FFRF And the War On Rationality

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has resumed its campaign to destroy Christmas, by invoking what it calls "Reason".

Are these statements possessed of either logic or evidence? If not, then why not? Let's take a look.

First,

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."

This is an astoundingly explicit truth claim, and the FFRF should be willing to let us all know exactly how they obtained this completely definite knowledge of non-existence. Exactly what (nonmaterial) experiments did they run which anyone else could run in order to declare this to be objective knowledge, even if contingent on falsification? And what would they accept as falsification? But it appears to be non-falsifiable, and therefore is merely a declaration of tautology, a preferred definition of a non-provable preference.

In other words, it is just an opinion with no basis in objective fact.

The second sentence,

"There is only our natural world"

...is completely outside of modern science, which addresses only issues which are available for physical testing. Non-physical issues cannot be tested experimentally, and are across Popper's barrier of demarcation: they cannot be falsified experimentally. Given this defect, these issues are also definitely not objective knowledge, they are merely someone's unprovable opinion, with no basis in any sort of fact.

The third sentence,

"Religion is but a myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds"...

...encourages several questions:
Which religion? All religions? The term "religion" is an intellectual generalization sop which is used primarily for denigration in the form of caricature of a false image. Regardless, we have a statement being made as dogma, as unquestionable fact: religion is myth. What case can they make for this dogma? Do they have evidence, for example, that there was no non-material causal agent for the creation of the universe? Of course not. So the first part of this sentence has no intellectual value, being an existential statement without any possible material data. Under the Atheists rule, hitchen's razor: no evidence, then reject without evidence.

The second dogma, that religion “hardens hearts” also requires data. Yet there is significant data that demonstrates that the religious are much quicker to help the needy than are the Atheistic. There is an Atheist trope that the religious are “forced” by their deity to help the needy, but that is Atheists engaging in the literalism which the Atheists vehemently reject, a non-coherence. The fact is that the democratic western society is based on religious tolerance, which was brought about by religious forefathers.

There is another issue here for Atheists, and that is that they are not trusted and cannot generate any trust. That is not due to hardened hearts of the religious, it is a common sense reaction to those who reject objective morality and adopt no common morality for themselves. So no one knows what any particular Atheist holds to be moral, and one suspects that whatever that might be is volatile, being merely self-directed opinion adopted as congenial to the Atheist’s opinion. So, yes, Atheists cannot be trusted due solely to the form of their moral opinion, if any.

The third dogma, claims that religion “enslaves minds”. This is solely due to the concept of evolution, which has enslaved the minds of Atheists. Evolution is legally protected dogma which is forced into the education system as truth, rather than the inferentially derived and experimentally unprovable, non-predictive dogma which is declared rather than proved, despite those intellectual defects, to be the unifying theory of biology. The theory predicts everything and nothing at the same time, and falls completely into the non-falsifiable category (including the pre-Cambrian rabbit trope). All non-congruent evidence is gerrymandered into congruence by changing the theory, and thus the theory is always in flux. Yet it is dogma.

Rejecting evolution as a dogma is seen as anti-intellectual, when in fact it is evolution which rejects all intellectual attacks under the banner of Scientism: evolution WILL prevail because what other theory is there? That, of course, is purely Materialist in nature, and is therefore unprovable blind belief of a religious nature in and of itself.

The fact is that much of science and engineering is done by theists; much of unprovable faux "science" is done by Atheists.

In summary, Atheist claims, including the FFRF claims, are of no intellectual value, being merely unverifiable opinion, without either logical, deductive value or empirical experimental value. There is no rational reason to consider them to be the truth statements as they are presented.

The final question which we may ask is,

"How does this obvious lack of Atheist intellectual integrity reflect on Atheist moral integrity, which is "intellectually" derived?"

This is easily answered by observing Atheist attacks on other Atheists, Atheist mysogyny and arrogant messiahism on the one hand, and the historical devastation of humanity by Atheist regimes in the 20th Century. Modern Atheist attacks on religion cannot be considered to be of a different nature.

As a final observation, which is more destructive to society, this Atheist attack on "religion"? Or the display of the Ten Commandments?

ADDENDUM:
This banner is erected in Chicago, near Picasso's sarcastic sculpture:

There are blatant falsehoods in this banner. First, Atheists still represent roughly a couple of percent of the population, despite their outsized noisemaking. The Atheist claim of the category, "no religion", is a deception because it refers not to Atheists but to theists who do not associate with a specific ecclesiastic organization. That is deception number 1.

The second deception is that they want the government to give equal standing to both religion and Atheism. That is blatantly false. They specifically want a totally 'secular' government; i.e. purely Atheist.

Two lies, blatantly displayed.

But there is more, not shown in this photo. Attending the celebration is a woman with a sign which parrots John Lennon: "imagine no religion", which has to be the most obtuse sentence in all history. One need only think of Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che/Fidel, and one can definitely imagine "no religion', and recoil in horror.