Atheist Logic Fail

learn2science


1 Comment

🍔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.

 


1 Comment

Checkmate Argument

bm1

Notice the tacit presuppositions in this argument.  It is never a necessity to kill.  What about killing in self defense?  If there is a concealed reason for killing, what is it?  Notice that The Atheist troll conversation dropped in order to avoid falsification, transparency, or making himself look bad by providing a justification for killing.  This is the reason why these people are so dangerous.  They peddle horse shit in order to make themselves look like good people, that is how psychopaths manipulate, uneducated, superficial, aesthetic snap-decisions in order to “bypass the threat filter”.

The Checkmate argument forces the psychopath to choose between 2 or more options that are presupposed by their argument in order to force their concealed narrative into the open.  This removes the veil of pleasantness and rationality that they hide behind.  It draws attention to the holes in their logic and the things that they are not saying.

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.
Proportionality[edit]
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.

RELATED LINKS

DEBATE STARTED HERE…


1 Comment

Participating with the Premise.

Image

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.