Saturday, March 26, 2011

Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Year Six

Today is March 26, which means another anniversary here at Incinerating Presupposition has rolled around once again. The first posting on Incinerating Presuppositionalism was published on March 26, 2005, a whole six years ago. And though this past year has been relatively sluggish in terms of posting activity, I am alive and well, and the state of IP is strong.
This past year has seen a fresh load of new posts. Here they are in all their glory:

225. Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Year Five - March 26, 2010

226. If Knowledge Then Non-Theism - April 4, 2010

227. The Imaginative Nature of Christian Theism - May 7, 2010

228. My Suppressed Comment Regarding TAG on Choosing Hats - May 19, 2010

229. TAG: Precariously Straddling the Horns of a Nasty Dilemma - May 21, 2010

230. Is Atheism Inherently Arrogant? - June 4, 2010

231. Answering Hutchinson’s Critique of Objectivism - June 11, 2010

232. A Response to David Smart on Arrogance - June 18, 2010

233. Was I Ever a Presuppositionalist Myself? - June 22, 2010

234. The Biological Nature of Consciousness - June 25, 2010

235. The Storybook Worldview - July 21, 2010

236. Is the Christian God’s Existence “Self-Evident”? - July 25, 2010

237. Nocterro’s Anti-Objectivist Pseudo-Terrorism - July 31, 2010

238. A Critique of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s www.proofthatgodexists.org - August 27, 2010

239. My Squabble with Andrew - September 3, 2010

240. A Reply to Andrew Louis - September 5, 2010

241. Another Reply to Andrew Louis - September 7, 2010

242. Andrew Louis’ Persisting Confusions - September 11, 2010

243. Rick Warden’s Critique of Objectivism - October 7, 2010

244. Some Thoughts on Presuppositionalism and the Problem of Evil - October 22, 2010

245. A Knock at the Door - November 17, 2010

246. Was Ayn Rand “Dead Wrong”? - December 7, 2010

247. Does the Double Slit Experiment Refute the Primacy of Existence? - January 29, 2011

248. Thoughts on Gallup’s Religious Wellbeing Polls - February 25, 2011

249. On “Justifying” the “Inductive Principle” - March 16, 2011

While all my blogs are worth reading (of course!), highlights from this past year’s activity include #227 The Imaginative Nature of Christian Theism, in which I cite no less than 13 points of evidence which indicate that Christian theism finds its basis in the believer’s imagination; #234 The Biological Nature of Consciousness, which points out several reasons why consciousness is in fact a natural, biological phenomenon, and not some mysterious item of supernatural origin which is beyond our ability to understand; and of course #238 A Critique of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s www.proofthatgodexists.org, which generated a lot of heat but has received no refutations whatsoever (it completely overwhelmed Sye Bruggencate himself). This blog entry also saw the highest number of comments, numbering at this time at 198, the most ever in response to one of my blogs.

Over the next few months I will be embarking on a great personal adventure and I’m expecting this to curb my own activity on IP for some time. So you might see fewer postings from me for a while. But don’t be too discouraged. I’ll still be lurking in the background, looking for opportunities to connect with my readers. In the meantime, you have six years worth of IP to feast on, and the great thing is that you can always return for seconds. Mmmm, mmmm, good!

by Dawson Bethrick

Labels:

9 Comments:

Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

Your writings never fail to inform and entertain, and this little update is no exception. You have published a massive amount of writing, and I look forward more.

Thanks!

Ydemoc

March 26, 2011 7:03 AM  
Blogger Vagon said...

Congrats on a great institution of well thought-out and well written philosophy. Looking forward to more.

March 27, 2011 4:52 PM  
Blogger Rosse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 27, 2011 7:38 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

HELL YEAH! been wondering when you were going to put this post out...I want the weekly posts to start again...quit being so damn busy and blast out the blistering Presuppositional Incinerating Bahnsenburner posts of 2011! ; ]

Thanks for all you do, this blog has been an arsenal of info and moxie in debunking irrational theistic fallacies since I found out about it in 2009.

