Monday, September 16, 2013

Finally, An Answer to the "Ten Questions" Post: an Atheist Responds

Or: How Not To Answer A Question In Thousands of Words

Over at the aptly named “Freethought” blog, where thoughts are free to roam without any tether whatsoever, Avicenna, who claims to be a doctor, endeavors to answer the questions posed. His response is quite lengthy and wanders considerably as he manufactures his position. While I cannot reproduce his every statement due to length, I can address the essence of his statements. There is, embedded somewhere deep in the middle, this statement:
”There is no way to disprove the existence of anything."
The first statement (sentence) is false. I can prove empirically that Avicenna is not here right now. It’s a material issue, and empiricism suits the problem: the non-existence of some things can be proven, empirically. Avicenna appears saddled with an apparent noncomprehension of the proper place for empiricism, and probably of what empiricism even entails, specifically its limitations (this grows more apparent as he moves along). He continues:
"I cannot categorically say that unicorns do not exist. What I can say is that there is no evidence for the existence of unicorns. There is no evidence for the existence of any gods.”
Contrary to his denial of evidence, there is evidence for the existence of a creating agent; but his categorical denial places Avicenna into the position of denial of existing evidence and disciplined arguments. So he either is ignoring them or is ignorant of them. Either way, he has taken a false position which declares categorically true. And he further Poisons the Well by starting with a False Analogy, that of the unicorn, a favorite dodge of Atheists who are unused to more sophisticated argumentation.

Then he proceeds with this absurdity:
”Because we created untouchable gods by accident."
This is an assertion with zero back-up. This is a Just So Story, and it presages his use of fantasy stories which he presents as fact.
"The same applies to the being we commonly consider as gods [sic]. You can see it in the Bible itself. In the Old Testament Jehovah has serious limitations to his powers. Yet we still consider him omnipotent when he actually regularly demonstrates a power level lower than most Hindu gods in any literature associated with him.”

There is no reason to believe this statement to represent either the deity of the bible or that of most Hindu gods. It is a rash and unsupported statement, and yet it has no actual bearing on the pertinent argument regarding the existence of a creating agent for the universe. Taken thus it seems to be a deviation from the issue into venting personal prejudice.
”The truth is we just made him so in the same way that we made Superman powerful. We kept finding out how the world worked and had to keep removing “God Did It” as an answer.”
The fact that there are rational reasons (not attached in any manner to Superman) which support the initial mover and many other rational necessities has not crossed the threshold of this person’s intellect. He is fond of the common accusation of the God of the Gaps, and he uses that as a support for his Scientistic religious affection. The idea of accusing the that the use of God as a hole-filler is merely sub-freshman level of intellectual thrashing for excuses for denying validity of actual existing arguments and propositions without addressing the issues straight on. Avicenna is right about one thing above: he can’t disprove anything with this type of surface level thought.

The mental morass deepens:
”2. Can you prove deductively that there is no creating agent for the universe? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim

“I honestly do not know.”

Had he stopped here, he would have been correct within the boundaries of his Scientistic agnosticism. No, he can’t prove it deductively, and he thus holds a view which he cannot substantiate either empirically or deductively. Yet he forges on into evidence of his ignorance of both the philosophy and the science which surround the issue:
” What I do know is that to date there has been no evidence for any creative agent that’s a being. We honestly do not know.”
False. There is evidence which can be applied deductively to a conclusion which is eminently rational. His claim that it does not exist demonstrates that he indulges his ignorance, rather than seeks evidence.
”There are mathematical theories and hypothesis which support a creation of the Universe without the requirement of “magic”…
This is merely bluster; he gives no reference because there is none to give. There are no credible scientific theories for the creation of the universe out of nothing whatsoever. They all start with something, such as a pre-existing quantum foam, quantum field, or some other material crutch which does not match the known cosmological fact that material existence – mass/energy and space/time - did not exist prior to the big Bang. And the Big Bang was necessary for the creation of entropy and the arrow of time.
”… and let’s face [sic] a “god” works through entirely unknown, mystical and unknown [sic] principles that void all natural and scientific understanding and this is basically magic.”
No. This is false. It is rationally necessary, not magic as is falsely imputed. The existence of a creating agent is necessarily outside the physical universe in space/time as well as mass/energy; and regardless of what the agent consists, the agent is not material since material existence hadn’t come about yet, and it is thus necessary, not magic. The concept is totally compatible with both known science and disciplined deductive logic.

