Atheist Logic Fail


How to debate Atheists and win every time.



Richard Dawkins recently made some ill-fated remarks that will prove to be blood in the water for Atheists in debate.

One master at his public school, Oundle, he writes, “was prone to fall in love with the prettier boys. He never, as far as we knew, went any further than to put an arm around them in class and make suggestive remarks, but nowadays that would probably be enough to land him in terrible trouble with the police – and tabloid-inflamed vigilantes.””I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild paedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”  “I think we should acknowledge it. That’s one point… But the other point is that because the most notorious cases of paedophilia involve rape and even murder, and because we attach the label ‘paedophilia’ to the same things when they’re just mild touching up, we must beware of lumping all paedophiles into the same bracket.”

Now this argument will and has caused problems in the Atheist community, so what you do is you keep on bringing their attention back to the subject.  Many Atheists despise the Catholic church and jumped on the Atheist bandwagon for that reason alone.  Now, Dawkins is marginalizing the aggressive stance on pedophilia and creating a strong counter incentive for those Atheists to continue identifying with Dawkinites.


Richard Dawkins has conflated himself with science, notice how he answers this question put to him by Neil degrasse tyson, it sounds like a red herring, but he actually thinks he is science.  (, and anti-theists and misotheists with atheists.  He conflates theists with deists and agnostics with cowards.  Now all of a sudden this champion of conflation has a dichotomy about pedophilia?  He doesn’t want “mild pedophilia” to be thought of or even called or categorized as pedophilia?  Interesting…  In his book the “god delusion” Dawkins quotes a woman as saying that emotional abuse is more harmful than physical abuse, we see at that point he was disguising his actual position on the topic.  So where exactly is he on the topic of pedophilia?

He says he can’t bring himself to condemn it.  I have this concept of potential tautologies, I am going to show you how I deconstruct narrative and use my SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION to understand people that are concealing and behaving strategically.  What is the best description of his stance on pedophilia?  How is he in relationship with the topic?  He says that when a teacher put his hand in his pants and knocked his junk around it didn’t do any lasting harm?  Could he be concealing?  Maybe not only did it not do any harm but perhaps he enjoyed it.  He also adds the unnecessary information that his teacher was attracted to the better looking students, is he flattering himself?

“I can’t bring myself to condemn mild pedophilia”

Now, depending on what the person communicating strategically is actually concealing this is a potential tautology of other statements.  Nothing in the above statement would contradict the statement:  I am attracted to young men and I would like to be intimate with them, I don’t feel it is all that bad.  Now according to my research on psychopathic behavior the sum of the actions of the psychopath have to take them in the direction of doing their will (even if that will is frowned on by society).  So as time goes on we would expect this subject to resurface.

If you really want to mess with the heads of Atheists keep on bringing the topic back to Dawkins and forcing them to defend him.  Ask them to lay down some clear guide lines as to what is acceptable as far as age and what is appropriate.  This entire line of questioning can’t be had without demoralizing the Atheists.  If they don’t defend him they weaken their authority, if they do defend him they make themselves look bad.  This is almost Vietnam style guerrilla debating.  You are devastating your opponents psychologically.  If they try to distance themselves from Dawkins force them to defend him and bring up his conflations and false dichotomies.  Keep them on the ropes.  After the debate the Atheists will hate themselves a little for the things they had to say to win this debate, lol.  The intense negative emotional horror at having to argue in favor of pedophilia will really make themselves examine their stances after the argument.  I am a sadist, I know, but the use of strategic behavior validates the use of strategic behavior, all the nastiness and venom of the Atheists is going to come back on them.


 In the book, Dawkins mentions one occasion when a teacher put a hand down his trousers at a prep school in Salisbury, and four others at Oundle, when he “had to fend off nocturnal visits to my bed from senior boys much larger and stronger than I was”. 

In my piece THE HISTORY OF RAPE (  I mention the writings of C. S. Lewis and how he despised the sexual harassment that he experienced in school, this is a rather common type of behavior among boys left to themselves, as much as you might hate the concept.  If you examine the social structures in the military, and those created in prisons and how female inmates and male inmates create different social norms you will see that this is an innately male perspective.  Lewis talked about the processes of Tarting and Fagging, Tarting was offering sexual favors as a type of money, and fagging was a way of establishing dominance and punishing others.  Dawkins consistently portrays himself as a victim and suggests that he didn’t enjoy it while at the same time defending the behaviors, bizarre?


