Atheist Logic Fail



ūüćĒThe Atheist Nothing BurgerūüćĒ

Nothing burger.png

Atheists make me Laugh ūüėāūüėāūüėā

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‚Äôt 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‚Äôt create a Government because they can‚Äôt agree on any Morals which would create the Laws for that Nation.

  • Atheism is not Science.

  • Being an Atheist doesn‚Äôt 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, ‚ÄúI am 99.9% positive that God doesn‚Äôt exist.‚ÄĚ because he can‚Äôt state scientifically with any credibility that he is 100% sure God doesn‚Äôt 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.



Leave a comment

Structures of Authority extract Authority from people.


I am going to describe to you a process in my own terms. ¬†I am all about and for the Authority of Reason, but I am completely against any other structure of authority and I will explain why. ¬†Structures of authority extract authority from human beings. ¬†They essentially extract god from human beings in the form of authority. ¬†They are up down relationships in which one person gets to judge and punish another because of status. ¬†I am up here and you are down there so the rules are different for us, and I benefit from them. ¬†I am closer to our god than you are…

Structures of authority do our thinking for us and we begin to rely on them, and then we stop thinking for ourselves. ¬†Once we know longer suspect them or are suspicious of them, once they have gotten used to listening to them and doing what they say, they can start slipping other information in there that they shouldn’t be doing or saying because they don’t have the authority to do it. ¬†Immoral or incorrect things. ¬†


Structures of authority attract psychopaths and they all eventually become corrupt. ¬†Psychopaths feel innately superior and deserving of anything they want, so they gravitate towards structures of authority without even thinking about it. ¬†Once they are in that office they abuse their authority. ¬†Now you are in an up down battle with somebody with more power and a better reputation so the temptation is to acquiesce and say, “I guess this is just how things are.” ¬†Psychopaths have to do their will psychopathicly. ¬†Ask yourself, why is it that child molesters keep on getting into positions where they can molest children? ¬†Because they have to get close to the children in order to molest them. ¬†What incentive do they have to protect others from themselves? ¬†What incentive do they have to reveal their intention and true nature? ¬†You have to be able to recognize them for yourself. ¬†So you make a structure of authority to do it for you. ¬†You give the government the authority, your authority, to snoop on people, but a psychopath gets into that structure of authority and abuses his power against, you guessed it, you. ¬†


The only way to prevent this is for every person to be able to recognize psychopathic behaviors and be able to confront the behavior of the psychopath and win.  Everybody needs their authority put back in them, they need god put back in them.  They need their responsibility put back on them.  You do this by educating them highly and equally, not just in the usual subjects but also in psychology, philosophy, and  ethics.  

Moral authority does our moral thinking for us.  The moral authority has a reputation for being moral, right?  How else could they be a moral authority?  They are apriorily moral.  Scientific authority does our scientific thinking for us.  Judicial authority does our judicial thinking for us. Legal authority does our legal thinking for us.  Presidential authority does our presiding for us.  


What I find so interesting about the majority of the Atheists online, is that they are not scientists or analytical philosophers or psychologists themselves, they accept received knowledge from those sources.  What they do is select a source for what is true.  As they receive knowledge from those sources they mistakenly make the fundamental attribution error about themselves.  F.A.E. is thinking in terms of essences.  They feel that they are increasing in sciency-ness, they feel very scientific about themselves.  With each factoid they accept they reify to themselves that they and science are becoming closer and becoming one.  They feel that their scientific authority is increasing and that they are increasing in stature and expanding their authority. They in turn expand the authority of science thinking that they are expanding their own authority.  

The curious thing is that they are conflating Atheism with science and correctness and themselves. ¬†If a new idea is presented to them that they have never heard or it doesn’t come from the right source, they reject it. ¬†They even reject things from scientific sources that falsify them. ¬†It is a very fascinating phenomenon. ¬†They are not science, and they are not debating scientifically, and they are not doing science. ¬†Their authority, their god, has been separated from them. ¬†I am about putting god back in people. ¬†


Some of the Atheists online are man-hating women that see religious authority as masculine authority and reject it and want to remove all masculine authority, some of them are anarchists, some of them are pagans, some of them are people that have been traumatized by religious people and have come to associate their trauma with religiosity and god hate. 