The use of the term “magic” is a pejorative buzzword amongst Atheists, a term used unwisely to say the least. Since they have no explanation for the cause which existed before space/time and mass/energy, any explanation which they come up with, if they could, would also be “magical” by their definition, no matter how true it might be. It is just not possible that the creation of mass/energy was performed by an entity which was composed of mass/energy. QED.
”This kind of thinking is the death of progress.”
We shall see later on just what this person thinks “progress” is. For the moment, though, the statement is a standout absurdity, since it is based on a rejection without cause other than denigration, yet which is deemed logical in the Atheist mental space.

Let’s examine this a little further. No evidence? The existence of evidence is overwhelming. It’s merely that this question must be first asked, rather than brushed away as if it does not exist:
” Why is there something rather than the Null Hypothesis: Nothing?”
That there is something, that it is material but was created from non-material existence, that it was converted into a material existence by some non-material agent with the ability to create a rule-based universe, that is evidence to be considered. But that evidence is not evidence for those who wish it not to be.

It is a declaration of either purposeful ignorance or outright contempt for fact to deny such obvious evidence. And even considering this evidence, for Atheists there is every reason (no matter how unsupportable either logically or empirically) to deny any agency involved. They must protect their presumptive personal eliteness.

So the Atheist invokes the fancy that “magic” has been invoked (a direct accusation of “stupidity” of the non-Atheist). He invokes “mysticism” as if he, himself is not mystically attached to science as the source of wisdom, or to the fruits of his own personal mind as the source of all truth, despite the well-known limitations of science to being the source of only reversible factoids, and the mind susceptible to untethered mental masturbations (as claimed by other Atheists).

Avicenna continues:
”The correct answer to what caused the Big Bang is “I Do Not Know”.”
False. The correct answer is to deduce the likelihood that a material, rule-based universe popped into existence from nothing whatsoever of a material nature, with no reason or cause for having done so, and if there actually were a cause for its sudden existence, to deduce the likelihood that the cause was without any capability of creating material existence with rational rules which can be understood and manipulated by intelligent components that arose within that creation.

When that intellectual process is completed, only then do we have something of value to discuss. Yet Atheists cannot and will not produce any such disciplined deductions.
” If you think your god is an acceptable answer then you must accept every creator god as equally probable and to worship one out of the myriad is just intellectual dishonesty. Why stop at one god after all?”
This is inherently derivative from having read other’s positions without understanding them, yet accepting them at face value. There is no deduction to support this fallacy. If the universe were created by an agent, show why more than one agent is necessary. It is absolutely not necessary. One effect requires only one cause.

That said, it is also false to claim that Judeo-Christianity believes in just one God. This was clarified when the biblical deity said “take no other gods before me”.

And now to the biggest indicator of overall ignorance, either real or feigned:
” And I repeat. The people making the extraordinary claim are the ones who must provide evidence. There is no empirical evidence for any of the gods we have believed in. “
Let’s go slowly:

First, making the claim that a theory is false specifically requires making the case for its falseness. Otherwise it is merely another unsubstantiated assertion. Making the claim that a deduction is false requires a detailed, disciplined analysis making the case for its falseness. Those responsibilities are the intellectual responsibility of the Atheist. Clearly Atheists rankle at this responsibility, and make the false claim that they need give no reason for claiming falseness. But that merely generates a claim without any reasoning, a bit of unreasoned rejectionism.

Second, one must show that the universe itself is NOT evidence of an extra-material agent, as it is easily deduced to be. If the Atheist claims this deduction to be false, he must show the exact point of the argument that fails, and why it fails, what logical principles it has failed, supported with contrary deductive procedures, proper deductive format, and grounded premises. Otherwise the Atheist has made an empty assertion in the form of empty denialism.