Now one of the things I do is I examine behaviors and look for tautologies of a certain personality to confirm my other suspicions.  I suspect that Dawkins is a closeted mild _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.  Now in what way is Dawkins an exhibitionist?  He flaunts his Scientific authority, and he humiliates, subjugates, fundies as a kind mental queers.  Dawkins made an association between science and sex at a very early age.  When he exhibits his intellect he is flaunting his sexual and evolutionary prowess.  He is displaying why he is the most eligible mate for sex.  The question then arises who is he peacocking for?




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.

36 thoughts on “How to debate Atheists and win every time.

  1. “Now this argument will and has caused problems in the Atheist community, so what you do is you keep on bringing their attention back to the subject.”
    Dawkins doesn’t support or condone pedophilia.
    Dawkins is not a “high priest of atheism” so thinking that the atheist community treats him with the same unquestioning reverence that theists treat their authorities is not going to get you anywhere.

    So it would seem that the method you are proposing to “debate Atheists and win every time” is to continually avoid discussing actual issues.
    As long as you also redefine “win”, that should work very well for you.

    • what are the “actual issues”?

      • Oh, how about….what is the Evidence For God? How much of the Bible is factual? What is the basis for the Trinity?
        Would you not agree that these are more relevant to a religious discussion than whether one person thinks some acts of pedophilia are worse than others?
        As I pointed out, the entire blog post above is not only based upon lies and distortions, it is also irrelevant.

      • I disagree, I think you will find as time goes on that Dawkins returns to this subject and sidles up next to it. but anyway it is predictive and can only be falsified in the future.

      • As far as evidence for god, I define god as the faculty of reason in man. Please falsify me.

      • You “think I will find”? Is that supposed to pass for an argument? Was that supposed to be support for your assertion that Dawkins condones pedophilia?
        It does not.
        You have bragged that you can win any debate with an atheist every time.
        Well, I am an atheist, and we are debating whether or not Richard Dawkins condones pedophilia, a topic of your choosing.
        Either provide some support for this assertion, or you lose.

      • “As far as evidence for god, I define god as the faculty of reason in man. Please falsify me.”

        Sounds nice but doesn’t actually mean anything… What is the “faculty of reason” which is in man? One definition of “faculty” is “an inherent mental or physical power”. A definition of “reason” is “a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event” which I don’t think is what you’re trying to convey but maybe another definition “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic”.

        So your definition of a “god” is it’s the “inherent power/ability to understand logic”?

      • From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        This article is about the human faculty of reason or rationality. For other related topics, see Reason (disambiguation).
        Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]
        Reason or “reasoning” is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad. It is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.[4]
        In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event, phenomenon or behaviour.[5] The ways in which human beings reason through argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic.[6]
        Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason, e.g. which cognitive and neural processes are engaged, and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw.

      • Okay but that doesn’t explain how you see that as a god… Do you see it is a super natural entity that gives us that ability? Do you see it as a natural process and have deemed it “god”? You’re not being very clear here.

      • I am being clear in describing my world view. Reason is god. Reason exists in man. What is not clear for you? are you conflating clarity with normative definitions of god?

      • Your worldview is not a definition of what you define as a god. Your worldview isn’t even the topic of discussion. I’m just trying to sort out what you define a god is. So far all you have said is your god is reason, but that isn’t a complete definition. As you describe god as the faculty of reason in man, and then provided the wikipedia entry for that so I suppose you align with that directly, that doesn’t explain what you think of a god to be. Is a god simply reason? It isn’t aware or conscious but rather an ability? Is it aware?

      • Watch yourself buddy, you are imposing false dichotomies. My definition of god is part of my world view. It is consciousness itself. Why don’t you tell me what a complete definition is or ask better questions instead of trying to herd me towards the answer that you are trying to hear.

      • I’m actually not imposing any dichotomy in this case. I’m asking for clarification and it appears to me that you are being rather difficult in elaborating. Your definition of a god may be part of you worldview, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing at this point what you define as a god. You have now changed your definition of a god from being only the faculty of reason to being consciousness itself. If you do not see that as changing your view, then am I correct in assuming you mean reason is consciousness? I am still unclear of what you are calling a god. I have already made it obvious I don’t understand what you mean when you define a god as you have, and am merely asking questions in trying to get you to better explain your definition of a god. If you feel that you are being herded towards a specific answer then I think you are reading my comments in the wrong context.

