Chronic Inversion in Atheists

Some review:

Question:
What does it take to become a philosopher?

Answer:
a)Either deny God, or become a theologist instead.
b)Deny all prior philosophies.
c)Write a book, preferable extolling paganism in some new dynamic, because that sells books and establishes careers.

Philosophers are compelled - absolutely - by the very nature of their calling to be Atheists, and preferably materialists. So the question of free agency is settled before it is even asked: free agency is an illusion. Not only that but free will is an illusion and consciousness is an illusion.

Now if you are conscious you might inquire why this must be so. It is simple. Atheism and materialism both demand it. If you are still conscious, you might inquire why the conclusion demands the forced congruence of the premises? After all, Atheists claim that their chosen worldview is based on rational thought.

So where is the empirical, repeatable, falsifiable material evidence of the lack of consciousness? Can such a thing be proved if there are no conscious beings about to prove it?

This is the universe of the Atheist, one where logic is inverted; one where rationalization is interpreted as rational. To be specific, if free will, or free agency, or consciousness are admitted to exist, then the desired conclusion, which is Atheism, falters and fails. So premises are denied, despite their obvious validity seen by any rational investigator, in order to preserve the presupposed conclusion. This is classical rationalization, an irrational process.

Inversion comes so naturally to Atheists that they come to believe that the inverted state of logic is actually the true state. Inversion happens at all levels of their thought. It has to, in order for the conclusion to maintained. Inversion is why human life has no value to an Atheist (Singer, Sanger, O'Hair, the encyclopaedists, every totalitarian murderer of the 20th century, the abortionists, the embryonic stem cell traffickers, ad nauseum). Inversion, in fact, is at the bottom of humanism, where the ultimate "good" is the happiness of the human masses, at the expense of the individual.

Inversion caused Nietzsche to declare that without evil, good would be meaningless, therefore, evil is more important (since good depends on it), even better than good because it is stronger and more robust. He maintained his inversion through his anti-rationalism, and became chronically irrational for the last eleven years of his life.

So if you wish to decline to deny your gift of consciousness, or free will, or if you wish to act as an agent in your own behalf and that of others, then you are behaving, well, out of sync with the elitists, who do deny those things.

But what is the truth value of any position taken by an entity that has no agency, no freedom to choose a direction, or words describing that direction and the reason for its selection; why should any truth value be assigned to an entity that is not conscious? Much less by an entity that is not conscious?

Only in the land of inversion could that happen. Consequently, only the previously inverted are likely to agree that they are not conscious, not a free agent, and have no freedom to will a meaningful sentence into being. But they will all agree that evolution is settled science, confirmed by vast amounts of incontrovertable data, and the guiding philosophy for all science and truth, thus making one a fulfilled scientist.

Are they skeptics? They have no faculties for skepticism; they have denied their very humanity. Do they warrant attention? Only because they are dangerous to those who have not yet lost their ablity for rational thought, freedom of intellectual decisions, desire for intellectual integrity, and who still cherish their gift of consciousness.

Perhaps the chronically inverted cannot be reached through simple logic. But maybe those who have not yet committed to inversion can be.