Third, the Atheist must empirically disprove the actual material claims of evidence for extra-material singularities which are demonstrable and purposeful (e.g. empirically disprove the claims of the singularity which created Lourdes, for example – more on this below).

Fourth, the claim of having no responsibility for taking a position (denying the legitimacy of a theist claim is a position being taken) is rationally false: no evidence for a position means that there is no position; it is merely denialism without rational input. Thus Atheism is a claim against theism, which claim bears no evidence and no argument of support for its own validity; it is merely a void of abject denial. It is empty of meaning, a rational void.

There is sufficient evidence for a non-material agent to be discussed and challenged, evidence which Atheists find that they must deny without any corresponding evidence or deduction to the contrary. So they deny that it even exists, rather than confront it head on. That is intellectual dishonesty.

And now the Faith of Scientism is invoked:
”And so we put our faith in science rather than the stories of ancient shepherds who’s box of existence was tiny. And one day our ancestors may laugh at our own thoughts on how large the box really is. But I am pretty sure they won’t be doing so because they discovered Brahma or Yahweh or any other creator god.”
Science cannot even prove that science itself is a valid pursuit. That’s precisely how materially and logically limited empirical science is. Under Godel’s Theorem’s it can never, ever, prove anything conclusively without validation from a higher order of knowledge. This presumes, mathematically, that there might be a higher order of knowledge than science. Further, science provides no knowledge regarding that which “ought” to be the case. Science provides knowledge only of that which actually currently “is” the case, and then merely provisionally, depending on both possible experimental falsification and future technological developments that might negate the findings. Science provides only contingent factoids regarding material issues, and those are subject to change. Thus science never, ever produces truth or anything resembling something which is always incontrovertibly true, such as does the Pythagorean theorem, or the basic mathematics of 2+2. Tautological truth and first principles, as well as logic and mathematics precede and are necessary for science to exist.

This is not to say that empiricism is false or not useful; it obviously is. But it produce is only material in nature, and contingent at best. It is not a source of moral truth and it has no investigative power for non-physical existence (including other dimensions of String Theory and existence prior to the eruption of materiality into being).

The Faith in Science is Scientism; it is a religious and irrational belief in the capability of science to answer all questions that will ever confront mankind. It is a false belief system.

Next, Avicenna produces the morals which were asked for. And he provides just the response expected: he picks what he, himself, determines as “good”, as if that were actually morality expectations for mankind. It is not, of course, it is merely self-derived listing of behaviors which he considers to be personally congenial behaviors for others, a list which he calls “the rules of the playground”. He denies that these are “might makes right” but are rather his idea of fairness evolving necessarily. Never have I observed a tendency toward “fairness” on an un-moderated playground. Playgrounds require supervision from a higher level, with force when necessary, because the playground does not evolve decency and fairness without guidance from that hierarchy of supervision. Without supervision, a Lord of the Flies situation is what evolves.

And he claims credit for the idea that murder is bad, giving his discovery of that, seemingly unconscious that it has been a moral tenet for eons before he discovered it. He repeats the common posit that “murder is bad” due to the meme of "social evolution", a presumptive process which mysteriously provides both genteel culture and violence on a global scale. Is there nothing that evolution cannot do? In fact, no, there is not: its predictive power is non-existent, because every eventuality is covered by this mystical power, just as every existence is retrofit by the claim, even though no specific empirically valid mechanism is provided to produce the details. If there is a magical theory, evolution is it.

The Atheist Moral Force is described next:
”4. What makes your moral principles “moral”, rather than personal guidelines? Perhaps you will want to define “moral” from the Atheist viewpoint.”
“Because they genuinely improve the lot of others. Why do you not murder? Because a god told you not to or because you know that stopping the life of another person means the termination of that person’s entire existence. Do you know how unique one person is?”

