Google Sr V.P. Threatens Whistleblowers Regarding Bias Against Conservatives

Google is plainly evil.

Google Exec Threatens To Unmask Whistleblowers Who Report Misconduct Toward Conservatives


A senior vice president at Google is promising to act against employees who raise their voices against the company’s alleged pattern of misconduct against its conservative personnel.

Google VP Urs Hölzle’s threat follows a recent article on Wired that interviewed Google employees who have been accused in the James Damore lawsuit of discriminating against Caucasian men, who were instead painted as the victims of harassment by the publication—and their whistleblowers as aggressors.

Breitbart reports that in the months following the termination of Google engineer James Damore over a leaked memo that criticized the company’s “diversity” efforts, numerous employees at the company have blown the whistle on the company’s internal goings-on with allegations of threats of violence, harassment, abuse of HR, intimidation, and labor violations.

Following the publication of the Wired story, that piece was reportedly circulated within the company by progressive activists, in an alleged attempt to intimidate their conservative peers from speaking to the press.

Leftist Cultural Appropriation

Making the egregious False Equivalence:

Professors and Students at U. San Diego protest Trump by wearing “Muslim Yellow Stars”

A slap in the face to survivors of the genocide and their kin, and a blatant demonstration of arrogant, self-righteous, irrational emotionalism over rational thought in the university.

There is no equivalency - zero, none - between what Trump has said and what the yellow star of Jewish victims of genocide represents. To make that equivalence is not just inaccurate; it is evil. Muslims fought on the side of Hitler in WWII. They are not being killed by Trump. But they are suspected of harboring those who would kill us.

These people have no respect for Jewish heritage; they are just evil.

The Problem of Evil, Revisited

1. Evil exists.

2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

3. And, given no God:

4. Therefore evil doesn't exist.

5. Assertion 1 contradicts conclusion 4.

6. Therefore contradictions do not exist.

7. Therefore Truth does not exist.

8. Therefore Atheism is True.

9. Therefore God is Evil.

10. Because Atheists say so.

Epicurus Again

Epicurus has again come up in some atheist blogs. The quote is this:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

This is a series of IF/THEN deductions. Let's take them one at a time.

(a) IF [Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able], Then [He is not omnipotent].

This is valid in form, but not sound; the premise is not viable for a deity, if omnipotence is presupposed as necessary. That requires a discussion of the necessity of omnipotence for a deity, and what omnipotence entails. Further, it is made trivial by (b'), below.

(b) IF [He is able, but not willing]; Then [He is malevolent].

This is not sound, because the consequent does not follow necessarily from the premise. If God has a superior reason for allowing the presence of evil, such as allowing His creations to have free will and agency to deal with evil vs. good, then He is not malevolent; He is the opposite of malevolent. Non Sequitur. The valid and sound statement is this:

(b') IF [He is able, but not willing, in order to provide a greater good], THEN [He is justified in not removing evil, AND He is all good, giving superior gifts]

(c) IF [He is both able and willing], Then [whence cometh evil]

If (b') is the case, then (c) is trivial.

(d) IF [He is neither able nor willing], Then [why call him God]

If (b') is the case, then (d) is trivial.

The Epicurus argument contains the fallacy of the consequent not being the necessary conclusion of the premise. The premise entails other possible conclusions than the one given. So the one given is prejudicial, and not necessary.

The Problem of Evil and Hell, and the Problem of Evil Christians

[NOTE: the following is an article which is roughly a decade old, and which is located on the companion website: atheism-analyzed.net under Atheist Talking Points]

The Problem of Evil and Hell

Premise: “There is evil. A loving and benevolent God would not allow evil things to happen to good people. And such a God could not co-exist with evil. Therefore there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God.”

Is this premise valid? Is the conclusion warranted, rationally and logically?

As we have already determined, in Atheism, morality is a human construct and is therefore relative. The actual moral precept of Atheism is the evolutionary “survival of the fittest” concept, under which anything that benefits my survival is proper behavior. So all other behavior is of no value.

Because "evil" is undefined in the absence of absolute ethical values, then evil cannot exist without ethics existing to define it.

If ethics came from man, then "evil" is a random and capricious concept, not an absolute, real value, and therefore evil doesn't exist in a real sense.

If ethics came from God, then "evil" has to exist as the opposite to, or absence of, positive ethics. And so it would be an absolute.

But we all agree that it is evil to torture babies, for example. So evil can and does have absolute, real existence with universally recognized (therefore absolute) tenets.

The expanded, complete concept is that, “although (this part is a hidden presumption) by definition evil doesn’t exist in an Atheistic realm of relativity, yet (here is the explicit premise) evil exists, therefore God cannot exist”. This is a self-contradiction, a Type 1 paradox. An Atheist presumption of “evil” is illogical.

Therefore the assumption that evil and God cannot co-exist is not only false, evil actually requires that God exist in order that evil be rationally defined ("to exist" in an absolute sense). Whether evil can exist in the presence of God is another, unrelated issue.

Regardless of the succinctness of the logical analysis, some will object that the problem is more complex and requires detailed characteristics of both “evil”, and the characteristics of God.

Here is a more detailed statement of the issue[1]:

“Bad things sometimes happen. Whether they are taken to flow from the operation of the world ("natural evil"), to result from deliberate human cruelty ("moral evil"), or simply to correlate poorly with what seems to be deserved ("non-karmic evil"), such events give rise to basic questions about whether or not life is fair.

“The presence of evil in the world poses a special difficulty for traditional theists, as both Epicurus and Hume pointed out. Since an omniscient god must be aware of evil, an omnipotent god could prevent evil, and a benevolent god would not tolerate evil, it should follow that there is no evil. Yet there is evil, from which atheists conclude that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god. The most common theistic defense against the problem, propounded (in different forms) by both Augustine and Leibniz, is to deny the reality of evil by claiming that apparent cases of evil are merely parts of a larger whole that embodies greater good. More recently, some have questioned whether the traditional notions of omnipotence and omniscience are coherent”.

The problem arises out of the simplistic definitions and logically erroneous conclusions of the definitions of omnipotent, and benevolent. Omniscience is granted.

Most frequently the concepts of omnipotent and omnibenevolent decisions are made from a human viewpoint, drenched in cultural bias, not from the viewpoint of a functional, real deity existing in unknown dimensions.

Omnipotence, Choice, and Entropy
Omnipotence is typically over-played in arguments about God: “Can God create a rock so big that even He can’t lift it?” These nonsense word-plays are usually violations of the First Principles (Non-contradiction paradoxes), and so have no meaning: would God contradict himself? And having no meaning, no truth value can be, or needs to be, assigned to them. They are exercises in triviality.

Some things that an omnipotent being could not do: (a) Subdivide himself; (b) contradict himself; (c) deny his own existence; (d) lie; (e) be deceived; (f) die.

There are things that an omnipotent deity would not do, especially if he were also benevolent: he would not violate the First Principles (very often, or on demand). He would not require repentance; he would not require worship. He would wish for them to occur voluntarily, without coercion.

In other words, he would allow humans to choose.

