Saturday, January 24, 2015

A Message to Valerie Tarico

I left the following comment over at Valerie Tarico's site. I hope she responds, but few Atheists actually do, especially when they are asked to defend their Atheism. They cannot, so they don't. We'll see.

"Valerie,
Your visceral hatred has truly colored your view of the world, to the point of spreading your distortions to other haters who feed on your hate. Atheism has been the most destructive ideology that the world has ever known, even in just the past 100 years, torturing and killing several hundred million humans and enslaving entire continents under the slavery of Atheist ideological oppression.

Yet you act as if "religion", under which generalization you categorize Christianity along with all other "sects", is the world's only issue. Atheism starts with rejection of principles, including morality, thereby placing itself into an unprincipled void of pure rejectionism (euphemistically called "doubt" by yourself, but really just blind rejection supported by cherry picking certain self-assigned offenses about which to complain). Doubt and rejectionism become solipsist and pyrrhonian, rejecting all knowledge, yet they are thought to generate logical arguments without the benefit of actual disciplined deduction. Skepticism never generates actual knowledge. Taken to emotional limits it prevents analysis of concepts and thus denies possible truths merely on the basis of its own presumed truth claim.

Atheism ultimately self-entitles the Atheist to believe in the inferiority of all non-Atheists, and hence creates the self-perception of the personal superiority of the Atheist. This leads directly to the elitism of self-endowed Messiahism described by Thomas Sowell, and the three-class system of the Leftist elites, who thrive on placing people into Victimhood Classes and Oppressor Classes in order to maintain themselves in their elitist Messiah Class.

You are a Messiah Class elitist who demonizes your preferred enemy, "religion", as the Oppressor Class. You, like feminists and black racists, are also in your own Victimhood Class, as an officially oppressed victim of the Oppressor Class. The three-class system clinches your superiority by your inclusion into a phony class. But it self-authorizes your class war on the Other, the Oppressor Class which you have designated as such by yourself.

The three-class system derives directly from Marxism, and is imbued with the same elitist, savior mentality which involves the Nietzschean will to power for the elites, and the domination of the inferior "herd", and the Leninist claim to a "scientific" basis (in your case psychology, the least empirical of sciences save anthropology which renounced its scientific basis in a spurt of intellectual honesty).

As is common, this is all falsely predicated in "science" (a la Lenin), in your case the faux science of psychological "interpretations" which in your hands become moral judgments, from an ideology which denies the existence of morality (again per Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil). Yet you and Atheists in general create your own moral principles, and fully condemn those who are Othered by their differing ideology from your own personal creation.

Your site is strikingly similar to white supremacist sites I have stumbled onto.

In fact, the morality of the modern western Messiah Class is eliminationist, just as are all supremacists. Tolerance now means tolerance for all Classes except the Oppressor Class, whose opinions of dissent must be quashed under hate crimes. Equality now means equality for all Classes except the Oppressor Class, which must be held back in education, have its wealth redistributed, and its "privilege" revoked and reversed in order to favor the Victimhood Classes.

Atheist supremacism has demonstrated its vile character sufficiently in the Atheist domination of the USSR, China, S.E.Asia, Cuba, etc, with political genocides and gulags - all similar to the Atheist French Revolution and its Reign of Terror.

Atheism and its complete moral and intellectual void is the world's biggest hazard, even today, as the Russians re-invade their previous captive nations and China arms itself beyond the capabilities of free nations. Atheist domination differs from ISIS only in the fact that Atheism has no morality attached to it, and thus is free to assert any atrocity, anywhere, any time.

Actually, Atheism is on the same moral plane as ISIS, isn't it?

Your own pretensions of morality and moral judgment are purely derived from yourself as the determiner of what is moral and what is not, under your own personal moral authority to decide morality for the masses. It cannot come from Atheism, because Atheism has no morality attached to it. So it is purely your own device, your own opinion, which you pass off as definitive morality from your presumed position of moral (and intellectual) superiority. Thus you have self-elevated to godhood, and the self-perception of elitism and perfection, purely based on three words: "ain't no God". And that enabling phrase has created (in you) a moral authority over your designated Oppressor Class.

Being the elite, then, perhaps you can prove that there is no God other than yourself. No Atheist has ever done that, though, certainly not using the intellectual tools of disciplined deduction, nor the functional tools of materialist empiricism. Yet if you have managed to do so, then how about providing that proof over at this site:
atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com

We'll watch for your proof.
Stan
"
Valerie moderates comments, so this might not make it onto her site. We'll see.

