Category Archives: Atheist Logical Fallacies.

Ban Sharia

ban sharia

What sets the Muslim Caucus apart isn’t the candidates it is backing but this sentence in the Monday news release announcing those endorsements:“According to Islamic tenets, Muslims participating in democratic elections are obligated to vote as a bloc based upon a consensus of the Muslim community.”

Asked about that exhortation, Muslim Caucus spokesman Talib Karim offered two publications he said supported the view that followers of Islam should vote en bloc for favored candidates. One is a statement adopted bya council of Islamic legal scholars at a 2007 meeting of the Muslim World League in Mecca.


Your Horse Sh** Escapes You, Sir!


Your horse shit escapes you, sir!

If this was a race between your intellect and your horse shit, the horse shit would be leading by a league.

Fascinating isn’t it?  That which is the slowest part of the horse is fleeter of foot than the fastest part of your reason?

Even now my nostrils cringe, my sinuses singed by the offensive odor of arrogant ignorance.

A wrathful spirits attacks the senses, you didn’t give wing to a thesis, you gave flight to a feces.

You are a veritable Mercurial Twit, in the battle of wits the unarmed man must submit to the one armed man.

Yet still these persist, these Serpents of Unwisdom, these Servants of Anti Logic,

Whore shipping their god of Unreason.  Rife with the pestilence of their Whore Moans being all out of wack.

Sentimental thinkers, reality warped by their emotions and addictions to their emotional ideas.

Strong in the disease and weak in health, they prostitute their reason to Normatization, Popular opinion.

Hiding their light they disappear into the herd.

Inoculating themselves to the cure and infecting themselves with the disease.

Intellectual faggotry and armchair philosophy are the rules of the day.

Divorced from the consequences, ignorant of the results, they march on oblivious to the reality

that they are their own worst enemy, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise, and they shall reap what they sow.

Hoist with their own petard, they invigorate their guard and fortify their grasp on their own failure, which cannot be

wrenched from their kung fu grip.  They WILL have their just deserts, gazpacho of justice, a dish best served cold.



Thank you Adam Wolfe for the photoshop..


I would like to point out that the concept of god was arrived at philosophically and out of necessity.  First of all if you want to make a positive rational assertion for why people should have inalienable rights or why you shouldn’t be allowed to force people to work seven days a week you cannot hinge that assertion on science or evolution for that matter.  You have to assume a universal force or law on which to peg it.



The original concept of god was created to prevent the problem of infinite regression.  What was the cause of that? well what was the cause of that? Well what was the cause of that?  GOD!  It became obvious that there needed to be a cause that was not in the linear world, a causal world.  Which makes sense in a way.  Because if the big bang created time as we know it then time is an illusion.  There must be a time before time and that time is the real time, since time was created and didn’t exist before the big bang.  Time itself is an illusion.  Somewhere the universe is completely intact and unexploded.

Philosophically speaking god cannot move and must not move, any movement of god is a negation of godself.  This is why you have meditation.  In sitting in contemplation you are being like god.  Making yourself like god.  Image

So how does he work his will on the world?  Through the agency of the holy spirit.  If you examine Plato’s cave and he being the father of religion.  The forms of the cave, the forms of the good, the ideas or idols are the philosophical uncorrupted concepts.  Only the philosopher king can see anything but the shadows, he beholds the shapes.  He is free and he observes the stark naked epiphany of the universe.  What is needed to succeed in relationship, the praxis of the rational.  The law is immutable, unchanging, and pre existent.  You are doing it right if you are surviving well and succeeding together.





I don’t hate the guy, I hate what he is doing and why he is doing it.  First of all let me explain something to you…


There are things that as a scientist Dawkins can’t say, because science has a praxis and he can’t say anything that isn’t provable and peer reviewable.  So he can’t speak with the authority of science and say that he is absolutely certain that god doesn’t exist, but that is his conceit.

I know how emotional antitheists are so let me just say I am not a theist, I am a deist, I believe in god as the faculty of reason in man.  Before the misotheists turn into raging poop throwing monsters and do something stupid.

Going back to this concept of what can and cannot be said, Dawkins cannot knowingly make a logical fallacy, but apparently he can invite his disciples to do it.  And lets make no mistake, they are disciples.


He uses the Scarlett Letter as a tacit conflation of the relationship between religion and science, feminizing science and inviting his histrionic cult to feel victimized, persecuted, and ostracized by religion.  So you see, he is making a covert emotional appeal and he is not trying to indoctrinate his congregation to understand logic or debate.  He is perfectly ok with them making logical errors as long as they are in his own favor.


Earlier in his career Dawkins was much more animated in his interviews, flashing microexpressions of contempt and disgust until he went on Bill Maher with Neil De Grasse Tyson who reminded him assuming  he  knew it in the first place that science is done analytically, not emotionally.  So when he was screaming with his face like he was beheading a gorgon he was misrepresenting science and acting like a fool.  Which brings up a salient point.


Dawkins is also trying to conflate religious thinking with insanity.  That is the hidden subject in the “the god delusion“, which yes, I have read.   Belief is required in knowledge to.  In order for it to be knowledge it has to be justified, true, and believed, and you can try to tell me that the justified, true, and believed rubric isn’t used anymore but let me ask you this, When was the last time you tried to walk through a wall?  You believe the wall is solid, you don’t keep trying to prove it to yourself,  belief shapes our world.  You believe in scientific authority so you listen to it and obey it.

Secondly, am I delusional if I believe that god is the faculty of reason in man?  Lets see how Richard Dawkins sets up his defence and offence in his arguments.


Hmmm,  it seems I have lost the debate before it even began because I have to argue for the stupidest religious people in order to win and all he has to do is humiliate the stupidest religious people, which brings us to our next case in point…..


I feel like I slam dunked that one.  Lets move on.


Ouch!  Kind of a one sided victory.  I feel like I am having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Dawkins would lose a debate with me, badly.  As a matter of fact, he has lost debates, and there are people that he refuses to debate because he knows he will lose.  I heard a female british philosophy professor say it succinctly, and I can’t remember her name, “whether god exists or not is a question for philosophy not for science.”  and yes she was speaking specifically about Dawkins.  Dawkins is not a smart man, he is a greedy stupid man, he is trying to set himself up as a rockstar of science as a martyr for science, he is in relationship with his legacy and he is turning science into a religion.  He is evangelizing and proselytizing science.  Science wasn’t meant for stupid people, stop selling it to them.  Science is for the people that are logical and rational and come to it.  It isn’t for the cheer leaders of science.

Dawkins is the smartest man that stupid antitheists and misotheists are capable of understanding.  He is not considered smart in any other part of the world.  There are over 10 french philosophers that would rip him to shreds, and we don’t even have to go out of our way to find someone much smarter than Dawkins.  The problem is that the smartest person they are capable of sympathising with is the authority.  But you forgot to factor something into your interpretations and judgments, the fact that you are a complete imbecile.  You can’t evaluate a person that is much much smarter than you which is why Noam Chomsky doesn’t have a huge american following….