The knowability of the “uniqueness of a person” certainly has not stopped the murders in the inner cities of the USA (nor does it stop the cold-blooded mass killing of preborn “uniques” either). For many of the culturally “unruly” (without rules), there is no reason or reasoning which attaches to the lives of others, lives which have no meaning, these people being default Atheists. And default Atheists of the inner cities show neither mercy nor remorse. Yet, this particular Atheist proceeds to take the position that “knowing the uniqueness of one person” should be enough – no rules required – to stop murders.

The simple example of applying that concept to the killing of pre-born humans shows that it is not a consistent principle; it applies only where the Atheist wants it to apply, and no further. So it is false because it is not universal, and not just because it is obvious that society needs consistent rules, but also because Atheists don’t even believe it.

As for decrying murder, it is one thing for an Atheist to adopt the principles of religion and claim to have thought them up himself; it is another thing to expect any other Atheist to acquire those same principles while personally embedded in the Void of Atheist rejection of common principles. It is common to leave the Atheist Void having rejected ALL common principles, both moral and intellectual, while in the Void and to exit the Void having no principles whatsoever which are in common with any other Atheist, much less others. It is even common for Atheists to demand that this non-commonality be recognized: Atheism provides no principles whatsoever regarding human behavior, and Atheists are “free” to believe whatever they want. (Hence, "Free Thought). Atheists who claim otherwise are making an unsubstantiable claim.

So no matter what this particular Atheist decides that his particular principles might be, they are not due to his Atheism, they are due to his particular proclivities, some of which he likely purloined from an already ethical society based on Judeo-Christianity. It is apparently easy to be against murder, until one gets to the killing of pre-born humans. Then the principle seems to change, to invert such that it becomes a necessary and proper killing for “humanitarian” reasons. When principles are malleable, they are easily inverted. That makes Atheists and Atheism both dangerous and not trusted. Their principles are easily inverted and subverted depending upon what they want, when they want it.

The organized Atheists of the Twentieth Century demonstrated the validity of Nietzsche’s postulate that the only trait common to Atheists after the killing of the God idea is the Will To Power. That was confirmed in the 20th century in the Atheist societies which infested that era. That obviates any claim to honesty or empathy as Atheist traits, both of which are demonstrably not associated with Atheism, despite their empassioned claims to the contrary.
”To blindly obey a rule without knowing this? Then to me you are a parasite. Blindly feeding off the moral code without any understanding of it or rationale. Obeying it because you cannot think for yourself. You don’t realise that life is not just a beating heart and a functional brain but everything experienced. From jealous, rage and sorrow to selflessness, calm and joy. From Hate To Love. Every single experience you feel right now is important because it defines you. And we mostly have difficulty understanding each other because we rarely value this experience.”
What has he just said here? It’s a mish-mash of emotion-laden ramblings-on. He seems to think that those who are convicted of the existence of a prior agent for the creation of the universe are incapable of knowing the range of emotions he lists, and thus are incapable of using those emotions as a moral compass, as does he. This is highly elitist. And he claims that the only reason for having a moral code is blind obedience without having any other knowledge: he is a true bigot, who seemingly has no comprehension of actual morality, its source or its function in society.

Finally, he wastes several sentences on emotional clap trap which has no real relationship to the need for a common moral code of behavior: “we rarely value this experience”? Really? Is that true? Your proof is… well, he doesn’t say.

This rant is without any particular target or source other than the imaginings of the Atheist himself. All societies have codes of behaviors; how does obeying them make the citizen a parasite? Why does he think that all of the Other is group of mindless parasites, unless he is an elitist bigot?

Invoking raging, rampant love for the concept of “humanity” is not a solution, either. The human condition is one of selfishness at the base, love at the rise, and self-preservation in between. The pompousness of the Atheist statement above is merely self-centered and self-serving. Further, I know that it does not apply to pre-born humans, because I have read ahead. Pre-born humans need not be allowed to grow up, because, well, the Atheist says so: he declares that they have no value. Personally, if I declare that he has no value, can I abort his life in good conscience? That I can follows directly from his rationalization.

