Atheist Logic Fail

learn2science


1 Comment

Innate Morality Fallacy

 

homo-naledi1

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.

(CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL BLOG)

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. 

 

Advertisements


1 Comment

Christopher Hitchen’s challenge dissolved.

Image

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?

a·the·ist

ˈāTHēˌist/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
1.
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.
ANYTHING THAT CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN ALSO BE REFUTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE. 
Image
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]

WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A PHILOSOPHY TO BE RATIONAL? 

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.

Image

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.  http://www.pualingo.com/pua-definitions/refractory-emotional-state/

Image

IN CLOSING


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.

Image

Image