Again I have been accused of lying.

”It is not an Ad Hominem to say someone is lying, when you consider them to be lying.”
Jotunn.

Again I am accused of lying. What I have actually said is that there is no logic found in the Why I Am An Atheist papers which PZ is publishing. This is a lie? Of course not. What it is, is discomfiting to those whose Atheist image depends on the contrary being true. It has to be called a lie, in order that the image of Atheism be kept unbesmirched by analyzing these published reasons: those WIAAA writings really are devoid of any logical basis, despite their frequent claims of logic and rationality. They are merely anecdotes? Did PZ ask for logic-free anecdotes? Of course not. The “anecdote” excuse is just that, an excuse for attacking the analyst on the basis of being a liar, merely for not accepting the Atheists’ excuses for the WIAAA Atheists.

We seem to have hit a nerve. Atheists are circling the wagons. Their worldview is being opened for public viewing via the writings of their own people: Atheists writing about their Atheism to other Atheists.

Yes, this will be damaging to Atheist claims. Yes, I expect more attacks on me personally for pointing out the painfully obvious. Such attacks are an explicit indication of an ideology at work, defending itself from actual data.

”It was explained the context in which these stories were requested. Posting the definition of why and selecting "reason" while ignoring the subsequent "cause, or purpose, with what intent, justification, or motive:" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/why) just makes your case worse. In my view. It really does come off as dishonest.”

I’m not terribly surprised. The criticism has morphed as time moves on. The original complaint was my use of the word “why”, when PZ apparently asked for “reasons”. When that complaint was shown unjustified, then it turned to “context”. I imagine that next the complaint will concern violation of the meta-narrative in the back of PZ’s mind. But Atheists cannot so easily escape from this crippling shot to their own foot; no amount of complaining about wrong intent or mixed signals or whatever, can change that the reasons being given by dozens to hundreds of Atheists are in no manner based on logic. These writers ignore logic as the reason for choosing Atheism, while claiming they have it in the abstract. For them, logic is neither the “cause, nor purpose, nor intent, nor justification, nor motive".

Here’s the latest note from PZ regarding these submissions:

I’m still getting submissions, and I’m still getting asked how to make a submission. It’s easy! Write an essay of whatever length moves you on why you are an atheist, format it simply (just text is best, don’t get fancy on me so I have to fuss with it), and email it to pzmyers@gmail.com, and I’ll toss it into my special WIAAA folder.
Emphasis added.

And WIAAA stands for "Why I Am An Atheist". It's that simple.

No mention of “anecdotes-only”, or to “beware of logic”, or "give only your emotional justifications": just “why”. What are your reasons? That is the actual context: ”Why Are You An Atheist? It’s not some mysterious philosophical question: it is asking WHY? Give your REASONS.

And that is just what the WIAAA writers are doing: giving their reasons.

The attacks on me are merely acts of desperation, devoid of actual charges other than violating the ideologically-based personal interpretations by the would-be defenders, hoping to save Atheism from itself. But those WIAAA writers speak for themselves, and defending them requires that their omissions be covered over, somehow explained away: a task of reinterpretation that was not deemed necessary by the original WIAAA authors, and not authorized by them.

As for my 40 years of Atheism, I recognize myself in these “reasons” being given in WIAAA. Being trained in formal logic and using it in my profession, I led myself to believe that I also was logical in my worldview. However, after examining my worldview using the First Principles and the known disciplines of logical procedure, I found that my reasons for Atheism were actually emotionally based and not logical at all. Further analysis of Atheist positions showed consistent violations of logical principles while at the same time claiming logic and rationality as their own.


Atheists in general claim that both logic and rationality are their domain, and that they are the masters thereof. Yet they steadfastly and quite consistently refuse to acknowledge their own logical errors, or to restrict themselves to any procedure other than that which they create for themselves to post hoc justify their ideology. The idea that this is logical refutes their claims of logic as being the realm of Atheism.


Theism makes some specific claims, none of which include the possibility of physical evidence, nor the ecclesiastic interpretations taken by “religious experts”, nor are they susceptible to the charges of evil this or that. For the most part, Theism is not even rejected outright by the Atheists in the “Why I Am An Atheist” (WIAAA) series. What is rejected usually is ecclesiasticism, which is mistaken for Theism. The rejection is not based on logic, but is emotional, with the resulting commonly developed hatred of ecclesiasticism and the blanket condemnation of generalized “religion”. Theism is commonly secondarily rejected merely because in the minds of many of these WIAAA folks, the deity is merely loosely appended to the evil ecclesiasts, and is given no more thought than that. God is rejected as the baby thrown out with the bathwater. When attempting to justify this guilt by association error, all sorts of rationalizations are created in order to spackle over the rational error, including that the deity must be evil if the ecclesiasts are so evil. (Whether the ecclesiasts are really evil or not is a separate topic: the willful delusions to which Atheists are subject.)