The fact of “choice” requires once again the presence of entropy. Choice is easy but without value if it only is between good, pleasant alternatives. Choice is of value only if it is between good alternatives and bad alternatives. Entropy is the natural placement into our universe of both stress on humans, and bad alternatives. For example, natural disasters are entropic; they place on us stress, and the need for humans to choose between the alternatives of assisting or ignoring. Entropy is necessary, if choice is to have value. The consequences of natural disasters are not the same to a deity as they would be to us. Pain and suffering are severe to us; how would they appear to an eternal being? And how about death? It might seem permanent, severe, and the end to us. To an eternal being, it might seem as just a move to a different level, or a different set of dimensions.

Benevolence vs. Sentiment
Would the human concept of benevolence play well in the dimensions of a deity? The human concept of benevolence is sometimes confused with sentimentality. A human might wish to prevent all natural disasters. Would a deity? Why would a benevolent deity remove the precious gift of choice, in order to satisfy a sentimental need to eliminate bad things such as natural disasters from the universe? Benevolence and sentimentality should never, ever be confused.

Deformed Children, Suffering and Premature Death in the Dimensions of a Deity
From a human’s perspective, these are terrible things. Again, how would the human concept of “deploring suffering” work in the dimensions of a deity? Would a deformed child be considered defective by a deity, which sees its unbroken spirit, it’s influence on the world around it? Would suffering be deplored by a deity, when suffering is known to strengthen, to be the fire that forges character? And who is to say that any death is premature, in the dimensions of a deity, which would welcome the essence, the spirit back home?

Omnibenevolence vs. Justice
A deity is “omni” everything, right? This is a tacit assumption in the argument, yet there is no basis for assuming that a deity would be “omnibenevolent”. Were it so, it would preclude justice, which would then preclude love. So the concept of omnibenevolence in the argument produces a paradox, and destroys its own credibility. But without the concept of benevolence beyond justice, beyond love, the argument fails.

A God of justice and love would not allow suffering, would not allow people to languish eternally in Hell? Suffering (God’s megaphone, according to C.S. Lewis) gets our attention on the fact of our own non-divinity. It is part of living in an entropic universe. It part of the mechanism that allows for freedom of choice. Personal non-divinity is a universal feature of human existence.

Hell
Premise: I’m a good person. A loving God would not send me to Hell. Therefore there is no God.

Again, the Atheist has no benchmark for declaring himself to be a morally “good” person. Because of the acceptance of evolution as the only natural truth, Atheism’s concept of “good” would be to do what it takes to perpetuate your own genes. So Atheism’s evolutionary “good” would contradict God’s moral “good”, creating a paradox, Type 1. This is logically unavoidable; Atheism has no rational (non-rationalized) claim on moral “good”.

As for Hell, we know how to stay out. If we put ourselves there, it is our own doing. Some Atheists love the comparison between Hell and Hitler’s torture and death camps. But they ignore the differentiating facts: None of Hitler’s victims chose to be there, to be tortured or to be gassed or shot, and by Nietzschean Atheists no less. On the contrary, everyone, including Satan and his angels, that goes to Hell CHOOSES to do so, according to Christian Theology. Chooses to Deny God. Chooses to elevate himself to the point of self-Godhood and separate from the actual God. Hell is a CHOICE! And a loving, just, benevolent God allows that individual to complete his choice of separation.

The concept of “omnibenevolence” is now firmly entrenched in our culture, where many children are totally indulged and as a result are without fear of any consequence for the their actions or inactions. If one is totally indulged, one would expect to continue to be so treated. So omnibenevolence has become an expectation, a right, despite its destructive and paradoxical nature.

In fact, omnibenevolence occurs in our culture due to fear of not being loved. Complete indulgence is an overcompensation, attempting to cause love to occur due to the showering of material items on the object of the benevolence. Total indulgence results in the destruction of the recipient. It is not a virtue. Omnibenevolence is really omniindulgence. It is pagan.

Deification of the Self
To make this claim (that the existence of evil proves there is no God) is to assume the role of deity for oneself, insisting that oneself knows what a deity would and should do (a moral judgment by the human on the deity). This is done as an artifact of declaring that one’s own mind is the actual supremacy. The worldview of the self, and one’s own personal morality is declared superior to the deity’s. So passing judgment on the deity becomes a natural emoting of the self-declared elitist.

The premise expansion would be:
“My mind is supreme, therefore it is qualified to determine what a God would or wouldn’t do, and should or shouldn’t do; thus I have determined that God wouldn’t do (X), shouldn’t allow (Y), and therefore, because (X) and (Y) exist but are not per my expectation, I declare that God does not exist, or if He does, He is evil.”

The hidden presupposition, implicit in the premise, that “My mind is supreme…” has been shown to be a Type 2 (a) Godel Paradox.

Now, if a deity did exist, then I, myself, would be the effect; the deity would be the cause. As an effect, I am less than the cause. Since, by Godel’s theorem, I cannot even fully comprehend my own mind, it is much less possible to know the mind of the deity. To assert that one knows what a deity should do is a Godel’s Paradox Type 2 (b).

And finally, the Naturalist / Materialist Atheist would actually be required to deny that evil exists, since it is neither material, nor an empirical or forensic concept. It is a moral concept, outside the realm of science and materialism. So the Atheist assumption that evil exists is self-contradictory in the environment of the Atheist. In fact, much of what is called evil would actually be the activity called “survival of the fittest”. Since man is just a “meat machine” trying to survive, any behavior is justifiable: there is no evil. So the existence of evil cannot exist for the Atheist, who nonetheless decries it’s existence; a profound paradox, which voids the argument from the beginning .

The premise that God would do “such-and-so” based on my standards for Him, is false.
The premise that evil falsifies the existence of God, is false.
The conclusion based on this premise is false.

“I think this shows that the problem is primarily emotional, not intellectual. People just don't like the idea of a God who might send them to hell, and so they choose not to believe in Him. But that kind of attitude is just suicidal. Imagine you're standing in the middle of the street, and suddenly a friend on the curb says, "Look out! Here comes a car!" Now what do you do? Do you stand there and close your eyes real tight and say, "anybody who would run over me can't be a very nice person! If I don't believe in him, then it won't affect me! I just won't believe that he exists!" And then it is too late. A lot of people look at God that way. They think that just because they don't like the idea of God sending them to hell, if they close their eyes real tight and pretend that He doesn't exist, then it doesn't affect them. And that kind of attitude is just fatal.” [2]

“Whenever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd or evil, it is because we have but a partial knowledge of things, and are in the main ignorant of the order and coherence of nature as a whole, and because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictates of our own reason; although in fact, what our reason pronounces bad is not bad as regards the order and laws of universal nature, but only as regards the laws of our own nature taken separately.” [3]


“Religion, opium for the people! …A true opium for the people is a belief in nothingness after death – the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”[4]

The Problem of Evil Christians

Premise: “Christians are responsible for torture and death throughout history. Therefore, Christianity is evil.”

Is this conclusion warranted, rationally and logically?

The falsification of the concept of “evil” in the Atheist lexicon was shown in the preceding text. Atheists have no rational basis for claiming anything to be “evil”, especially if it is a clear case of acting in the behavior of the ”survival of the fittest”. The crusades, the power struggles of the Roman papacies, the conquistadors, the Inquisition, all were justifiable as Darwinian behavior. This doesn’t slow down the Atheist who has had a problem with Christians. The fact that Christians do accept the moral concept of evil allows the Atheist to strike back, using a concept in which he, the Atheist, doesn’t even believe.

