Shotgun the Loyal Apologist vs. The "Deluded" Mr. Art

[The_Art_of_War]

Yeah, I know… I’m not shotgun; I’m just some random new guy. Anywhoo, I have been looking through these forums for the past few days and I have seen a number of differing viewpoints. There seem to be many atheists, some more radical than others, and only a few theists remaining here.

I’m not really set into my beliefs right yet, but I am definitely strongly considering an atheistic world view, and for this I would like to adress one of the theists in particular…the lucky winner IS…

Shotgun!!11!11!!!

Okay, I am sure that you know shotgun far better than I do, and his beliefs may or may not correspond with your own. I have seen shotgun state a few times at least that my epistemological world view varies greatly from that of a christian. Apparently my world-view (a scientific one) is inexplicable and not grounded in sound logic. I am unable to justify my scientific views on god chiefly because I cannot prove that the world is a real existence. Shotgun tells me that the only view which provides a real existence is the christian world view. However, in all his threads I have not seen him elaborate on this point. Therefore, I would like to challenge him to defend his honor! I would like for him to explain his epistemology from the bottom up, while I try my best to explain the naturalist views. I will try to point out any flaws in his argument and I am sure he will do the same for mine.

So shotgun, are you up to the challenge?!

Others are free to comment and to help the person they agree with; however, I would prefer to first and foremost to hear Shotgun and then everyone else.
(an exception might be made for Uccisore)

[Uccisore]

Neat. I’m watching. I’ll sit back and let shotgun do his thing, but if either of you end up having any specific questions for me, feel free.

[Mr_Reasonable]

This might do well in the debate forum. Propose a topic, find some quotes from shotgun that you can use to force him into it then make the whole thing official.

(Just noticed the last line of the post, sorry about that.)

[Iosepusmagus]

Shotgun is an atheist?

I thought he is somewhat of an apologetic (though not really that good) for Christianity?

Anywho, Smears is right, move this on the debate forum.

[The_Art_of_War]

Thanks for pointing that out. Typo corrected
I’ll put some of his quotes in here:

[Ierrellus]

Art of War,
You are trying to compare and contrast natural reality with virtual reality. Can that be done?

[The_Art_of_War]

@Ierrellus

Art of War,
You are trying to compare and contrast natural reality with virtual reality. Can that be done?

I fail to understand : I can only perceive one reality, do you assert the existence of another one?

I am merely challenging shotgun to defend his Worldview, which he has stated is the only plausible one without any reasoning.
He may also pose his concerns towards naturalism.

[d0rkyd00d]

Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but Uccisore might be able to take the torch on this one if Shotgun doesn’t respond. 'Nuff spectating Ucc, hop in and get your hands dirty. =D>

[Ierrellus]

Art of War,
Nope, maybe it’s just me failing to understand where you are coming from. Who is the fundie? You or Shotgun? There is only one reality, but it is replete with a variety of possible beliefs as to what it is.

[The_Art_of_War]

Shotgun is the apologetic. You would probably know that if you read his posts more… : D

I invite Uccisore to begin for shotgun, seeing as shotty hasn’t been around for a while…(maybe i’ll pm him so that he gets info on his email).

@"Shotgun[i

(thread=apologetic starters)[/i]"]1. Draw attention to the complete ridiculousness of the theory of Evolution.

Since they are fond of ignorantly mis-characterizing the Christian religion, I simply do the same in return. Something like this will work:

I don’t believe that complex life popping up out of mud puddles after getting struck by magical lightening, is a rational belief at all!"

This forces the unbeliever automatically to defend their closely cherished foundational philosophy of naturalism. Since no rational defense can be made for any form of naturalism then as an apologist, you are already on the road to closing his or her mouth. (There are many philosophical preconditions that must first exist before rationality or knowledge can exist. Naturalism cannot provide them, in fact, only the Christian worldview can.)

@"Shotgun[i

(thread=On What basis should the bible be taken literally?)[/i]"]I’m going to give a big ol’ “AMEN” to Mr. Show-Me.

It takes an incredible amount of presuppositional bias to reject miraculous claims.

I say our existance; every particular instant of it, is an instant of a supernatural action. (I have further clarified this position in other posts here.)

Before we let the unbelievers “define out of existance” all possibility of the miraculous, we should challenge their basic presuppositions about “natural.”

This applies to the current thread in that, unbelievers (and many others who are biased against their Creator) approach the act of interpretation with a hostile attitude.

This is clearly seen in the conclusions of such groups as the Jesus Seminar. If their conclusions are accurate, then only 20 percent of the sayings in the four Gospels, (and G.Thom) are actually words Jesus spoke.

The Jesus Seminar approaches its interpretation of the Bible, with the presupposition of naturalism. Consider this quote from the introduction to their study, “The Five Gospels”:

The contemporary religious controversy turns on whether the world view reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith . . . . the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope.

They arrive at completely different conclusions about the nature of Christ (than us “real” Christians) because they “start” from biased, (not to mention inconsistent, and foolish) presuppositions.

Did you guy’s notice the very first sentence of Mr. Painful Truths response?

We should “start from scratch” he says. No preconceived ideas he says.

I guarantee you that he doesn’t approach the Bible with the view that it is the word of his almighty Creator, but instead, wants us to accept his worldview of empirical humanistic naturalism as a foundation for “starting from scratch.”

Sorry Mr. Painful Truth, I don’t have blind faith in your heretical religion. I have “knowledgeable” faith in the God of all reality.

@"Shotgun[i

(thread=Science is only beginning to catch up on what God had man…)[/i]"] Scientists don’t say much with certainty, because we’re smart enough to know not to.

Are you certain of this fact Mr. Anthem? Or are you too clever to suspect the truth of your own statement here?

You inadvertently (or maybe knowingly) mis-characterized my position, by responding to a sort of “God of the Gaps” type argument that I never made. This is unfortunately the type of thing I’ve come to expect from God-haters. You see, just as your above quote refutes itself(1), your entire worldview refutes itself in the same manner, and is therefore irrational.

It is not merely that certain particulars of our experiences are unknown to you; it is the fact that your basic assumptions (or presuppositions) about the nature of reality, contradict other views that you hold about reality. All unbelievers have a series of dialectical tensions in the very presuppositions that they hold about the world.

You guys are forced to say yes …and no… at the same time about certain complexities of your experience.

Work for your rationality you shall, and the work will be hard (not to mention ultimately fruitless unless God chooses to regenerate your heart…perhaps through the presentation of some truth He gives me or another Christian to say!)

God bless you, and remember, those who knock get the door opened for them,

Okay, so I edited in a bunch of posts to further prove that shotgun’s not responding is not a mistake on my part.

[The_Art_of_War]

I pm’ed him and he visited today at 3:48 Pm, and yet he isn’t showing…

[kingdaddy]

Who is Shotgun?

Besides…
No one here can really articulate their point logically without huge plot holes, especially the hard core atheist or philosophers.

[The_Art_of_War]

I deny that.
God is absolute perfection, he has no holes in his logic. : P

I’ve been doing some thinking recently, and I think I can develop a reasonable explanation for naturalism, despite what you might say…

[kingdaddy]

@The Art of War

I deny that.
God is absolute perfection, he has no holes in his logic. : P

I’ve been doing some thinking recently, and I think I can develop a reasonable explanation for naturalism, despite what you might say…

What who might say?

[The_Art_of_War]

Does Kingdaddy like to be referred to in the third person? Or is this a way of him making a point about his intelligent design theory? :-&

[kingdaddy]

No, I just wasn’t sure who you were talking to.

What’s your idea of creation and origins and where do you get your reference?

[The_Art_of_War]

Well in this thread, I am supposed to be defending naturalism, but my opponent has yet to show up…

I base my perception of reality in experience, internal and external. I am willing to accept the idea of a priori knowledge along with a posteriori, provided that it is logical and universal to mankind. I mean, I wouldn’t expect for the Judeo-Christian god to endow shotgun with the truth and to give me nothing at all…

Right now, I don’t believe the world was created by anything really. I am just a simple atheist, who confesses that my knowledge as-of-yet is finite.

EDIT:

Gahhh! I pm’ed shotgun again, and he visited the forums again this morning! He still makes no reply, and I doubt he could have missed this thread . Uccisore, I will have to ask you to get your hands dirty…

[shotgun]

[i][b]Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. - Saint Augustine [/b][/i]

Since Mr. Art seems to be very anxious to do philosophical “battle” with me, I should probably give an account of my delay in responding.

I first read this “challenge” yesterday, and have thought about it, and prayed over it since then. I also sought the council of an older and wiser Christian on the matter.

What has God led me to do?

2 Corinthians 10:4 answers this question for us:

“For we demolish arguments and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”

Before I demolish your argument and high-minded philosophy though, Mr. Art, some preliminary statements must be made.

1. I will not continue this discussion under the present title. I suggest we move to the debate thread, and change the subject to something more appropriate. It is not “Shotgun” who deconstructs naturalism, rather, naturalism itself does. You could call the thread something like, “Mr. Arts irrational attempt to deny His creator, and Shotguns courageous counter apology.”

