Atheist Logic Fail



🍔The Atheist Nothing Burger🍔

Nothing burger.png

Atheists make me Laugh 😂😂😂

Do you remember that movie about how Awesome it is to be an Atheist? Do you remember that Awe-Inspiring book about Atheist Morals & the Philosophy behind them? Do you Remember that once Great Atheist Civilization? Atheism isn’t New it is old. Socrates was accused in court of being an Atheist & eventually given the death penalty. He denied it vehemently and defended himself brilliantly. There is a reason you don’t remember these things and that reason is because they never happened. Atheism has never succeeded and will never succeed and I know why.

  • Atheists can’t make Moral Judgements because they are not a Religion. If they were a Moral Authority they would be a Religion. This would be Self Falsifying.

  • There are no Universal Atheist Morals & if there are please direct me to them.

  • Atheists can’t create a Government because they can’t agree on any Morals which would create the Laws for that Nation.

  • Atheism is not Science.

  • Being an Atheist doesn’t make you more Intelligent than other people.

  • Atheists have nothing in common but the absence of the presence of a belief in God.

If Innate Morality exists it was created through a Religious Force that people exerted on themselves which created the Neural Myelination which was passed on through Epigenetics, creating that Innate Morality.

Atheists suggest that Atheism is not a belief. This is how they avoid Criticism while Criticizing. They don’t want to believe that they live in a Glass House while being Rock Throwing Enthusiasts, they prefer to believe that they live in an Invisible House, but the WANNABE TYRANT is wearing no clothes.

Atheists use the Argument that Atheism is not a belief. They, Stupidly try to Justify this by suggesting that not believing God exists is not a Belief. If they were Linguistic Philosophers they would know how Stupid they sound to Intelligent ears.

I (+) believe God does not (-) exist.

is a Rhetorical Tautology of…

I do not (-) believe God (+) exists.

Atheism is a belief, PERIOD.

Richard Dawkins said, “I am 99.9% positive that God doesn’t exist.” because he can’t state scientifically with any credibility that he is 100% sure God doesn’t exist. If he could state that, he would possess all knowledge in the Universe, thus being Omniscient, in which case he would be God, and therefore he would Falsify his own statement by being God. Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.




Why Atheism is Unsustainable and Irrational.


Many Atheists use the loophole argument that Atheism is a category and nothing else.  As a category it is not broad enough of a subject to be rational or irrational, but it is preemptive to reason as it’s mind has already been made up on a subject about which not enough is known for that position to be held.  We still know very little about the universe, we can only see a tiny portion of the visible spectrum, we only recently discovered dark matter and dark energy of which the majority of the universe is made.  As such, Atheism is an irrational position, but that isn’t the only problem.


The only thing that atheists have in common with each other is the lack of belief in god.  This isn’t a positive assertion, this is a negation.  The problem arises in the application of a negative position.  Every belief system creates a meritocracy of some sort.  If you say that your god is Reason, it creates a meritocracy of reason and results.  The emergent properties that arise from atheist are unsustainable and irrational.  If you look at what Richard Dawkins did, he created a meritocracy of god hate.


Atheism isn’t science, it isn’t correctness, it isn’t a philosophy, it isn’t morality, all of those things have been conflated with Atheism as a form of propaganda to sell atheism to people, to indoctrinate them into the authority of manipulative and evil people like Richard Dawkins.  Atheists also claim that atheism isn’t an organization even though the Out Campaign is a campaign, and there are now atheist churches.  What manner of Campaign is the Out Campaign?  A military campaign? An advertising campaign?  or a political campaign?  What is the charter or morality of an Atheist church?  Where is it written?   Where can I read it?  What authority do Atheists have to judge the behavior of other atheists as being moral or not?  Richard Dawkins claims that the bible isn’t a reliable source of morality, but then argues that who is to say that Hitler was immoral.  The problem is that Atheists and Richard Dawkins himself are not making positive assertions on what is morality or what morality is?  They are concealing the nature of their morality and their beliefs on what morality is and what their personal morality allows them to do.  How is that sustainable?  How are you going to build a society on that?  What will your constitution be?  What will your laws be?

My personal experiences with Atheists and their meritocracy of being an Atheist shows how hypocritical and essentially evil it is.  Any stupid and incorrect Atheist is considered superior to any person professing any kind of spirituality.  I am a deist, and that is enough to make me the object of ridicule by people much stupider than myself, and they have authority over me.  It is much like the application of Islam where any Muslim no matter how violent and stupid can treat any other person who is not Muslim however they want, treating them as an animal, raping, torturing, beheading, persecuting, etc.  My reasoned and supported arguments are subject to their un-reasoned and incorrect mocking and ridiculing.  Other Atheists will not come to my defense against an atheist even when they know that I am correct and the other atheist is wrong.

Richard Dawkins brand of Atheism is an insidious, and stupid evil.  It is a moral imperative that Dawinites never get into positions of authority in the real world.  They are biased, bigotted, and evil. Atheists use the logical loophole of atheism so that they don’t have to scrutinize themselves or reveal their feelings or thoughts in an honest manner while judging and criticizing others.

Leave a comment

Reductio ad Strawman


Proportionality (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several special (although related) concepts. The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. Within criminal law, it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflictproportionality anddistinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.

When people are wrong they need to be humiliated and ridiculed.

Leave a comment


When people are wrong they need to be humiliated and ridiculed.

I learned that from Richard Dawkins. The use of strategic behavior validates the use of strategic behavior. I call it the Tragedy of the commons in regard to strategic behavior, or as will smith said, “Don’t want none, don’t start none.”
Just cause/ Right intention[edit]
According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred.
The principle of proportionality stipulates that the violence used in the war must be proportional to the attack suffered. For example, if one nation invades and seizes the land of another nation, this second nation has just cause for a counterattack in order to retrieve its land. However, if this second nation invades the first, reclaims its territory, and then also annexes the first nation, such military action is disproportional.



1 Comment

Participating with the Premise.


In debate, not only is it necessary to remain rational it is necessary to remain consistently rational.  When a person makes a logical fallacy or a cognitive bias it needs to be addressed and corrected before the conversation can continue.  If you continue the debate without correcting the error you are granting equity to the other person in the conversation.  You are acting as though they have not made an error and by staying in the conversation you are participating with the premise that they are being and have consistently been rational.

If the other person in the conversation is not being rational, the conversation itself is not rational.  If one person tries to remain rational in a debate while the other person is making no effort to be rational or proceed rationally, this creates a disparate impact in favor of the person that isn’t being rational.  When you get in a fight with a clown, even if you win you lose. 

It is necessary to proceed correctly.  The words process and practice come from the greek word praxis.  All valid philosophies have a praxis.  

A philosophy by its very nature has to be self referentially consistent, if it creates disparate impact it is invalid and therefore not a rational philosophy.  If a person can’t be falsified by their own philosophy it is not a philosophy and they are not rational.  So as you see they falsify themselves by their own procedure.  A rational person proceeds rationally, nothing can be proven by irrational means, that is why due process exists. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.
 —Calvin O. Schrag[1]

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of PlatoAristotleSt. AugustineImmanuel KantSøren KierkegaardKarl MarxMartin HeideggerHannah ArendtPaulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.