an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Dodger Dan Still Doesn’t Understand Reality

Over at Dan Marvin’s witless ‘Debunking Atheists’ page, our witless host has again been showing himself as completely unaware of how reality actually works.

Yup, it’s the TAG again, and Dan still doesn’t understand it. I’ve tried to clarify things with this comment, and have reproduced it here so that you don’t have to waste your time on Dan’s dickish page if you don’t want to –

“Primacy if [sic] existence states that reality exists independent of consciousness but that does not account for universal consciousness and reasoning”

Why should it? It provides a rock solid reality for us to experience, allowing us to measure and quantify that reality, leading to reason being possible.

Again, you show s breathtaking lack of understanding of even very basic concepts here, Dan.

What the fuck is a ‘universal consciousness’??

“The reason is, is because God is the necessary precondition for the laws of logic which are necessary to distinguish between truth and falsehood.”

Simple re-asserting your baseless assertion STILL doesn’t make is true. The ‘necessary precondition for the laws of logic’ is, at the absolute bottom level’, a reality that exists whether conscious minds are there to experience it or not.

You see, Dan, not you, nor Syecular, nor your idol Bahnsen, not ANY of the other members of the (thankfully small) presubullshit crowd have EVER supplied a single shred of evidence to support your assertion that you need your particular version of your particular god for knowledge to be possible. You assert it over and over again, but you never provide any evidence at all.

Let me simplify the whole thing for you –

Objectivists – (as far as I understand it) Existence must ALWAYS come before consciousness, because one has to exist to be conscious, and objects have to exist for us to be conscious of them. The Primacy of Existence is an undeniable fact. The universe exists, looks EXACTLY as we would expect it to if it had occurred entirely naturally, and can be measured and altered. Basically reality is real, and we know that to be a fact. Accepting that our perceived reality is as it appears to be has allowed us to invent incredible tools to further measure that reality, and those tools have without fail shown us reality as it is.

Presubullshitters – basically accept the above so that they can then build their theist edifice on top, before shouting from the highest tower of their construction that reality actually all hangs DOWN from their building! You don’t just borrow from the objectivist worldview, you absolutely depend upon it as a foundation that allows you to then try and argue against it (and we all know how well THAT goes – remember when Dustin Segers claimed he’d debunked the Primacy of Existence, then had his arse handed to him by Dawson and others, leading to him deleting the whole post and pretending it had never happened? That was HILARIOUS).

SO, Dan, can you provide a SINGLE convincing argument that doesn’t first steal the concept you’re trying to disprove?

Bet you a quid that he replies with ‘How can you know anything for certain?’ (or words to that effect) instead of actually replying?

 

 

Single Post Navigation

22 thoughts on “Dodger Dan Still Doesn’t Understand Reality

  1. What I really don’t understand is why the twat puts so much effort into ‘debunking atheists’. The solution is freaking obvious. Just prove this deity you worship exists.

    It’s simple. Write down the evidence, get it peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize. If you cannot do this, you lose. Those are the only two freaking options.

    Gah. Teh stupid. IT BURNS.

  2. Pvblivs on said:

    Furious:

    Even if Dan and people like him had real evidence and could prove the existence of a god, they would not get the Nobel Prize. Einstein’s work on General Relativity earned him the equivalent of “la, la, la, we can’t hear you.” Even though I think Dan and the like are blowing smoke, the line of “prove it and claim your Nobel Prize” really irks me.

    • Not quite, Einstein was most definitely not ignored. His theories needed confirmation some of which was done as early as 1914 with measurement of light bending around the sun.
      He won the Nobel prize for his discovery of the photo-electric effect in a similar way that Wilson & Penzias won it for discovering CBMR but not by those who theorised the big bang including Hawking.
      But to win a Nobel Prize (there’s more than one) they would have to discover something that could show God existed and explain why.

  3. Ydemoc on said:

    I think that one short answer to the tape-loop question, “How do you know that?” would be, “Because you’re capable of asking.”

    Presupper: “How can you know anything for certain?”

    Rational Person: “Because you’re capable of asking, that’s how, silly.”

    Seems to work well so far.