UPDATE:
My comment did not make it onto her site, but many hundreds of others did make it, well over 700 so far. Tarico is a magnet for the eliminationist AtheoLeft, it appears. And Tarico censors criticism that is dangerous to the ambient narrative, although some cannon fodder is allowed in to feed the Atheist site dwellers.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

In the comment section (Disqus comments), this idiot named DesertMac wrote this crap:

Quote"Jesus Christ is pure fiction. EVERY DETAIL of the Christ story was lifted whole cloth from the equally fictional Horus. Watch this short documentary for the story, then if you wonder about certain claims in it you can do some research yourself to find out that the Christ story is pure fiction."Quote

This is how stupid they are.

I commented on how fail that Jesus and Horus connection was, and then I said this:



This article, and most of the posts here, are extreme fail.

Quote"There are some thoughtful atheists here, so I am not attacking them. However, I am attacking the ignorant ones who don't know crap from shinola about religion and the Bible. A lot of you are on the stupid level of a John Loftus or Dan Barker as far as religion is concerned."Quote

Stan, as far as your comment is concerned, I couldn't find it. It may have been deleted. Mine probably will be, too.

Stan said...

Yeah, threatening contrarians are not allowed there, apparently.

Anonymous said...

This one guy (Dan Haynes) made a comment about how I would be defending my religion if I believed in it.

I said that I am not religious, but spiritual. I also believe in Jesus, and that he died for all man's sins and that he rose from the dead. I also said that Jesus didn't come here to start a religion.

He just wrote it off as just an apology, and he seems to be disappointed that I didn't make a rebuttal to Valerie's comment.

Phoenix said...

JBsptfn

I went over there and saw your posts are still intact.However,Stan's posts have returned to the quantum vacuum of non-existence.See,they love it when you mention scripture and religious figures because it gives them the chance to focus their attacks on the bible.They hate it when you employ philosophical arguments,such as the teological,cosmological or ontological arguments because know they have to use their brains to refute you instead of copy pasting from anti-bible sites.

Phoenix said...

Stan

Which cosmological argument do you believe is the most sound?Kalam (KCA),Leibnizian or some other version?

Steven Satak said...

This behavior is why I don't attempt to post on HuffPo anymore.

Anonymous said...

One lady, Rachel Thompson, claims to know more than J.P. Holding about religion:

Quote"Yes, actually I do know what he knows and much,much more. I was a believer too. unlike the speaker, I now I understand how circular logic works. I studied theology and the church fathers and the entire history of faith--they failed to make the case. The logical fallacies of theology is what made me question and study deeper and wider. You can believe what you want. I'll know what is knowable. The existence of god can't be proven--no evidence, sorry. but the evidence of man's hand in the invention of religion is obvious. Just the ground rules your speaker sets speaks volumes."Quote

Also, another guy threw the definition of Religion in my face when I said that I believe in Jesus Christ (and that he died and rose from the dead for my sins), but that I'm not religious.

Stan said...

As I read somewhere yesterday, Atheists and Leftists don't define, they undefine. For example, they have undefined marriage in order to fit their own moral-free desires.

However, they revert to stringent definitions when it suits their purposes. Because terminology has variable meaning from one part of a sentence to the next part, the AtheoLeftist feels smugly that he has "won", when in fact he has merely asserted his own internal contradictions, and more seriously, his deep need for such contradictions.

In your case he has asserted his need for Class designation in order to properly place you in his personal Messiahist hierarchy. The class war is all they have, given that logic fails them.

Stan said...

I should add that your own claim regarding your beliefs don't matter; what matters to the AtheoLeftist is how he, personally, classifies you. That's necessary in order to pursue the Messiahist narrative and demonization by identity program.

Stan said...

Phoenix,
I don't much care about theodicies; it is my personal experience that arguments are futile in producing the acceptance of higher authority, or objective truth. The need for total amoral autonomy trumps all rationality.

If there is any positive, observable evidence, it is the obvious consequences of Atheists rejecting morals and assuming that the individual is his own moral authority; that is a necessity of Atheism, and it is demonstrably evil, if one accepts that human evil can and does exist.

Atheism produces necessary irrationality, such that evil does not exist, yet dissent is evil, God is evil, etc. There are so many internal contradictions that are necessary to the Atheist construct that if one accepts that internal contradictions are irrational, then Atheism cannot be true, in any rational sense.

But one first must accept rationality, study it, and use its principles. That is the antidote to Atheism.

