Atheist Logic Fail



Ideological Fascism of Liberal Atheist Trolls.

atheist trolls.png



1 Comment

Christopher Hitchen’s challenge dissolved.


I am going to show you why the challenge is irrelevant and is also a sophisticated piece of pseudo-philosophical crap.  The person trying to solve the problem is invited to consider that atheists are equally moral to religious people, there is nothing morally that a religious person can do or say that an atheist can’t do or say.  But let’s start by asking ourselves, what is Atheism?


noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
“he is a committed atheist”

Now what Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens did is conflate misotheism, with Atheism and force the frame that misotheism is true atheism, and atheism is weak atheism.  Thus he managed to move Atheism farther to the left or the right or somewhere I am not certain yet, but it’s bad.  How did he do this?  The participation of his disciples, the Dawkinites.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Misotheism is the “hatred of God” or “hatred of the gods” (from the Greek adjective μισόθεος “hating the gods”, a compound of μῖσος “hatred” and θεός “god”). In some varieties ofpolytheism, it was considered possible to inflict punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them[citation needed]. Thus, Hrafnkell, protagonist of the eponymous Icelandic saga set in the 10th century, as his temple to Freyr is burnt and he is enslaved states that “I think it is folly to have faith in gods“, never performing another sacrifice, a position described in the sagas as goðlauss “godless”.
But the Dawkinite’s not only hate the idea of god, they hate religiosity and they hate anybody with any religious trappings including deists.  It is important to remember that the hatred of god is not the love of reason.  Observe, how Hitchen’s doesn’t specifically say “atheists” but anybody that is a “non-believer” does that mean someone who is not a believer in my god?  What it does is it broadens the scope out beyond atheists and misotheists.
I need you to accept a premise, if it is irrational it is also irrelevant.  This is not my idea, this is an old idea that I subscribe to and know to be valid, it is also a premise of science.
Now the question becomes is Atheism rational?  and we see that we do not know enough to prove or disprove the existence of a god, so it can’t be rational based on those grounds.  Also Atheism is not a big enough topic to be a philosophy or world view.  It isn’t even an idea, it is the absence of the presence of the belief in god and from that stand poing it is not even wrong because in a way it is too narrow and too vague to be right or wrong.
Not even wrong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.

The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1] Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which “a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly, ‘It is not even wrong’.” [2] This is also often quoted as “It is not only not right, it is not even wrong,” or Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! in Pauli’s native German. Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched by him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”[2]

Physicist Arthur Schuster in 1911 said “We all prefer being right to being wrong, but it is better to be wrong than to be neither right nor wrong”.[3]

The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science, and is considered derogatory.[4]


This is going to be necessary to understand in order for us to continue.  A philosophy needs to make an effort to be self referentially consistent, which is to say it needs to pose a meritocracy in some form so that people can move about freely based on their understanding of the philosophy and their ability to practice it.  Which means the philosophy has to be valid, and can’t create disparate impact, if it does it isn’t valid and therefore isn’t a real philosophy.  If the philosophy is valid the person observing the philosophy can be falsified by their misunderstanding of the philosophy or their deviation from the practice of  the philosophy, and this is determined by their making errors in their arguments or an error in the practice of the philosophy.  If they deviate from the philosophy in their behavior they can repair their behavior and undo the harm that they did, and then they can be restored to their former standing.  This is why you have the ability to recant, and this is why their is ad hoc in science.  If you are wrong or falsified you retract your errant assertion, amend it, and possibly re assert it.

But the problem that we run into with atheists is that they are not scientists and they will not allow themselves to be falsified, they communicate strategically.  When they are “winning” they use science, and when they are losing they turn into babies or clowns and act irrational.  Science has a rational praxis and people can be falsified by it.  But Atheists will say, “I am not a scientist I am an Atheist.”  and refuse to be falsified.

Dawkins philosophy is not a philosophy because it creates a disparate impact in favor of misotheists.  Dawkins arguments essentially poses a meritocracy of being an Atheist, so Atheists can’t be falsified by his pseudo-philosophy so it doesn’t have a praxis that can falsify the adherents and it is therefore not rational.  Dawkins is to science what Ayn Rand was to philosophy.  Their philosophies are subtly disguised propaganda and their followers are not smart enough to detect the concealed errors in the rhetoric.

So the term Atheist is neither rational nor irrational, and Dawkins philosophy is not rational and therefore not a philosophy, and atheists will even deny that they are an organization even though they are organized as you can see from my blog.     That leaves us with the individuals and whether they are rational, which brings up the question if individuals can be shown to be rational does that mean that Atheism is rational?   Which can’t necessarily characterize Atheism by the individuals that make it up since they do not have a mutual belief system or praxis of that belief system.

Let us continue, I am told that Atheists can adopt moral stances from other philosophies and even religions, many are sympathetic to Buddhism.  So what Hitchens is saying is that any religious belief that is moral and correct an atheist can be found somewhere in the world who holds that same position, or an atheist could adopt that position.  The problem with this argument is that it opens itself to the possibility of Just so statements that contradict each other, which is invalid and therefore irrational.


What we do see (from the evidence demonstrated in my blog) is that the majority of Atheists, what they have in common is a shared emotional morbidity about god.  Now this is the interesting thing about this.  If belief in a god is delusional is it rational to be in a constantly negative state caused by something that you don’t believe exists?  Dr. Paul Eckman says that being in a permanent refractory state is synonymous with being insane.  So you ponder how much time and energy atheists spend online harassing and bullying religious people.  The fascinating thing is why are they in relationship with attacking people slightly stupider than themselves?  Why are they not in conversations with people smarter than themselves, and why when they run into a deist like myself do they refuse to be falsified and admit when they are wrong?  Again we see disparate impact being created.



Before I get too carried away pointing out all of the flaws  and inconsistencies of Atheism, the fact of the matter is that the challenge is irrelevant because it is irrational on multiple different counts.  Not only is it not a statement or an assertion it invites the person that gets trapped in the logic to make the erroneous conclusion that Atheism is moral or as moral as other systems when in fact atheism is amoral as is science.  They are not moral systems and to make them moral systems would be to change their nature and their function.  This challenge is an exorcise in futility, it is cleverly disguised intellectual faggotry that acts like it is profoundly saying something when in fact it is saying nothing and trying to get the person taking the challenge to make logical  errors.

Test validity is the extent to which a test (such as a chemicalphysical, or scholastic test) accurately measures what it purports to measure. In the fields of psychological testingand educational testing, “Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests.”[1] Although classical models divided the concept into various “validities” (such as content validitycriterion validity, and construct validity),[2] the currently dominant view is that validity is a single unitary construct.[3]

The challenge itself is irrelevant.




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?




Hidden subjects in modern Theory of Science


Many people are unaware of how modern science edits its consideration set.  They confuse the scientific community with scientific method.  Peer review is not scientific method.  According to the Vienna Circle, studying the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus of Ludwig Wittgenstein, science only accepts apriori, and empirical data.

A priori and a posteriori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example “All bachelors are unmarried”). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which “you can see that it is true just lying on your couch”. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science.”[1]

Empirical evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Empirical evidence (also empirical datasense experienceempirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation orexperimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.[2]

What this means is that anything that you experience or think that isn’t verifiable by scientific method or peer review, is not valid science.  Now the epistemological body science is that ontology of knowledge, that which the scientific community knows based on what can be verified and reproduced and agreed upon.  Psychology however is the ontology of the individual, what makes sense to the individual and experiences, understandings, and ideas and concepts that can’t be proven or demonstrated empirically.  This in a way makes the different personalities that make us all unique.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word ontology is a compound word, composed of onto-, from the Greek ὤνon (gen. ὄντος, ontos), i.e. “being; that which is”, which is the present participle of the verb εἰμίeimi, i.e. “to be, I am”, and -λογία-logia, i.e. “science, study, theory”.[5][6]

“The soul is, in a way, phenomena.” ~Aristotle

Now the soul of the individual is their ontology or their gestalt, their world view.  It is how they perceive the world and the phenomena in the world and the relationship between the phenomena in the world.  Since scientific materials are descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive, a person’s DESCRIBING their experience of the world is science.  They are an authority on their experience of the world and they are describing their experience of the world.


Being that each individual is different what is true for one individual is not true for another.  What antitheists, misotheists, and Dawkinites try to do is they say, “Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.”  and they use this argument to force the individual to prove what they think and the way they perceive reality.  Now extraordinary claims is and was defines as an assertion which if true would change the entire way in which the scientific community went about it’s business.  The wikipedia page that used to demonstrate this was report fa66ed until it was taken down and their are no external sources to prove this but it stands to reason.  Also I can’t find the original context of the Marcello Truzzi quote and he was the original person to say it.  Furthermore, Carl Sagan himself wouldn’t have agreed with the way in which Dawkinites and Misotheists use this argument to shut people up.  My point is that a person describing what they believe is not arguing for the scientific community to change the way they go about their business, and the reason that Dawkinites use this argument is to expand the authority of science, (thus turning it into a religion) to police what people are aloud to think.  Dawkinites mistakenly believe that they are a part of a clergy and that the authority of science is also their authority, in expanding the authority of science beyond what is reasonable and sustainable they believe they are increasing their own authority and status.  They forget, they themelves are not scientists, they are cheerleaders of science. 


Now lets examine the ramifications of this from a Psychological perspective.  If you went to a psychologist and you tried to describe what you believe and how you think and they wouldn’t listen and kept telling you, “NO, that is wrong, this is the correct thing to believe, from now on you will only think this and say this.”  How would you feel?  That isn’t a psychologist, that is an auditor from Scientology or some manner of Gestapo agent.

The fact of the matter is that Science doesn’t inform personal experience, science is a tool that doesn’t wield itself or wield us.  New ideas come not from science but from people.  This is something that Dawkinites the cheerleaders of science do not understand.  A professor of cognitive psychology (can’t remember his name) informed his students under the topic of epistemic humility, and I am paraphrasing,”The field that studies the organelles in the brain doesn’t inform us as to the function of the brain, it is human life experience that tells us what the organelles in the brain are for and what they do.”  “Life has experiential data.”  Which is to say when you try to police what people think and homogenize them you rob the human species of it’s individuality and it’s creativity,  you edit the consideration set so that we can only look for inspiration to solutions where answers have been found before.  Nassim Nicholas Taleb refers to this as “epistemological arrogance” in his book the Black Swan.  What we have experienced in the past doesn’t prepare us for things that have never been experienced in the future.  

I think that people should live life scientifically, being a scientist unto themselves, I don’t believe in an externalized dogma or a clergy of science policing the thoughts of people.  I don’t believe that science should be turned into a religion.  The very concept is odious to the understanding and dangerous to the survival of the human species.


Of further interest is that in rejecting a posteriori knowledge, the modern theory of science rejects wisdom or experienced use of knowledge or facts that can’t be verified by less wise, or less experienced scientists or human beings.   Which is what prompted Ludwig Wittgenstein to say, “deep is that which cannot be said.”  When speaking of the theory of science that was created based on his tractatus.

  • A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example “Some bachelors I have met are very unhappy”).
A posteriori
  • Compare this with an example from Jerry Fodor (2004) – take the proposition expressed by the sentence, “George V reigned from 1910 to 1936.” This is something that (if true) one must come to know a posteriori, because it expresses an empirical fact unknowable by reason alone.