The following statement attempts to generate legitimacy and the moral authority for the claims being made:
”I have lost things you will never value. I have seen things you will not believe. And I have gained things that you will never understand, because you have not lived those experiences for yourself. I have seen the worst of mankind. I have seen women burned alive, children murdered. I have seen dismembered bodies and people who just couldn’t live another day and I steeled my heart knowing all this. I have dug graves.

I have also seen the best of mankind. I have seen fathers and mothers sacrifice themselves for the love of their children. I have seen strangers help those who are invisible to the rest of the world. I have seen the beauty of humanity and the ugly and I wish to make the world beautiful.”

First, he has no way of knowing what I have or have not seen or experienced (especially given that I am far older than he is and have lived through more), nor has he any idea of what I value. He is using pure presumptive emotion. He is right about the “you will not believe” part, because I do not believe this Appeal to Base Emotion. The fact that this is used as reasoning for his presumption of moral authority is particularly disturbing. If everyone presumed to dictate morality based on their own version of this sort of emotionalism, consider the chaos which would result.

At his age (27) he claims all this “life experience” and to be a doctor as well, plus to have a practice wherein he has seen miracle cures and performed abortions. Not only is this becoming dubious, it is unnecessary for the argument which he needs to make: why is he the ultimate authority on morality? His claim is that he is the moral authority because he is him. And that is particularly disturbing as well.

That in no way, manner or form is a characteristic of Atheism, it is a claim of personal exaltation through self-perception of the exceptional value of his personal experience, a claim which has no basis in rejecting a creating agent for the universe, nor for declaring his moral proclivities to be universally valid moral principles. His position of moral elitism is self-endowed due to his self-perception of massive exceptionalism, which he extolls with passion. He actually has no way of knowing whether he is truly THE exceptional one who alone can determine the morals for all others. But he just seems to know that, somehow.
”That’s why I am a doctor. Because the only thing I can do as a human is give the gift of time.”
I just don’t believe that this person is a doctor; the arguments are too superficial. For example, this very next statement:
”The path of good or the path of least evil. That is the best we can do in life.”
And exactly what is his perception of what is good, and what is evil? Who defines them? Nietzsche rejected their very existence; many Atheists choose to define those terms themselves, toward their own ends, be they Consequentialist or Virtue Ethics or Pragmatist, etc. Not to know that this is an issue in the problem of good and evil indicates a severe intellectual innocence, to say the least.

Yet finally, a credible statement:
”5. What is the source of your morals?”
“Experience, Responsibility and a hint oftoo many Comic Books in my case.”

But then right back into the mental morass:
”6. What makes that source a “moral authority”, with unquestionable, indubitable ability to determine what is morally Good and what is morally Evil in a purely materialist context, where evolution has caused our existence? “

”Because it’s morality gained through living. Through immersing yourself in humanity. It’s not a code that comes from above but from within. It’s understanding of how the world works and why things happen. To the Christian theft is a crime, to me it’s a problem with other causes. Why? Because very few people steal for the sake of theft. They steal because they are poor or because they want something or because of greed. Those are “reasons” for theft. Not wickedness. We cannot stop all the reasons but those we can stop we can.”

In other words, he knows that he really, really IS the moral authority, with no doubt of his own supremacy, morally, because he has some theories about things like theft. He is his own moral determinant, and that for us as well. It is specific to himself. His moral knowledge cannot be a generalized moral knowledge to be gained by everyone “through living”, or everyone would have the same moral principles as he does. That clearly is not the case. He is referring to himself, to his exceptional “living experiences” and his exceptional moral authority derived therefrom. His personal elitism in this regard is the source of his bigotry.

Then he goes into the standard rant about the evil god of the bible: evil by Avicella’s superior standards, of course. And by misapplication of semi-knowledge of the bible, as if that demonstrates that there is no agent responsible for the material effect which is the universe. Attacking the bible is without any merit in discussing the basics of Atheism, and the Atheist elitist morality. It does, however, decorate the actual ignorance of the bible’s overall narrative regarding the Judeo-Christian deity.

