The Logical Atheist

If we "shall have no other gods before" Yahweh, I guess it's all right to have other gods behind Him 

It is said that the message of Christianity is Jesus's commandment that we care for the "least" among us because by doing so, you'll really be doing it for him. "Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40) Two thoughts: 1. If he was so smart, why didn't he realize that the "least" stand to gain amazing life-long benefits if the most talented and most entrepreneurial individuals are fully free to pursue their self-interest in the free market? 2. Wasn't it selfish of Jesus to urge us to benefit him, even if indirectly? I thought selfishness was said to be evil.

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...

Former Muslim and atheist and now Christian convert Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to think that even if you cannot bring yourself to believe in the story and precepts of Christianity, you should for the sake of civilization pretend you do.  She also seems to think that if reason is a hard sell, we should stop trying to sell it.

Re Daniel Dennett: free will buries its undertakers. (Without apologies to Etienne Gilson.)

Anything outside reality is unreal. Anything inside reality is accessible in principle to reasoning beings. Where does that leave any god?

I’ve been an atheist for over 50 years. It took one lecture to convince me. I don’t just disbelieve in the existence of the supernatural. I believe in the  non existence of the supernatural. The natural universe is it. How do I know? (That’s always the appropriate question but with the caveat below). The wrong answer to that question is that we have no or too little evidence. (The “new atheists” seem to like that answer.) But that gives theism credit it does not deserve. Before you ask for evidence, you need to know what an assertion means. Otherwise, you cannot know if something qualifies as evidence or not. If I say, “Crooly blurps,” the right question is not “How do you know?” but “What are you talking about?” I submit that the same applies to the assertion “God exists.” God is always defined incoherently (it can’t be all-knowing and all-powerful, etc.), and since God is said to be literally out of this world, I don’t know what the word  exists  means in the supposed s...

In an earlier incarnation many, many years ago, I would be getting ready to celebrate Passover . This is the holiday that commemorates Yahweh's liberation of the children of Israel from enslavement in Egypt (long before the Arabs got there). Yahweh did this, according to the Good Book, by inflicting collective punishments on the Egyptian people -- ranging from turning the Nile River and other water sources into blood, to sending swarms of frogs, gnats, flies, and locusts throughout the land, to killing all first-born persons and cattle, even those of slaves (non-Israelites, presumably) -- 10 "plagues" in all. As unjust as that collective punishment seems, it was Yahweh's response to the recalcitrance of Egypt's absolute ruler, the Pharaoh. According to the story, he repeatedly changed his mind about "letting [the Israelite] people go" after promising Moses he would do so. That's why Egypt, that is, all Egyptians, kept getting hit with plagues.  Howe...

To put things into perspective, be aware that people with advanced degrees from our best universities say things like this:  "Since no one, including criminals, has free will and hence no one can be morally responsible for his or her actions, we ought to come up with a more appropriate criminal justice system. Therefore, we should hold a conference, perhaps next spring, to discuss this important matter and to recommend reforms. Papers are invited. Details to follow. Please let me know your thoughts, and be sure to pencil in the event." These are the best minds that America has to offer?

Sorry to hear about yesterday's death of philosopher Daniel Dennett at 82. He was a leading "new atheist,"  one of the so-called four horsemen along with Christopher Hitchens (also gone), Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Since Dennett was a consciousness denier , I can't regard him as a true friend of reason and hence atheism. ( What's reason without consciousness and free will? ) So I prefer philosopher Gilbert Ryle , economist Ludwig von Mises , and psychiatrist  Thomas Szasz , but then again, if everything is physical, what does  prefer  even mean?

The fable of Purim ends with the slaughter of over 75,000 non-Jewish Persians by the Jewish Persians after one official's (Haman's) plot to kill the Jews is exposed when the king is alerted by his Jewish wife. That's a mighty big conspiracy! I'm sure they all got due process. God makes no appearance in the story. See the Book of Esther in the Hebrew Bible. An inspiring story for sure!

Jewish atheists apparently are allowed to believe that Yahweh existed just long enough to promise the inhabited land of Canaan to the descendants of the mythical Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Why would Yahweh depict himself as an abusive husband? (Isaiah 64:6)

Why would Yahweh need servants? (See the book of Isaiah.)

If someone asked if I believed in God, I would say, "Do you believe in Treblig?"