Due to the Atheist worldview, this proposition is logically falsified from the get-go. Within the Atheist’s evolution paradigm, all “evil” is just more survival behavior of the “fittest”, and therefore it must be valid. However, let’s follow some clear, logical thought paths to pursue the claim anyway.

Some Atheists claim to be “sickened” (a term actually used on an Atheist website) by the millions of people tortured and murdered in the name of Jesus Christ. Ignoring the fact that more people were killed in the 20th century alone by Atheists following the precepts of Darwinism, than in the prior 19 centuries by Christians, the fact remains that very many Christians did very bad things. Why? Were they really valid Christians? Or were they deviant, quasi-Christians?

But let’s start here: exactly which slaughter was caused by the essence of Christianity?
And which were caused by perversions of the essence of Christianity? Where exactly did Jesus say “slaughter millions in my name; torture heretics and apostates; murder infidels”? The essence of Christianity is directly opposed to the actions of these types of “adherents”. Shouldn’t the blame be placed on the perpetrators, who went totally against the precepts of Christ? Of course it should. This argument in no way falsifies the existence of God or Jesus, or the validity of the Bible.

It seems easy from our perspective to discern the great evil that the deviant people were doing, not only to the people subject to their horrible treatment, but also to their professed faith. Why did they not discern this?

If they had done the simple act of rational discernment, they would have realized that their behavior in no way mapped onto the teachings of Jesus, and was in fact irrational and diametrically opposed to those teachings. The church was and is inhabited by mere humans in positions of great power, some of whom are non-intuitives, others of whom might be intuitive, but not rational, others of whom, just corrupt, as well as those who accurately reflect the teachings of Christ. The great power that always corrupts came with the human cost levied by the power of the human church in the hands of non-rational, non-intuitives. The conclusion is that these people were at best deviant, quasi-Christians, and at worst manifestations of total evil, in control of the human church, sometimes for prolonged periods of time. They were in full pursuit of Darwinist “survival of the fittest” behavior, which carries no moral value in the Atheist worldview.

But they do not detract from the rational, intuitive Christians that do exist, and can be found if they are sought. To condemn all Christians, or Christianity in general, for the evil of others is a logical fallacy, Guilt by Association. As I have said elsewhere, if I assume the guilt for the massive 2 millennia of “Christian” evil, will the Atheist assume the guilt for the even more massive 20th Century Atheist evil? The question itself is nonsense. The absurdity is obvious. It is irrational and trivial.

The principles of Christianity do not support or condone the behaviors being illustrated by viewing faulty papacies, crusades run amuck, or greedy conquistadors. It is not Christianity that is at fault; it is the deviancy of human beings, especially human beings in positions of great power, that is at fault. That deviancy is found both within and without religious boundaries.

To deny the existence of a deity because of deviancy in humans is logically fallacious. The fallacy is Guilt By Association. The premise is not pertinent to the conclusion, which is false.

Also, the Atheist cannot legitimately claim to be sickened by behavior that would appear to be “survival of the fittest”, and perpetrated in spades by Atheists in modern history. Nor can the Atheist claim any moral value on behavior at all, since there is no morality in the “sciences” that are the Atheist’s complete source of truth.

So the huge paradox here is that the Atheist can make NO legitimate claim of evil, while the Christian can, and does claim that the early Roman church institution did have periods that were, indeed, evil. There is no wind left for Atheist sails on this matter.

These paradoxes falsify the premise and conclusion.

“Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.” [5]

[1] philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#evil

[2] William Lane Craig, from his debate with Ray Bradley. (Emphasis added)

[3] Spinoza; Ethics IV. In “The Story of Philosophy” 2nd Ed, Will Durant

[4] Czeslaw Milosz, Polish Poet, Nobel Prize 1980; “The discreet Charm of Nihilism”, from McGraw, “The Twilight of Atheism”

[5] Marshall McLuhan

Abortion: comments continued as a post

The comment chain with Reynold has grown far too long to fit into a reasonable set of comment boxes, so I will post my reply here. The comments here are continued from the post here regarding abortion.

”In other words, god can do whatever he wants, and it'll always be called "good" by us xians, even though if a human did it, we'd call it evil. Example: having babies and pregnant women killed. Why? Because biblegod has "moral authority".

Oh yeah, and him doing things that he says are "sins" when people do them, such as killing babies is perfectly "internally consistent".”

Killing babies is perfectly consistent with the Atheist penchant for abortion, which is the actual subject of this thread. Your hatred of a fictional deity and your attempt to disqualify that fictional being by asserting your own morals is quixotic. You don’t care one whit about killing babies. You are trying to derail the conversation by placing your personal judgment on what is to you, a fictional being: a Red Herring on the one hand, and an absurdity on the other hand. If there actually is a deity, then your personal judgment on it is even more absurd.

”Yet there's supposed to be a reason why biblegod has those rules, isn't there? Isn't it because in places like Proverbs and such that biblegod actively hates things like lying, etc?

What IS "moral authority" then? Might makes right? A god who doesn't have to obey any rules?

How can you tell if such a being is "good" or "morally perfect" then?”

A being which defines “good” is good according to Atheist logic: that is the Atheist moral position: if the Atheist defines “good” to coincide with his own proclivities for behavior, then the Atheist is tautologically good since his behaviors match his personal requirements.

But Atheists have no moral authority and certainly cannot assign consequences for bad behavior, so they have no say in the morality of the behavior of others, much less the morality of an existing deity, over which they have zero influence or control. For an Atheist to condemn a non-existing, fictional deity is merely literary criticism by a non-literary critic. For an Atheist to condemn an actual existing deity which created them is the ultimate absurdity. Either way, the Atheist has nothing of value to say.

”The acceptance of Theism is voluntary, and adherence is not based on fear or stupidity as you assert.
Bull.

Read your bible. You know, all those verses where jesus threatened hell for unbelievers?

What is that if not fear?”

First off, if there is no deity as the Atheist insists, then there is no possible fear to be had from a fictional hell. Atheists cannot fear that which does not exist.

Second, hell cannot be acknowledged as a threat by anyone who is not already a believer. So hell cannot make a believer by use of threat out of someone who thinks it is a fiction.

Third, a person who is already a believer has nothing to fear from hell.

Atheists who condemn hell as forcing belief onto cowardly idiots have a superficial understanding of theism and have not thought it through: a fictitious hell cannot threaten Atheists; a real hell cannot threaten Theists. Your argument is without any actual meaning.

”It is based on respect and love.
Right...the kind of love a psychotic abusive parent gives to their kid: Love me or I'll beat the hell out of you! He respects people so much that he has to threaten them with eternal torture in order to secure their love.”

You are absolutely blinded to the logical aspects presented above, presumably blinded by your hatred of a fictional creature that you partially believe in.

” 'The documented paucity of actual generosity and empathetic action on the part of Atheists demonstrates that their functioning as adults is quite low on average, and frequently absent.'

