Challenge To Atheists, III

Here is an intellectual challenge which all Atheists, being intellectual elites, will want to take. This will emphasize deductive abilities with empirical premises, the two main claims to fame that Atheists make.

1. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Reason.

2. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Logic.

3. Prove the Validity of Science, using Science.

Reminder, deduction looks like this:

IF [ X = true ], THEN [ Object = Valid ].

The objects above are reason, logic and science, so the premise X must demonstrate an impeccable, irrefutable case (X = true, incorrigibly) in order to prove the unquestionable validity of the objects.

Next,

4. Prove the Validity of Reason, using Logic and Science.

5. Prove the Validity of Logic, using Reason and Science.

6. Prove the Validity of Science, using Reason and Logic.

7. Deduce Reason From Chemistry (using empirical premises).

8. Deduce a Detailed Hierarchy of Values (Morals) From Atoms and Atomic Positions.

9. Deduce Materialism From Materialism.

10. Deduce Materialism From Reason.

11. Deduce Materialism From Logic.

12. Deduce Materialism From Science.

13. Deduce Atheism using Reason.

14. Deduce Atheism using Logic.

15. Deduce Atheism using Science.

Remember, a deduction of 15 would look like this:

IF [ Reason = true ], Then [ Atheism = True ].

But this requires that the premise, [ Reason = true ], must be proved valid, so some sort of valid argument must be made for the premise, the subpremises, the sub-subpremises, etc.

The intellectual, thinking Atheist should enjoy this challenge.

Other Views On Communal Children

John Hayward:

Let's do her [Melissa Harris Perry of MSNBC and Tulane] one more courtesy, and strip away the bubbleheaded liberal idiocy of claiming we don't spend enough on public education. We spend titanic amounts of money on it. The utter and complete failure of the public school teachers' unions is to blame, not insufficient spending. The sooner people like Melissa Harris-Perry admit this, the sooner we can get down to serious, effective educational reforms.

Behind her complaint about money lies a basic assertion that parents and family consider themselves disproportionately important to the educational growth of their children, when it should be seen as a collective responsibility, shouldered by government schools and community organizations. But that is the exact opposite of what public school bureaucrats invariably say when their failures are pointed out to them. They always claim that successful students have exceptionally strong support from involved parents. They take this to the level of implying that engaged parents who encourage good learning habits are tantamount to an unfair advantage. Public schools can't be expected to achieve educational success with kids who don't have that advantage.

If you've studied America's public education failure at all, or if you have kids in public school, you've probably heard this excuse a million times. And behind the excuse-making lies some research that demonstrates involved parents are indeed an asset for the education of their children.

So in addition to everything else offensive and foolish about that MSNBC promo, Melissa Harris-Perry is 100 percent wrong about the basic point she was trying to make. She has it exactly backwards. It takes a family to raise a child, not a village.”

Iowa Hawk:

One of the creepier features of lefty language is the application of possessive pronouns. "My" is for rights (real or imagined), "your" is for responsibilities, "our" is for the stuff in my bank account they want to take. Unless it's the case of "our responsibility" in which case they actually mean "your responsibility." As the old saying goes, "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."

Nowhere is this linguistic claim-jumping more bloodcurdling than when they apply it to actual human beings: "our workers," "our seniors," and especially "our children."
Oh, Melissa Harris-Perry? I have a rule. Unless you're my wife, there ain't no such thing as "our children."

There are many terms that are rendered suspect when Leftists use them. “Women’s healthcare” is one, as is “women’s reproductive Rights”. What those terms really mean to Leftists is killing the human which results from women’s copulation. "Tolerance", "equality" and "progress" also come to mind.

Melissa Harris-Perry makes it clear that she is unapologetic, yet she restates her position using different terms which are outside the usual Leftist collectivist, possession-focused lexicon:

“One thing is for sure: I have no intention of apologizing for saying that our children, all of our children, are part of more than our households, they are part of our communities and deserve to have the care, attention, resources, respect and opportunities of those communities.”

This is not what she said, of course, when she said that children do not belong to their parents:

” So part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

She did not say “belong only to parents”; she did not say “belong only to families”; she did not say “belong to whole communities…as well as parents and families.

She is a teacher, one who either cannot see her linguistic error if it was one, or cannot admit to her ideology if she actually meant what she said when she said what she said. I’m of the opinion that she meant it: parental ownership is bad; even more money thrown at the failed system is good. We don’t get enough money – even though we get tons of it – because there is this idea that kids belong to their parents:

"We’ve never invested as much money in education as we should have, because we’ve always had a private notion of children."

She made it clear:

"Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility."

Yes, your kid is really yours; you can move in order to avoid bad schools; you can evaluate teachers and demand a change; you can home-school. (They don't want you involved in your child's abortion, however).

Or perhaps you live in one of the perpetual ghettos which the government maintains for its voting captives: in that case, of course, your kid likely either belongs to a gang, or is working his way out of that world.