    Ydemoc

  4. Sometimes it’s fun to turn their methods back on them.

    • Ydemoc on said:

      Exactly, Reynold! Tonight I was thinking of a few more:

      They always use this one: “You’re reasoning in a vicious circle”

      Rational reply: “No. But you are imagining in an imaginary circle.”

      Or another rational reply:

      “No. Because there was no argument presented. But you are imagining in an imaginary circle.

      Here’s another:

      “Hey, invisible-magic-being believer, how do you account for your certainty of your invisible magic being, when, “the substance of things hoped for” and “the evidence of things not seen” is insufficient to account the certainty of such a being?

      And another:

      “How do you justify using your imagination to imagine an invisible magic being?”

      And another:

      How do you justify your certainty in such notions as a Conversational Donkey, a Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses when neither reason nor evidence (direct or indirect) nor the “substance of things hoped for” nor the “evidence of things not seen” get you there? Please don’t forget to take into account all the evidence against such notions when imagining your justification .

      Ydemoc

  5. Ydemoc on said:

    Here’s another:

    “Hey, invisible-magic-being believer, how do you justify your positing of an invisible magic being, whose existence (so you claim) is necessary to account for knowledge yet whose existence is superflous for knowledge, since existence, identity, consciousness, and the Primacy of Existence principle are the necessary and sufficient preconditions for knowledge? Further more, how do you justify the existence of such a being when, by doing so, you are embracing a Primacy of Consciousness Metaphysics and therefore, performatively contradicting yourself? Do you (attempt to) justify it via Storybook inputs you’ve been fed, along with imagining in a vicious circle? How do you justify this ultimately futile battle to make the arbitrary come true? And why would you engage in such a battle for the imaginary?”

    Ydemoc

  6. Pvblivs on said:

    Felix:

         He did find other people to listen to him on General Relativity. But the Nobel Prize committee completely snubbed him on the point. I remember reading that this had such an effect that when he listed the awards he was proud of, he omitted the Nobel Prize (which he had later won for work that ended up supporting Quantum Mechanics.) My point isn’t that I think Dan and his ilk have any evidence — I don’t. I’m just saying that being right, and even having the evidence to back you up, can just get you ignored.
         The similar call for “get published in a scientific journal” is likewise flawed. The publishers of the journals are people. They have their own biases. And some of their biases helped them get where they are. If someone claims to have evidence but is being rejected because of a consistent bias in the scientific community, I cannot rule out the possibility that he is right, until I examine the evidence for myself. So I look at what Dan claims. And then I come to the conclusion that I don’t see any evidence.

  7. Ydemoc on said:

    From Dan’s blog – http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2012/03/dei-sub-numine-viget.html#comment-form:

    Dan writes: “Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. ”

    And those who posit His existence are suppressing its arbitrariness with their imaginations, in a futile attempt to fulfill a wish and avoid accountability to reality.

  8. Ydemoc on said:

    Alex,

    I was just reading your exchange you had with Dan over on his blog regarding his invisible magic being “changing its mind.” Up to the point I’ve read, you seemed to have, quite skillfully, put him into a little corner that he seems unable to find his way out of. Let me read on, and see if he ever finds an escape route…

    Nope.

    He never did provide an answer to your question. I would imagine he’ll probably appeal to mystery, when and if he does.

    Good job.

    Ydemoc

  9. Ydemoc, it looks like irony is in play over at Hezekiah’s blog. When I challenged him to back up something that he said about me, this was his response.

    Yet now it Hezekiah has made a new post all about you where he accuses you of being a coward because you don’t post over there!

    • Ydemoc on said:

      Reynold,

      I just popped into Dan’s blog and read Trinity’s non-apologetic explanation for his latest blunder. Am I reading his words right? I went over to Ben Wallis’ blog, and it’s there for all to see.

      Trinity’s carnival sideshow of imagining in a circle continues on…

      Ydemoc

  10. Ydemoc on said:

    Yep. I saw that. I left a reply to your comment over on Dawson’s blog — how his carnival-like sideshow is an outward manifestation of the indwelling of his rationalization; how his futile fight to make the arbitrary come true via his reliance upon the vacuous “substance of things hoped for” and “evidence of things not seen” causes him to imagine in a vicious circle.