      • The definition is not being changed it is being clarified, you are debating like a retard. How is reason not consciousness? Can you reason unconsciously? What is intelligence? You will probably say that is another word, maybe you should acquaint yourself with the definition of the word “tautology”.

      • The irony. You are now presenting a false dichotomy. Reason and intelligence are parts of consciousness, but consciousness doesn’t require either.

        Nice to see it only took you 4 replies to resort to ad hominem. This wasn’t even a debate yet. I was trying to get you to give a complete definition so we could debate over a specific issue. At this point however, I’m done. Enjoy yourself.

      • you are bias mining to prove yourself correct. it is insane. What kind of idiot sees now overlap between reason, intelligence, and consciousness especially considering the definition I posted of reason???

  2. Scientific materials are predictive, descriptive, and prescriptive. You can’t falsify a prediction in the present. Maybe you don’t understand how science works. . .

    • I don’t see how that addresses anything I said. I made no assertions about science.
      Perhaps you just have a short memory. Allow me to recap for you:
      You asserted that you can win a debate against an atheist “every time”, and chose as a topic the assertion that Richard Dawkins condones pedophilia.
      I, as an atheist, have accepted your challenge and am waiting for you to present your evidence.
      WHERE IS IT?

      • my evidence of what exactly?

      • Your evidence that Richard Dawkins condones pedophilia.
        This is the last opportunity I will give you. If you fail to provide such evidence in your next comment, you forfeit this debate and thus cannot win an argument against an atheist every time.

      • might I remind you this is an unmoderated debate so it is very much based on two different interpretations of the outcome.

      • My evidence is based on my psychological systems that I designed to look for psychopaths by deconstructing their narrative, I have consistently predicted peoples behavior years ahead of time. I realize that wouldn’t be considered evidence for you which is why I add the stipulation, it is predictive, and can’t be falsified right now.

      • Since I asked for evidence, not your personal and as far as I’m concerned unqualified speculation, you have failed to present your case and therefore lose this argument.
        Now, given that it has been demonstrated that you do not know how to win a debate against an atheist every time, do you want to quit here or do you want to continue with a discussion of either of two other points you have raised:
        1) Your assertion that god is the faculty of reason in man.
        2) “You can’t falsify a prediction in the present.”
        I am prepared to argue the negative on either of those issues.
        Your choice.

      • I disagree that it is not evidence, perhaps if you understood better the philosophy behind my psychological system. I have made predictions that were correct when others using complicated computer algorithms were wrong. I disagree that I didn’t win the debate. Knowledge is justified true belief, and one doesn’t just win an argument with evidence but also with reason, and I gave me reasons. By all means try to demonstrate how you can falsify this prediction in the present, I would enjoy seeing that.

      • furthermore you may continue proceeding on the other two subjects with which you take issue at your leisure.

      • We are discussing an empirical issue.
        An empirical test must be falsifiable, or it is not valid evidence.
        By your own admission, your test is non-falsifiable.
        Therefore, by your own admission you have not provided evidence.
        Once again, you have lost this debate.
        “Learn2Science”, pal.

      • wrong, it is not falsifiable currently, you fail. and when I am proven correct you will eat crow.

      • if you agree that it is not falsifiable currently, then it is not evidence currently, and you have lost the debate currently, and are the one eating crow.

      • but unless you have reading comprehension problems as based on my link, evidence is anything in support of an assertion, and I gave my psychological reasons which you dismissed, without reason. Now we are arguing in circles and you are wasting my time.

      • For purposes of debate, evidence is not “anything in support of an assertion”.
        Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
        You have not provided facts or information. You have provided only speculation.
        If you want your “psychological evidence” to be accepted then give me a link the some double-blind studies where it was verified. Can you do that?
        I’m guessing the answer is “no”….
        If you are growing tired of this, admit that you have no support for your opinions, and that they are nothing more than personal opinions, and we can move on to something of more substance.

  3. Yeah… this article is pathetic and dies right out of its starting gate. No one cares that Dawkins made a poorly worded statement. Those with a critical eye can clearly see what he meant to say. The thing I hate most in bad arguments is when the arguer fails to adhere to the principle of Charity. You know damn well that Dawkins was trying to argue for a point about punishing crimes on an equilibrium congruent with the consequences of a crime and to offer help to people who are disturbed rather than Jailing them for thought crimes. Pretending that his poorly worded statements say something that they do not is the hallmark of a poor intellect and, frankly, you should be ashamed.

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