Milo On the Leftist Gay Paradox

Milo Yiannopoulis:

"I’m comfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, as long as they don’t want to kill us, maim us or throw us off rooftops. (Permission for lesser violence is available upon application.) For leftists, the reverse appears to be true — they’re uncomfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, unless they want to kill us and maim us and throw us off rooftops."

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.

The Paradox of "Firebrand Atheism" and Other Atheist Paradoxes.

David Silverman's book, "Fighting God", apparently is a hit with aggressive Atheists. Silverman is quoted as saying this:

"The president of American Atheists, David Silverman, defines firebrand atheism as simply telling the truth about religion, with the emphasis on the telling. He says we should make clear that it’s religious beliefs we’re attacking, not the person. He says, “I’m not attacking humans; I’m attacking those humans’ silly beliefs.”

The truth is not available to Silverman. He cannot prove the non-existence of a deity; he is not privy to that information or "truth". So he cannot be truthful by claiming to know the truth. This is a paradox, where the actual truth contradicts the claim of "truth".

Atheism is firmly based in this "truth" paradox; it always has been. It is a necessary condition for Atheism; one cannot be an Atheist without the de facto acceptance of this internal logical failure.

Atheists tend to revel in their "independence". The Atheist position of the gloriousness of being independent of external control is asserted by attempting to assert external control over others. And that is paradox #2.

A third paradox is the rigid belief in the superiority of themselves, since they have gotten their exclusive access to "truth" merely by rejecting outside authority. This allows them to swell with self-endowed elitism, even though true elites earn it, rather than self-administer the title. This, then, is a third paradox of Atheism.

While rejecting the hated "religiosity" of theists, these Atheists become rabidly evangelical in their attempts to convert the benighted small-minded into the religiously evangelical cult of rabid Atheism. Of course, this is internally contradictory, and is a fourth paradox of Atheism.

Most Atheists are known to nearly universally veer strongly politically Leftward. They are jealous of their own autonomy, and yet they endorse totalitarian processes which restrict the autonomy and thoughts of others. This obviously is another internal contradiction, a fifth paradox of Atheism.

Atheism also nearly universally hails itself as "rational, logical, and evidence-based". However, they are driven by paradox and are completely without out rational, logical or evidentiary proof of their own position, which is this: that there is no deity. That is a sixth paradox of Atheism. And because they have neither logic nor empirical evidence to support their truth claims, they do not engage in dialectic; they use rhetoric and all of the rhetorical devices which are outside the realm of logic and evidence. In rhetoric there are no fallacies; it is not logic based.

Atheists, and their organizations, claim Victimhood Class status for themselves: they claim they are oppressed by religion, especially in government. However, since Atheism has no principles attached to it, an Atheist government has no principles, certainly no moral principles, and thus cannot legitimately recognize any action as either moral or immoral, including the anti-intellectual claim of "oppression". So the Atheist claiming "oppression" in an appeal to an Atheist government cannot be "oppressed" according to that government. That is a seventh paradox of Atheism.

In the same vein, Atheists claim that religion is "evil". Yet Atheism has no common set of moral principles, and thus any concept of evil is merely non-existent at best and relative at worst. Thus the concept of evil is without objective meaning. So the Atheist claim of "evil" religion has no meaning under amoral Atheism. Here, then, is an eighth Atheist paradox.

Silverman is promoting "firebrand Atheism" which means screeching in high volume about God. But that's what Silverman hates: theists who screech in high volume about God. Yes, that is a ninth Atheist paradox.

Atheists claim that religion is the most dangerous belief. They ignore (no matter how often reminded) that the worst genocides and mass murders and tortures in history have been racked up by Atheists. And there is a tenth paradox.

Atheism is false, but it is aggressively pursuing the foisting of its logical fallacies onto everyone; Atheists consider the beliefs of everyone who is not them to be silly, held by silly, stupid people. This is the attitude of the Marxist New Man ideologies and the Nietzschean Uberman philosophy. It is classist, because they are the superior ones, in a higher class, by themselves, better than everyone who again is not them.

Viewed logically, without paradox or internal contradiction based in arrogance of presupposed intellectual/moral eliteness, it is quite clear that Atheism is the most dangerous ideology of all, if for no other reason than its irrationality, but also for its lack of moral grounding as the world has seen in Atheist nations ever since 1917. And denial of that objective fact involves still another internal contradiction.