Even if Harris-Perry is given the linguistic benefit of the doubt, she is totally wrong: (a) the results of government education are not correlated with ever increasing cash consumption by the education system; (b) we already know that children are “part of” a larger community: so what? (c) it is not “everybody’s responsibility” outside of voting and taxes; education is up to parents and teachers, and teacher’s constraints and educational ideologies are the reason that the home-schooling movement is growing so rapidly. What Harris-Perry doesn’t mention is ideology in teaching and especially professors; I wonder why Professor Harris-Perry doesn’t address that?

A Guest Discusses "Love Sausage" and Similar Atheist Works

[Editor's note: this is a guest article by Steven Satak. Orignally an email, I am posting it in it's entirety with his permission. Thanks, Steve.]

I visited a webcomic site yesterday. One of the links addressed something I had never seen before, never even knew existed. It's a 'superhero' from a series called "The Boys".

http://www.comicvine.com/love-sausage/4005-60457/

I was intrigued with this just enough to follow the rabbit down the hole, to abuse a metaphor. I'd read 'The Authority' by Warren Ellis and was fascinated/repelled by the frequent use of homosexual characters, pedophiles and violence, all calculated to shock and titillate at the same time.

Well, come to find out it was a fellow named Garth Ennis, outdoing Ellis at the same game - shocking and titillating by going further and further afield. Everyone who is not a homosexual appears to be a violent homophobe or a rapist. It's like they distilled the very worst humanity has to offer and then gave them superpowers, and then wrote stories about how one group of twisted, damaged supers kills (in more and more creative ways) the others.

Ellis and Ennis, along with Alan Moore, are referred to 'the trinity'. They are also described as 'brilliant', a descriptive I have come to associate specifically with the meaning "a man or woman whose (tactfully) acknowledged arrogance is not only envied, but held to be excused by their being smarter than the rest of us". That this corruption will eventually neutralize those smarts is not usually mentioned, but shorthand is shorthand and I can read between the writing on the wall.

Right. So I followed the rabbit and found myself neck-deep in obscenity (a word I seldom use). It's like the author is giving the finger to every good thing in existence, but especially the God he claims does not exist. In the artificial comic book worlds these guys make up, God either does not exist or He is an asshole (no reason why He's that way, just the author's say-so).

I immediately formed a supposition - that these three are Atheists. I went and checked, and what do you know? They are, and quite vocal about it. Proud, even (imagine that!). Also noted for specifically portraying Theists (but mostly Christians) as either stupid or easily gulled. And at least Ennis appears to take a positive delight in humiliating characters that are apparently defined by their churchgoing habits. As though that were the only thing about them that mattered. In a sense it is, as the character is Ennis's whipping boy/girl, showing all us normal readers just how fucked up we really are despite all that God talk.

That this might also describe them appears not to be an option. Because they say so, of course, and because they are smarter than we are, what they say automatically trumps what we say to the contrary.

(an aside: apparently Garth Ennis encountered someone on 4Chan who expressed an interest in his daughter. Very unforgiving of the pedo interest, he was. Threats left and right. Apparently, it's fine for the comics he makes, but the least suggestion that he himself be forced to live under the same 'realistic' conditions is apparently out of court. As it should be. But the juxtaposition is funny. In his books, normal humans are there simply to be killed or abused.)

A light went on over my head. They contradict themselves - without God everything is permitted and it shows in their work. But they ignore the contradictions. How can they do that? They accuse theists of stupidity with no basis, yet they follow a mechanistic explanation of the world without explaining the built-in contradiction.

And I realized - they can do it because they SAY they can. But... but this 'because I said so' stuff is supposedly the sort of thing God says (and they reject), so again, how can anyone take what these atheists say seriously?

It's simple. Because they are smarter/richer/more famous than you. Or me. In other words, because they already have more power than we do. Or they make out they do. In our society they have the gun, so to speak, and they don't hesitate to put it to the head of anyone who disagrees with them.

You're stupid, so I'm automatically correct and we do it my way. Otherwise, you prove you don't value intelligence and only crazy people reject intelligence.

You're poor, so I'm automatically correct and we do it my way. If you were right, you'd be as rich as I am and actually have a say in things.

You're a nobody, so I'm automatically correct and we do it my way. If your opinion had any value, people would know about you and follow your every move. You would be a celebrity like me. They don't, so shut up.

This business of 'it is because I say it is' is funny. It's a closed loop of ego. Makes no sense, but as we are all Fallen, a lot of us secretly hope that one day we can have that kind of power - to defy logic itself and make things so just because we said so. So we too ignore the contradictions. After all, if enough of us agree they don't exist, they will go away. Right? If we can stomp down the pesky people who keep bringing them up - kill the messenger - the message will disappear, right? After all, if the message isn't delivered, it might as well not exist to someone whose entire outlook is about denying objective reality.

