Going Courting



Since I could remember I knew I wanted to be married. I figured I would get married to Theresa Delgado, she was about my age and she was the most attractive to me of all the 6 year olds I knew in the whole world, even if she did have long black hairs on her arms that stood out against her pale skin.  I didn’t even know anything about sex, I just knew that I liked companionship.  

My mother used to tell me that if I couldn’t get along with my sister how was I going to get along with my wife.  At that point I didn’t have the ability to recognize my mother’s logical fallacies and I didn’t know she was a closeted man hater.  I did get along with my sister, my sister didn’t get along with me.  My mother was sneakily trying to get me to…

View original post 754 more words

Justified, True, Belief, and Epistemology.

Atheist Logic Fail


I hear a lot of atheists saying that Science doesn’t require belief.  I direct you to Plato’s theory of knowledge.  

Justified true belief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that is most frequently credited to Plato and his dialogues.[1] The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, a subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
  1. P is true
  2. S believes that P is true, and
  3. S is justified in believing that P is true

This theory of knowledge suffered a significant setback with the discovery of Gettier problems, situations in which the above conditions were seemingly met but…

View original post 146 more words

Angels and Demons



My memories weren’t all bad, just mostly bad.  I had some pleasant memories.  I remember when my dad used to take us fishing, I LOVED FISHING!  It was my favorite thing evar!  I remember sitting there for hours watching that little thing bobbing up and down, the kraw dads sneeking up to take nibbles off your fish.  The little salmon eggs that got all over my fingers and I nibbled on triscuits and wine cheese dip and realizing later that I was also consuming a goodly amount of fish bate.  I had not trouble getting up, 3 o’clock every morning I shot out of bed and I was back at 5 am with 6 fish.  Of course I was 6 years old and that infuriated my parents.  I often think my dad stopped going fishing because I enjoyed it so much.  

I caught my first fish by slapping…

View original post 935 more words

Atheism apparently is not a world view….(idiot)

Atheist Logic Fail


World view

From Wikipedia,

A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society’s knowledge and point-of-view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a calqueof the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( ), composed of Welt (‘world’) and Anschauung (‘view’ or ‘outlook’).[2] It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.[3]

View original post

Participating with the Premise.

Image In debate, not only is it necessary to remain rational it is necessary to remain consistently rational.  When a person makes a logical fallacy or a cognitive bias it needs to be addressed and corrected before the conversation can continue.  If you continue the debate without correcting the error you are granting equity to the other person in the conversation.  You are acting as though they have not made an error and by staying in the conversation you are participating with the premise that they are being and have consistently been rational. If the other person in the conversation is not being rational, the conversation itself is not rational.  If one person tries to remain rational in a debate while the other person is making no effort to be rational or proceed rationally, this creates a disparate impact in favor of the person that isn’t being rational.  When you get in a fight with a clown, even if you win you lose. It is necessary to proceed correctly.  The words process and practice come from the greek word praxis.  All valid philosophies have a praxis. A philosophy by its very nature has to be self referentially consistent, if it creates disparate impact it is invalid and therefore not a rational philosophy.  If a person can’t be falsified by their own philosophy it is not a philosophy and they are not rational.  So as you see they falsify themselves by their own procedure.  A rational person proceeds rationally, nothing can be proven by irrational means, that is why due process exists.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.  —Calvin O. Schrag[1]

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of PlatoAristotleSt. AugustineImmanuel KantSøren KierkegaardKarl MarxMartin HeideggerHannah ArendtPaulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.


My Milkshake Brings all the Trolls to the Blog!

Atheist Logic Fail


Notice how they make assumptions about me?  Does the god of Scientism make them psychic?  They don’t even need conversation.  Observe as Patrick Smith makes assumptions about my beliefs and conflates me with Theists.  In the same conversation, one atheist conflates me with theists and then another man Gavin points out that I am conflating Atheists with dawkins and all atheists, already the people that were carrying Dawkins as a banner are distancing themselves from him.  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH!!  THIS IS ALL PART OF MY SCATHINGLY BRILLIANT PLAN!!!


Right…. No reason to defend Dawkins but I am going to do it anyway.  Even though it isn’t a valid point.  I am going to assume that he meant something harmless and rescue him from himself.  BTW,   Dawkins wasn’t arguing for a diminished sentence, he said he can’t condemn it, which is a tautology of no punishment… But ty, for showing me…

View original post 7 more words

Atheism is not new.

Atheist Logic Fail


From the Apology of Socrates


“I have shown, Athenians, as I was saying, that Meletus has no care at all, great or small, about the matter. But still I should like to know, Meletus, in what I am affirmed to corrupt the young. I suppose you mean, as I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which the state acknowledges, but some other new divinities or spiritual agencies in their stead. These are the lessons which corrupt the youth, as you say. 

Yes, that I say emphatically. 

Then, by the gods, Meletus, of whom we are speaking, tell me and the court, in somewhat plainer terms, what you mean! for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach others to acknowledge some gods, and therefore do believe in gods and am not an entire atheist – this you 

View original post 1,128 more words