Sources? There are atheist and secular charities you know. Not that you, in your characteristic xian self-righteousness will give a damn...”

The actual truth is in the data, not in your hate filled invective. Atheists are empathetic to the tune of $16.67 per month, and are less likely to be motivated to help actual needy people.

” 'So Atheists have no basis for criticizing the generosity of Christians.'

You are not looking at the fact that the bible gives incentives to be "charitiable", or that your god has to tell you people that giving is good. In other words, you are ignoring the motives for xian "charity". The xian is promised rewards in heaven for acting good. The atheist is not.”

You presume to know the motives of non-Atheists; you do not. In your hatred you assign evil to everything Christian; you take every opportunity to call names and assume that anything contrary to your hate-filled belief system is a lie, without actual facts to back it up. The fact is:

Atheists have no basis, factual or otherwise, for criticizing the generosity of Christians. Period.

”Try thinking: Who is more moral? One who gets rewarded for it, or one who is not? While you're at it, at least secular and atheist charities don't have any strings attached.”

Neither do Christian charities, contrary to what you are suggesting. There is no embedded excuse here for the absolute stinginess of Atheists. You have no idea what motivates Christians; you merely hate them. And you have no defense for the non-empathy of Atheists.

” 'Like how xians and the bible treat women and gays when it comes to civil rights?'

'Tu Quoque fallacy...'

I'm pointing out how xians treat those they don't like by denying them civil rights. And NO, it's not "tu quoque" for this simple reason: Secularists are at least working for civil rights for women and gays, while misogyny and gay-bashing is enshrined in your bible.”

If by aborting females you are describing fighting for women’s rights, then you are doing so. And if there actually were a “gay gene”, who do you think would get aborted first? And what about pederasty? And post natal abortion, say up to the age of 35? Or 50? Don't these antithesis/synthesis moves deserve civil rights status? The lack of any moral stance obviates any and all moral statements you (or any Atheist) make.

” 'Under which of these highly variable “moral” systems do you condemn god? What is your source of moral authority to condemn god? Why should anyone take your opinion as the true moral conclusion?'

All of them...all of those codes at least acknowledge the right to life, and human dignity. Your god, when he has babies and pregnant women killed, does not.”

You don’t believe in right to life or in human dignity, you believe in ripping the brains out of embryos for female parental convenience and you believe that you have the right to do that, so making the claim that you do believe in right to life and human dignity is completely absurd and outrageous. You believe that you have the exact right which you want to deny to a deity due to its immorality, a deity which you don’t believe in. Can you really not see the absurdity of that?

”Seriously: Are you daft enough to say that until we come up with ONE unchanging moral code that we have no right to criticize the actions of a mass-murdering (alleged) deity?”

Kindly re-read your comment. You have no moral basis, and no moral authority. You are criticizing a being which is fictional in your mind. You support the mass murder of humans. You likely think that humans are just evolutionary animals. But you weep over a deity which culled its own herd.

Let’s repeat: you have no moral basis. You have no moral authority. Your moral pronouncements are therefore absurd.

And let’s conclude: what you think about it is just your personal opinion, to which you are entitled. You may even rail at the fictional god which you hate. But your opinion and your railing is not accompanied by actual moral principles or moral authority, and therefore has no meaning to anyone except you.

” 'EvoDevo and evolutionary anthropology are based on fabricated Just So Stories with no basis in scientific fact or data.'

Oh really?”

Let’s define EvoDevo, then, with regard to evolutionary anthropology, sociology and psychology:

EvoDevo is the creation of theories regarding the evolution of the psychological, rational, and sociological functions of humans, theories which have no actual empirical basis and cannot be falsified, thereby relegating them to the status of metaphysical conjecture without any possibility of empirical verification in order to achieve the status of actual knowledge under the requirements of Philosophical Materialism.

” 'I am not a creationist;...'

Oh? Then how do you propose that we all got here then? If you reject biological evolution then what is the alternative you believe in? By the way, how could you be an atheist for 40 years and be so ignorant of evolution, or science in general as you've shown yourself to be??”

I do not reject evolution; I reject its use as a Truth statement when actual science produces only contingent factoids which are subject to change. Evolution specifically avoids discussion of abiogenesis because the mere idea of life jumping from atoms to living is so preposterous that biologists and Atheists won’t discuss it. Yet evolving from elemental existence is part of evolution, unless ideology takes it over. Evolution, taken as Atheist cant, is dishonest.

Your charge of ignorance as related to Atheism is humorous, because those who worship science most religiously are those who have never done a shred of science, but who think it has magical qualities and no limitations: Atheists are the most susceptible to this.

Now perhaps you could stop making unsubstantiated charges in the form of cheap and sleazy insults and point out exactly where my ignorance of science comes into play. I'm happy to discuss actual science and the philosophy of science; bring it on.

” '...but I do insist upon actual objective verifiable and falsifiable science, not the swill you apparently believe in without evidence.'

Verfiable and falsifiable evidence? Here do at least a little reading. This might help a bit too.”

You take talkorigins as your source of science? How about you read some actual science and philosophy of science, such as Karl Popper. There is far more to science than empirically unsubstantiated forensic biology, which produces a theory that predicts everything and nothing, and which contributes nothing to the actual disciplined practice of real, disciplined biology.

You do not think that an hypothesis must be verifiable and falsifiable? Give an actual reason why not. And forget evolution as your excuse, use real science, actual science which produces theories which can actually predict outcomes.

” 'After all, look at verse 46 where biblegod is commanding people to love even those who hate one...just how is his killing of babies and pregnant women of those people who allegedly hated him then an example of this "perfect" love?'

'Can you show (prove) that it was not done out of love?'

Uh, how can baby-killing possibly be an act of love? Would you accept any woman's argument for abortion if she claimed that it was done out of "love" for her baby (to prevent a life of poverty and disease or to send it right to heaven perhaps?)”

You appear to admit that abortion is an act of hate, using your analogy above. But none of your argument makes sense. I would not accept any excuse for an abortion short of triage; you are the one who accepts any reason whatsoever under the guise of “women’s rights”.

How do you know the motives of your fictional deity? Why are you not answering the question? How do you know the motives of the deity which you consider to be fictional? How?

” 'Or do you just presume that because to you it resembles human hate, it is therefore nessarily hate in the deity also?'

How in hell could it not?”

Good. So that presupposition is covered. It is Guilt By Association.

” 'What would biblegod have to do before you'd say that it is not "good"? Or would you say that anything your god does is good by definition?'

'Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist?'

What makes you think that he has good motives?”

Part 1:
First, if the biblegod is a fiction, then it makes no difference. Judging a fiction is meaningless.

Second if the biblegod is not a fiction, then the biblegod just IS. If the biblegod just is, then judging it good or bad is absurd. You may certainly adjudge it to be bad according to your non-moral, non-principles, and that has exactly no bearing on what is. If you don’t like what IS, then you are railing against reality, and that is the mark of insanity.

” 'Does non-comprehension of the motives of a deity prove that the deity does not exist?'

What makes you think that he has good motives?”

Part 2:
I didn’t say that; you are avoiding answering the question.

” 'Non-existence is what Atheism asserts, and needs to be proved.'

You've shifted the burden of proof. It's those who assert the positive who have to "prove" their case...otherwise, you'd have to disprove zeus, allah, etc. before you could assert your god.”

You are behind the times here.

When an assertion is rejected, the rejection must be accompanied with reasons for the rejection, otherwise there is absolutely no reason to think that the rejection has any value. Atheism has no actual reasons other than emotional rejectionism, and uses illogic to claim that they need not produce either logic or physical evidence to support their rejection.

Theism claims that there is one supreme deity, not that other deities do not exist. You do not understand either Theism or Burden of Proof and Burden of Rebuttal.

The Atheist determination to avoid giving any reasons for their rejectionism is rejected.

”But: As for evidence of no god:
biblical mistakes, bible archeology problems for a start...”

No, what is needed is actual physical evidence for the claim (non-existence), the same as Atheists require of Theists. Evidence consists of empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed, public data that shows that all possibilities have been investigated and have been positively empirically determined to show that no deity can possibly exist non-physically in a non-physical space.

That is what actual Materialist scientific evidence consists of.

” 'And can you actually demonstrate how this is evidence for the non-existence of a non-physical agent capable of creating a universe?'

All such a thing (showing his moral failure to live up to any kind of a standard of "good") would do is refute one trait of this being. It would just mean that it'd be more unlikely that he existed.

By itself, it would not refute his or her existence. Hence, the links I gave.”

Which trait does it refute, and how is it conclusively refuted other than by your opinion?

And the links do not provide the empirical data for the refutation which is required. Even refuting the bible, were that actually possible empirically, would not refute Theism in the form of a non-physical agent with the ability to create a universe and to interfere and interface with its creation.

It's interesting that you read the claims against but not the refutations of those claims; it's as if you want to know only the charges against and not any facts that refute the charges.

” 'No one here has claimed that literal translations of the Bible are essential, necessary and sufficient to understanding the possibility of a creating agent. So picking at the Bible has no bearing on Atheism or the arguments against it.'

Sorry, but what use is the bible then, if it's god's word as you people claim then why can't it be tested?

If the bible can't be tested, then what can?”

If by "you people" you mean those of us who have done actual science, then here is the answer: Currently existing physical objects are all that are subject to actual empirical experimentation (objective science). Surely your superior scientific knowledge can attest to that. Given that, nothing in the bible fits the requirements for being amenable to scientific investigation.

However, there are some things which can be tested, such as the residual physical evidence from the claims of the miracle at Lourdes. Feel free to use your scientific prowess to produce the data required to refute those claims.

” We care because theists attack others civil liberties, abuse women in the name of religon, declare jihads, divert funding from actual education to faith-based bullshit, religious groups pay no taxes so the burden is shifted more onto the rest of us, taxpayer dollars go to faith-based institutions which are allowed to discriminate in who they hire, etc.

It's the consequences of the believers actions that we all have to deal with.”

Sounds like the Victimology machine is working overtime.

It is quite interesting that you fail to mention the $500,000,000 of taxpayer money that is diverted to the killing of in utero humans purely at the whim of the female parent and without any semblance of oversight or ethical principle. You fail to mention the environmentalist obstruction of food sources for starving peoples, and the environmentalist removal of pesticides which would save third world crops and eliminate much starvation. You are uninterested in actual human travesties in favor of your fear and loathing of tax exemptions for free religions. The Atheist religious devotion to the religions of environmentalism over human concerns and the right to kill humans are of no concern to you. Your degree of empathy is duly noted.

Civil liberties don’t exist under Atheism; we are all just animals, striving for survival first, power second, and nothing more under Atheism. Atheism is by default Consequentialist, and you appear not to have moved on to any other “ethic”. Your concerns are purely directed at gaining the power to install your own opinions into the law of the land. And again, they are only your personal opinions. But you are so sure of your own personal opinion that you want it installed as the “moral” law.

But coming back to the point of this blog, and this post: Your complaints and fears and hatreds have nothing to do with producing actual physical evidence to support your basic claim that there is no non-physical agent. You have no evidence, because no physical evidence is possible for a non-physical being. Because you have neither evidence nor logic to support your rejectionism, your belief system is blind belief, a religious adherence to an emotional rejection which you cannot support rationally.

This places the Atheist lack of moral theory even deeper into emotional irrationality.

Your stated viewpoint of Christianity, which you spell in a purposefully derogatory fashion, is filled with distortions created by obvious hatred. Your complaints are by and large false. The Christian western nations have created more freedoms for women than any Atheist nation ever did, because Atheist nations murdered millions of their own women. The right to murder your fetus is your concept of women’s rights. You purposefully equate jihad with tax laws, and you think that the government should regulate who religions can hire, but presumably not Atheist organizations.

” 'So much for moral consistency then, eh? All we're doing is pointing out how you god fails to even try to live up to his own so-called moral code.'

'You have not shown why such an entity should do so. Consistency is not an argument; it is a complaint, only.'

'To consistency then: if humans can't judge god's actions as evil even when the same actions if done by people ARE evil, (ex. the baby-killing example earlier) then how can you tell if your god is "good" or not by his or her actions? How can you call your god "good" if he is not bound by some code of morality that we can measure? '”

This is a continuing absurdity: if a parent doesn’t allow a child to drive the car, then you think that the parent should not be allowed to drive the car either. Completely absurd. Your demand to measure the “goodness” of a deity which does not exist is absurd. Your demand to measure the “goodness” of a deity which does actually exist is equally absurd.

”So, deities are not people?
Anyway, thanks for acknowledging the double standard.”

Apply the simplest logic test: If deities are tautological with humans, then humans are tautological with deities. This is obviously not the case, or else you would be the furious deity in charge. Obviously, you are not in charge.

” 'Only most children aren't so stupid and arrogant to go around asserting that they have the only real standard of "morality"'

'Not an argument; continued Ad Hom Abusive.'

'It's not meant to be an argument...are you that dense to think that I though it was? It was an observation of the xian "moral" mindset.”'

If your assertions are not meant as arguments, then your comment above was merely an attack on me, calling me stupid and arrogant. Your ability to present your case is juvenile, at best. Your rudeness and anger reveal your emotional state, which is not a rational state. This final statement is a confirmation of that:

”The xian only is moral because god tells them to, which you've confirmed.”

Blatant falsehood, on both counts. You are now lying.

You have also said that since atheists don't have a moral code handed down from on high but instead have to hash one out ourselves as circumstances dictate, that we don't really have any true moral code as is evidence by your little screed here:

'You were asked to reveal your morals, since, if you have any, they are not produced by Atheism. As an Atheist, you have no morals revealed until you do so explicitly. You have not done so. So what are we to assume?'

What I've been saying all along: We have to hash out our own moral code...according to circumstances.

At least it's not based on the arbitrary whim of some "deity" but rather with the person affected in mind.”

So your moral code is arbitrary and relativist (i.e. no code containing actual principles at all), depending upon your opinion of what is best for yourself vs. the other person. Fine. You have established exactly the point being made. With your anger and hatred of me I do not want any of your faux morals applied to me, and I will fight to the death to prevent it. FYI, this hatred of yours is the reason that Christians are well armed; self-protection from those with no principles of morality but the arrogance of their delusion of superiority is essential. The Atheists of the 20th century proved that conclusively. Some of us learn from history.

”Maybe this would help?”

Maybe reading some actual history of the Atheist nations of the 20th century would be a good addition to your reading of only twisted Atheist propaganda. Atheist societies are deadly societies. Denying and / or ignoring the murders of 250,000,000 people by Atheist societies is a rational failure of the coddled and protected Atheists in our western nations.

The Argument From Evil

[Author's note: this post was originally written and posted, January 2, 2009. Now again the Argument From Evil has been termed a robust philosophical argument - which it is not - and an intellectual proof of the necessity of Atheism - again which it is not. For these reasons, I post this analysis again here, and I will develop a sidebar for false arguments of Atheism.]

Several events have come together to induce me to revisit the infamous “argument from the perspective of evil”, an Atheist argument against the existence of a deity. The basics of the argument go like this (or variations of this): evil exists; a deity could stop it but doesn't; therefore the deity is either evil or doesn't exist; most likely the deity doesn't exist. There are lots of offshoots that discuss omnipotence, omniscience, free will and so forth, but the basics remain pretty much the same.

For Christmas I received a book documenting a debate between two scholars on the existence of a deity.

As I sometimes do, I read the frontispiece of a book and then go to the back to see if an index contains items that interest me. In this particular book the Atheist participant claims up front that his 8 year old son was brilliant enough to develop his own argument from evil; at the back of the book he claims that while Materialism might be a shaky position, the argument from evil is solid and irrefutable.

Simultaneously with receiving the book, the argument from the perspective of evil has arisen on other blogs, with the proponents confident that the argument is absolutely insurmountable and is concrete proof that there is no deity.

The argument from evil seems to be even more persuasive to Atheo-materialists than either the flying spaghetti monster/ orbiting teapot argument or the who-made-God argument. The argument has several aspects to be addressed:

1. Atheists are more moral than God.
2. Atheists are more omniscient than God.
3. Omnibenevolence is a lacking characteristic, yet necessary of a God.
4. Earth as a protected playground, a requirement of a God.

Some questions arise quite naturally from this. First, what are the standards for morality that are being used? Next, what evidence is produced that supports the claims? Are the claims coherent using standard logic? Do the claims in fact prove what they purport to prove?

1.Declaring that God is immoral presents an immediate cognitive dissonance. Since Atheists do not accept any morality as absolute, much less binding, they are certainly stretching credibility by declaring that God is immoral, especially by their standards. Most Atheists admit that there are no absolute moral standards common to all Atheists. So there is no standard by which to judge a deity, other than his own standard.

To claim that Atheists – if they were God - would not allow mass murder is absurd, given the history as recent as the last century which was drenched in Atheist bloodbaths. To claim that Atheists would not allow suffering, rape, torture, etc ad nauseum, is equally absurd. Atheists cannot be more moral than anyone, period. They have no common morality from which to make that claim. And their history belies their claim, in spades. Evidence for Atheist morality is contrary to the assertion made or implied by the argument from evil.

But more to the point, a deity in possession of the roots of morality cannot be faulted for whatever he chooses to do, since his morality is his decision. He cannot be immoral by his standards, since he created the standards for humans, not for himself. For the deity, morality is tautological. The claims made by the argument from evil are not logically coherent.

By the way, this is the exact position taken by Atheists, who feel they are moral. They cannot fail to be moral by their standards, since they invent the standards to suit their own convenience: they are moral by their own definition, not by any absolute standard. This argument for Atheist morality fails even amongst other Atheists whose standards differ, person to person; the morality is relative to the individual, and so is not morality at all. It is just behavior being justified with words conjured in its favor. This position is not coherent.

But back to God. If God commands one thing, then countermands that command for specific situations, is that hypocrisy as Atheists charge? The deity in charge of the roots of morality cannot be a hypocrite. It is a definitional pot hole into which the Atheist’s argument disappears.

As for material proof, are natural disasters, diseases, pain and suffering immoral in and of themselves? These are the material manifestations that are found objectionable by the argument from evil. But these material objects and actions are not evil, they just are. They have no motivations, no evil objectives. Even evil people are not evidence of an evil deity unless they are puppets of that deity; and the puppet theory is transparently false.

The lack of standards, evidence, coherence and material proof contradict the presumed validity of the argument from evil. But there is more.

2. By claiming to know more than a deity about what is Right For Mankind, the Atheist is asserting a superior omniscience to that of the deity in question. Need I say more about such a fallacy? OK, I will say this: Philosophical Materialism is the opposite of omniscience. The act of denying a deity does not add either knowledge or wisdom to an individual. It artificially constricts knowledge to material objects and actions, while denying subjective space experiences.

3. The primary rationalized disconnect in the argument from evil is the concept of omnibenevolence. This position maintains that because I don’t like certain aspects of living in the material world, the deity SHOULD NOT have allowed those aspects to exist. In fact the Atheist, if promoted to the position of the deity, would have eliminated all such discomforts from the world. This includes such things as natural disasters, disease, predators, entropy, aging, death and other unpleasantness. Obviously any deity that would allow such nasty obstacles to complete happiness for each human cannot be any good. Any really good deity would grant every wish and remove all unpleasantness from our experiences: no stubbed toes, no scraped knees, no burnt fingers; only pleasantness would occupy our days. So from this the Atheist concludes that no deity exists, since the world does not conform to the Atheist’s standards and specifications for a deity. No omnibenevolence, no deity.

As any parent knows, omnibenevolence is a sure path to creating a totally selfish, self-centered offspring, one that demands ever more since happiness is so elusive when sought in material things. The inability of the recipient to become happy even when awash in material goods results in resentment of the provider, and ultimately in separation and hatred by the recipient who feels denied of real happiness and blames it on the provider. Omnibenevolence is an evil itself. Demanding omnibenevolence from a “good” deity is irrational.

4. Even in the face of the evil of omnibenevolence, Atheists claim that a moral deity would not allow any consequences for bad decisions. This has been called the “perfectly protected playground”, where the deity cushions all falls and no one ever learns how not to fall in the first place.

The argument from evil ties-in perfectly with humanism, which requires happiness as the ultimate good. Not the happiness of the individual, mind you, but the generalized happiness of the bulk of mankind. In fact, individual happiness is to be sacrificed for that of overall mankind. It is this sacrifice, it is claimed paradoxically, that provides happiness to the individual. Humanism has resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of millions of humans, all for the good of mankind. Humanism is one of the worst evils visited upon this planet; it is directly connected to Atheism, and is justified by the argument from evil.

The argument from evil, is itself, evil. It is illogical, and it is false.

A Perspective: Evil and the Consequences of Consequentialism

There is a striking correlation between the underlying logic of the Argument from Evil and the Atheist ethic of Consequentialism.

[As a disclaimer, I realize full well that not all Atheists are consequentialists; some are just co-opting Judeo-Christianity, or have made up their own ethic; a great many Atheists are consequentialists, however].

Consequentialism is very simple: the end justifies the means. If an objective is declared good or moral, then any means to attain that end are also good and moral. The most recent instance of this is found in Obama’s teaching of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”, in which Alinsky lays out 11 rules of ethics and means and ends”. Exerpts:

Rule #3: “in war the end justifies almost any means”.

