Atheist Logic Fail


1 Comment

Innate Morality Fallacy



If Humans are Innately Moral it is because we exerted a Religious influence on ourselves to become Moral and that Neural Myelination was passed on down to us through Epigenetics.


Innate Morality is a Tacit Moral Equivocation.  If humans are innately moral all human morals are equal.  Cannibalism in Papua New Guinea is moral.  Human Sacrifice is moral. Muslim genocide, slavery, child rape, sex slavery, & Terrorism is moral. 

Atheism is not a Moral Authority and if it was it would be a Religion.  Atheism is Moral and Philosophical Anarchy.  There are no Atheist Morals because Atheists have nothing in common but the absence of a belief in God or the hatred of God. 

A muslim who converts to Atheism still wants Israel destroyed and is comfortable with Christian Genocide.

It is the Laws & Punishments of a Society that make us Moral.  And those can’t be agreed upon by Atheists because they have no Highest Form of the Good or God that they Reveal.  Which is why their has never been & never will be a Great Atheist Civilization.  The most secular nation is Israel with almost 50% Atheists and they’re Constitution is still is inspired by the Talmud. 


1 Comment

(Semantic Fallacy) New Atheist Trolling Technique


As a linguistic philosopher I pick up on changes in communication that most other people don’t.  Within the past 3 days I have ran across this new illegitimate debate technique being used by Liberal Atheist Trolls, I don’t know yet who was the first person to use it.  I have found several different people using this technique to avoid being falsified, to avoid scrutinizing themselves or their arguments.  It is interesting the speed and readiness with which these liberal trolls pass these strategies amongst themselves.  It seems to escape their notice that this strategy is dishonest and irrational.  But rest assured the people that they enable, Muslims, will pick up this strategy and start using it.  Some people pick up the strategy unconsciously from their environment. Libtards smirk to themselves as the quality of conversation and relationship is attenuated by people repeating these douchey patterns and society crumbles for lack of proper communication, understanding, agreement, and participation.  Anything to feed their egos, grasping at any sense of victory.  Never mind that it is easier to destroy than to create, or that it is easier to do evil than to do good and succeed.

mark anderson





1 Comment

Extraordinary Claim Fallacy


I have found when studying troll behavior online they will argue for vagueness strategically not only to passive aggressively frustrate the speaker but also to characterize the person to others in the conversation or telegraph to anybody they might be trolling with to respond in kind. Arguing for vagueness is often used as a preliminary positioning & bating strategy that segues into using the Moving the Goalpost fallacy with oneself as a goal, in the form of operating tacitly on the argument, “If you haven’t proven it to me, because I refuse to acknowledge what you mean, you have failed to satisfy the Burden of proof.”

You, the individual atheist, are not the scientific community.  You do not know all science.  Because you don’t know something doesn’t mean it isn’t known & is not a fact.  Rational people are curious & want to know if they are wrong, when they are wrong.  Scientific people falsify themselves & admit when they are wrong.  Furthermore, DESCRIBING What an individual believes is not an Extraordinary Claim because they are not arguing for what the Scientific Community must believe.  Lastly, Science doesn’t have the Authority to dictate to individuals what they must believe because that isn’t how Science works.  It is not a Religion.

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.[1]


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.


Richard Dawkins is a psychopath.


The first time I read the God Delusion, I knew it was wrong on a number of points, but recently Richard Dawkins said some things that mad me interested in the book again and I bought a copy and started rereading it.  I didn’t realize the first time what a truly manipulative and strategic communicator he really was.  The reason this is important to me is that some of you know that I am a psycholinguist that looks for psychopathic patterns in communication and psychopaths are manipulative, strategic communicators.

One of Richards favorite tactics is to quote somebody else and agree with them instead of saying something himself, or he will invite somebody to make a logical fallacy that he himself doesn’t actually assert, or he will ask a question instead of making an assertion that could be falsified, he edits his consideration set to prove himself correct and he doesn’t include information that weakens his arguments.  I will point out a couple of examples of these behaviors in his rants.

When the police are interrogating someone they look for the story to change, this is very important, how the story changes and what the story changes to because it can reveal intent to conceal or mislead.  Every time the story changes it is important.  When I first read the book Richard quotes a female friend of his as saying that she was sexually molested and it was “icky” but it did no long term damage and he agreed with her, then recently he said:


In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

So we see that he was concealing his real narrative.  This is a strategy that he uses repeatedly to avoid taking responsibility for what he is saying.  Here is another instance where he is quoting Douglas Adams:

If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it.  But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’ you say, ‘I respect that’.

Who hear is expressing contempt for Orthodox Judaism?  Is it Richard or Douglas?  Who do I falsify?  Does Richard agree with Douglas?  If not why does he include the quote?  In the next paragraph he he attacks Quakers, who started in England by rebelling against the Atheistic sexual debauchery and had to leave the country to get away from them.  Now I don’t know about you, but I have never had an Chassidic Jew tell me that I wasn’t allowed to move a light switch on Saturday.  Who is arguing for the authority to force Orthodox Jews to use the lights on Saturday?  Not only are they mocking one of the first revolutions in civil rights, the original Holy Day, the first weekend that guaranteed that you were not allowed to work your slaves to death, and that you wouldn’t have to compete against people working 7 days a week and you had one day to yourself in which to relax and roger your wife, but it is also a post modernist movement for people that are tired of the rigors, deuchery, and psychopathic hypocrisy of modern life.

