Atheist Logic Fail


Eradicating Religion



I am going to demonstrate that not only is it impossible to get rid of religion, it is stupid to try.  People that try to eradicate religion either know what they are doing is wrong and impossible and are therefore doing it consciously and with evil intent, or they are too stupid to detect their own horse shit.


Dawkinites and Hitchenites frame religion as some external structure of authority forcing its values on others from a superior position.  What though if my religion is my own religion?  What if I am the high priest of my own religion?  What if I us belief pragmatically as a tool t manipulate myself?  Impossible you say?  Well let me explain how validity works, if I can show you one instance where your argument fails it is not valid, you have to retract it and correct it and resubmit it.  Are you ready?  Brace yourself…

BAM!  Belief as a tool, your argument is invalid.



Now Dawkinites and Hitchenites like to argue that the God of the bible is a man, they use a theistic perspective on god to force a false sense of victory, as though by defeating the fundamentalist christian perspective on religion they can defeat the concept of god forever.  The religions were very seldom created by theists though, and since the bible is originally a Jewish book written in allegory I think they get the last say on how it actually should be interpreted.  Their approach isn’t any more valid than if I wanted to falsify the Western educational system and I only polled kindergartners and then bias mined to prove my perspective correct that the Western educational system only taught morons.

I am a deist, and because of the way that antitheists and misotheists approach the debate, conflating me with fundies, they presuppose my arguments and positions as though the god of science has given them psychic powers.  They put words in my mouth, defeat their assumptions and preemptively declare victory and do their little end zone dance.  I call this being delusional about people.  You can’t defeat my arguments by not understanding them or by misunderstanding them.  I believe the god is the faculty of reason in man.  Antitheists try to prove me wrong by demonstrating that they don’t have the faculty of reason in themselves.  Instead of communicating analytically through socratic dialogue, they communicate strategically, bias mining, conversation dropping, red herring, fallacy stacking, sarcasm, cynicism, ridicule, demonstrating themselves masters of every vice that man has and none of the virtues.

You see in the bible that the use of the word “god” is constantly used for forces and nature and virtue, victory, and will, and even the universe.  God is used for those forces we don’t understand.



Now I am a psycholinguist and an analytical philosopher, which is to say I study language.  Science is great for discussing the external world, what can be verified, and reproduced, but some of us also have an active inner life.  We have experiences that are not shared, and not verifiable, and not reproducible.  Does this mean that we should ignore those thoughts and feelings?  What if we are poets or artists?  Can we no longer write fiction?  Should we burn all of the fantasy and science fiction books?  Concerning any subject matter that isn’t about reality?  Or would we be robbing ourselves of creative ability?

Now one of my favorite philosophical concepts is that of Epistemological anarchism, the history of science tells us that we don’t know what the correct answer is going to be, many discoveries have been accidental.  So when we edit our consideration set to only include sources of inspiration which have been correct in the past we are not necessarily putting ourselves any closer to solving the problem.  We don’t know where our inspiration will come from and we are robbing ourselves of creativity in problem solving.   Even the anthropic principle was correct once, wasn’t it? (when Fred Hoyle discovered the process that creates carbon)  The fact of the matter is that if you know where the answer is, you know what the answer is.  But what if nobody knows the answer?  Antitheists feel very sciency about themselves but they are not scientists, they are cheerleaders of science.  Their knowledge is received knowledge.  They presuppose that everything is already known and they can go look up the answer or ask a teacher.

In the absence of the presence of a scientific language how are we supposed to describe how we think the universe works?  Humans do not spring from the forehead of Zeus fully formed and in armor reciting formulas.  Human beings universally anthropomorphize.  Noam Chomsky said in an interview, before we start trying to change the fact that humans naturally presuppose some form of god, maybe we should figure out why evolution made us so that we do that. Evidence of Big foot might not exist in the physical world, but big foot might have a subtle existence in the mind of the person that believes he exists.  Without a person being able to explain the way they think the universe works there is really no way to educate them or help them change, is there?

Maybe Einstein’s research on light and the universe should be discarded because he imagined himself delusionally riding across the universe on a beam of light.



If religious processes are bad, Dawkinites and Hitchenites need to be clear about what are religious processes and not use them.  Proselytizing, evangelizing, converting, appeals to emotion, making a martyr of oneself, ex cathedra assertions, are these not religious processes?  If they are so bad why are “scientific” people using them?  Or is it OK for scientific people to use them because they have a reprieve from the flying spaghetti monster?  You are turning science into the religion of Scientism.  This is obvious because of how many antitheists and misotheists go uncorrected by people in their own community that should know better.  That is why I have so much respect for Neil de Grasse Tyson, because he calls everybody on their shit regardless of what camp they are in, or their reputation, science doesn’t sell indulgences.


Religion is not the cause of evil in the world anymore than emotion is.  You would sooner eradicate emotion than religion.  Until people know how to recognize psychopaths and prevent their social climbing through structures of authority you will never prevent evil from occurring in the world.  Psychopaths are attracted to structures of Authority so that they can abuse the power the accumulate there in.  Creating another structure of authority isn’t the answer.  You have to have to ability to recognize psychopaths, confront their behavior, and prevent them from doing their will.  There is no such thing as an incorruptible structure of authority….

 And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Thomas Jefferson


Author: Joxua Luxor

Known by his online handle Shivah Solomon, he paints as Joxua Mourningstar, he teaches Martial Tai Chi as Master Ten Ton Tiger, writing on occult mysteries he is known as Rabbi Ba'al Shiva, he writes philosophical fiction as Shivastus Solomonicus, and he does comedy as Adam Wolfe.

3 thoughts on “Eradicating Religion

  1. Refreshing; thought-provoking and entertaining….also inspiration for posts on related issues. Thanks for sharing this! : )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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