibniz or the video links I’ve put.” – Challenger

 

“If that is the case, then Kant and Descartes and other Scholastic wouldn’t waste their time using reason to prove and disprove the existence of God.” – Challenger 


Damien Marie AtHope I don’t need to do your proof-gathering, as I said you are not going to push your inadequacies in any evidence, in reality, to establish what a god could be on me yet again. What is a god?


“A Supreme Being, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Benevolent Deity which lies outside Space and Time.” – Challenger 


 

 Damien Marie AtHope Lots of claims please offer proof of them all, please. 


“Damien, which is neither true nor false since it’s true that you can blame some people for their bigotry due to their religion(9-11, Homosexuality); some are inspired to do good due to their beliefs as well(Voluntarism and Charities). Damien, read the video links I gave.(Scroll up)” – Challenger 

Damien Marie AtHope Logic is A or not A. You have offered Not A so nothing that is evidence proving your claims. (“A or not A”), the law of the excluded middle. This formula has only one propositional variable, A. Any valuation for this formula must, by definition, assign A one of the truth values true or false, and assign {not } not A the other truth value.


“Damien, https://youtu.be/RQPRqHZRP68 & https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I I know(Law of Excluded Middle or Non Contradiction). A proposition cannot be both A and not A. However, I think it is flawed because it leaves agnosticism out https://youtu.be/9bsj_y2oZXs” – Challenger 

Damien Marie AtHope God, the Presuppositional Error. Truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist! That guy is a presuppositional apologetics nonsense promoters and starts with the bible as proof it is nothing of the kind so he is lying thus the argument is invalid that he tries to offer. Please provide real proof not more words that go nowhere in reality only wish to misunderstand it.


“Damien, no Craig and Plantinga rejects a 6k year old Earth and Noah’s Ark. Reformed Epistemology, yes however inductive arguments are philosophical and is not intellectually bad. But we presuppose science too? Though I reject Materialism(I’m a Kantian).” – Challenger 