Oh, yeah, I will just leave this here….

“the right to be Christian seems in this case to mean the right to poke your nose into other people’s private lives’.”



“confuse” or enlighten?  “deism is watered down theism“.  Now what is so telling is that one moment he is saying that Deism is Theism and then he says he is not trying to debate Einstein’s god, but Einstein was a deist…  Not only that, he doesn’t explain Einstein’s god because if he did some people would say, “Well, that is actually pretty interesting, I think I might be a deist too”  and then they wouldn’t be as easily hypnotized by his propaganda that they must from now on harass and bully religious people.  Richard Dawkins is not an authority on deism and he defines it falsely.  I should know, I am a deist, Einstein and myself have the same god.




This is truly bizarre, he quotes Adolf Hitler verbatim but he doesn’t give credit to Hitler for the quote.


Now why is it that knowledge has to be fought?  That is what is so strange about this quote, not only does it tell me he is most likely quoting Hitler, it tells me that he is manipulating people.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, unfortunately most Americans are not smart enough to detect what is for me the powerful stench of horse shit.  He can easily befuddle the minds of people with a little bit of knowledge and turn them against the people of faith, just like somebody else I know, hmmm….


One of his communication strategies is to borrow authority from other cool people to make his ideas seem more hip.  He uses the Beatles song to support his claim that without religion there would be no violence because there would be no clicks or groups of people that disagree with one another and fight each other.  Not only is this assertion unproven, that a world without religion would be a peaceful world, but he ignores the fact that state enforced atheism has always failed, and has always been associated with violence and human rights atrocities.  Furthermore, he ignores the fact of the first two primary influences of the Beatles music.  Not to mention he is smart enough to know that children are not born as blank slates, that is why Noam Chomsky is famous, he falsified the Behaviorists who thought that children were blank slates.  On top of that, if lets say we got rid of Islam would the thought tools, Abeed, Harem, and Taqiyya disappear?  Would people no longer think in those terms?  Or should we eradicate their language as well, like the Catholics who indoctrinated people into their own language?


Yukteswar Giri (also written yuktesvaraSri Yukteswar) (Bengaliশ্রী যুক্তেশ্বর গিরী) (10 May 1855 – 9 March 1936) is the monastic name of Priya Nath Karar (Bengaliপ্রিয়নাথ কাঁড়ার), the guru of Satyananda Giri and Paramahansa Yogananda. Yukteswar was an educator, astronomer, a Jyotisha (Vedic astrologer), a yogi, and a scholar of the Bhagavad Gitaand the Bible. He was a disciple of Lahiri Mahasaya of Varanasi and a member of the Giri branch of the swami order. Yogananda considered Yukteswar as Jnanavatar, or “Incarnation of Wisdom”.[1]

Aleister Crowley (/ˈkrli/; born Edward Alexander Crowley; 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an Englishoccultistceremonial magicianpoet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer. He was responsible for founding the religion and philosophy of Thelema, in which role he identified himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into theAeon of Horus in the early 20th century.

And then Richard contradicts himself again by creating another clique or group of people that is adversarial with everybody else…

“Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to ‘come out,’ thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can’t be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

Now what I find so interesting about the behavior of Atheists is that Atheism was not an organization, it was the absence of the presence of the belief in god, as such their behavior was not informed by Atheism and not organized.  Now it is becoming organized and informed.  But Atheists while attacking other groups ignore the bad stuff that their people say and do, just like a religion, while insisting that their bad behavior doesn’t characterize Atheism, at the same time atheists cannot be falsified by any praxis of Atheism, since they are still insisting that it is not an organization when in fact it is.  Atheism is becoming a religion.  What they are forgetting is that the highest form of their good is the absence of the presence of a form of good…  If you want to talk about Delusional…



He just won’t give up on defending pedophilia.  Notice the change in narrative, the first time he spoke it happened to a woman, then it happened to him, and it was “putting hands in my shorts” and then he mentioned it again and this time it was, “putting hands in clothes” he is using vague tautologies in order to make the whole matter look more harmless, and he is using an exaggerated comparison set in order to herd people towards the answer he wants in order to make it look more reasonable than it is.

I have spent a lot of time studying how psychopaths like Hitler rise to power, how they communicate harmlessness, and how they pass your threat filter, and then they get behind you and get you doing their dirty work.  In the book click!, they say the fastest way to get a group of people to have a sense of unity is by instilling in them a shared sense of suffering, they need to feel victimized, persecuted.  And then he uses his scientific authority to get them to attack his enemies, while he stays at home and “mildly” Frotteurises your children, but as my stand up comedy alter ego says:

Appeal to emotion.

Leave a comment

Appeal to emotion.

Appeal to emotion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument’s position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one’s reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking