an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

What I Gain From This

I’ve been having a think about what I’ve been gaining from running this blog, and being involved in the Fundamentally Flawed podcast. Through interaction with some of the more vocal members of the theist community, I’ve encountered numerous arguments that I’d never thought about, and I’ve learned how to counter them. Basically I’ve been able to learn and grow as a person, but what of my opponents? Have they developed at all?


Just look at Sye Ten Bruggencate, or Dan Marvin, or Dustin Segers – all three have been exposed to arguments that completely undermine them, Sye has had his presup nonsense destroyed by many, Dan has been revealed to be a nasty wannabe Sye, and Dustin made the whopper of all errors over the Primacy of Existence. Instead of taking this new knowledge away, and adjusting their opinions, these people have defaulted to a weird, pre-knowledge state, acting as if they’ve never been educated at all.

So, while myself, and others, are learning more and more, and adjusting our positions and expanding our knowledge and understanding, the theists remain locked into their faith position, unwilling to alter a single thing lest they enrage a non-existent superbeing into sending them to a disproportionately extreme eternal punishment. It’s very sad for them, really.

Single Post Navigation

16 thoughts on “What I Gain From This

  1. Lol, did you even go back and listen to the podcasts? You have repeatedly contradicted yourself, claimed that you can't know anything, claimed knowledge about many things, and now talk about what you have learned. Defending your worldview is like defending the starship Enterprise. Everyone knows it does not really exist but that doesn't stop you from pretending it does and even making models of it so it can sit on the shelf of your mind as if it does.

  2. Eric, you tell lies to children and idiots for money. "Everyone knows it does not really exist but that doesn't stop you from pretending it does and even making models of it so it can sit on the shelf of your mind as if it does."hmmm, a bit like this –

  3. In case you can't figure out how to click on that link, Eric, it shows you standing behind a computer graphic of the Grand Canyon, showing the water running the wrong way. OOOOPS!

  4. Alex,Sye thinks that the presup approach requires predominantly Scriptural tools, and not so much intellectual tools. This makes sense given his religious commitments. The idea is that every Christian is supposed to be able to defend his faith, even against intellectual heavyweights.This doesn't mean he won't try to grow, but I suspect he will see his growth as being *spiritual*, and not intellectual. That's what he cares about the most.Finally, that doesn't mean he's opposed to intellectual growth. But for him, this is a religious exercise, and the benefits are supposed to be primarily religious too.+ + +Eric,Sorry if this is off-topic, but since you are here…What's the deal with your presup angle? I thought you were an evidentialist, with your creationism gig. Is that not so?Thanks,–Ben

  5. Ben, Eric has discovered that the presup stuff puts a barrier up between him and awkward questions about creationism that he can't answer. It's a convenient smoke screen

  6. Eric Hovind wrote: “Defending your worldview is like defending the starship Enterprise. Everyone knows it does not really exist but that doesn't stop you from pretending it does and even making models of it so it can sit on the shelf of your mind as if it does.”Notice that, just as Chris Bolt did here, Eric is assuming the primacy of existence in this statement. He’s essentially saying that what Alex is defending is *imaginary* – that “it does not really exist,” but that its defenders *pretend* is real anyway. This of course presumes that there’s a distinction between the real and the imaginary, and that the imaginary is not real. But how does the theist consistently adhere to this when he openly denies the very principle which underwrites the presumption he employs in making this charge, namely the principle of the primacy of existence? Eric’s statement above essentially that reality obtains independently of conscious activity, which is precisely what the primacy of existence recognizes: existence exists independent of consciousness. But as we saw in an earlier podcast, Eric’s friend Dustin Segers triumphantly beat his chest announcing that the primacy of existence is false, self-refuting, question-begging and internally incoherent. Undoubtedly Segers’ denial of the primacy of existence is consistent with his theism, since theism assumes the primacy of consciousness, which is a rejection of the primacy of existence. But here Eric’s making use of the primacy of existence to convey his point. When I informed Segers that he was sorely mistaken, he removed his blog entry dedicated to “refuting” the primacy of existence, saying he was going to conduct “further research” on the matter (I wonder how that’s coming along). When I called Chris Bolt on this, he did not explain himself and in fact left the scene entirely (deleting some blog posts on his own blogspot as well as comments he’s left on this blog!). When I called Sye on this, he refused to provide an answer and instead sought to discredit me personally.I must say, these theists really have no self-conscious grasp of what they’re saying, what they’re affirming, what their presupposing, what they’re denying. Meanwhile they continue to borrow from Objectivism as though their theistic worldview were consistent with its basic principles, when in fact it’s not. They simply have no account, and their efforts to hide their worldview’s systemic deficiencies are woefully insufficient to control the resulting damage. Regards,Dawson

  7. No response, Eric?

  8. These folks – Sye, Bolt, Segers, Hovind, et al. – can't answer for their own actions, let alone their worldview. Their bluff has been called, their tactics have been outed, and their sham has been exposed. As I told Sye, they're on the run.Bolt was pleased with himself when he posted a video excerpt from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, featuring a duel between King Arthur and the black knight. Really, the only excerpt from that movie which captures the situation is when they're fleeing their enemies screaming "Run away! Run away!" No script change is needed – it fits the way it is.Regards,Dawson

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. What's the news on that??

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. Once the charities commission have finished their extensive investigation- prosecution will begin, and more details from outside the community will be public.

  13. where did my comment go? did i delete it by accident- or have i been moderated? sorry i'm new to blogger..

  14. nothing moderated or in the spam filter. Repost?

  15. Must have been me. Well the latest figures are £160,000 from the CMPA Pension Fund alone- Alot of figures are being quoted as to the running total of all moneys taken from varies places (Care Homes, CMPA Pension Fund and Meal-a-Day fund etc) and the most recent one is £700,000. As to the accuracy of that figure I can't confirm or deny it. Though its suspected there may yet be a still larger figure as the person in question has be caught lying several times about the full amount he embezzled.

  16. I'll be interested to see where this story goes.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: