PZ Meyers, On Ghosts and Afterlife

H.T.: A Reddy:

No ghosts, and no afterlife of any kind

Basic stuff: Brian Cox explains that there’s no physics to support the existence of ghosts, but I’ve also heard Sean Carroll explain the same idea.

Standard Materialist complaint: "Yeah, I asked a dead guy about it, and he didn't say anything". Ipso Facto QED. Settled Science.

But the serious ridicule object is the Appeal to the Large Hadron Collider: "checked all the frequencies, no sign of ghosts or afterlife or any physical medium to support them". But did they check the 5th through 11th coincident dimensions demanded under the beautiful String Theory Equations? No? Why Not?

Well, why not? Don't biology profs like String Theory? What about Carroll?

Just: Why NOT??

UPDATE:
When did the LHC detect Dark Matter? Dark Energy?

Understanding only 4% of the visible universe (and only a small part of that is said even to be visible) is not impressive. Further, the origin of the Big Bang had to be fudged with an invisible "expansionary time", violating physics laws. Further still, the discovery of a Red shift galaxy in front of a white galaxy means that red shift has no meaning regarding an expanding universe - and if so, then there was no Big Bang. And even more further still, measurements of the age of the universe and age of the earth will be compromised by all this new info. When will physicists admit to their complete failure to understand most of the universe? Maybe even ALL of the universe?

Stimulating Conversation Located...

In the comments, HERE

A Few Days at Gaia

I recently went into the nether world of the Gaia site, into the realm of the mutated Atheist. I say mutated because at this forum they no longer accept any definition of Atheism which is not merely that Atheism is nothing, a void consisting not of rejection but only of being “not convinced”. Other definitions of Atheism are ridiculed, and any one presenting them is attacked by a swarm of what can be described only as the site’s flying monkeys, hurling epithets and insults competitively in the background. There are a couple of dominant types there who jump in on top of other conversations, driving the original commenter into complete silence, even though the person is a sympathetic Atheist, but apparently menial.

The environment is completely open, meaning chaotic in the form of total anarchy, with zero principles for any type of considered conversation. They do assert rules for you, but for them there are none whatsoever. The tone is uniformly derogatory and destruction is the goal. Any interloper who is the Other is to be driven out by force of the stench they encounter there.

To get a feel of the maturity level, the site has its users choose a doll cartoon for a personal icon, and then play dress-up, outfitting the doll with clothes, armor, weapons, and other cartoon equipment. Seriously. The denizens themselves use garbage speak with as many expletives as they can muster instead of any meaningful information or content. They also post large semi-animated cartoons with similar verbiage as they use, as if that makes points which they are unable to make, in their state of semi-literacy.

The person I wound up having the discussion with, if it could be called that, assured me that he would escalate the garbage talk, and that the cursing was fun. That’s why he does it; it’s fun. And of course, the level of supposedly objectionable and aggressive attacks on the dignity of the opponent is at its maximum when someone like myself shows up. I've seen Atheists like these barrel-bottom specimens before; I'm not affected by their antics.

Here’s how it works in an anarchy, where principles and civility are foreign. First, anything the Other says is met with hoots of derision and claims of fallacy, which claims are entirely false. The Other will never convince the Atheist to admit that, though. And the attacks do not relent because apparently such tactics do work on reasonable people who turn away from the trash and decay, and leave. The anarchy is left intact and has been purified by the attacks.

Second, any rebuttal by the Other regarding the many actual logic deviations and standard fallacies committed by a resident Atheist is shouted down or ignored.

Third, any attack on the hollow VOID that is Atheism is met with demands to reveal whatever worldview that the Other might have. That serves as the sole answer to the question, “what threshold principles do you use for your rejection of theism?” The answer that eventually was actually betrayed accidentally was that they require “fallacy free” arguments. But that "principle" is immediately falsified by their double standard and corruption of the meaning of the concept: “fallacy”. In Atheist anarchy, the Atheist cannot make a fallacious statement by definition (theirs, unspoken but obviously axiomatic): these Atheists speak only the Truth, by definition (theirs, unspoken, but obviously axiomatic). Further, the Other speaks in fallacies in any case the Atheist dictates that to be the case, i.e., whenever convenient for his retorts.

Also, the Atheist ignores any request for information, and constantly demands to be allowed to deprecate the worldview of the Other, rather than reveal his own. In fact, at this site they readily claim that Atheism is nothing at all, no worldview, no possible reason to connect the Atheist anarchic void of principles to the life-system of the Atheist. They defend that denial with vehemence and escalated filth-speech. This is the intellectual level of the site.

So of course the intellectual path of any conversation is straight into that bottomless hole which constitutes Atheism. They truly are a Lord of the Flies, anarchic and principle-free group which considers themselves to be automatically far superior to any Other who shows up. So of course the loud, filthy denigration and derogation is deserved, because the Other is really an “idiot”, as they constantly jeer.

I have described the week-long visit there as a visit to a huge, rotting mountain of noxious garbage which is inhabited… infested… with a large population of rats. The rats need the garbage; it is their garbage; they derive their essence from the garbage. They become the garbage. They defend the garbage and purify the garbage-kingdom population by attacking any non-rats with as much poisonous effluent as they can spew from their filthy maws. No non-rat would stay in such a fetid, toxic garbage dump. The population of rats is secured and they congratulate themselves on their superiority as the Other leaves the toxins for better air.

Now that’s just my opinion, regarding my experience. You are free to go there and read the thread and see for yourself. But join up and post there only with the thought of venturing into the reeking fumes of the decay of human culture, civility, respect and literacy, and those who aggressively defend it.

Atheodicy

Many religious philosophers have created theodicies, which are logical arguments for various levels of belief in deism or theism.

What do modern Atheists have?

Atheodicy: "Lack of belief".

What, exactly do they lack belief in? Theodicies? The Qur'an? The Bible? Buddha? Ganesh? Well that's not the point.

Here's the point: what are the Atheodicies which support the Atheist position of "lack of belief"?

Posit:

"I lack belief."

Really? Belief in what?

"I lack belief in X, Y, Z."

Why?

"I just don't have belief."

For what reasons?

"I don't have to have reasons for a LACK."

As is intended, this goes nowhere rational. It is a LACK of specifics, reasoning, logic, evidence, and rationality. Especially rationality.

It is purely the irrational defense for an indefensible position.

Let's distill out the Atheodicy from the conversation:

"I lack belief."
"I lack belief in X, Y, Z."
"I just don't have belief."
"I don't have to have reasons for a LACK."

No intellectual content; none.

Atheists and "Disbelief"

The inability of Atheists to support the supposed “rationality” of their position is illuminated by the completely irrational attempt to claim mere disbelief, rather than outright rejection for cause. The Atheist pretends to have a position which cannot be analyzed or even discussed by having asserted this transparently false claim. The Atheist making this claim apparently thinks that there is no possible way to penetrate this illusion, so that he will never be required to actually provide rational reasons or reasoning for his rejectionism.

Let’s take a look at the logic underlying such claims.

Either a person has heard the posits of a creating deity, or he has not.
If not, then he is ignorant.
If so, then he knows the posits.

If a person knows the posits about a creating deity, then either he accepts them or rejects them or cannot decide.
If he cannot decide, he is an agnostic, not an Atheist, yet he either has reasons and reasoning, or he does not.
If he rejects them (Atheist), either he has reasons or reasoning, or he does not.
If he does not have reasons or reasoning, then he is not rational in his rejection.

If he does have reasons or reasoning, then either the reasons are comprised of disciplined logic and/or material evidence, or not.
If not, he is not rational.
If he has rejected the posits using disciplined logic and/or material evidence, then he can present that to support his rejection, or not.
If not, he is intellectually dishonest, and doesn’t want his disciplined logic and/or material evidence examined, analyzed and refuted.

If he doesn’t want his disciplined logic and/or material evidence examined, analyzed and refuted, then he is either an intellectual coward, or he knows that the logic and material evidence are false (intellectual fraud). Both of these eventualities indicate emotional disturbance in that individual.

Since Atheists do not ever present either logic or evidence which prove categorically and incorrigibly that the posits of a creating deity are immutably false, then it is proper to assume that either they do not actually have either logic or evidence to support their rejection (This is supported by the Atheist belief in “Hitchens’ Razor”), or they are intellectually dishonest. Or in this case, both.

If they claim mere “disbelief” without any responsibility to support their position with logic or evidence, Then it is proper to assume that either they are intellectually dishonest in their claim, or they have no reason or reasoning in their disbelief. Both of these are intellectually empty positions. Both of these are universal amongst modern Atheists.

Here is a simple form of a posit of a creating deity:

Either the universe always existed, or it came into being.

If it is thought to have always existed, then a) it is an infinite regression (fallacy); b) the Big Bang and Expansionary Theory is a false theory (anti-science).

If the universe is an infinite regression, then empirical evidence is needed; there is none.

If the universe came into being at the Big Bang, then empirical evidence is needed; that evidence exists.

If the universe came into being, it violates the null hypothesis that “nothing” is more parsimonious than is “something”.

If the new existence of a universe is less parsimonious than its prior non-existence, it is proper to assume that there is a reason that the universe came into existence, overcoming the null hypothesis. That reason correlates with a cause, pre-existing the material universe, with the power and causal ability to create the universe, and is therefore greater than the universe.

Further, that causal power had a reason to create the universe, and therefore was an agent.

Further, the creating agent created the rational laws for ordered material existence which were installed, rather than mere chaos, when chaos (non-ordered) would be the null hypothesis. Given the existence of rational laws for ordered existence, then the creating agent is rational.

Therefore, it is more rational to conclude that the universe came into being in opposition to the null state of non-existence, and it did so due a creating agent which is sufficiently powerful, purposeful, and rational.

Now, this argument can be rejected by Atheists who are not ignorant of it, for two possible reasons: 1) rational objections using disciplined logic and/or material evidence, OR 2) emotional reasons. But the Atheist cannot claim to have NO reasons or reasoning, to have mere disbelief without cause for disbelief, without also being obviously intellectually dishonest and emotionally based, and completely without any intellectual content in his position.

Atheism reduces and resolves to blind belief that there is no creating deity, and does so in the complete absence of disciplined logic and/or material evidence; in fact it must deny disciplined logic and existing material evidence, in order to maintain the blind belief.

Millennial Atheist Instructs Us On Atheism And Christianity, With A Little Islam Thrown In

"Kissing God's Ass", "Raging Hormones", and "Not Living in the Moment": This Atheist "knows" what Christianity actually is.



And like many millennial Atheists, she redefines Atheism for her own convenience - the convenience of not having to defend her own worldview. And she's clueless about the ramifications of pure Consequentialism and Atheist atrocities of the 20th Century... for her it's religion which is evil. We've all seen this stuff before. Use this video to tune up your own rational responses... or just ignore it.

An Atheist Inductive Argument Scrutinized

A reader asks me to take a look at an Atheist’s probability arguments. It’s taken a few days, sorry. But here it is. First the argument as it is presented:

"Let S be the proposition that human moral experiences are a product of subjective values functions, and that those value functions are informed primarily by socialization and evolutionary history.

Let O be the proposition that human moral experiences are a product of some apprehension of objective moral values.

Let V be the observation that human moral opinions vary from person to person.

Let C be the observation that human moral opinions tend to vary more between cultures than between individuals.

P(V|O) < P(V|S) P(C|O) << P(V|S) Further, there does not appear to be any further evidence, E, such that P(E|V) > P(E|S)

Further, O is strictly less parsimonious than S.

Hence, we have strong justification for S over O."

The analysis appears to be a partial Bayesian induction, which doesn't go as far as the final calculation. It's just inductive, to the point of weighting, and it's not related to Kolmogorov algorithmic probability in any way. Its premises can be analyzed for any truth value which might inhere. As in any logical conclusions, including inductive of course, if the premises are not valid, true, and grounded in first principles, then they are false. That is the standard of Aristotlelian logic – college logic 101 – and it is the logic used here to analyze the probability claims. This is a failure of Bayes usage: besides being prone to prejudicial misuse, when used for metaphysical claims or unfalsifiable claims, it provides only highly dubious probability at best. It is incapable of objective fact generation, even using empirically derived probabilities. It is incapable of the capacity of deduction's ability to provide unquestionable truth when done properly.

A discussion of Induction via Bayesian assumptions is here, for a refresher (It's embedded in the articles):

The probability argument begins:

"Let S be the proposition that human moral experiences are a product of subjective values functions, and that those value functions are informed primarily by socialization and evolutionary history.

Let O be the proposition that human moral experiences are a product of some apprehension of objective moral values."

The term, “moral experiences” is undefined, and seems to be without any value regarding to the actual objective existence of moral principles. The term “experiences” seems to indicate subjective apprehension in both premises, not objective knowledge of anything. Science, for example, is not done on the basis of “human material experiences”; it is done on the basis of objective experimentation, performable by other experimenters as a test of replicability for validation and non-falsifiability. That’s how objectivity is produced in materialist premises.

So O has no bearing on actual existence of objective morality. Using it for such is false.

"Let V be the observation that human moral opinions vary from person to person.

Let C be the observation that human moral opinions tend to vary more between cultures than between individuals."

This “observation”, C, is beyond dubious, it is prejudiced and prejudicial for purposes of biasing the faux Bayesian analysis below; it is without any supporting data and is highly likely false purely because there are no Atheist moral principles at all which are derivable from Atheism, beyond those “moral” principles each individual Atheist creates for himself. Therefore, given the number of Atheists on the globe – and counting the communists, secularists, Hindus and Buddhists – the number of dissimilar, individually-derived “moralities” is very likely far higher than the objectively held moralities.

C is merely a prejudicial opinion, not an objective fact. It has no truth value for use in any calculation.

Now for the relative positioning of the premises.

"P(V|O) < P(V|S)"

This is a typical Bayesian Probability set up technique. It uses pure opinion, with no possible actual data to support any validity it might have. Especially given that O does not describe any useful information regarding the actual existence of objective morality.

In this case, the relative positioning of the two probabilities is purely by opinion, not by any objective factual probability calculation. In other words, it is a prejudiced personal projection made toward a presupposed objective. Were any actual facts discovered for use here, the relative positioning would likely be reversed.

"P(C|O) << P(V|S)"

This placement of relative probabilities also is based not on any fact or data or study, it is purely based on the presuppositional prejudices of the author. Given that both C and O are personal opinion, and obviously prejudicial, there is precisely no actual rational or empirical reason to believe that this is the case.

"Further, there does not appear to be any further evidence, E, such that P(E|V) > P(E|S)"

This is really interesting, given that there is no evidence provided for any of the premises, period. Denial of “further evidence” is in the form of a joke, then.

"Further, O is strictly less parsimonious than S."

It is hardly arguable that O is less parsimonious than S; this is a truth claim which has no basis whatsoever for its belief, because O has no actual meaning in the argument. In fact, if parsimony refers to simplicity vs excessive complexity, then O is far MORE parsimonious than S, given the complexity of S. So this is another failure, possibly that of Equivocation of the term, parsimony, but more likely just a blatant biasing of the argument toward the desired conclusion. It is based on no justification of any kind for the declared truth being asserted.

"Hence, we have strong justification for S over O."

No, there is absolutely nothing presented here which is anything other than opinion, which is declared to be truth for purposes of biasing “premises” in a phony “probability” calculation. That is not justification, it is propaganda. It is a poor man’s Bayesian exercise, where opinion is plugged in and declared to be factually useful for calculating a probability in the favor of the author.

Bayesian induction is a favorite of individuals who are scamming lesser knowledgeable folks. Bayesian calculations are useful only when prior premises have probabilities which are factually available as empirical determinations (I.e. NOT opinion). One example of successful usage of Bayesian Inference is the Coast Guard’s calculations regarding the probable position of a lost boater, based on prior conditions of wind, currents, tides, time at last known location, and prior routes taken by the boater. These are not opinions, they are facts which can be plugged into the Bayes equation, and the probable current location of the lost boater can then successfully calculated.

Bayesian Induction for metaphysical use is a resort of anti-intellectual scoundrels and scammers.

The Irrefutable Argument For Atheism?

Ben Love, writing at ExChristian.net, claims to have found an argument for Atheism which he feels is self-evident and irrefutable. When he discovered this argument he left Christianity. Needless to say, the comment block is filled with compliments on this feat, and on Ben’s brilliance.

Here’s the argument:

“It is no different with free will. The one who enables the choice must be considered complicit in the end result. After all, the end result occurred under the umbrella of the enabler’s purview. This logic is amplified when we consider that if a higher being gives responsibility to a lesser being, the higher being should be held accountable for what the lesser being does with that responsibility. I can’t help but feel that not only are these conclusions self-evident, they are also irrefutable. That is why, to me, God’s complicity in our sinfulness renders the entire theological understanding absurd. The argument inherently undermines itself and collapses… and the belief system collapses with it.”

So. Regarding free will; if God creates beings with free will to choose evil, then God is responsible for the evil which his free-agents do.

This, he says, is mathematical in the following sense, that of the identity equation:

If X=Y, and Y=Z, THEN X = Z and therefore if Z = Bad, then God, X, is bad.

Presumably Ben doesn’t really think that God = Human is a substitute for X=Y. Because it is obvious that:

God /= human

So it must be a sub-characteristic of God which is equal to human. Since this is about free will and culpability, then it might be one of those. Let’s try Free Will first:

Free Will of God = Free Will of humans?

Well that doesn’t work, because God’s free will is much different and more powerful than the free will of humans which is miniscule in comparison. Even if the categories overlap, God is not asserting the same free will decisions which a human is asserting. So If they are not equal, the identity equation doesn’t apply.

Let’s try culpability, then:

God’s culpability = Human culpability?

Culpability is a quality which an external observer decides is applied to an actor, based on rules laid down for that actor, which the actor violates. It makes sense for God to observe and judge humans based on rules made for humans, applying culpability as it is found. It makes no sense for humans to observe and judge God based on rules made for humans but not for God. So God cannot be culpable for violating rules made for humans, and being judged by humans. While God has enabled free will for humans which enables evil choices, God cannot be judged based on the rules for humans.

Then let’s try morals:

God’s morals = human morals?

That is hardly equitable either, for this reason: IF God made morality for humans, and humans are not equal to God, then why should we expect human morality to apply to God? For example, which of the Ten Commandments even makes sense if it is directed at God? None. So the equal morality option fails.

What other possible attributes of God might equate to the corresponding attributes of humans? Intellect? Capacity for Ethical fabrications? Love for specific objects? Universal Love? Fear? Lust? Greed? Hate? Empathy? Compassion? None of these work in attempting to equate God and humans in the equation of identity which Ben uses.

As a further test, the mother of a child which grows up to be a man who does evil deeds is not considered culpable for the deeds of the grown child. Hitler’s mother is not considered the mother of the Third Reich. This goes directly contrary to Ben’s claim.

The identity equation part of the argument is the main basis for the conclusion being drawn. That has been shown not to work, when substitutions are actually tried, rather than presumed, as Ben does.

But the argument also goes further, because it can be expressed in words and maybe syllogisms as well.

Here’s Ben:

”If God (x) gives us free will (y), and free will (y) results in our sinfulness (z), then God (x) is responsible for (z). If X = Y, and Y = Z, then X = Z. At this point, Y is just a needless middle man. If X = Z, then God is responsible for sin. To state this differently, the one who permits the choice is ultimately the one responsible for the choice. If God, being a perfect intelligence compared to us, saw fit to entrust his imperfect creations with free will, one would have to assume that this perfect intelligence knew ahead of time what would happen. Moreover, one would have to conclude that he who permits the choice is just as responsible as he who made the choice.”

Ben equates God to human free will. Then he equates free will to sinfulness. But God is not equal to human free will and human free will is not equal to God. So the equation is not applicable; but maybe his argument is:

“…the one who permits the choice is ultimately the one responsible for the choice.”

This is true for a parent child relationship, where the child has no maturity to understand and no self-control to adhere to the guidelines of the parent, and the parent leaves the child unsupervised in a dangerous environment. But are adult humans mere children, with no decision capacity or moral or intellectual tools for self-regulation rendering them unable to know or understand the outcome of free will choices? That’s not the case. Theism relates that God expects humans to know and understand the outcome of their free will choices. In fact there are several cases which do inhere and can cause “evil” outcomes due to non-complicity with God-driven moral rules:

First, is immaturity.

Second is mental incapacity.

Third is rebellion in a mature, normative mind.

Fourth is accidental non-complicity.

Fifth is emotional non-complicity.

Sixth is the intellectual presumption of X = 0 or null (no God; no rules; no complicity required)

Of these only numbers three and six are truly culpable for their actions (possible the fifth, as well). If we assess number three, we can conclude that free will did indeed enable evil outcomes. Yet the backward equality for assigning responsibility still stops at the human, because there is no equality between human and God. Further there is no expectation that God has the responsibility for preventing evil actions by human actors, because if it exists, then God set it up to work that way. God does, in fact, create the Good vs. Evil dichotomy by which Evil is an expectation, when free choice is abused.

But perhaps Ben thinks that God should prevent evil. And in fact this is an unstated premise in his argument:

“If evil exists, then God is responsible for stopping it.” (Ben’s assumption, paraphrased).

There is no equivalent theist theology which believes that, and so that argument doesn’t invalidate either theism or the proposition that a creating deity exists. Theism posits that God created a balance, because if only Good exists without Evil, then first there is no longer any valid benchmark by which Good can be determined, and second, any choice made would be between two “good” choices, and there would be no development possible for humans to attain moral intellects. Most importantly, this is a moral judgment made by a human which is demanded of a deity; such a demand is irrational, because humans have no power over a deity, and thus any demand is a useless exercise.

Because this necessary but unstated premise is meaningless, the entire syllogistic statement of the argument being made is necessarily false. I.e., this necessary but false premise is sufficient to render the entire syllogism false.

Further, by going Atheist, Ben assumes membership in the ideology within which there exist neither good nor evil. What exists, exists in a frame of deterministic, unvalued, nonpurposeful, material existence in which what exists is neither good nor bad, it just “is”. Since the Atheist perception is that there is no God, then nothing exists in Z which is evil. So option six, above, is moot. Yet Ben also sees that evil does in fact exist, and he blames it on God.

So Atheism according to Ben is internally contradictory.

It was Dawkins’ claim that what Hitler did was “distasteful, but not evil”. Because evil doesn’t exist in a purely material universe.

The syllogism has failed, completely.

And the second part of the identity equation fails, also, because under Atheism, Z = 0, and under theism Z = a necessary construct set up by God. Neither is equal to "human free will", Y.

Conclusion:
There is no equality in either kind or degree between X and Y, as Ben tries to use them to hold qualities of humans and God. There is no equality in degree or kind between Y and Z, either. So the identity equation produces no useful connection for the culpability which Ben claims exists.

In fact, the assertion of the identity equation, without the actual use of data plugged into the equation, is a basic, functional, error in logic, the A fortiori Fallacy, with an embedded Category Error. I.e., since the identity equation exists and is valid, it exists and is valid in a circumstance where a Category Error is asserted.

Finally, the syllogistic form demonstrates that there is a necessary but false premise which negates the validity of the argument.

Polymath David Berlinski on Atheism's Science Pretentions

The Paradox of the Set of All Sets

The famous Bertrand Russell paradox which destroyed the attempt by him and Whitehead to outline the totality of mathematics, was just this:

The set of all sets cannot contain itself, so it is not the set of all sets.

This brings to mind a note to myself which recently re-surfaced, which said,

All things which exist are physical;
the source of all physical things is physical.

This statement of Philosophical Materialism is just as logically incestuous as the Russell Paradox. Is it actually the case that the source of all physical things is a physical thing which created itself, ex nihilo? And of course, subsequently created all other physical things?

In other words, all other physical things couldn't exist until and unless the first, creating physical thing created itself, under Philosophical Materialism and Atheism.

Where in nature do we see something come into physical existence without an identifiable prior causal existence? Even a quantum field is required in order to produce particle pairs, according to the Copenhagen understanding of quantum physics. Either particles are created by energy, or particles actually are energy (Quantum Field Theory). But what sort of a physical "thing" would the first, self-creating energy/particle be? What gives a probability field a positive value?

That is the paradox which surrounds the underlying theory of Philosophical Materialism, which is a necessary subset of Atheism - the rejection of a non-material creating entity. To drive the nail further home, the only valid evidence under the physicalist, Philosophical Materialism constraint is empirical data which is obtained in disciplined experimental fashion, successfully replicated, peer reviewed (for whatever that is worth), with open data for public examination of methods and results.

Can this empirical evaluation be done with regard to the "first self-creating physical thing"? Or even "any self-creating physical thing" That would require creating an absolute void containing not even any quantum field, much less radiation or outside particles. Then how, within this logically and actually empty environment could the creation, ex nihilo of course, be induced? Be replicated? It cannot be done. It is an effect without a cause outside itself, so there is no prior cause available to initiate the effect.

This seems almost too simple to avoid the truth of it. But it is not apparent to Atheists, who need the concept of physical self-creation and Philosophical Materialism in order to protect their chosen worldview. But they should have to admit that both logic and empirical evidence fail to indicate any value to support their choice. Why do they not admit to this, but rather claim the opposite: to have logic and evidence for their belief? There is only one remaining possibility, outside of insanity, and that is emotional neediness for their Atheism to be true.

Atheists have a choice:

A physical thing can and did create itself, as the source of itself, the cause of itself. (Not a property of known physical things; never observed; not inducible; a theory out of desperation).


Or,
Physical things always existed. (Infinite regression)

Or,
Physical things are illusions or delusions. (self reference).

Philosophical Materialism, and therefore Atheism, fail logically and empirically.

Hemant Mehta and Alpha God

The friendly Atheist clips a bit from a book by Hector A. Garcia, "Alpha God", which claims to know how the God idea came about. This is a common practice amongst evolutionary story tellers, who make up fantasy scenarios which to them seem to be plausible. They focus these stories on the evils which they discern in the modern world, such as Catholicism of 1,500 years ago, give or take, and Islam, not all of it just the parts that fit the narrative. Oh, and also the Evil God which makes their lives of moral ambivalence pure hell.

The first part deals with size, quoting Steven Pinker who claims - without a shard of evidence - that for hunter-gatherers the term "big man" referred to men who were actually large in size (makes sense to Pinker, so it must be true - he wrote a book). Then the standard un-referenced claims that taller men go farther than less tall men, a claim which is questionable first of all, and is of no consequence to creating the universe in any event. The meaning of this is that big is alpha to humans, dogs and goldfish of course, thus enabling the stacking up of that selected evidence as the faux axiom for support of the claim that God was created as the biggest and most alpha of alphas. It's a story. Just a story. There is no evidence, because it is just a fantasy story.

I haven't read the book so I don't know if there are any actual arguments intended to serve as actual logic to refute the existence of a non-physical intelligent agent which created the universe. That fundamental hypothesis is an argument wherein size doesn't matter, but innate power does. But that is not what the Atheist narrative is about; the Atheist narrative is about fabricating a self-designated "plausible" argument for the human creation of God, rather than God creating humans. It's a necessary belief, unsubstantiated and unsubstiable, but for which "truth" is necessary for the belief system and worldview, regardless. Evidence is not necessary, unless the evidence serves the narrative. It is the narrative itself which is deemed necessary and sufficient for proof of "no God". Atheism has never had evidence or logic for its support; so stories are sorely needed. And this author has this one to offer.

The second part that Mehta offers is "foot kissing" as evidence for the human creation of God as top dog. Really. That's it. Read it for yourself, the absurdity of this as an argument for there being "no God", is beyond parody.

The fact that Mehta considers this to be worthy of repeating reveals a lot about the critical thinking paths which he does not take. Yet Mehta maintains a somewhat influential profile in the Atheist community, apparently. And that reveals a lot about the Atheist community.

A Message to Valerie Tarico

I left the following comment over at Valerie Tarico's site. I hope she responds, but few Atheists actually do, especially when they are asked to defend their Atheism. They cannot, so they don't. We'll see.

"Valerie,
Your visceral hatred has truly colored your view of the world, to the point of spreading your distortions to other haters who feed on your hate. Atheism has been the most destructive ideology that the world has ever known, even in just the past 100 years, torturing and killing several hundred million humans and enslaving entire continents under the slavery of Atheist ideological oppression.

Yet you act as if "religion", under which generalization you categorize Christianity along with all other "sects", is the world's only issue. Atheism starts with rejection of principles, including morality, thereby placing itself into an unprincipled void of pure rejectionism (euphemistically called "doubt" by yourself, but really just blind rejection supported by cherry picking certain self-assigned offenses about which to complain). Doubt and rejectionism become solipsist and pyrrhonian, rejecting all knowledge, yet they are thought to generate logical arguments without the benefit of actual disciplined deduction. Skepticism never generates actual knowledge. Taken to emotional limits it prevents analysis of concepts and thus denies possible truths merely on the basis of its own presumed truth claim.

Atheism ultimately self-entitles the Atheist to believe in the inferiority of all non-Atheists, and hence creates the self-perception of the personal superiority of the Atheist. This leads directly to the elitism of self-endowed Messiahism described by Thomas Sowell, and the three-class system of the Leftist elites, who thrive on placing people into Victimhood Classes and Oppressor Classes in order to maintain themselves in their elitist Messiah Class.

You are a Messiah Class elitist who demonizes your preferred enemy, "religion", as the Oppressor Class. You, like feminists and black racists, are also in your own Victimhood Class, as an officially oppressed victim of the Oppressor Class. The three-class system clinches your superiority by your inclusion into a phony class. But it self-authorizes your class war on the Other, the Oppressor Class which you have designated as such by yourself.

The three-class system derives directly from Marxism, and is imbued with the same elitist, savior mentality which involves the Nietzschean will to power for the elites, and the domination of the inferior "herd", and the Leninist claim to a "scientific" basis (in your case psychology, the least empirical of sciences save anthropology which renounced its scientific basis in a spurt of intellectual honesty).

As is common, this is all falsely predicated in "science" (a la Lenin), in your case the faux science of psychological "interpretations" which in your hands become moral judgments, from an ideology which denies the existence of morality (again per Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil). Yet you and Atheists in general create your own moral principles, and fully condemn those who are Othered by their differing ideology from your own personal creation.

Your site is strikingly similar to white supremacist sites I have stumbled onto.

In fact, the morality of the modern western Messiah Class is eliminationist, just as are all supremacists. Tolerance now means tolerance for all Classes except the Oppressor Class, whose opinions of dissent must be quashed under hate crimes. Equality now means equality for all Classes except the Oppressor Class, which must be held back in education, have its wealth redistributed, and its "privilege" revoked and reversed in order to favor the Victimhood Classes.

Atheist supremacism has demonstrated its vile character sufficiently in the Atheist domination of the USSR, China, S.E.Asia, Cuba, etc, with political genocides and gulags - all similar to the Atheist French Revolution and its Reign of Terror.

Atheism and its complete moral and intellectual void is the world's biggest hazard, even today, as the Russians re-invade their previous captive nations and China arms itself beyond the capabilities of free nations. Atheist domination differs from ISIS only in the fact that Atheism has no morality attached to it, and thus is free to assert any atrocity, anywhere, any time.

Actually, Atheism is on the same moral plane as ISIS, isn't it?

Your own pretensions of morality and moral judgment are purely derived from yourself as the determiner of what is moral and what is not, under your own personal moral authority to decide morality for the masses. It cannot come from Atheism, because Atheism has no morality attached to it. So it is purely your own device, your own opinion, which you pass off as definitive morality from your presumed position of moral (and intellectual) superiority. Thus you have self-elevated to godhood, and the self-perception of elitism and perfection, purely based on three words: "ain't no God". And that enabling phrase has created (in you) a moral authority over your designated Oppressor Class.

Being the elite, then, perhaps you can prove that there is no God other than yourself. No Atheist has ever done that, though, certainly not using the intellectual tools of disciplined deduction, nor the functional tools of materialist empiricism. Yet if you have managed to do so, then how about providing that proof over at this site:
atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com

We'll watch for your proof.
Stan
"

Valerie moderates comments, so this might not make it onto her site. We'll see.

UPDATE:
My comment did not make it onto her site, but many hundreds of others did make it, well over 700 so far. Tarico is a magnet for the eliminationist AtheoLeft, it appears. And Tarico censors criticism that is dangerous to the ambient narrative, although some cannon fodder is allowed in to feed the Atheist site dwellers.

Valerie Tarico, Atheist Psychologist, Explains Why Religions Are Guilty, Not Guilty and Are Guilty of Violence.

Valerie Tarico gives us another lesson in the Atheist attack on religions, this time throwing in a little false psychological melodrama to boot things down the path. It's a twisty, turny ride toward Christian guilt. Well, all religions, but let's face it: Christians are the most hated; this time around it's for their violence.

When going after religionS (frequently plural and non-distinguished or differentiated), Atheists always ignores their own Marxist history, and the Enlightenment's creation in the genocidal French Revolution. Tarico is certainly in line with that.

”Is monotheism inherently violent? Is religion an excuse or cover for other kinds of conflict? Are Western colonialism and warmongering in the root of the problem? Do blasphemers make themselves targets? Is the very concept of blasphemy a form of coercion or violence that demands resistance? Is killing in the name of gods a distortion of religion? Alternately, is it the real thing?

Each of these questions is best answered “yes, and” rather than “yes/no.”

With the possible exception of Buddhism, the world’s most powerful religions give wildly contradictory messages about violence. The Christian Bible is full of exhortations to kindness, compassion, humility, mercy and justice. It is also full of exhortations to stoning, burning, slavery, torture, and slaughter. If the Bible were law, most people you know would qualify for the death penalty. The same can be said of the Quran. The same can be said of the Torah. Believers who claim that Islam or Christianity or Judaism is a religion of peace are speaking a half-truth—and a naive falsehood.”

Fortunately for us, Tarico answers her own questions because we might have gotten it wrong. For example, that religion is the root of the problem. I, for one, would not have guessed that the KGB or the Maoists were all that religious. But they are not the “root”; religion is. Further, it is a naïve falsehood to claim otherwise, so all the Atheist Marxists are safe from her condemnations, as are the Atheist heirs of the French Revolution.

The AtheoLeftist always goes straight to the biblical rules made for historical Jewish communities while they wandered without a homeland, and ignores the New Testament completely (almost), or at least trivialize it as much as possible. By basing their rhetoric on the Old Testament they can claim that Christians must be violent, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Evidence is important only when it confirms the narrative, and that also explains the lack of interest in the Atheist bloody ravages in just the past 100 years, far more bloody and moral-free than Christianity has ever been, even cumulatively. And it is always necessary to associate Christianity with Islam; otherwise the accusation would fall flat, even on cynical Atheist ears.

Further, her reference to the Christian “ethnic cleansing” in the Central African Republic seems to be false: there is no reference for this at the UN Security Council page specifically for the CAR itself, and all other reports seem to be based on a circular rumor, while none give any link to an actual report.

The obvious fallacy, Guilt By Association, is the only weapon that the AtheoLeft has against its major enemy, Christianity. And to do that AtheoLeftists must accept the fact that Islam, their own partner in Christian-hating, is extremely violent. That partnership is temporarily ignored just so that Christianity can be falsely associated with the violence and totalitarian barbarism of Islam. The ploy is so transparent as to be obvious at the primary school level.

”I would argue that, like alcohol, religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, and that it does so only when other factors have created conditions favorable toward aggression. I might also argue that under better circumstances religion disinhibits generosity and compassion, increasing giving and helping behaviors. Religion often is centered around authority and text worship (aka “bibliolatry”). Because of this, it has the power to lower the threshold on any behavior sanctioned by either a sacred text or a trusted religious leader and is at its most powerful when one is echoed by the other.”

This psychologist gives nothing but her Atheist opinion, no evidence, no references. Actual evidence consistently shows that in the west, Atheists give almost nothing to charity while the religious give generously to secular as well as religious charities. Further, studies show that Atheists have a decreased empathy level compared to Christians, in that they are far less likely to help a particular needy individual. Atheists think they are empathetic if they get teary eyed over a TV documentary alleging society’s persecution of polar bears. AtheoLeftists are known to be tax dead-beats as well, putting the lie to any claim that they “gave” to the government for distribution.

Also she promotes the concept of Authoritarian or forced worship, despite the lack of authority in western religions (save cults). She is thus equating the generic class, “religion”, with cult properties in order to support her Atheist needs. Atheism comes closer to cult thought, enforced by peer ridicule, but she ignores the worshipful reverence for Richard Dawkins who has “saved” millions for Atheism. That would not be helpful for her narrative.

”Despite the fact that violence is repeatedly endorsed in sacred texts, most Christians, Muslims and Jews never commit acts of violence in the service of their religion. Similarly, millions of people consume alcohol without insulting, hitting, kicking, stabbing or shooting anyone. Most of us are peaceful drinkers and peaceful believers.

You know there is another shoe to drop:

” Yet, [here it is, the contradiction of the previous statement] statistically we know that without alcohol assaults would be less common. [Start with False Association; justify what "we all know": Fallacy Argumentum Ad Populum ] - So too, we all know that when suicide bombings happen, or blasphemers and apostates are condemned to die, or a rape victim is stoned to death, Islam is likely to be involved. And when we hear that an obstetrics doctor has been shot or a gay teen beaten and left for dead, or a U.S. president has announced a “crusade”, we know that Christianity was likely a part of the mix.”

This is the ultimate in stretching reality via demonstrable logic fallacy in order to support an ideology. First compare religion to alcoholic violence; then compare that to Islamic violence; find the remote violence by alleged Christians which occurs once every decade or so. Claim that Christianity, despite previous disclaimers, is known to be actually violent, imply that it is to be feared more than the excesses of world wide Atheism. Claim that war on terrorists is an illegitimate “presidential crusade” and thus Christian violence, as if no Atheist or Leftist approved it.

Only the deranged would believe these claims.

And the final claim, dredged from past millennia:

”American Christianity retains shadows of the inquisitor’s hood and implements of torture.”

If this is so, then Atheism is to be fully condemned based on the hundreds of millions killed by atheists in very recent history, and even their brutality in major Atheist nations still today. So I feel free and comfortable in condemning her as an Atheist under her own principles of condemnation.

”As Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity spread across Nigeria and Congo, thousands of children are being beaten or burned or disfigured with acid after being condemned by Christian ministers as “witches.” ”

There is nothing in Christianity about witches; the Vulgate says “wizards”, not witches; i.e., treasonous deceivers. Period. And the right of all punishment belongs not to Christians, it belongs to the deity, to be meted out only by the deity. The doctrinal abuse of Cults are again being equated as if they are exemplary of Christian doctrine and Christians in general.

”Meanwhile in Uganda, American Evangelicals have helped to advance prison terms and death penalties for African gays. The Family, an American Christian organization with members in congress helped to convert Uganda’s president to their form of politicized Christianity. American activists attended a conference in Uganda aimed at “wiping out” homosexuality. ” [It’s Family Research Council, not “the Family”; obviously no research done here for supporting her false conclusion].

That is true, they (FRC leaders) did go to the conference, but not to support the “wiping out”; they went to attempt to instill tolerance per the actual Christian faith which is voluntary, but they failed, probably because of the AIDs epidemic which homosexuals spread throughout their country. The lie, once told to liars, becomes truth; what she and the Atheists push is the lie which by its prevalence is now a received, dogmatic “truth” despite being a lie. Narrative always trumps truth.

”Were the Fort Hood and Charlie Hebdo murder sprees or Boko Haram massacres caused by Islam? Are the Central African murder sprees caused by Christianity? A yes answer is far too simple.”

Oh really? Religion is not the cause? That sudden disclaimer seems out of place, being lost amongst the other prior claims to the contrary. After all, it's "what we all know".

”But violence, tribalism, and mutually exclusive truth claims are built into in our sacred texts and traditions. As a consequence, religion around the world continues to disinhibit lethal violence at a horrendous rate

Oh. OK, then. Religions ARE guilty after all.

” For us to vilify Muslims or Christians or any group of believers collectively is to engage in the familiar act of cowardice we call scapegoating. It means, ever and always, that we end up sacrificing innocents to appease our own fear, anger and thirst for vengeance.”

Oh. Wait. Religions are NOT guilty again. It’s the Atheist’s own “thirst for vengeance”? Hmm.

”But for us to ignore the complicated role of religion in violence is a different kind of cowardice, one that has been indulged by peace-lovers among the faithful for far too long.”

OK, now we’re back to “religions ARE guilty after all.” Whew. I'm glad she stopped here. I was getting whiplash.

HT: Anshuman Reddy - thanks for the link!

One Less God vs Thomist Deduction

From another commenter at Feser's blog, replying to a drive-by interloper trying to use the (useless) "one less god" argument that "we are all atheists, and atheists believe in one less god than you do" childish argument:

"Wotan. Zeus. Thor. Poseidon. Apollo.

"I reply: All of whom are mythical anthropomorphic super beings. God however in the Classic Sense is the Uncaused Cause, Pure Actuality, etc...whose existence can be known by reason alone. Sorry but it is impossible for any Classic Theistic philosophical argument for the existence of the Classic Theistic God to be used to argue for the existence of any of the above mythical beings."

Atheists do not do logical deduction; they use bumper sticker quotes as their reasoning. They even fill books with such reasoning, rarely or never attempting to approach actual arguments.

Atheist Fundamentalism?

An Atheist Asserts “Religious Privilege” as a counter-attack. James Croft, a leader in training at the Ethical Society of St. Louis, writes about it at Chris Stedman's site, and we'll look at his claims.

It is not enough to merely be non-religious any more. You must declare your opposition to and offense taken by religious existence itself, not to mention your Victimization by religion. Religious existence is characterized by religious privilege, “privilege” being the new microagression which is visible only to those with highly specialized sensory apparati, those new privilege detector organs recently acquired by evolution in the Messiah Class.

Here Croft gives the defining situation:

“’I don’t believe in God,’ he said looking up from the menu. Was he challenging me because he knows I’m a Christian minister, I wondered?… Was he intentionally being aggressive?”

“Consider how intolerant this reaction is; how immediate, how judgmental. The mere words “I don’t believe in God” are a potential aggression. This is a reaction of someone with religious privilege, unused to having her assumptions about the world challenged. If your response to hearing someone say “I don’t believe in God” is to consider it an attack on your own beliefs, the problem is with you—not with any “fundamentalist atheism.” Imagine if I took every expression that someone is a Christian as a potential affront to me. How ridiculous would that seem? Yet atheists put up with this reaction all the time.”

It’s hard not to laugh in the face of this Atheist (and his apologist). The blurting of Atheism out of the blue, for no contextual reason borne of conversation, obviously was meant for other than information transfer. But what was it meant to accomplish? Any rational person would wonder. But not this Atheist, of course. For him, the incongruity of this out of place declaration bears no examination; in fact, the examination which it does produce in the Christian is decried as irrational. Only in the inverted logic of Atheism could this possibly be the case.

And contrary to what he claims, Atheists do indeed take any profession of faith as a personal attack on themselves; it produces the "gastric distress" claims used in court by the American Atheists. Faith belongs in the basement. Massive Atheist organizations exist specifically to drive religion out of their sight. They are cultural bullies.

The nouveau classist-chic privilege "microaggression" charge is similar to the charge that

“you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are, but I’m smart and I will tell you how stupid you are; believe me, you are stupid”.

In the case of the three-class Messiahs, microaggression is visible only to themselves, as is your perpetual guilt:

“you’re too biased by privilege and stupid to know how biased by privilege and stupid you are, but I am smart and unbiased by privilege, so I will tell you how biased by privilege and stupid you are”

– hence, microaggression, invisible except to Messiahs and their pet Victims.

However, the main thrust of the article is that Atheists cannot be fundamentalists because they have no principles at all, no fundamentals and no principles about which to be fundamental.

That is false, but just to this extent. Atheists are pretty much in agreement that religion of all types is wrong, evil, and that Atheists are put upon by the existence of religion. There undoubtedly are some who do not care about religion one way or another, but those people are not out making claims about how abused they are by religion all over the web. Everyone who goes onto the web as an Atheist is highly likely to adhere to the above fundamentals (and more, but that’s for a different time).

Free Thinking means thinking anarchically without constraints by religion. If hatred of religion did not exist, there would be no reason to claim Free Thinking. The same applies to the religion of Humanism, which started from the premise of religious hatred, and elitist desire to eradicate all religion by taking over all institutions (as always, read the Humanist Manifesto I).

But back to Croft and his claims regarding the persecution of Atheists:

That the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” is frequently a fig leaf for distaste of atheism in general is clear in the way the term is used by enormously powerful religious individuals to push their own agendas. The Archbishop of Wales, for instance, once decried “atheistic fundamentalism” for, among other things, wanting public hospitals to not assume all of their clients are Christian, and wanting public schools to respect the religious diversity of their students. To the archbishop, the desire of atheists to be equal is “atheist fundamentalism.”

This is false, at its core. What Atheists want is not “diversity respect” in any sense: they do not respect diversity. What they demand is pure Atheism in schools and hospitals, not tolerance of diversity.

This nefarious use of the term reveals the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” for what it sometimes is: A weapon to marginalize critique of religion and the religious, and to maintain a status quo in which religious viewpoints, practices, and communities are privileged over nonreligious ones.

And of course it is not “critique of religion” which is the issue. It is the Atheist raw attacks on religion by attempting to drive religion underground as they Athei-ize all of culture, education and government. Croft is deliberately misrepresenting Atheist actions as benign critiques, abstract discussions regarding religions and the religious: Atheist actions are anything but benign; their attacks are anything but mere "critiques", as Croft's use of the weaponized "privilege" demonstrates.

Croft is certainly correct in his claim that there are no binding moral principles to Atheism, if that is indeed his claim. That includes lying in defense of a false picture of Atheism, concealing that which Atheism becomes as it metastasizes into Leftist, totalitarian, elitist three-class Messiahism, and its attack on western civil culture in general.

It is this which one sees when one sees an Atheist, and for good reason. They are both Messiahs and Victims, and religion is the Oppressor Class.

Croft tries to calm the dialog with the following:

“I understand the desire of some religious people to hit back against what seems to them—and what sometimes really is—unreasonable and unfair criticism of their faith tradition. I understand too the desire of many atheists to improve the quality of discourse within our own community, so that we become more thoughtful, precise, and kind in our critiques of religion. But the term “atheist fundamentalism” is always inaccurate and often harmful. We should find clearer terms.”

Well, to be more specific, accurate and descriptive, I suggest the term “Atheist fundamentalism” be replaced with “Atheist Three-Class Messiahism”. That should clear up their position.

Poster Boy For Atheist Irrationality

From Salon’s Jeffrey Taylor, who “analyzes” the debate surrounding Bill Mahr and Reze Aslan:

”The so-called “New Atheists,” including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, have tried to do the opposite: get people to examine religion and help them understand it as innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous. Their aggressive secularism has, of course, stirred controversy and resentment. It was bound to do so. For millennia, the faithful have held the high moral ground virtually unopposed. Now (at least occasionally) under fire, some modern-day believers have taken to levying a clever yet false counter-accusation; namely, that the so-called “New Atheism” amounts to a “religion all its own” and that nonbelief can be just as hazardous as nonbelievers say religion is.

Aslan has proven a masterly practitioner of this ruse. He has used it to muddy the rhetorical waters to the extent that both belief and nonbelief come off, in his telling, as comparable, with “fundamentalism” a problem for both.

“Atheism is a belief system like any other belief system,” he told HuffPost Live last week in a lengthy interview about – again – Bill Maher’s stance on Islam. “It’s a set of propositions about the nature of reality. And like any set of propositions, it can neither be proven nor disproven.”

This is patently untrue: nonbelief is not a “belief system.” Atheism simply denotes nonbelief in a god, and the rejection of god-related assertions, advanced without evidence, or with risible semblances of evidence drawn from the holy writings themselves in dispute, that an invisible, almighty Supreme Being superintends the universe, grants our wishes or not as He sees fit, and demands to be both loved and feared. Smart atheists know that God’s inexistence cannot be proven, but find no reason to accept the absurd claims the three Abrahamic faiths make, and every reason to react with anger and contempt when adherents of those religions attempt to impose them on the rest of us. The religious argue that the absurdity of their holy books’ tenets presents them with an opportunity to win bona fides with their god by suspending their critical faculties and believing them anyway, but no rational human being should be obligated to respect their decision – let alone submit to their mandates.”

Atheism is, in fact, a belief system no matter how diligently Atheists queue up to deny it. Even the author of the above admits such in his internally contradictory denial:

First he claims that there are no beliefs. Then he claims that god-related assertions are rejected, presumably because the Atheist BELIEVES them to be false. This is non-coherent: irrational.

But he charges ahead with more, itemizing the premises which Atheists Believe are false. So false as to be, in his term: risable, in other words, BELIEVED to be suitable for ridicule.

Atheism has necessary and sufficient beliefs about the nature of reality, and one belief is that they have no beliefs. That is a logically falsifiable statement, under Reductio Ad Absurdum, and it is internally contradictory, thus failing the First Principle of Non-Contradiction. It could not be more irrational. This is followed with other unfalsifiable beliefs such as the presupposition of Naturalism/Philosophical Materialism, which is the fundamental premise supporting all of the elements of their worldview (except for their elitism due to BELIEVING in it).

All these BELIEFs tumble out of the BELIEF that they can reject a premise without giving any reason or reasoning for having rejected it.