He goes through some fabricated analogies to come to this conclusion:
”There is an evolutionary benefit to being moral.”
This is a blatant manufactured Just So Story, for which he has NO EVIDENCE other than his imagination. Real evolution includes “red in tooth and claw”, and that is still the rule in much of the world today. The western world became civilized under the Greeks and Romans, neither of which cultures were Atheist, and both of which paved the way for Judeo-Christianity, the common moral culture of the modern western world. As always, evolution is retro-fit into the Atheist fabric whether there is a reason for it or not.
”Every Single Achievement today has been due to the sweat, blood, tears and brains of humanity. Through skill, courage, intelligence we have wrought the modern world.

Not the gods you chose to pray to. I may be untrustworthy but I am untrustworthy but at least I exist and can actually do something.”

He seems to believe that the modern world is a moral improvement over prior worlds. He cannot demonstrate that with any empirical data; the largest slaughters ever, EVER, were the Atheist Slaughters which occurred within the last 100 years: right in the middle of the “modern era”, in some of the largest countries of the world.

But his admission of being “untrustworthy, but that he exists and can actually do something” is very revealing. He has launched into what seems to be mere gibberish.

”9. Can you prove, empirically, that the incident which is referred to as the Miracle at Lourdes was purely a physical phenomenon? If the answer is yes, then you must show your work if it is to be considered anything more than just a claim.”

“Not a miracle. If we are capable of accepting negative unlikely things as bad luck, then we should be more skeptical about miracles.”

Avicenna totally ignores the issue of theoriginal Miracle at Lourdes, which involves the visions and the eruption of a spring from the rock cliff upon the command of a non-material entity. No Atheist to date has made a successful attempt to assail those non-material events which had material repercussions. Science is impotent in some of the most important arenas of human knowledge.

Then he thinks that he “explains away” a miracle by claiming “floaters in the eyes”, demonstrating a blatant lack of actual empirical falsification much less actual material counter evidence, and instead produces yet another Just So Story which is foisted off as if it were actually some sort of knowable fact about an event which for which he was not present, has no data, did not witness, and cannot possibly have any relevant knowledge.
”For purely selfish reasons. In every society where unchecked capitalism has occurred, eventually poor people get sick of it and start lining up rich bastards and killing them.”
Absolute Bullshit. Society is at far more at risk from Atheistic regimes than from capitalism. In the last 100 years, some 250,000,000 humans were murdered by Atheist regimes (not counting pre-born innocents). Atheists cannot be considered honest until they take this seriously. Actually, Atheists just cannot be considered honest until they prove that they are: they have no common moral code, so there is no way to know what any given Atheist subscribes to as being “moral”, if anything.

The USA is being relieved of its honest capitalism by the advent of corrupt, amoral, Leftist cronyism –the competition-dead capitalism of the huge monoliths which are enabled by corrupt Leftist government collusion, and government conducted for the benefit of oligarchic plutocracy, enabled by cash flow from the monoliths in exchange for favorable legislation. That is not honest capitalism, it has morphed into totalitarianism of the few. Honest capitalism is still alive in the lesser arenas, where Leftist government has not yet corrupted it. Further, in a quarter of a millennia, no one in the USA has lined up the rich and killed them. Americans have, however, taken their freedom back from British despotism.

This particular opinion joyfully regarding killing “rich bastards” reveals the uber-leftist, murderous undercurrent of hate, just below the shallow pretense of being such a loving humanist. All Humanism suffers from the same violent and totalitarian undercurrent. If the killing of innocent pre-born humans is not enough indication, the “killing rich bastards” should provide sufficient evidence of the bloodlust of the Left as indicated in this individual.

But now it is back to images of supreme empathy:
”But I don’t want things while people are poor and at their cost. I would rather give my fair share to society and make sure that those people have a chance that I got too. That is why I am economically left wingish.”
This is the exact sentiment of Social Justice, which is the enforced leveling of outcomes. Being economically Left wing does not entail voluntarily giving your stuff to the poor. He intimates that he levels his outcome as a sacred gesture of empathy, regardless of its actual impact. That is fine. But it is totalitarian to force the reduction of the outcomes of productive people to the level of the perpetually impoverished merely because some Atheist declares that to be “fair”. That is totalitarian, based on false signals of fake empathy.

Finally, he gives in to his actual moral processing:
” Socially though? Well it’s simple. The right wing are bloody mad. The American Right Wing live in a fantasy world and what they wish is detrimental to society as a whole.”
Actually the USA did quite well, socially and economically, when the country was ALL of the same mind, which philosophy the Right Wing now has: liberty and personal responsibility first. But his issues actually are of the amoral type:
”If they had their way they would insert Jesus into children in science class in a nation where science education is already sub par.”
Actually all education which is conducted by the US government is below par; that has no bearing on the fact that Jesus is totally banned from government classrooms altogether, just as the Atheists wish. It has to do with Leftist indoctrinational processes which massively fail to educate, regardless of the largesse fed to the teacher’s unions. It has been shown time and again that both charter schools and home schooling far outproduce the Leftist schooling provided by the government.
” If they had their way and they have, women would seek abortions from coathangers and have less access to basic obstetric care than my patients.”
Ah, the pitiful laments of the poor abortionist. The coathanger ruse is a fallacy when compared to the millions of killings which have been done vs. the number of coathanger abortions which used to be done, which were very few. And like it or not, killing humans is killing humans. It adds daily to the Atheist death toll.

The coathanger ruse is similar to the condom ruse: they’re gonna have sex, so we must give them condoms, which fail, so we must kill their preborn progeny.

That logic, when applied to the inner city murders would produce this: they’re gonna kill each other anyway, so let’s give them ammo for their guns and caskets for their victims.

Personal responsibility never seems to come into the equation. As other Atheists have pointed out, “that’s just too hard for some people, so it must not be made an expectation”.
”If they had their way we would be discriminating against anyone who didn’t follow a judeo-christian axis of faith”
As opposed to NOT discriminating against anything deemed OK by the Atheist Left? Such as killing whomever is deemed not possessed of enough “humanity”? To NOT discriminate against moral evil, is morally evil. Atheists just want to create an all-personally-compatible version of what constitutes “evil”, so as not to be inconvenienced by any absolutes which might get in their way. And apparently they are elite enough to do just that.
”If they had their way we would not be treating the GLBT as we aspire to”
Now that is true. today in California transsexuals and those claiming transsexual feelings can use the restrooms of either sex, with men in the girls restrooms, etc. Further they are protected by thought crime laws which provide extra punishment. Absurdity is lost on the Left.
”And through this all is discrimination which allows the rich to get richer and the poor to stay poor and stupid.”
One thing we should get straight. The progress and power of the USA has been driven by the Right, not the Left. Democrats have always opposed free and competent blacks, and do to this day, keeping them dependent upon Democrat largesse on the Democrat plantations. Democrats think killing their progeny is a fundamental right, as does this “doctor” (do no harm? Nah. Just kill it, it’s in the way). Democrats and Leftists such as this person demonstrate their hatred for absolutes and their affinity for falseness in their pursuit of personal eliteness. He actually claims that it is discrimination against LGBT’s and an affinity for a single code of ethics which “allows the rich to get richer and the poor to stay poor and stupid.”

Stupid? The poor are stupid? Because: judeo-christian axis of faith? And the rich get richer due to discrimination against LGBT’s? That is incredibly inane not to mention blatantly false. It’s just some emotional baggage that this irrational “doctor” needed to let out.

Still. The bigotry is stifling by this point.
” Watching poor Americans vote Republican because their Church tells them to is like watching Cows voting for McDonalds.”
Really?? This consuming bigotry from the roses and sweet smell of Atheism? Of course. He has just allowed himself to write long enough that he couldn’t hold it in any longer. So he relieves himself in a spew of irrational nonsensical bigotry. There is not the tiniest grain of truth in that rant.

Undeterred, he continues, this time in defense of his killing of pre-born humans:
” You may say “But Avi! How can you value human life but still be in favour of abortion”. Because quality of life is important too. You are alive in a cellular sense but not in a sentient sense. At that stage of life you are human by DNAbut not by humanity. It is no different from turning off a life support machine and you may think that merely breathing is important but brain function is what determines life. The rest is just “life support”.”
He now is perfectly self-enabled to make the life… no, make that the death decision to kill someone – anyone - based on his personal rationalization of what constitutes “humanity”. His eliteness due to his “experience” has rendered him the unique moral authority to deny “humanity” to certain humans existing in a normal stage of human development. In the USA, well over 50,000,000 humans will not grow up because they were killed due to such rationalization, all in the name of “quality of life” and for the convenience of someone who is not killed. Killing is killing; rationalizing it makes it irrational killing. Pompous moralizing and rationalization does not keep it from being murder.
”11. At what age did you become an Atheist? What is your current age?
Aged 16 when I decided I didn’t really believe in Hinduism. I am now 27. 11 years of no gods.
And there you have it folks.”

This is picture perfect. An adolescent choice based on no evidence but claiming moral authority based on personally fabricated (and violent) “ethics” justified by the experience of all of 11 years.

At this juncture I am reminded that the human frontal lobe does not mature until well into the twenties, and sometimes to the age of 27 and beyond. And that juvenile attitudes taken in an addictive fashion stunt maturity, retaining the emotional age of the juvenile until the addiction is removed; only then does maturation begin. Atheism and elitism are addictive ideologies which produce antirational rationalization to support their internal emotional needs. In no manner are they derived rationally from disciplined deductive arguments.

This paper is a wonderful demonstration of the self-deceptive attempts of the Atheist to appear moral, intellectual, responsible and elite, when in fact he is full of deceit, contempt, and hatred, with those things driving his intellectually unsupported ideology. Further it shows the extremely common link between Atheism and the political Left, and the basis for that in the Atheist notion that his own mind is the highest authority in the universe, the most intelligent, the most moral, and deserving of the most respect. This leads to the elitism, the condescension, the arrogance, and the moral dissonance and irregularity with which Atheists are associated, and which this Atheist has demonstrated.


Rick said...

"There is evidence which can be applied deductively to a conclusion which is eminently rational."

You repeated something similar to this several times in your post regarding the existence of a creating agent. Is there a post on your blog containing that deductive reasoning?


Stan said...

You obviously have no defense for your position other than personal attacks, so the case which I make is definitely valid for your particular case. So many Atheists have the same sad issue: they cannot defend their position. And they mistake snark for intellectual conversation, when it actually merely exposes the huge strain of immature juvenilia which infests Atheism.

Stan said...

Here are some examples:

For an explanation of Thomist deductions, go here:

Steven Satak said...

PassingBy. Anti-Stan. One honestly wonders why they bother posting anything at all - their choice of nym says it all.

Another drive-by Winner, I guess. I use the singular because one appears to be the sock puppet of the other.


Chris said...

I would love to hear a response from this "doctor's" piece from an atheist libertarian.

Frank said...

You linked to a post where you looked like an idiot Stan... and didn't even address the last point apparently: you don't understand that Atheists care about Theists, not their imaginary gods.

Russell said...

Ed Feser's explanation of the Cosmological argument is one of the best I've read: So you think you understand the cosmological argument?

Stan said...

I have no idea to what you are referring. You'll have to be more specific, with a direct critique of whatever post you find idiotic by your lights.

And my experience here has convinced me that most Atheists are radically narcissistic and don't care a whit about Theists other than to ridicule them. That has been the main theme of the followers of PZ Meyers for example, as well as Dawkins.

So I think your claim is basically non-credible, unless you can back it up somehow. So back it up, and we can discuss it.

Stan said...

Anti-stan and passerby are incarnations of the same ol' trolls who mimic for ridicule rather than contribute any meaningful contribution in defense of their ideologies. They could well be the same individual, and the same as before.

They will be deleted without being read, as well as any new sock puppets they create.