As many of these now-published Atheists have pointed out, there is an exhilarating freedom from all absolutes which accompanies Atheism. Exceptions might temporarily be grasped at for relativist purposes, but that is the exception. And that Atheist freedom carries over to include denying any absolutes which might constrain this freedom; this necessarily pertains to those absolutes which ground logic, as well. Free thought it is called. But the rub is this: if logical arguments cannot be grounded, absolutely, then they cannot be “true” in any sense: they are either circular, or openly infinitely regressive. So they are without any merit, other than being just another opinion.

Someone said that no generalizations can be made regarding Atheists, and that I am lying by making claims regarding Atheism as a general principle. But they are unable to refute the position that,
(1) Atheism has no attached principles, either ethical or logical attached to it, or that:

(2) Atheism, in general, is de facto Materialist, having rejected any and all non-material existence merely by asserting skepticism, or that:

(3) Atheism cannot be proven valid using Materialist requirements, or logical argumentation, or that:

(4) no one, not even another Atheist, can know what a random Atheist’s principles, if any, might be.

These are generalizations which are valid. This charge of lying is just as false as the others.

”However, I personally find it unlikely that someone who was an atheist for 40 years can so grossly misinterpret these stories as being without reasonable justification.”

Is emotional justification “reasonable”? Is rejection of [A] because it is associated somehow with [B], “reasonable” justification? My interpretation is that these reasons fail logic, I have shown why, and that has not been refuted. However, what seems reasonable to Atheists seems to include the non-logical and the fallacious.

Let’s examine these points brought out by Martin, points to which you attribute logic in your attempted defense of the Atheists who are contributing to WIAAA:

1. Religious claims conflict with observable reality.

There is nothing about Theism which is observable by using the processes demanded by Philosophical Materialism: empirical hypothesis, deduction, experimentation, replication, non-falsifiability. Such demands are Category Errors. The term, “Religious claims”, refers to ecclesiasticism, not to Theism, a second Category Error. And the term “religion” is a generalization without specifics to even discuss.

2. Religious claims on morality conflict with our innate ideas of right and wrong.

“Religious claims” are, again, ecclesiasticism, not Theism. And, again, it is a generalization without specifics. And innate ideas of right and wrong are all contingent under Atheism, which comes with no attached ethic, and is therefore situational rather than consistent. So it is inevitable that even one Atheist will likely conflict with another when it comes to ethical pronouncements. Innate ideas of right and wrong are intuitions, and intuitions are generally rejected as reliable sources by Atheo-Materialists. So why the Atheist exception for morals? And which Atheist has the moral authority to make1 moral declarations for everyone?

3. There is no evidence for the existence of a deity.

Demanding physical evidence for a non-physical entity is a Category Error.

4. We have alternate systems of discovery which has consistently outperformed theism. (Also, I can't think of a single thing that theism "discovered")

Theism doesn’t claim “discovery”; Theism is a deduction based on observations. Theism is probabilistic and makes no claims which are considered certainty (Ecclesiasticism might do that in some cases, but not Theism). The Atheist demands on Theism are irrational, being internally contradictory. In general, Atheists misrepresent Theism, and use that misrepresentation as a target (aka Straw Man).

When Atheists misrepresent Theism, are they liars? Under many conditions of Atheist thought, the conditions they place on others do not apply to themselves. So I suspect that Atheists can misrepresent without allowing that they, themselves, are liars. That is one of the conveniences of relativism.

It appears to me that the Atheist "frustration" is not so much with the alleged misrepresentation of the Atheist “Why I Am An Atheist” papers, as it is frustration that the WIAAA representation actually is correct and is being revealed to the world by the Atheists themselves. This frustration with what is to be revealed via analysis of WIAAA writings leads Atheists scrambling to save face to call me a liar as a pre-emptive strike.

Here is my position: these WIAAA submissions, none of them so far, indicate any logic behind their choice. That is a fact. If you cannot deal with it, I can handle that. However, I will not tolerate being called a liar, or any other name calling. You cannot discredit the obvious truth with Ad Hominem character attacks. I will not be influenced by such tactics. And I will continue to deal with those who make character accusations on this blog.

ADDENDUM:
I am also accused of being too snarky, which offends Atheist sensibilities. Snarky is an undefinable attitude which I take to mean that Atheists are not used to having their confrontational attitudes met with an ability to refute their positions with strength, rather than immediate capitulation. I must reply that strength of reply will remain a characteristic here. If Atheists are offended by having the illogic of their position illuminated, that is not a reason to stop doing it.