an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Talking of Dan Marvin….

Several day ago I asked Dodger Dan a direct question on his blog, in response to a comment he made. Here’s what he said  (The following text from Dan is presented under ‘Fair Use’ for means of discussion and criticism) –

I get the relativist fallacy accusation but we all presuppose. You reason your reasoning is valid. So did I, until Christ was Lord of my reasoning. Then, and only then, I had the avenue to knowledge. Christ saved my reasoning. You?

My response was simple –

By your own argument then you had NO POSSIBLE ROUTE to knowledge before you had ‘knowledge’! How, then, did you reason your way to Jesus??

That was four days ago. In the last four days Dan has posted a brand new article, responded to numerous other blogs, but has singularly avoided answering my question. I believe there is a simple reason for this – it has shown to him how absurd his presup nonsense truly is.

If he disagrees then he is free to post a response here, and I will edit the article to include it. Ball’s in your court, Dan.

Single Post Navigation

4 thoughts on “Talking of Dan Marvin….

  1. Ydemoc on said:

    Funny, he’s ignored most of my questions also. Quite interesting.

  2. Yeah he tried one attempt to respond to my Polytheist world view and got shut down… never to be heard from again, yet he had no issue responding to me over on Jim’s blog…

  3. Reasonable Sanity on said:

    Alex, I don’t think a presupper can honestly answer that question and still hold to their presupper argument. They cannot honestly say that they repented as a zygote or in the womb, so they are forced to admit that they had to gain knowledge by other than special revelation from their god. In other words, they are forced to borrow from another worldview, and admit that their reasoning was valid enough for them to learn about their god, and that they had to repent. Thus, when they claim that our reasoning is “viciously circular”, they are forced to admit that they had to use this “viciously circular” reasoning in order to get to them to the point wherein they later reject it. Now THAT is viciously circular. In all, however, it demonstrates that if they can trust their pre-repentant reasoning (to get them to repentance), then we are obviously justified in using our reasoning. This would mean they are borrowing from another worldview in order to establish their own worldview, wherein they claim everyone is borrowing from their’s.

    • Ydemoc on said:

      Good post, Reasonable! You hit the nail on the head. This is why I often say that in positing their god, believers are actually “imagining in a vicious circle.” I posted an earlier version of the following, some time ago over on Justin’s blog:

      “It seems to me that that those who embrace theism and its variants, do so because somewhere along the path in the development of their minds, they failed to recognize that all knowledge is grounded in existence. And instead of recognizing this inescapable fact and always checking their premises (the thoughts of their minds) against it, they veered off, misusing and neglecting their conceptual faculty, allowing it to drift off in complete surrender to the imaginary. ”

      Meanwhile, existence — not their god — is always there, no matter how far down the road of wishing and fantasy they travel.


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: