Atheist Logic Fail

learn2science


1 Comment

Devin Kelley was a Militant Atheist.

I started trolling and debating Atheists long ago but it wasn’t until 2012 that I really started sinking my teeth into them.  My criticism of Richard Dawkins and his God Delusion book was that he had conflated Atheism with Hatred of God and created a Meritocracy of Mocking & Ridiculing the Religious.  Being exposed to Nazi propaganda (as he was) in British schools (and as C. S. Lewis described) he created the Neologism “Meme” by benchmarking the Pollock Joke used by the Nazis as a form of Psychological warfare

Atheists claim that they aren’t organized so they can’t be a religion, but they are organized enough to have lawyers and lobbyists that attack small towns with vexatious litigations in order to remove semi-religious, secular objects of veneration that are popular with the majority of residents.

Atheists claim that humans are innately moral and therefore don’t need Organized Religion (as did Devin Patrick Kelley), ignoring the fact that Neural Myelination and Epigenetics is created by repeated patterns that were passed on to children through cellular memory.  Which means that in order to become “innately moral” mankind had to exert some moralizing influence on itself, namely, Religion.  If all religions were equal all people would be equally morally evolved, which is obviously not the case.

If Atheism is a Morally Superior, Saving Grace, which absolves all people of their ignorance and makes them more intelligent and a connoisseur of Science then please explain to me how the God of Scientism didn’t restrain this Sociopathic Atheist from committing this crime. 

Richard Dawkins is directly responsible and has leaked his own guilt by saying, “I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, I feel it might be a bulwark against something worse (Islamic Terrorism).”    And that tweet was most likely prompted by myself.

Hating God doesn’t make people smarter, more scientific, or more moral.  It makes them obsessed.  

Einstein said, “Science without Religion is Lame.  Religion without Science is Blind.”  Why?  Because religion is the legs of science and science is the eyes of religion.  Conscience is a juxtaposition of the prefix “Con” with the word “science”.  “Con” means “with”.  Con-Science means “With Science” so what is “With Science”?  What is with science and has a moralizing influence on science?  What is the connotation (con-notation) of the word “Conscience”?

 

 

   

Advertisements


6 Comments

🍔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.

 


Leave a comment

Structures of Authority extract Authority from people.

2180231638_38fa4dc452

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.  

tower_of_babel.170113154

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.  

32324_415340091871538_766539050_n

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.  

4_richard-nixon2 

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.  

SumerianZiggurat

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–compulsive 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.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

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.  

Adolf_Hitler_as_a_child

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.  

ironman-hulk-heroesunited-01

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.  

 


Leave a comment

Expressions of Contempt

Image

 

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 (https://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) 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.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

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.

Image

 RELATED LINKS


3 Comments

Hidden subjects in modern Theory of Science

Image

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.

Ontology

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.

Image

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. 

Image

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.

Image

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.

Image