March 27, 2011 7:39 PM  
Blogger Vagon said...

Hey any chance of adding an RSS feed? that way we wont have to keep checking back in while you're away.

Should be easy to add in with blogger.

Cheers,
Vagon

March 30, 2011 10:06 PM  
Blogger Rick Warden said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

April 02, 2011 8:28 AM  
Blogger Rick Warden said...

Hello Dawson,

>>I am alive and well, and the state of IP is strong."

- Well, two of the above points may be true. But I'm not sure about the third.

>>Your writings never fail to inform and entertain...

Entertain, yes. Provide solid philosophy? Other atheists would disagree.

People at a major atheist forum have recently raked you and other objectivists over the coals for your rejection of quantum mechanics.

I put a good word in for you though. As moderate relativists, you at least try to support your beliefs with logic. I admire you for that but you have a ways to go.

Happy IP Birthday,

Rick

BTW - Door of logical debate is still open. The welcome mat is still out:

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html

April 02, 2011 8:41 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: “I am alive and well, and the state of IP is strong."

Rick: “Well, two of the above points may be true. But I'm not sure about the third.”

There are many things you are not sure about, Rick. Your worldview is the cause for your uncertainty in so many things.

Ydemoc wrote: “Your writings never fail to inform and entertain...”

Rick: “Entertain, yes. Provide solid philosophy? Other atheists would disagree.”

“Atheists” is a mixed bag. They come in all shapes and sizes. That one identifies himself as an atheist only tells us what he does not believe; it does not tell us what his positive views of reality might be. Also, agreement across wide spectrums is not a measure of truth, Rick. But then again you’re a mystic. So collective agreement is very important to you. It’s not important to me.

Rick: “People at a major atheist forum have recently raked you and other objectivists over the coals for your rejection of quantum mechanics.”

Is that supposed to concern me? It doesn’t.

So far, Rick, you’re the only one who’s tried to “rake” me over the coals on this matter that I personally know of. And I’ve already exposed the folly of your efforts. (See, among others, my 17 March comment here.)

Rick: “I put a good word in for you though. As moderate relativists, you at least try to support your beliefs with logic. I admire you for that but you have a ways to go.”

Thanks. I’ll consider the source.

Rick: “BTW - Door of logical debate is still open. The welcome mat is still out: http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html”

Rick, since you are so wise in the ways of logic, philosophy and argument, could you encapsulate your argument for your god’s existence which presumably cites identity, logic and physics as the fulcrums of your proof in the form of a simple syllogism? I’ve asked you to do this before, and so far you’ve not come forward on it. If you have something worthwhile to contribute on the matter, I don’t know why you would hide from such a meager challenge. I read your blog, but as I mentioned before, I saw no clear argument there. Help me out. I’m asking you to clarify your own argument. If you have confidence in it, and want others to be persuaded, why would you hesitate doing this? You do know what a syllogism is, don’t you? Here, I’ll give you the basic format:

Premise 1: ____________________________
Premise 2: ____________________________
Conclusion: ___________________________

Just fill in the blanks. Since your blog title makes the claim that identity, logic and physics “prove god’s existence,” I’d expect the conclusion to read something like “Therefore, God exists.” So what are the premises which support this conclusion?

Regards,
Dawson

April 02, 2011 9:27 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hi Rick,

I wrote (regarding Dawson's blog): “Your writings never fail to inform and entertain...”

Rick wrote: “Entertain, yes. Provide solid philosophy? Other atheists would disagree."

Well, it's good to see that you at least find Dawson's blog entertaining, Rick. I'd venture to say that the ability to find things entertaining wouldn't make much sense if existence, identity, and consciousness, as well as the primacy of existence wasn't, as you put it, "solid philosophy."

Ydemoc

April 02, 2011 8:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home