Many of the Atheists on line are control freak parents trying to control what their children are exposed to and trying to influence their children to grow up being hostile to religiosity and concepts of god. ¬†So what is going to happen? ¬†When you create a meritocracy of god hate how does the next generation make their parents proud? ¬†By being even more contemptuous than the last generation of religion. ¬†I refer to this as a puritanical pursuit, all puritanical pursuits are dangerous because purity can never be attained. ¬†You can approach purity but you can never attain it, so by it’s very nature it is obsessive and compulsive. ¬†

Obsessive‚Äďcompulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear or worry, repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety, or a combination of such obsessions and compulsions. Symptoms of the disorder include excessive washing or cleaning, repeated checking, extreme hoarding, preoccupation with sexual, violent or religious thoughts, relationship-related obsessions, aversion to particular numbers and nervous rituals such as opening and closing a door a certain number of times before entering or leaving a room. These symptoms can be alienating and time-consuming, and often cause severe emotional and financial distress. The acts of those who have OCD may appear paranoid and potentiallypsychotic. ¬†

Puritanical pursuits are not aware of the law of diminished returns.  

In economics, diminishing returns (also called diminishing marginal returns) is the decrease in the marginal (per-unit) output of a production process as the amount of a single factor of production is increased, while the amounts of all other factors of production stay constant.

The law of diminishing returns (also law of diminishing marginal returns or law of increasing relative cost) states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant (“ceteris paribus“), will at some point yield lower per-unit returns.[1] The law of diminishing returns does not imply that adding more of a factor will decrease the total production, a condition known as negative returns, though in fact this is common.

How many of you know that when Hitler was a youth he war a cornflower in his hat to show that he was in favor of a “pure” Germany? ¬†Remember to this simple concept, aseptic environments are also dead environments. ¬†


So what will happen if Atheism continues on its present course and is successful? ¬†Let’s say that they manage to get rid of religion and bring everybody to the tower of babel so that it can do everybody’s thinking form them. ¬†Science without conscience. ¬†Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason will start a youth program, to start exposing children to science and contempt for religion at a younger age. ¬†Their will be no structure of authority to check the Scientific Authority. ¬†When these youth grow up they will be prejudiced against people that are religious or even spiritual. ¬†They will harass them in the work place and get in other positions of authority. ¬†They will edit their consideration sets to preclude information from anywhere but certain sources. ¬†This will leave them blind to other options, thoughts, and relationships. ¬†They will work like a secret society to further their agenda believing themselves good and incapable of wrong, arrogant in their certainty that they are correct and that science can tell them what to do. ¬†Rewarding their members for being ruthless and vicious towards differing opinions. ¬†


In the end they will defeat themselves, I have foreseen it. That is what happens when you indoctrinate people into what to think and not how to think, you emasculate the brains of your progeny.  


1 Comment

Philosophy, the love of Wisdom


The word “philosophy” comes from the¬†Ancient Greek¬†ŌÜőĻőĽőŅŌÉőŅŌÜőĮőĪ¬†(philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom”.[5][6][7]¬†The introduction of the terms “philosopher” and “philosophy” has been ascribed to the Greek thinker¬†Pythagoras.[8]

Leave a comment

Expressions of Contempt



I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models.  Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded.  People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win.  So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns.  When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.

The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples.  What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt.  Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.

So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them.  So what does this mean for the near future?  Society is about to get a divorce?  No, much much worse.  The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust.  And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science.  And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet.  If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog ( you can see that I am not making these claims lightly.  I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.

Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric. ¬†What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist. ¬†He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science. ¬†What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion. ¬†He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good. ¬†And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields. ¬†What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.

This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t. ¬†Socrates was accused of being an atheist. ¬†So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful? ¬†Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government. ¬†There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is. ¬†Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego. ¬†He wants to be worshiped. ¬†He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.

When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.

“Scientific socialism¬†is the term used by¬†Friedrich Engels[1]¬†to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this¬†socialism¬†is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or¬†falsification¬†of elements of the theory.” ¬†

And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail. ¬†Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent. ¬†You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights. ¬†They are amoral systems. ¬†Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new. ¬†What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.

Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists. ¬†It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it. ¬†Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right? ¬†If you survive or succeed you are the fittest. ¬†Evolution works!

But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.



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 őľőĻŌÉŌĆőłőĶőŅŌā “hating the gods”, a compound of¬†őľŠŅĖŌÉőŅŌā¬†“hatred” and¬†őłőĶŌĆŌā¬†“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¬†go√įlauss¬†“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¬†chemical,¬†physical, or¬†scholastic test) accurately measures what it purports to measure. In the fields of¬†psychological testingand¬†educational testing, ‚ÄúValidity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests.‚ÄĚ[1]¬†Although classical models divided the concept into various “validities” (such as¬†content validity,¬†criterion validity, and¬†construct validity),[2]¬†the currently dominant view is that validity is a single unitary construct.[3]

The challenge itself is irrelevant.



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‚ÄĒif not on the thither side of this divide‚ÄĒwas 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.
¬†‚ÄĒCalvin 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¬†Plato,¬†Aristotle,¬†St. Augustine,¬†Immanuel Kant,¬†S√łren Kierkegaard,¬†Karl Marx,¬†Martin Heidegger,¬†Hannah Arendt,¬†Paulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.