    Within this vicious circle of imagination we find: A groundless basis for belief in an invisible magic being, (isn’t that what faith essentially is? — a “groundless basis” for belief in something?). We also find him fabricating and attributing to others things they have never said.

    They seem to go hand in hand, don’t they? Fabrications believed via faith, and faith driven fabrications.

    Hence, the vicious circle of imagination.

    Ydemoc

  11. Ydemoc on said:

    Reynold,

    Are mine eyes deceiving me?

    Below are two posts from Trinity in an exchange with you. The first is from a few days ago, from Ben Wallis’ blog. The second is from moments ago on Dan’s blog.

    Hezekiah Ahaz said…

    I always find the standard reply by “athiests” to PA apologists hilarious.

    “Just becuase you just shredded by world to pices doesn’t make yours true”
    March 7, 2012 2:07 PM

    Reynold said…

    Hezekiah
    Would you care to give examples of any atheist who said that one of you presuppers had actually “shredded” our “worldview to pieces”?
    March 10, 2012 2:21 PM

    Hezekiah Ahaz said…

    Reynold you are one of them. March 10, 2012 7:27 PM

    ——————————————————————-
    http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2012/03/questioning-presuppositionalism.html?showComment=1332201435830#c3476329803825159727

    Reynold,

    Well, I have been told those words.
    In regards to you, you never said those exact words. In fact I never said you did. However,, from your behavior on Alex’s blog and mine it’s a conclusion that I could apply.

    If you want to argue against it go right ahead. We both know you will never admit it.
    ———————————————————————————————
    ———————————————————————————————

    How ’bout that everybody? Hmmm. Let’s see… “Reynold you are one of them” vs. “In fact I never said you did.”

    Why don’t we use Trinity’s own words and “apply” a “conclusion,” shall we: He cannot keep his story straight.

    Yes. He’s learned well from his Storybook.

    Ydemoc

  12. Pvblivs on said:

    Ydemoc:

         “I just popped into Dan’s blog and read Trinity’s non-apologetic explanation for his latest blunder.”
         I was so “impressed” that I did a “Hezekiah vs. Hezekiah” post. Yep, the words before my commentary are all his.

    • Ydemoc on said:

      Pvblivs,

      How will he squirm out of this? Perhaps an appeal to mystery? Or his devoid-of-any-meaning trump card: faith?

      Ydemoc

  13. Glad I found a way of leaving a message – Did you see your friend @Walken4GOP has been mentioned in the UK press for tweeting several disgusting tweets about a black soccer player who had a heart attack this past weekend. A lot of British celebs were calling for his removal but got back messages from Twitter saying he had the right to say what he liked. Would love to chat to you more about the person behind that twitter account and his involvement. Please email me at the email address supplied.

  14. Ydemoc on said:

    To All,

    As if it wasn’t obvious months ago, here we have yet another example, not only of Trinity’s bankrupt worldview, but also of how subscribing to it sends a mind tumbling into confusion . The following is clear proof that, when one imagines in a vicious circle like Trinity does, in the anti-reality quest to make the arbitrary come true, then anything goes. Consistency, principles, and reason are swept aside with range of the moment thinking, and replaced by contradictions, fabrications and rationalizations.

    Observe these two recent statements Trinity, posted on his blog, in separate exchanges he had with “imnotandrei” on the topic of “certainty”:

    Statement #1, Trinity writes: “Faith is a belief”

    Statement #2, Trinity writes: “Steve that’s why they have beliefs and opinions. Those two aren’t certain.”

    To which “imnotandrei” correctly points out to Trinity: “So you’re not certain about faith? Those two are *direct* quotes from you, around 13 hours apart.”

    http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-day-with-steve.html#c7077590545622779264

    Of course, at this point, that this kind of thinking should, once again, come from Trinity and his ilk, is no real surprise, and it no longer need to be seen to be believed, for it became evident long ago.

    This I’m certain of.

    Ydemoc

  15. Ydemoc on said:

    Augustine: “Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”

    Trinity?

    Ydemoc

  16. reynoldhall on said:

    For the hell of it, here’s some more people who don’t understand reality.

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: