Ok, willie.  Here's the deal with pressupositionalism:

The most obvious problem with presupposition is that it is a circular argument.  That is, it assumes its conclusion to be true.  This is a logical fallacy.

Presuppositionalists try to get around this problem by asserting that knowledge of the Christian god is a priori, or self evident and removed from experience.  What they're essentially trying to do is say that knowledge of the Christian god is axiomatic.

This can be proven false very simply.  Axioms, after all, are things which are true because there is no other possibility.  Consider the axiom of identity, made famous by Descartes.  If we question our own existence, our existence must be self evident.  It is impossible to imagine an alternative to existing once one has questioned his own existence.

So, let's examine the Christian God and ask, "Can we imagine any alternative which is plausible?"  If yes, then the Christian God is not self evident.  Here, I'll try one:  I can imagine that Allah is the one true god.

Here's a challenge for all American theists: If you really believe in God as a personal entity, why don't you vote for him for president? Think about it. Who could possibly run the country better than God!?!? If you vote for God, you are GUARANTEED of voting for the best person for president. By voting for God, and getting all of your theist friends to vote for God, you can send a strong message to your fellow Americans that America is "one nation, under God".

It says on your money, "In God we trust". Do you REALLY trust God? If so, then you should vote for him for president.

When you vote on the 4th, do the right thing and make a write-in vote for G-O-D. It's the best thing for America, and the world!

(Also, consider voting for God for all the elections you participate in. Let all those godless atheists and so-called 'rational thinkers' waste their vote on mere human candidates. Make sure your vote proclaims the glory of God.)

Is this the right forum for posting original creations? How about unoriginal? How about satire? I'm new. I skimmed through the forum descriptions and this seemed the best fit. Please move this thread if I've got it all wrong.

Anyway, I figured I needed a puppet, so I went ahead and made one. No previous experience building puppets. All I did was watch a bunch of videos on puppetmaking and then I got the stuff and put it together and I now introduce to you the Reverend: 

Introduction - skippable.

Episode 1: Atheists.

Episode 2: Design.

Application to the Evil League of Evil - it's a thing.

Episode 3: The Rev Eats It.

This is all done in good fun. And some bitter fun, too. But it's not to be mistaken for something that actually tries to make sense. Please tell me what you think (and feel free to send questions to [email protected] - he's not been getting lots).

Also, I'm sorry if his accent is awful. I'm Swedish. Never even been to the States.

There is no reason to ever feel apprehension about hell when you’re an atheist.

If god is insane then he is just as likely to punish believers as non-believers, but I could never believe in the insane God of Abraham.

If god is rational, then he is reasonable and honest and just.

Life is good and whatever is against life is evil.

The root of all evil is irrational faith which is believing things without reasonable evidence. The evil of evils is the belief that irrational faith is a virtue when actually it’s an abominable evil. This is the evil that allowed the Christians to believe without evidence that they should torture and murder by sword or burn alive tens of millions for not being Christians or at least proper Christians; and allowed the Nazis to believe without evidence that they should murder ten million gypsies and Poles and Jews; and allowed the Communists to believe without evidence that their revolution was noble and righteous and that they should kill tens of millions for being reactionaries. Criminals almost always justify their crimes to themselves based on irrational faith. Every atrocity ever committed by man is based on irrational faith.

The most arrogant thing that anyone I ever met believed, is that they have the power of God to magically know that something is true without reasonable evidence.

Proverbs 16:5 Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.

The thing that knocks the stuffing out of me is that when I talk to an athiest I get onto the subject on freethinking and I say well if I have chosen to be religous surely by defination I am frree thinking as no one has told me to be, no one has shown to be , no one has badgered me to be so surley II am free thinker. I am sure you will say well you believe in what other people believe that is not true my idea of god is not llike most chruistians I believe him to omniidentity as he will appear to you as you see him, if you see him as a man witrh a beard then he will be, if you see him as a teapot then he will be, if you see him as Xenu then he wil etc, he is a personal god to the individualnot the other way round. I am sure I will be mocked for not habving strong beliefs and I will tolerate them but to be honest I don't care you can hit me with all this logical and reason rubbish all you want let me oput it to you this way I was never told Inever acheive anything by religion, I was never told I was usless by religion and I was never humilated by religion sorry you take your logic and take it someone who take all this stuff seriously it does not wash here.

In this thread, I want to establish that IF Christianity is an abductive necessity, THEN Christianity is reasonable. I want to get this premise through by itself before I go show exactly why it is abductively necessary. I have seen that I really have to take it One. Step. At. A. Time. with you people.

I want to begin by establishing what I mean by limited. By that, A cognitive faculty is limited if it is such that it may apply every test within its power to some proposition "x" and come to believe "x", while "not x" is the case. In other words, it is possible for some idea to be 100% reasonable, yet false. Here's an example: A very very young child might see a straw inserted into a glass of water, note that the straw appears to bend, and conclude that straws bend when inserted into water. Within the young child's context of knowledge, this is reasonable, and even the most strenuous logical analyses could not change that. But it's false!

I'm so sick of people who think a Buybull quote is going to convince us of anything that I have a special message for such people - especially the "hit and run preachers. " Here's the special part - it won't be in English but in several other languages. OK I found a good translation site and am playing with it:

Arabic: ذهبت يدفع الكتاب مقدّس فوق [أرس] ك, [شيت] هو خارجا وبعد ذلك يأكل هو

Chinese: 去推您的臀部的圣经，拉屎它然后吃它。

French: Allez poussent la bible vers le haut de votre cul, chient il dehors et le mangent alors.
 

German: Gehen Sie schieben die Bibel herauf Ihren Arsch, scheißen es heraus und essen es dann.
 

Italian: Vada spingono la bibbia sul vostro culo, cacano esso fuori ed allora lo mangiano.
 

Japanese: 押し、あなたの肛門の上の聖書を、それたわごとを言い、そして次に食べるそれを行きなさ

い。
 

Spanish: Vaya empujan la biblia encima de su culo, cagan él hacia fuera y después lo comen.
 

Swedish: Går äter knuffen bibeln upp din arsel som ut skitas det och därefter, det.
 

Anyone who understands this respond, but don't translate it for them. Let me know if it's way off. Especially respond anyone who has one of these as a native language.

I know there aren't many traditional Christians posting on these boards, but I'm wondering about how Christians think of 1984.   There was a particularly Orwellian statement made in another thread, and it got me thinking.  Do Christians even see the parallels between their religion and this book?

Has anybody noticed that it's "common knowledge" that America was founded as a Christian Nation?  It's hard to imagine a more effective and blatant propoganda campaign than the complete revision of history that's been perpetrated by the far right.

Do Christians recognize the doublespeak when they talk about free will?  Do they recognize that defining good in terms of God and defining good in terms of the state is only a difference in words, not content?

Now for the really pointed question.  For the few Christians who do get it -- who do see the parallels -- do they think it's ok because it's their god, and do they really approve of totalitarianism so long as it's for Jesus?

There's a lame-ass critique of so-called 'new atheism' by some right-wing blogger (link: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/10/preaching_to_the_choir.php).

It is not the article itself, but the thoughtful comments below it that I found interesting. I highly recommend reading them (reading the article itself is optional, if only for the context it provides). Check them out.

Here's one comment in particular that sparked my imagination:

What struck me is that only 20 years ago, smoking was very common and pretty much everyone had to put up with it in silence, whether they were smokers or not.

Slowly, surely, the tide changed. People started to become aware of the risks of smoking. They made smoking sections in restaurants. Put up no smoking signs everywhere.

Over time, it became less socially acceptable to smoke. Now, in many locales, smoking is banned in restaurants, even bars, etc.

What's more, there's a social stigma against second hand smoking. This is what sparked my imagination and inspired this post.

...Christians, just FYI, the entirety of the free world is well aware that your own personal Big Book of Facts That Are Even Better Than Scientific has told you that all the True Christians (TM) will be instantly raptured away by Jesus, and then the big scary anti-christ will come. We heard you the first few thousand times (though, to be fair, I - personally - am starting to tune the ravings out by now).

And guess what? We aren't retards. If tomorrow I see a bunch of people magically disappear right in front of my eyes, and hear about the same thing being documented all across the globe, and then some ultra-charismatic slimeball shows-up and starts using the numbers '666' to mark his buddies and starts insisting on creating a personal army and globalized economy, I'll probably know what's up.

This question perhaps encourages your fantasy a little more than I'd like, but: assuming your ridiculous, comic-bookish showdown of good vs evil is on the horizon, [i]what on Earth would possibly make you think that a majority of the people on the planet would decide to play on Mr. Evil's team?