Damien Marie AtHope Presuppositionalism to me is fascist Christian fideism: Christofascism was caused by the embracing of arrogant authoritarian theology by Christian thinkers. Fascism, in this case, is a form of radical authoritarianism theory about epistemology: the theory of knowledge, beliefs, truth etc. especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. The ideological roots of fascism have been traced back to the 1880s, and in particular to the fin de siècle theme of that time notably supporting emotionalism, irrationalism. The theme was based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, and positivism. Fascism may seem a bit extreme a claim but it can start to sound like fundamental christianity in how it adopted policies such as promoting family values, banning literature on birth control and increased penalties for abortion. Presuppositionalism positions itself as Christian authoritarian fideism (all must accept their apologetic theology). It puts others under philosophic skepticism and places itself under fideism. Fideism is roughly a doctrine that faith is the basis of all knowledge. Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian. The Doctrine of Fascism states, “The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.” Let’s see how well The Doctrine of Presuppositionalism sounds in the place of The Doctrine of Fascism: “The Presuppositionalist conception of the Christian apologetics is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Presuppositionalism is totalitarian, and the presuppositionalist Christian apologetics — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.” Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the truth of Christianity and the non-truth of other worldviews. Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means “faith-ism.” Fideism has received criticism from theologians who argue that fideism is not a proper way to worship God. According to this position, if one does not attempt to understand what one believes, one is not really believing. “Blind faith” is not true faith. Fideism can lead to relativism. The existence of other religions puts a fundamental question to fideists—if faith is the only way to know the truth of God, how are we to know which God to have faith in? Fideism alone is not considered an adequate guide to distinguish true or morally valuable revelations from false ones. An apparent consequence of fideism is that all religious thinking becomes equal. The major monotheistic religions become on par with obscure fringe religions, as neither can be advocated or disputed. As articulated by Friedrich Nietzsche, “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything”. Circularity of Presuppositional Apologetics: The goal of presuppositional apologetics is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man and the world which they claim they do not believe. This type of argument is technically called a reductio ad absurdum in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd, i.e. contradictory position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So in essence, presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible. The reasoning in such arguments is fallacious because simply presupposing the conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Clearly, assuming a claim is true does not constitute evidence for that claim. (“X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”) They should be able to do this in a way that isn’t also equally valid for the truth claims of any other religion. If this can not be done, I can only assume that in their realm of thinking all religious scripture, from any religion is equally valid and equally true removing any special claim for christianity or they are using special pleading. Presuppositionalism is a form of fideism that is based on philosophical skepticism. Presuppositionalists generally believe that theological assumptions or presuppositions are loaded into the epistemological foundation of every ‘worldview’ [i.e. philosophy]. Since they also believe that every worldview built on false presuppositions is a false worldview and that Christianity is the only true religion, therefore, they conclude that only the worldview (i.e. philosophy) built on Christian presuppositions is true or reliable. The error is located in the very first premise, i.e. in the notion that theological assumptions or presuppositions lie behind every claim or position, theory, or philosophy. Why do they think that? Is Fascist Christian Fideism and the trinity of logical fallacies: begging the question, special pleading, and circular reasoning. If you point out the circularity in the thinking of Presuppositionalism they may say well under your worldview all positions are circular and under our worldview, we have the truth of Christian god so we are not bothered by such a claim of circularity in the thinking as god created all thinking. “We can say that at their core all positions are circular however this is not proof of the equalizations of all circular positions.” I am stating this to address religion circular positions such as “are not equal to the problem of deduction (reason) and the problem of induction (evidence) underlining all problems in philosophy, especially epistemology. All deductive systems, logic in particular and philosophy in general, rely on the truth of its axioms or premises. So the problem of deduction is really that it is impossible to know the truth of axioms without assuming some a priori “fountain of truth” on which to rely. While rationalism claims access to the truth of innate ideas or revelation, skepticism rightfully points out that such fountain of truth is unattainable. The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge, since it focuses on the alleged lack of justification for either: Generalizing or Presupposing. 1. Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that “all swans we have seen are white, and, therefore, all swans are white”, before the discovery of black swans) or: 2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature. Presuppositional apologetic fascist Christian fideism contrasts every non-Christian epistemology with Christian epistemology by saying that Christian epistemology believes in an ultimate rationalism while all other systems of epistemology believe in an ultimate irrationalism by the default of not being or starting with a Christian epistemology. Certainly one of the most frequent characterizations of the presuppositional apologetic of Cornelius Van Til is that it is “fideistic.” Lewis, for example, is concerned that Van Til, despite serving forty-five years as a professor of apologetics, has constructed a system of theology, not a system of apologetics. In Lewis’s estimation, Van Til has not supplied a means of disputing with unbelievers concerning the truthfulness of Christianity. “In the name of defending the faith he has left the faith defenseless. Montgomery likewise warns against Van Til’s tendency to treat the unbeliever as a believer, working out systematic theology and its implications rather than verifying Christianity by “focusing upon their needs” and using as a “starting point” the “common rationality. Montgomery fears that Van Til has given the unbeliever “the impression that our gospel is as aprioristically, fideistically irrational as the presuppositional claims of its competitors.’” Pinnock also raises the same issue. While saluting the contribution that Van Til has made to “a virile twentieth century apologetic,” Pinnock contends that “a curious epistemology derived from a modern Calvinistic school of philosophy in Holland has led him to align his orthodox theology with a form of irrational fideism.”s Geisler, in his Christian Apologetics, includes Van Til in his chapter on fideism along with Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Barth. Geisler states that Van Til “speaks from a strong Reformed Biblical perspective theologically and yet in an absolute revelational presuppositionalism apologetically. “Methodological fideism” is Geisler’s term for this position. Geisler notes five “central contentions” that are characteristic of fideism (including, apparently, that of Van Til): (1) faith alone is the way to God; (2) truth is not found in the purely rational or objective realm, if it is there at all; (3) evidence and reason do not point definitively in the direction of God; (4) the tests of truth are existential, not rational; and (5) not only God’s revelation but his grace is the source of all truth. Hanna has contended that “presuppositionalism” (as he terms it) is able, in response to inquiries as to the warrant for belief, to answer only “in terms of what I see as reality obscure fideism.” Hanna regularly uses presuppositionalism and fideism interchangeably in his book. More recently, Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley have argued that protestations to the contrary notwithstanding-Van Til’s apologetic has no place (or at least not warranted place) for reasoning with or giving evidence to unbelievers. In their judgment, fideism is the inevitable result of Van Til’s presuppositionalism.


Damien Marie AtHope What is a god and how can you rationally claim to honestly know anything about it? 


“Damien, the scientific method was an invented tool by the Mystics(check my post sometimes) or just my DP. It was the Bacons and a Muslim, Al Hazen who provided the conceptual framework for science.” – Challenger 


Damien Marie AtHope Here, Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/10/ontology-epistemology-axiology-argumentchallenge-protocol/ So, still, you seem to unjustifiably shrug your burden of proof, evidence, please.

“Check the videos I offered.” – Challenger

Damien Marie AtHope You know the videos are not evidence don’t you, they don’t have any evidence, right, no, they wish to srug this need of a burden of proof and only offer god words as there is no direct evidence of gods is there as in not one demonstration of anything supernatural right, no I would think not. No, sadly just more words proving myth beliefs, delusions or intellectual dishonesty not rationality. What is a god and how can you rationally claim to honestly know anything about it? 

“Damien, there are two kinds to gather knowledge; one is empiricism or physical traces(history, science) the other is, inductive argumentation(Being, Ontology, Art, Aesthetics, Ethics).” – Challenger  


 

Damien Marie AtHope So you are not saying you have empiricism or physical traces(history, science) evidence to substantiate a god claim right?

Damien Marie AtHope I think we are done as I have other things to do. It has been fun.


“Damien, I am not a Historian. No Theologian claim that God is a being like other beings. God is not a thing but what is beyond among all beings. Empirical science is insufficient in itself. It is just one way of knowing but not the whole show(aesthetics are not empirical truths so is ethical beliefs, mathematics are axioms(Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem) lie beyond the empirical.” – Challenger