an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Thank You!

Thank you for reading! An Atheist Viewpoint is now averaging between 400 and 800 hits a day, which seems ok to me, thank you reading and not allowing me to just type into a void.

With any luck I’ll keep on churning out stuff that people want to read.

Single Post Navigation

21 thoughts on “Thank You!

  1. Do me a favour? Keep posting the number of hits your blog receives. Perhaps even graph it over the next year. Hint: make your graph have some very small numbers 😀

  2. Sye, considering it's gone up month on month, I think you don't have a point to make.

  3. Sye, you are one of the pettiest human beings I've ever encountered."But how do you know that, Susan?"LMAO

  4. Sye, just so you know — you've done your part in helping this blog along, as I went looking for you after discussion in, IIRC, Pharyngula, and I found here. 😉

  5. "I went looking for you"Excellent! Have a listen to my exchanges with Alex!Round 1 Round 2 Round 3.

  6. I don't know if my previous post got eaten, but…Sye, I listened to some of those exchanges. I'd recommend, if you want to convince people of your point, *not* pointing them there. It does not reflect well upon you.

  7. "I'd recommend, if you want to convince people of your point, *not* pointing them there."Nope, it's not my intention to convince anyone of anything, that is totally out of my hands."It does not reflect well upon you."If you wish to align yourself with their performance, have at it! 😀

  8. Sye has a problem understanding that, as the discussions went on, we got better and better at dealing with the presup arguments. During the first one neither Jim or I really had a clue what they were talking about, seeing only the circularity of their '1. If reason, then god 2. reason, 3. therefore god' argument. It was only later that the penny dropped that they actually START by accepting that their god is real, and then work from there.The thing is, I think the reaction in the first encounter was useful, and telling. Faced with Sye and Eric gibbering out their TAG silliness, Jim and I were pretty much forced into verbalising two big question marks throughout the whole show. They literally didn't make any sense, and I think our reactions were fully appropriate. As we went on, we got better at understanding the 'argument', and reached a point where we could identify successfully that the presubullshitter assumes the truth of the Primacy of Existence before they even start building their theist edifice on top. Basically they steal wholesale from the objectivist worldview, erect a church on top of it, then climb the bell tower, only to shout down that they alone can account for reality and knowledge and that the base reality we're experiencing would exist if it weren't for the monument they've build on top of it. To put it another way, they start building with the roof, and then smugly declare that very roof the essential foundation for everything beneath it!By my third debate with Sye, he was reduced to looking like a total fool. Unfortunately Sye is a clear example of the Dunning Kruger effect – he fails horribly because he lacks cognitive ability, but that lack of cognitive ability causes him to think he's won, and declare himself victor when all can see how disastrously he's fucked things up.Think I might use this reply as the basis for an article 🙂

  9. "Sye has a problem understanding that, as the discussions went on, we got better and better at dealing with the presup arguments."As is evidenced by your stellar performance in round 3 :-DI really should make that video highlighting your brilliance. I'm sure it will go well with the next article you devote to me 😀

  10. In round three you ended up looking like a twat, Sye.

  11. "In round three you ended up looking like a twat, Sye."What colour is the sky in your world Alex? I'll let you know when the video is up! Advanced warning folks, watch for Alex to cry: "Out of context," and demand that I take it down accompanied by various threats.

  12. Do what you like Sye, I couldn't give any less of a fuck. But when you hit 'post' on that video, just think about how *proud* Jesus will be of you.

  13. Hmmm, you'd think that you would be encouraging me to post it rather than trying to guilt me out of it if I did so poorly. Funny that.

  14. Nope, I genuinely don't care if you make it, in fact you'll merely prove absolutely everything I've ever thought about you when you do.So go right ahead, I couldn't care less.

  15. Sye wrote: “Nope, it's not my intention to convince anyone of anything,”This is just another expression of Sye’s dishonesty. He’s desperate to convince himself of numerous things, such as that his god is real, that non-believers are deluded, that he can exercise reason, that he’s not going to hell when he dies, that everyone else is destined to go to hell if they don’t accept what he says on his say so, etc. He also apparently wants to convince himself that he’s the new William Lane Craig of presuppositional apologetics, the latest apostle of the arbitrary under a different name to hide its antagonism to reason. He will say that he’s not trying to convince anyone, but this is only meant to cover for the facts that a) what he’s trying to convince people of is in fact arbitrary and requires a person to abandon rational thinking altogether (remember, it’s all dismissed as “viciously circular”), and b) his “arguments” are so weak and contentless that they have no business presuming to be able to convince anyone.Sye continued: “that is totally out of my hands.”Sye wants to convince himself that his belief in a being which he can only imagine, was caused by some manipulation of his mind on the part of the same imaginary being. He wants to convince himself that he's not the one doing the imagining here, that he's not the one blurring the distinction between reality and imagination by his own psychological actions. Unfortunately, however, his worldview systematically blurs the distinction between reality and imagination to begin with, by failing to provide him with an objective starting point and reliably distinguishing between the objects of awareness from the subject of awareness, and by artificially placing a being that he can only imagine at the center of all his thinking. Notice how often believers’ own statements suggest that they are more than mere spokesmen for the imaginary beings they want us to believe they’re representing, but that they have practically confused themselves with that imaginary being to begin with, while keeping various disclaimers within ready reach whenever they may be needed to cover for the fact that it’s all a sham (e.g., “God hasn’t revealed this,” “It’s a mystery which may never be revealed to us,” etc.; cf. Van Til’s “All scripture is apparently contradictory,” where the alleged “solutions” to what “appears” to be a contradiction resides in the mind of an invisible magic being and may never be revealed to human thinkers).If one ever wanted to build a worldview which allows for all kinds of contradictions, Christianity has a very effective formula for this. Why not acknowledge this fact?Regards,Dawson

  16. Too bad you're too terrified to debate any of this live Dawson.

  17. Sye: "Too bad you're too terrified to debate any of this live Dawson."Too bad all you have in any of this is the retreat to fear. It's already been explained to you numerous times why I will have nothing to do with you in some live encounter, and nothing in what I've stated suggests that there's some fear on my part causing reluctance. So you're just manufacturing this in order to try to intimidate me. I've already told you that this won't work, and it hasn't, and there's no indication that it will work. But you continue to come back to it time and time again. It's all you have, your last refuge: You can't deal with the philosophical issues that have been raised, so you seek to make this a *personal* issue.Regards,Dawson

  18. Well Dawson, it's been a blast chatting with you. I'll keep my eyes open for when you EVER debate ANY Christian on ANYTHING live.As always, though, I won't be holdin' me breath!Ciao!

  19. Nope, it's not my intention to convince anyone of anything, Then why are you doing it? (I'll also note that clearly, anyone who debated with you after hearing that would be foolish, since you've already done the equivalent of saying "I won't play by the rules, and the game doesn't matter." It'd be like debating a Dadaist.)

  20. Imnotandrei asked: “Then why are you doing it?”He’ll likely say that he does it because he’s “commanded” to do it (sort of like Hitler’s henchmen: “I vaz only folloving ohderz!”).Such a response only demonstrates the commitment to futility of the god which would issue such a command in the first place: “Go out into the world, preach the gospel, try to cram it down their throats, and deploy stupid arguments that couldn’t hope to convince anyone in the first place, just for the hell of it. Don’t expect to accomplish anything other than to say that you’re following my commandments. The Lord hath spoken.”Presuppositionalist apologetics is an exercise in futility for the sake of futility. At least so far as it’s aimed towards convincing outsiders. It’s real aim is to keep those inside from poking their heads outside the tent and see that it’s built on quicksand.Regards,Dawson

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: