Atheist Logic Fail

learn2science


1 Comment

🍔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.

 

Advertisements


Leave a comment

The Truth about Islam

Allah=Satan

In spite of having been falsified over and over again, some atheists continue on insisting that all religions are the same, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of violence on earth is done by Muslims.  Atheists continue to assert that both Judeo-Christianity and Islam have reprehensible practices mentioned in them ignoring both time and logic. The parts of the bible that they complain about were written in the Abrahamic Law Code not the Mosaic or Messianic Law Codes.  They were written IN BABYLON when that kind of behavior was the norm and when the Jews were individuating from the Tyrannical, Genocidal mentality which is now Iran & Iraq.

Atheists and Muslim apologists argue that Muslims in general are peaceful (ignoring that 1 of the 5 pillars of Islam is Zakat which funds the mujahedeen) and that violent Muslims are doing it incorrectly.  We are going to examine this premise logically.  You might consider this Arabic exegesis:

Naskh (نسخ) is an Arabic language word usually translated as “abrogation“; It is a term used in Islamic legal exegesis for seemingly contradictory material within or between the two primary sources of Islamic law: the Quran and the Sunna. Several Qur’anic verses state that some revelations have been abrogated and substituted by later revelations.[1][2] Which are understood by most Muslim scholars as pertaining to the verses of the Quran itself.

The principle of abrogation of an older verse by a new verse of Quran, or within the Hadiths is a well established principle in Sharia.[3][4][5] The possibility of abrogation between these two primary sources of Islam, though, has been a more contentious issue.[6] The allowability of abrogation between sources has been one of the major differences between the Shafi’i and Hanafi fiqhs, with Shafi’i sect of jurisprudence forbidding abrogation by the Sunna of the Qur’ān, while Hanafi sect allowing abrogation by the Sunna of the Qur’ān.[7][8]

SOURCE

Let’s examine the logic of this practice, if you are going to use the philosophy of Islam you are making a tacit appeal to the Authority of Mohammed.  In doing so you have to admit that Mad Moe knew himself better than anyone else, he also knew what he thought when he was younger.  So if he contradicted himself you have to assume that the last thing he said was more correct than the first thin he said or else you have to offer some explanation for the disparity which would presuppose the person making the judgment has more authority than the prophet that they follow which would be illogical.

number-line

In the same vein Atheists and Muslim apologists have to admit and acknowledge that while the Judeo-Christian scriptures started off more violent than they ended (after all Jesus was not a murderer and didn’t condone murder, while Mohammed was a child raping genocidal, serial, murderer) that Judeo-Christianity is peaceful and therefore actually a religion of peace as are most other major religions in the world.

Anyway, the Muslim apologists might be able to fool the weak minded Atheists and Lib-tard progressives but in their heart of hearts they know that they are lying and that Islam is not a religion of peace and can never evolve.  I call on all Atheists to drop this line of reasoning and I condemn Richard Dawkins for the first chapter of his book The God Delusion.


1 Comment

Atheist Trolls are Stupid & Lame.

at

Link to Idiotic Atheist troll proud of his Stupidity & Ignorance.

Atheists falsify themselves by their behavior.  Atheists will not correct other Atheists knowing that they are wrong.  I blame people like Richard Dawkins for this attitude that Atheists have which is a cult like perspective.  It demonstrates Atheism is not science, being Atheist doesn’t make you correct, smart, or intellectually honest.  In general Atheists hate Judeo-Christianity because familiarity breeds contempt, and they are ignorant of what Islam is.  Like Dawkins did in his book they prefer to conflate all religions with all other religions ( Dawkins even used examples of Christians being persecuted by Muslims to support his claim that Religion is a Delusion and to characterize religion as evil)  while insisting that the actions of individual atheists do not characterize atheism in general, because Atheism is not an organization, in spite of the fact that they organize in groups on the internet in public and private and troll in cowardly packs, of emotionally abusive, morally inferior, anonymous internet terrorists.  While insisting that Atheists are not a group, Dawkins mentions that organizing Atheists is like herding cats, and they use the symbol of the Scarlett Letter for the out campaign (a campaign in itself is an organized movement).

Adolf Hitler

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[5]
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n***** with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[6]
Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.
Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[7]
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science… The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! …Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.![8]


1 Comment

Dawkinites & Chomskian, Lib-tard, Shibboleths.

Dawkinite-Dawktard

Dick Dawktard’s original tweet.

Idiotic, Un-scientific, Retweet.

He should know this. It doesn’t even really apply because the correlation is so non sequitor it literally makes no sense.


1 Comment

(Semantic Fallacy) New Atheist Trolling Technique

hugh

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

NEWMAN!

asemantics

CLICK HERE FOR RELATED ARTICLE

CLICK HERE FOR RULES ON RATIONAL DEBATE & CONVERSATION