2. I want it publicly stated, and on the record, that my “honor” has nothing to do with this at all. The name of Shotgun is mud. My righteousness is like dirty menstrual rags to God. The difference between you and I, Mr. Art, is that God has shown me a tremendous amount of grace, regenerated my heart, and brought me into His truth, (I pray He does the same for you by the end of our discussion.)

The “truths” I proclaim are like precious jewels that are not of my own, but rather are given to me for temporary safe keeping. As such, to the degree that I present them to you; it is only me, passing on to you the great treasure that has been given to me. For me to argue for my own honor, would be a terrible sin. Unfortunately it is one that many would be Christian apologists have fallen into.

3. I would prefer that Mr. Ucciscore not get involved in this debate. If you want to debate him, then do so in a different thread.

4. You might need some help, and so, you can have up to 3 other God-haters help you out. I wont mind, although, any would-be contributor must keep in mind that I will be primarily focusing on your statements and arguments.

5. Whoever makes the first post, gets to make the last one.

6. You must argue in defense of the position you actually hold. If it comes up in the course of the debate, that you are only arguing as a devils advocate for the position, I’m done.

I do hope that you can agree to these six things, if for no other reason than, I’m tired of my Hotmail account being flooded with frantic messages from “Ilovephilosophy.com”

God bless, and, as the two quotes above demonstrate, the antithesis between our two systems of thought will center around the foundation of reason.

Shotgun

[d0rkyd00d]

and change the subject to something more appropriate…You could call the thread something like, “Mr. Arts irrational attempt to deny His creator, and Shotguns courageous counter apology.”

I would prefer that Mr. Ucciscore not get involved in this debate. If you want to debate him, then do so in a different thread.

Whoever makes the first post, gets to make the last one.

You must argue in defense of the position you actually hold. If it comes up in the course of the debate, that you are only arguing as a devils advocate for the position, I’m done.

I do hope that you can agree to these six things, if for no other reason than, I’m tired of my Hotmail account being flooded with frantic messages from “Ilovephilosophy.com”

You might need some help, and so, you can have up to 3 other God-haters help you out. I wont mind, although, any would-be contributor must keep in mind that I will be primarily focusing on your statements and arguments.

Judging by the request to adhere to such a ridiculous list of rules, art, you’d be better off talking to Uccisore, Ned, or Bob on the subject, if any of them are willing to get involved. Fortunately, Jesus Christ himself didn’t have a rule set before preaching.

[The_Art_of_War]

@Shotgun

Before I demolish your argument and high-minded philosophy though, Mr. Art, some preliminary statements must be made.

1. I will not continue this discussion under the present title. I suggest we move to the debate thread, and change the subject to something more appropriate. It is not “Shotgun” who deconstructs naturalism, rather, naturalism itself does. You could call the thread something like, “Mr. Arts irrational attempt to deny His creator, and Shotguns courageous counter apology.”

I made an impartial thread title for a reason : P. Also, remember, you must show your alternative to my view in order for me to convert.

2. I want it publicly stated, and on the record, that my “honor” has nothing to do with this at all. The name of Shotgun is mud. My righteousness is like dirty menstrual rags to God. The difference between you and I, Mr. Art, is that God has shown me a tremendous amount of grace, regenerated my heart, and brought me into His truth, (I pray He does the same for you by the end of our discussion.)

I was making a joke…

3. I would prefer that Mr. Ucciscore not get involved in this debate. If you want to debate him, then do so in a different thread.

Fine by me. He probably has a stronger case than you anyways.

4. You might need some help, and so, you can have up to 3 other God-haters help you out. I wont mind, although, any would-be contributor must keep in mind that I will be primarily focusing on your statements and arguments.

For now, I would like to keep the discussion to myself so as not to confuse you with a couple different points.

5. Whoever makes the first post, gets to make the last one.

This seems silly. Does it mean that the person who posts first gets to decide when the debate is ended? He would get an extra post… I would prefer not to move this to the chamber of debate; I don’t like their format.

6. You must argue in defense of the position you actually hold. If it comes up in the course of the debate, that you are only arguing as a devils advocate for the position, I’m done.

I’ll do my best, though I change my mind quite frequently.

I do hope that you can agree to these six things, if for no other reason than, I’m tired of my Hotmail account being flooded with frantic messages from “Ilovephilosophy.com”

God bless, and, as the two quotes above demonstrate, the antithesis between our two systems of thought will center around the foundation of reason.

Good luck…