Because Atheism is an emotional disturbance which precludes the use of rational disciplines, arguments always fail. The approach for acquisition of truth must be a personal one, a desire to know what actually is true rather than what one wants to be true.

Atheists take the opposite tack, fighting desperately to preserve that which they desire to be true, regardless of logical failures along the way.

Logic is one class of thought which has been "undefined" by Atheists. Logic now means "whatever mental process I can rationalize to produce the answer I want". Atheist "logic" is the opposite of disciplined Aristotelian deductive analysis of the extension of true premises toward a true conclusion.

Anonymous said...

I went to Theology Web (J.P. Holding's message board for Tekton) to see if she signed up. Doesn't look like it.

She claims that theology is circular reasoning. Bet she can't back that up in a debate with a real expert.

Phoenix said...

But one first must accept rationality, study it, and use its principles. That is the antidote to Atheism

You've probably just saved me an enormous amount time learning futile disciplines.So logic it is.

One more question.Do you recommend a specific type of logic,be it modal,sentential,predicate,a combination or any other? Or are they equally useful to dismantle Atheist beliefs?

Anonymous said...

That Rachel whined today about how J.P. Holding doesn't like blasphemy on his You Tube channel, and about how Atheists aren't allowed to comment on there. That's garbage. I told her that she would be welcome if she kept it civil.

Stan said...

The only logic that produces true conclusions from asserted propositions is syllogistic deduction which is properly formed under the rules of deduction (first devised by Aristotle), based on true premises which are in turn neither infinite regressions nor circular, but which are grounded in Aristotle's First Principles of Thought (Mathematically verified by Boole), the conclusion of which is tested and confirmed by Reductio Ad Absurdum.

This is covered in most Logic 101 texts.

Atheists do not like deduction; they prefer induction which is purely probabilistic; that allows them to insert their own probabilities which reflect their biases, and thus the outcome. Example of that is Bayesian Theory.

Induction cannot ever produce a known true conclusion; it is subject to both bias and to the Inductive Fallacy (Inductive Classifications).

A good text will cover both induction and deduction as well as definitions and informal fallacies. Web sites are not such a good source and some are biased. Particular bias can be found in some sites claiming "critical thought", which can be mere bias toward certain concepts. True critical thought involves analyzing claims under the discipline of deduction.

Older texts by Copi are particularly good in my opinion, but any text with Copi as coauthor would be fine. There are others, too, if you want I'll find other authors in my library to recommend. Some authors try to create their own twist on Aristotle's logic, and while they are not wrong necessarily, they make the basics seem more obtuse than they really are.

Aristotle's logic have survived millenia of scrutiny by logicians and are still taught today. It is the cultural mental process which has wandered off into the weeds. Not logic.

Phoenix said...

if you want I'll find other authors in my library to recommend

That would be great,thanks.I'm now reading "Critical Reasoning" by Cederblom and Paulsen.I skimmed through it the first time but now I really want to try out their exercises too.

Anon said...

It's too bad your comment wasn't posted on Tarico's blog. She needs to be called out for her prejudices. It has been satisfying in the past to see her poor "scholarship" exposed, as in her posts doubting the historicity of Jesus. One of her most egregious offenses has been to quote untrained people as experts in order to support her viewpoints. Astute readers have also pointed out that she sometimes lifts quotes out of context and makes it appear that they mean the opposite of what the writer intended. One of the best examples was an occasion when she quoted New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman and tried to make it appear that he doubted the historical existence of Jesus. Dr. Ehrman is an agnostic, but he knows Jesus lived, and several readers of Tarico's blog took her to task for her dishonesty.

Right now Tarico has a post on Salon.com full of inaccuracies about heaven and hell. Tarico is on an anti-religion crusade, but she knows so little about the topic that she should stick to psychology.

It's important that Tarico and other atheists be called out for their errors and unethical behavior. They have a right to their opinions, as we all do, but when they make factual errors it needs to be pointed out for everyone to see.

tbrann said...

You seem to be conflating atheism with marxism. They are two separate things. Ayn Rand was an example of a capitalist atheist.

Stan said...

It's not a mistaken conflation, it is a validated observation of the Atheist's propensity toward elitism, and thence to Classism and Class War. Marxism is the preeminent example of the three-class warfare system, and modern Leftism is neo-marxist in their adoption of the three-class system of social justice warfare: Oppressors; Victimhood Groups; Messiah savior groups of Leftist and Atheist elite totalitarians.