What if Judas didn't do it?

[The Grand Nudger]

This, right here, is the explicit invocation of the primacy of consciousness fundamental to judeo christian monotheism and the stolen concept all rolled into one.  

Under the primacy of consciousness....there is no existence itself, called reality per se - there is only whatever happens to be floating around in a megamind.  For example, reality doesn't dictate whether things fall or float.  The megamind dictates this, and it could be whatever said megamind dictates.  The term reality is meaningless in this formulation, but so compelling that people who would assert as much feel the need to try a quick smash and grab, despite the fact that the very existence of any reality per se is a rejection of the primacy of consciousness, and powerfully argues -for- objectivism.

This, amusingly, does not apply to all or even most gods.  Yet another self inflicted wound from the god of the philosophers™.  It's a ridiculously easy objection for theism to overcome, but christianity is wedded to stepping on that rake for no reason other than it's own insistence.  I say this because the assertion gets them nowhere, supports nothing, and is completely uneccesary to any other thing in the christian orbit of belief.

What are you going on about? Certainly nothing related to what Bel or I actually said. There is no primacy of consciousness or primacy of existence. It is a false dicotomy. There only the primacy of God.

The primacy of god, as you put it, is exactly what an objectivist is taking issue with when they take aim at the primacy of consciousness, Neo. Maybe take the assist, since both you and Bel actually invoked the primacy of consciousness..apparently - and as you tell it - ... in ignorance? Your statement, above, reads as "there is no primacy of consciousness or primacy of existence, there is only the primacy of consciousness". As for it being a false dichotomy, perhaps, but if so, then there is no primacy of god over the primacy of existence, either. This is what makes it a pernicious objection to a very specific type of god claim. From the point of view of asserting a christian god, you can neither diminish nor deny primacy, but as a person facing what appears to be an objective reality, you could easily find yourself at an impasse with claims to fundamentally subjective "facts" of a fundamentally subjective existence. Thus the stolen (and also now-failed) concept. If I were you, I'd just call it another miracle, another mystery. 3=1 and the subject is the object and all that literal nonsense. Me being me, I'd say that supposing there were a god, and it was the god that christians are always babbling about, then it's clear that the christians have fucked up their description of said god in a meaningful way. It's tautologically true to say that existence must exist for an existent god to exist. Just as it's tautologically true to say that there must be something to apprehend, for consciousness to apprehend anything. So, maybe god really does have a massive superpeener, but it's not responsible for bringing into being that which is necessary for it's own existence, and to the extent that it's capable of apprehending anything something must exist. Logically speaking, at least.

This wouldn't surprise you, would it? People describing existent gods -or- the objects of subjective apprehension poorly and inaccurately? Objectivism, ultimately, is open to people who believe in gods, it's just not open to people who believe in gods like yours. It simply fails to meet objectivisms criteria. It fails this existentially, morally, and tautologically. It's certainly possible to claim that it is objectivism as an axiom that fails, but you can see how hilarious it's going to get if you attempt to argue that there is no such thing as a fact or that facts are not to be afforded any privilege, in order to salvage a god concept you believe to be a fact.