Atheism is a continuing process of irrational justifications necessary to justify the first non-coherent premise which they BELIEVE. They protect these irrational justifications by calling them rational BELIEFS and claim to be evidence and logic based at the same time. Nothing short of emotional disruption can explain this behavior.

Bill Quick and the Standard Canard for Denying the Obvious.

Atheist Bill Quick is easily irritated. As his article wrap-up he says this:

” Some atheists piss me off every once in a while, but not nearly as often or as much as the dumbasses of the “atheism is a religion” crowd.”

He seems to reason that Atheism is not a religion and that's why he doesn’t have a blog to assert Atheism as the superior religion to all theist and deist and whatever religions. Except that he does do that religiously on his blog, acting pretty much like a religious zealot. Here he resorts to logical absurdity to defend the non-religiosity of Atheism:

”A standard response is to note that if atheism is a religion, then “bald” is a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby, not kicking a kitten is a form of animal abuse and so on. Another is to note that if the definition of religion was expanded enough to legitimately include atheism – say, by defining a religion as “any philosophy on life” – then practically everything in the world would be a religion, such as socio-economic policies or views on equality. (British law has come close to finding this in employment discrimination cases.)”

Quick has resorted to Atheist bumper sticker wisdom, which always is easily refuted. Atheism does, in fact, have a creation story, evolution, which is used to define the value of human life, the purpose of life, and it constrains the afterlife story to a null hypothesis. Atheists don’t have a common moral statement, but that is their common feature: total freedom from morality and absolutes. Further, they evolve almost directly into Consequentialism (which is an anti-morality sort of morality) and Leftist elitism from which they can be excommunicated as heretics if they sin by not adhering to the Leftist dogma regarding the sacred tenets of Atheism: absolute truth of evolution; the non-existence of absolute truth; the absolute moral imperative of support for the killing one’s progeny (women’s healthcare), and the installation of Atheism as the standard morality of government and the public square.

So Quick’s use of silly false analogs is just pitiful in one sense, and desperate in another. No one is demanding that the government be all-bald, all-non stamp collectors, all-non kitten kicker (although that one is a de facto consideration). But Atheists are everywhere demanding and suing for total Atheism and freedom from religion. Does this not remind anyone of the Islamic demand of total Islam? Or else?

But he also fails in his meager attempt at definition: “religion as a philosophy of life”, which is a phony definition that he can knock right down, a cheap, weightless Straw Man. I.e it is a definition that only a defensive Atheist would conjure up.

There is no doubt that Atheists like Bill Quick really don’t like being apprised of their religious affiliation. But that’s too bad, because they are exactly religious, with the same features which they denounce in theism, including religious gurus and even churches. And their religiously defended sacrament is abortion, about which they become hysterical if it is threatened in any manner. And that is because their religion holds that due to evolution humans have no inherent value, and that they, the elites, get to decide who may, under elitist Atheist morality and moral authority, be killed.

If nothing else suffices to define Atheism as a religion, it is their lack of morality combined with their presumption of self-endowed moral authority which cinches it, completely. Atheism is the religion of moral and intellectual ambiguity, expressed as elitist dogma.

An "Atheist Meme" Failure

Sometimes a link will lead to another link until you reach something like... Atheist Memes. This is a site which consists of Atheist bumper sticker slogans, mostly of the ridicule or sloganeering kind. This one "meme" caught my attention:

Let's count the errors in this Atheist bumper sticker logic.

On the Christian side,

1. Subjective evidence is implied to be unreliable. Yet Atheism, itself, is based not on any supporting evidence or disciplined logic, but on emotional rejectionism. And that is purely subjective neediness. All knowledge is subjectively acquired and assimilated, with subjective discrimination and analysis. And all knowledge is contingent, especially that which claims Materialism yet has no material evidence for its claims (including the validity of Materialism).

2. Inconsistent Reasoning? There is nothing "inconsistent" about the arguments (from Aquinas to the simple challenge on this blog) which Atheists cannot defeat. It can be shown that Atheists in general do not use Aristotelian deduction at all, but that they always rather use Peirce's abduction and/or probabilistic methods such as Bayes Theorem which allows them to fabricate probabilities to fit their preconceptions and emotional needs, or they resort to ridicule. Bumper stickers never back up their claims, and some, like Atheist bumper stickers, cannot back them up.

On the Atheist side,

1. Objective Evidence which supports (much less proves) that Atheism is true does NOT exist. And when invited to disprove miracles such as Lourdes where objective evidence exists against Atheism, Atheists merely ridicule, rather than even attempting to refute that evidence. So this claim is patently false, as in a blatant lie.

2. Demonstrably consistent reasoning for Atheism does not exist. If Atheists had a single valid, true argument, they all would make it. There is no such argument, and Atheists commonly resort to faux Scientism, a logical error. That was refuted by Karl Popper, long ago. When asked to prove that a creating agent for the universe absolutely cannot exist, Atheists head for the door. This claim is also a lie.

Since both of the claims against Christians and both of the claims for Atheism are false, then the Atheist bumper sticker fails its own standards, and is inconsistent logic. Totally inconsistent logic.

Donohue Clears Up Obama's Historical Revisionist Claims

Headline:

Catholic League On Obama’s Comments: ‘Muslims Contributed NOTHING to the Foundation of Our Country’

“I’ve worked with many professors in my life and I know the way they think. They’re either indifferent to religion or they’re hostile to it. But not all religions; I mean, I’ve never seen a president show more favoritism to one religion, namely Islam- and I’m not implying he’s a Muslim. No, he’s a secularist- But he’s definitely showed preferential treatment to Islam over Christianity and Judaism.”

Donohue pointed out that Christians are being persecuted in 151 nations across the globe and while we’ve heard from the Pope and other world leaders on the issue, this president has remained inappropriately silent.

Donohue blasted the president and wondered why moderate Muslims were not convening conferences to condemn the violence being wrought upon Christians and Jews throughout the world.

“We’re not talking about just a few lunatics- every religion has a few lunatics We’re talking about millions of people who hate Christians, who hate Jews! And unlike the Communist Chinese or the North Koreans who are killing out of atheism, these people are killing in the name of God! If Islam is to be a religion of peace, they must do something to resurrect that image because right now, they are a religion of war!”

The Catholic League president slammed the president for his continual inaction and wondered, “Why do we have a special envoy for the Arctic? Why do we have a special envoy for the homosexuals? How come we don’t have a special envoy for religious minorities in the Middle East?”

Constantine remarked that he was stunned when, earlier this month, the Obama Administration released a statement praising Islam for “achievements and contributions… to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”

Donohue was clear in his rebuttal of Obama’s assertion:

'Muslims contributed nothing to the foundation of our country. It was mostly not Catholics or Jews, but who were protestant, were white, were male and, as far as I can tell, were heterosexual! Does that mean everyone else is excluded? No, it does not. And it doesn’t mean everyone else is a bad person. But to lie and say that Muslims were the ones who helped found this country- start naming them; start enumerating them. How did we all miss that in history? See, this kind of patronizing thing is a disgrace. [Obama] doesn’t want to be associated with the fact that it was Christians and the Judeo-Christian ethos that contributed to liberty in this country.'”
[Emphasis Added]

Atheist Argument

Religious people are stupid. #atheist #atheism

— THE BRONZE ATHEIST (@BronzeAtheist) July 7, 2014