The Logical Atheist

If God exists (don't worry; he can't), then we can have no doubt about man's purpose. It's to entertain God.

Philosophers and others who insist that consciousness, the self, and free will do not exist sound like Chico Marx in Duck Soup , saying in effect, "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes (that is, your introspection)?"

 I don't understand why conventional moralists often see benevolence and self-interest as being at odds. Living--action in pursuit of life-sustaining ends, that is, of values--is a challenge, even a struggle. Success is not guaranteed. "There's many a slip 'twix cup and lip." So why wouldn't reasoning pursuers of self-interest view other beings who are similarly situated with favor? Egoists should rejoice over success stories. Examples of triumph in all constructive realms should inspire because they demonstrate that success is possible in this world. This is certainly the case in a positive-sum free-market society, in which entrepreneurs constantly push back the limits of scarcity. Remember what Ludwig von Mises wrote, "The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier." In a deep sense, one person's success is another person's encouragement to succeed. Ayn Rand understood thi...

I don't get prayer. Why, for example, are believers asked to pray for the pope? God is said to be perfect, which includes being all-knowing and all-good. But praying implies that God needs help in making decisions, that he lacks relevant information or good will. How can that be? The only way to reconcile this conflict is to believe that God enjoys seeing human beings, whom he allegedly loves, getting on their knees and abasing themselves. He values the sight of people groveling and acknowledging their inferiority. Some would call that pathological. God seems to be the cosmic Trump.

The fact is, you cannot derive an ought from an is . Therefore, you ought not try to do so.

Not  that  law of identity. A is A is not rubbish. It's still good. I'm talking about a new law of identity: each of us has an inner "gendered" spirit that might or might not be changeable at will and might be at odds with one’s body or biological sex. It’s the law of gender identity that is rubbish, a myth. “Trans” ideology is a fraud because there is no “trans.” When you hear a person say he (or she) "identifies as a woman (or man)," think how Yoda might respond, "No. Be or be not. There is no ‘identify as.’" Why wouldn’t the person just say, "I am a woman (or man)"? That question needs to be asked. It might be because a man who said, "I am a woman," couldn't help but realize that he is uttering a fiction. "Identify as" is a cushion between the speaker and the truth. "I am a woman" can be falsified (or verified). "I identify (or see myself) as a woman" cannot. That’s a clue to the con going on...