Atheist Logic Fail


Atheism is a belief


atheism is a belief

Not believing that God exists and beieving that God doesn’t exist are rhetorical tautologies of one another, Atheism is a belief…

I (+) believe that God (-)exists


I (-) believe that God (+) exists…


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.

20 thoughts on “Atheism is a belief

  1. Not believing, is not anything and is not equal to anything. Where X is a thing, not X is not a thing. Where X is anything, solve for NOT X. Answer: Not anything.

    No matter what X is, not X is not anything.

    What you said here is not tautologous, it is utterly false.

    • You must be the pope. Since you made an ex cathedra assertion, presupposing your own authority, without reason or evidence. Your philosophical calculus is completely wrong and you know it, unless you are a nincompoop.

      • Shame that you are so illiterate at logic that you can’t see proof when it is given to you straight up.

        Where X is anything that exists, solve for “not X”. Answer: not anything that exists.

        It doesn’t matter what X is, not X is not anything.

        Calculus is another topic. I also did not argue that I am an authority, I showed proof of what makes me correct.

      • Any proposed omnipotent being.

      • Any omnipotent being? What about God as the Universe? What about God as the Faculty of Reason? What about God as Life? What about God as Nature? What about God as Victory/Success/Survival?

      • … none of which makes sense due to the law of identity…. nor does that have any relevence to anything I said.

      • you are making an apriori argument and ignoring the fact that God has always been used as an empty set, defined by the user, the highest form of the good of the individual or group of people, their highest virtues. Observe, God as Victory,

        observe, god as Justice…
        you are dismissed.

      • An empty set is a set with no members. ie: the set of months with 32 days.

        “a priori” was replaced as a meaningful term in 1921 by Ludwig Wittgenstein who coined the term “tautology”.

        Set theory and empty sets didn’t erxist until the late 1800’s. Try writing on things you actually know and understand.

        The law of identity stands strong and since I can say things about justice or victory or the universe that are true and I cannot state a single thing about any proposed god that is true (or else I have proven a god exists) then what you are saying is proven false. It doesn’t matter that you can find religious clowns who think otherwise. If they had a sniff of logic in their head then they would have known better in the first place. This is where we come to you…

      • lol, are you serious? I just demonstrated that God has always been used as an empty set. The empty set didn’t exist consciously, until that time. But it existed prior to it. A word is an empty set for it’s own definition, idiot. What you are doing is bifurcating and refusing to be falsified, you aren’t reasoning.

        lol, a priori and rhetorical tautologies are tautologies of each other, stupid, you didn’t falsify anything, lol.

      • You have no clue what an empty set even is. A word is not an empty set. What Kant called ‘a priori’ is quite outdated by the term tautology. You would be best advised to catch up to the last century in logic and set theory. BS won’t cut it.

      • You have no clue what an empty set is. An example of an emty set is the set of months with 32 days. It has no members.

        Calling words an empy set is just ignorant. Learn what it is you are talking about.

        And no, a priori’s as per Kant come with morality and more. Tautologies don’t.

        Uneducated rants like yours remind me why there are universities. Try one.

      • you are a complete imbecile, there isn’t a single point in time, the set is empty until it is field, a word means noting until it is defined, go waist somebody else’s time idiot, you are dismissed.

      • Learn some set theory and logic. What you write now is simply embarassingly ignorant.

      • lol, you are embarrassing yourself, go troll somebody on your level, fail troll.

      • Those would not be described as omnipotent. What is your point then?

      • you are conflating and bifurcating in order to be falsified, if you are using the definition of one supreme god defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, that is a rhetorical tautology of god as the universe so once again you have falsified yourself in an effort to prevent yourself from being falsified, it is difficult to take you seriously when it is obvious you don’t take yourself seriously…

      • Where X is a thing, not X is not a thing. There is no such thing as “not X” no matter what X is. That you are too ignorant to realize it won’t change a thing.

      • Is an idea a thing? Is not x an idea? Do you know what a morpheme is?

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 )

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