Rule #10: “you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.

And, “Moral rationalization is required at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”

Consequentialism insists that there actually be no consequences for any actions taken toward a chosen goal.

Contrast that position with the Argument from Evil, where humans would be shielded from the consequences of any bad decisions they might make. Insisting that a moral deity would remove all consequences places humans squarely on the path to mega-happiness. But the consequences exist, so the deity – if one exists – cannot be moral. And therefore can’t exist.

Now contrast those positions to the humanist position. The only moral consequence is human happiness, according to the atheist, the humanist, and the radical. Not individual human happiness, mind you, but bulk happiness for the chosen population. Other individuals are expected to find their happiness in submitting to the will of those in charge: the elites. Any activities that subtract from overall happiness must be dealt with and eliminated. So the elites suffer no consequences for enforcing their will.

The drive to be consequence-free is endemic now in our society. From homosexuals who blame straights for spreading AIDs, to feminists who blame men for their unhappiness, to adolescents who blame their parents, to the bankrupt who blame banks for lending to them, and on and on. But if God won’t remove consequences from our actions, then government must do it, yes? Government must cushion all consequences in order to provide happiness. This resulting ethic is common to a large portion of Atheists, humanists, leftists, and social activists.

It is spreading to our youth who feel entitled, another aspect of being consequence-free.

The denial of consequences is itelf evil. It is purely self-indulgent, and destructive. Arguing otherwise is irrational.

The Argument From Evil

Several events have come together to induce me to revisit the infamous “argument from the perspective of evil”, an Atheist argument against the existence of a deity. The basics of the argument go like this (or variations of this): evil exists; a deity could stop it but doesn't; therefore the deity is either evil or doesn't exist; most likely the deity doesn't exist. There are lots of offshoots that discuss omnipotence, omniscience, free will and so forth, but the basics remain pretty much the same.

For Christmas I received a book documenting a debate between two scholars on the existence of a deity.

As I sometimes do, I read the frontispiece of a book and then go to the back to see if an index contains items that interest me. In this particular book the Atheist participant claims up front that his 8 year old son was brilliant enough to develop his own argument from evil; at the back of the book he claims that while Materialism might be a shaky position, the argument from evil is solid and irrefutable.

Simultaneously with receiving the book, the argument from the perspective of evil has arisen on other blogs, with the proponents confident that the argument is absolutely insurmountable and is concrete proof that there is no deity.

The argument from evil seems to be even more persuasive to Atheo-materialists than either the flying spaghetti monster/ orbiting teapot argument or the who-made-God argument. The argument has several aspects to be addressed:

1. Atheists are more moral than God.
2. Atheists are more omniscient than God.
3. Omnibenevolence is a lacking characteristic, yet necessary of a God.
4. Earth as a protected playground, a requirement of a God.

Some questions arise quite naturally from this. First, what are the standards for morality that are being used? Next, what evidence is produced that supports the claims? Are the claims coherent using standard logic? Do the claims in fact prove what they purport to prove?

1.Declaring that God is immoral presents an immediate cognitive dissonance. Since Atheists do not accept any morality as absolute, much less binding, they are certainly stretching credibility by declaring that God is immoral, especially by their standards. Most Atheists admit that there are no absolute moral standards common to all Atheists. So there is no standard by which to judge a deity, other than his own standard.

To claim that Atheists – if they were God - would not allow mass murder is absurd, given the history as recent as the last century which was drenched in Atheist bloodbaths. To claim that Atheists would not allow suffering, rape, torture, etc ad nauseum, is equally absurd. Atheists cannot be more moral than anyone, period. They have no common morality from which to make that claim. And their history belies their claim, in spades. Evidence for Atheist morality is contrary to the assertion made or implied by the argument from evil.

But more to the point, a deity in possession of the roots of morality cannot be faulted for whatever he chooses to do, since his morality is his decision. He cannot be immoral by his standards, since he created the standards for humans, not for himself. For the deity, morality is tautological. The claims made by the argument from evil are not logically coherent.

By the way, this is the exact position taken by Atheists, who feel they are moral. They cannot fail to be moral by their standards, since they invent the standards to suit their own convenience: they are moral by their own definition, not by any absolute standard. This argument for Atheist morality fails even amongst other Atheists whose standards differ, person to person; the morality is relative to the individual, and so is not morality at all. It is just behavior being justified with words conjured in its favor. This position is not coherent.

But back to God. If God commands one thing, then countermands that command for specific situations, is that hypocrisy as Atheists charge? The deity in charge of the roots of morality cannot be a hypocrite. It is a definitional pot hole into which the Atheist’s argument disappears.

As for material proof, are natural disasters, diseases, pain and suffering immoral in and of themselves? These are the material manifestations that are found objectionable by the argument from evil. But these material objects and actions are not evil, they just are. They have no motivations, no evil objectives. Even evil people are not evidence of an evil deity unless they are puppets of that deity; and the puppet theory is transparently false.

The lack of standards, evidence, coherence and material proof contradict the presumed validity of the argument from evil. But there is more.

2. By claiming to know more than a deity about what is Right For Mankind, the Atheist is asserting a superior omniscience to that of the deity in question. Need I say more about such a fallacy? OK, I will say this: Philosophical Materialism is the opposite of omniscience. The act of denying a deity does not add either knowledge or wisdom to an individual. It artificially constricts knowledge to material objects and actions, while denying subjective space experiences.

3. The primary rationalized disconnect in the argument from evil is the concept of omnibenevolence. This position maintains that because I don’t like certain aspects of living in the material world, the deity SHOULD NOT have allowed those aspects to exist. In fact the Atheist, if promoted to the position of the deity, would have eliminated all such discomforts from the world. This includes such things as natural disasters, disease, predators, entropy, aging, death and other unpleasantness. Obviously any deity that would allow such nasty obstacles to complete happiness for each human cannot be any good. Any really good deity would grant every wish and remove all unpleasantness from our experiences: no stubbed toes, no scraped knees, no burnt fingers; only pleasantness would occupy our days. So from this the Atheist concludes that no deity exists, since the world does not conform to the Atheist’s standards and specifications for a deity. No omnibenevolence, no deity.

As any parent knows, omnibenevolence is a sure path to creating a totally selfish, self-centered offspring, one that demands ever more since happiness is so elusive when sought in material things. The inability of the recipient to become happy even when awash in material goods results in resentment of the provider, and ultimately in separation and hatred by the recipient who feels denied of real happiness and blames it on the provider. Omnibenevolence is an evil itself. Demanding omnibenevolence from a “good” deity is irrational.

4. Even in the face of the evil of omnibenevolence, Atheists claim that a moral deity would not allow any consequences for bad decisions. This has been called the “perfectly protected playground”, where the deity cushions all falls and no one ever learns how not to fall in the first place.

The argument from evil ties-in perfectly with humanism, which requires happiness as the ultimate good. Not the happiness of the individual, mind you, but the generalized happiness of the bulk of mankind. In fact, individual happiness is to be sacrificed for that of overall mankind. It is this sacrifice, it is claimed paradoxically, that provides happiness to the individual. Humanism has resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of millions of humans, all for the good of mankind. Humanism is one of the worst evils visited upon this planet; it is directly connected to Atheism, and is justified by the argument from evil.