What a horrible freedom they have, these writers. I wonder if they realize what they look like from the outside? As viewed by normal people?

I already wish I could forget most of the stuff I have seen. It stinks and scalds of hatred and idiotic defiance. God help them all. I'll be honest, you've got more guts than I do. If I had to go to my blog every day and filter through that nasty hate-filled lunacy, I would be sorely tempted to chuck the whole thing.

Having Seen Tyrants...

...a Cuban blasts the Leftists in Oregon: “You don't know what freedom is!”



From Daylight Disinfectant, a copy of the testimony:

My name is Manuel Martinez. Born in Cuba. American Citizen for more than 40 years. I oppose any manipulation, any regulation or disruption of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

In 1957 a Revolution … individuals … malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime … a dictatorial regime … in my nation. Called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and whatever other named -ism you want to put on it. The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the People. The right of the People to wear guns. That is a God-given Right. It’s not given by anybody. It’s not given by any group. It’s the same thing as freedom, which is a God-given Right. And no one, absolutely no one, has the authority to take it away. To cease to defend the Second Amendment, and my God-given Right of freedom, will cease only with my death.

I’ve been through it. I’ve been there. You people don’t know what freedom is because you never lost it. You haven’t been tortured. You haven’t been [sic] assassinations, you haven’t been mothers begging for the life of their son not to be killed because the only reason is they wanted to be free. And they killed the mothers and they killed the son.

So my way to protest, the way to oppose, because if we keep tangling with the Second Amendment, we are open the same way that Cuba was open for Communism. China, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Venezuela, on and on. A dictatorial regime that will destroy this country, in the same way that it destroyed those ones that I mentioned to you.

Gun Control does not protect anybody. It doesn’t protect the citizens, it doesn’t protect the People. The only reason for gun control is for the Government to be protected from the Citizens. In that way the Government can manipulate the People and subjugate them. That’s what’s happened in Cuba for 52 years … 54.

I came here for freedom. At the time I came here it was different. This country opened their arms for me … I couldn’t get it in Cuba. And they opened their arms for me, I probably wouldn’t get it here today. I hope that I get clear with you, and you understand my point of view. I think that concludes my testimony.

Freedom! Freedom!

From Santini:

"Mr. Martinez escaped the brutal Communist regime in Cuba in 1954. His testimony included how citizens under Castro were first disarmed by legislation similar to that being shepherded along by Gun-Grabber in Chief Floyd Prozanski. Defenseless, many Cuban Citizens were later summarily slaughtered.

Having been present at the testimony, I can assure you even the Liberal hacks in the press pool were visibly shaken. The expressions on the Senators faces … well they spoke for themselves (I’ve included a few stll shots here). I’d wager no one in room did not feel a chill up their spine, or a tear in the corner of their eye, as Martinez described scenes of sons being torn from their mothers arms, and shot dead in the street, because they lacked the means to protect themselves. He spoke from the heart: no notes or teleprompter required."

I would not be shocked to learn that the Oregon Leftists had visited Cuba, and came back with glowing reports. There seems to be a steady stream Cuba bound, even from Congress such as the Black Caucus who were mightily impressed with the socialist system imposed on Cubans. If they were no Potemkined, they at least are "useful idiots" in the Potemkin sense. The Leftists will not be fazed by this testimony: it merely is an annoyance and a minor pot hole in the road to socialist dominance. Even "freedom" is an annoyance to those who pursue Positive Rights for the Other: order trumps freedom in every socialist's mind.

Atheist Vitriol

The Left celebrates the death of Rick Warren's son.

We Own Your Children

Progressives always deny that there is a slippery slope to the next step in their agenda. Sometimes they let things slip, though, like Planned Parenthood admiting that killing a baby is just fine with them. Now, over at MSNBC (which I never watch, NBC is bad enough), they are actually advertising the next level down the slope which they deny exists... or maybe they don't even deny it any more.

Your children are not yours, period; they belong to us. The statement is blatant, without concealment or garnish.

The consequence of course is that if you cherish your children, you need ammo for that gun, and several full size magazines.

ADDENDUM, 4/9/13:

Here is the full text of the video:

"We’ve never invested as much money in education as we should have, because we’ve always had a private notion of children. Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion that these are our children. So part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once we recognize that it’s everybody’s responsibility and just a household’s , then we start making better investments."

First of all, the entire concept is non-sequitur because (a) the notion that not enough money has been invested in education is false, given the cost:benefit ratio of the USA vs other nations, and (b) that the reason is lack of a collective notion of ownership of children.

But leaving that aside, the statement "...break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities." is either disingenuous in its misdirection, or it is blatant in its direction. There is no indication that she does not believe it. It is obvious, at least to me, that the "collective" "community" trumps any concept of private "belonging" in this person's worldview, and apparently that of MSNBC which aired it.