The argument from evil, is itself, evil. It is illogical, and it is false.

Abortion Right as a Holy Rite

If Obama is elected he has promised, as his first act, to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which according to National Review Online "would erase every federal and state restriction on abortion, no matter how modest. His top priority, again, is to re-legalize partial birth abortion under all circumstances, abolish all laws on informed consent and parental notification, and eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions." .

Obama's positon is as radical as one can get: he opposed protecting viable infants that survive an abortion. He is the sole senator to speak against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

From National Review Online:

"Here is what Obama said on the Senate floor that day in opposition to the bill [Born Alive Infants Protection Act]:

'There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.'

The absurd conclusion of Obama’s argument is hard to miss. He implies that “pre-viable” babies born prematurely, even without abortions, are somehow less “persons” than are babies who undergo nine months’ gestation before birth. "

Obama is denying that a living, independent (not attached to an umbilical), human being is a person, just because that might interfere with abortions. This should factor into the fight against him, but the Republicans have also slouched into the abortion arena, and if Leiberman is selected to run for Veep, the differences between the two parties will be in degree, not in substance. The two party system is not just flawed, it is potentially lethal to the survival of the nation.

Addendum:
For Obama, the conclusion that abortion is a Right overwhelms the idea that life is a Right. As NRO points out, the conclusion drives all the premises, a classical example of rationalization. If abortion is an inalienable right, then it trumps the infant's right to live. As an inalienable right, abortion becomes holy. And it negates the concept of rights derived from a deity.

Obama is therefore an Atheist, a person for whom ethics is relative only to obtaining the objective. His Christianity is a lie. And Atheists can and should criticise false "Christians" like Obama.

When Atheists Rule

In 2006, a poll taken of religious values indicated that only 37% of Canadians feel that religion is “important” to them. The presumably secular if not Atheist or at least a-theist population has grown to accept intolerance to the point that it is now institutionalized. Hate speech laws have been instituted and are now being implemented in just the manner that has been predicted. Certain groups are now protected from all criticism, and critics are being punished by the state.

In recent enforcement, an evangelical pastor named Stephen Boisson was forced to recant and fined $5,000. His crime: expressing the Biblical perspective of homosexuality. He was forbidden from expressing this view point in the future. And he was forced to apologize to the activist who claimed being “hurt”.

Others are similarly under attack by the Human Rights Tribunals this one in Alberta, but also in Ontario, where, according to the Catholic Exchange,

’Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Protestant printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationary. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Hugh Owens thousands of dollars for quoting a couple of Bible verses in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 plus interest for declining to proclaim a gay pride day.”

“Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding Catholic moral teaching.”

“In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage ceremony.”


Clearly homosexuals are given more moral credibility than pastors, priests, Bishops, Mayors, or anyone else who crosses them. In fact it is legally conceivable now that Catholicism itself is a hate crime in Canada, and punishable by the tribunals.

Now the Canadian tribunals are attempting to bring punishment to an American that commented on a Canadian Catholic blog.

As one respondent said, perhaps the Catholics in Canada will file similar charges of undue hate discrimination.

Perhaps these charges should be filed against all those who express a preference for secularity which is hurtful to Catholics. That would amount to 63% of Canadians, some 20,981,444 offenders, according to Canada’s Population Clock. A wounded minority should receive $10,000 per offense, a tidy sum.

There is no doubt that only certain classes will enjoy such intolerant protection under Canada’s hate laws. Other classes must kiss their religion and their freedom of speech and thought goodbye. And this is the totalitarian result that is completely expected, when thought and opinion and morality are declared criminal activities.

UPDATE: July 4, '08
The charges against the Catholic Church were dropped today. The reasons given seem to avoid the issue of whether there was hate, and centered more upon the internal nature of the publication and the lack of opportunity to discriminate. Charges can be refiled in the regular court system.

The Hate Spectrum

The end of the spectrum of hate is marked by insanity. This investigation of the terrorists of Topeka reveals the psychopathy / sociopathy that grips Fred Phelps and his entire family. Phelps is the "pastor" of a church that consists solely of his terrorized family. Together they spread both fear and hate, and work toward the destruction of anyone who gets in their way, using the same tactics as the ACLU: litigation with the threat of financial destruction of their foes.

Phelps is a wife beater, child beater, a tax fraud, a perjurer, a thief, and a petty bully, whose shrivelled psyche seems to actually believe that he is a prophet. In short, he is massively deranged and is a very dangerous individual.

It is not possible to describe the brutality of this individual in a short post, so if you want to know more about Phelps and his tribe of lawyer-offspring, check out both his website and this expose' website. There are several sites about Phelps that turn up on google. Phelps is the epitome of evil, and he uses the cover of a "church" which contains only his immediate family.

Phelps and his band of hate mongers did not show up in our community for the funeral of our fallen soldier, which was held peacefully on Monday. Apparently Phelps does abide by the obvious laws since many in the legal arena would cherish the opportunity to put Phelps into jail and out of commission. And it turns out that our state now has an anti-Phelps law, which prohibits the picketing of military funerals.

So Phelps had to content himself with condemning our community to Hell and he commended floods and tornados upon us. I doubt that he noticed that the weather contained neither floods nor tornados but did produce a gently weeping rain during the extremely long procession.

No doubt this is the type of Christian that Atheists talk about when they defame religions the source of all evil. Phelps is not Christian in any rational sense of the word. But his kind gives a feeling of legitimacy to the complaints of Atheists looking for excuses to condemn religion. Phelps is evil. He is vicious. He is brutal. He is insane.

The Phelps phenomenon is no excuse for condemning religion in general or Christianity, or Baptists. Phelps is a reason to find a way to deal with insanity at the fringes. The hate that is erupting from both ends of the political spectrum and both ends of the religion / anti-religion spectrum is a product of twisted thinking. It is irrational, and dangerous. It should be isolated by rational people, by speaking out against it.

Hate is Coming to Town Tomorrow.

Hate is coming to our small town tomorrow. It is being drawn here by altruism, at least in my view. Our town lost a very young soldier to an "IED" in Iraq last week. While I didn't know the young man, many folks that I know did know him and know his family. Our entire town will shut down temporarily tomorrow to acknowledge and honor the sacrifice this man and his family have made. Businesses will shut down during the honor guard and military funeral. Our main street will be lined with folks paying homage. It already is lined with American flags at half mast.

Our streets will also receive a pack of heathen dogs who parade as "Christians". These are the followers of a cult leader in Kansas, who come to military funerals to protest, disrupt and bring as much additional misery to the occasion as they can. This is the flip side of the hate directed at Christians. This is hate disguised as Christian. I can think of no lower calling than to harass the bereaved. There is certainly nothing in the Bible remotely resembling this brand of evil.

Fortunately there is also a group who will peacefully confront these cultists. A very large (I hope) group of motorcyclists has organized itself to resist the effects of such hate groups on military funerals. They will be here tomorrow as well, rev'ing their machines as required to drown the protests of the cultists. I will be there too. I'll let you know what happens.