Atheists who cannot substantiate condemnations

The worst sort of fire and brimstone preachers are………Atheists. This is because they tend to instantly launch into condemnations without ever providing a premise upon which to do so.

Atheism discredits condemnation and condemnation discredits Atheism. Atheism discredits condemnation because in an Atheist universe there would be no ethical imperative as there would be no ethical law or code. Condemnation discredits Atheism because it shows that they beg, borrow and steal from a biblical worldview theology and show God’s ethics written in their hearts.


The worst sort of fire and brimstone preachers are………Atheists. This is because they tend to instantly launch into condemnations without ever providing a premise upon which to do so.

Atheism discredits condemnation and condemnation discredits Atheism. Atheism discredits condemnation because in an Atheist universe there would be no ethical imperative as there would be no ethical law or code. Condemnation discredits Atheism because it shows that they beg, borrow and steal from a biblical worldview theology and show God’s ethics written in their hearts.

I received the following comment from an Atheist to my video “Bill Maher schools Charlie Rose on Christianity vs. Islam”:

I will call this Atheist: Atheist One:

Let’s remember that Xianity got lots of the genocide, slavery, land-grabbing, etc. out of the way a bit earlier in the game, and has had time to ‘legit’ things up. 2.) There’s also a set that includes heinous crap that may not be caused by or condoned by Christianity, but that should be STOPPED or corrected by it, given the overwhelming majority its numbers comprise. Fair enough?

Here is my reply:

Just so that I understand: when Islam is in view, is being discussed, is criticized—immediately jump to besmirching Christianity. That is a rather odd tactic.
Now, you seem to be condemning genocide, slavery, land-grabbing, etc. but upon what premise do you do so?
Here are some relevant stats: The Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars.
The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD.
From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars. Moreover, half of those involved Islam.

Atheist One replied:

It’s not as if I made a big leap by bringing Christianity into this – it is, after all, the discussion at hand, (if you read the title attached to the clip). I think ALL brand name religious are devolutionary and repressive. Secondly, stating facts isn’t necessarily besmirching. Does any one dispute the fact that people with Bibles displaced (or worse) millions of indigenous peoples in North America? If you read accounts by Columbus’ own men, their treatment of the people they encountered was horrific. Am I slandering Columbus or Christianity by quoting his own chronicler(s)?

Well, it is fair enough that I the title of the clip, the video, includes a reference to Christianity, “Bill Maher schools Charlie Rose on Christianity vs. Islam.” Yet, the point is that Bill Maher, yes Bill Maher, was correcting Charlie Rose on Christianity vs. Islam and was emphasizing Islamic violence.

In any case, I replied thusly:

Let me take a step back, if I may, because I noticed that you seem to be condemning (by any other name) 1) Christianity, 2) ALL brand name religious, 3) devolution, 4) repression, 5) displacing (or worse) millions of indigenous peoples, 6) horrific treatment, 7) Columbus, etc. Yet, upon what premise do you condemn these thing or any things for that matter?

You see, I could have launched into a defense of the faith, by golly, and could have gone point by point noting how wrong Atheist One was about various issues. However, I sought a shortcut with a simple and straightforward question “upon what premise do you condemn these thing or any things for that matter?” This is because if there is no premise upon which to condemn well, anything then the Atheist has discredited themselves and I have nothing left to do.

Well, Atheist One decided to keep right on track offering condemnation after condemnation which denotes a person who is merely reacting emotionally and not reasoning:

I guess your implication is that no one can know what’s good or bad unless they worship the “God” who allegedly got angry and drowned 99.9999999999999% of life on Earth? The one who demanded a gory bloody ‘sacrifice’ to pay some sort of sin ransom to itself? Would I be correct in assuming that? In other words, without consulting Jesus, how would one know it’s not a good idea to stick a fork in a baby’s head? Is that what you feel I’m lacking in my reasoning process? Wow, I hope not!

My reply was simple enough:

That no one can know what’s good or bad unless they worship the “God” who (and launch into another unfounded condemnation) is not my implication but rather, your inference. Now, you seem to condemn 1) drowning 99.9999999999999% of life on Earth, 2) demanding gory bloody ‘sacrifice’ to pay some sort of sin, 3) sticking a fork in a baby’s head (which our culture virtually does via abortion: do you support abortion?), etc. Yet, upon what premise do you condemn these things or anything for that matter.

Not surprisingly, Atheist One decided to take it up a notch and not only launch into more unfounded condemnations but also launched some personal attacks:

How utterly dishonest of you! Of course that’s what you’re implying; you just repeated yourself in so many words. Your hackneyed question would have felt right at home during The Inquisition: It’s based on the absurd insistence that no one can possibly have a rational sense of something being either harmful or beneficial unless they subscribe to the cosmic overseer you’ve deputized yourself to represent. Is that the best you’ve got? It’s from the playbook of hysterical Hillbilly Ayatollahs and Bored-again Talibangelists. Try thinking for yourself & get back to me.

Well, someone I will call Atheist Two decided to come to their fellow Atheist rescue, seeking to excuse the inexcusable, rather than urging their fellow Atheist to actually deal with the issue at hand:

Yes, I also get so tired of the sort of self-aggrandizing sophistry engaged in by Ken and other pseudo-intellectuals in these forums. It serves only to obfuscate, rather than clarify and allows them to feel they have access to a more refined understanding of things than others. It’s an unbecoming, self-indulgent recipe of arrogance and sadism ,disguised as humility. It’s an attack on our integrity. The parsing of language on his part is indeed dishonest and in no way evidence of skillful or productive thinking. Clever sounding word-salads aren’t clever. They are attempts to win an argument through bafflement and misdirection, not find the truth of it. It was satisfying to read your retort to his obvious attempt to instruct, rather than to learn through your dialogue.

So many say that they want “Freedom of Religion”. Well, there are many of us that want “Freedom From Religion” because they all appear absurd. To my mind, ,they are all equally works of fiction that are inherently divisive, encourage credulity rather than reason and are claiming that to be virtuous.. Anyway, I wouldn’t engage with him further if I were you. He’s just mentally masturbating, and will simply respond to your questions with more non-sequiturs. He asked you, “upon what premise”, not only because he doesn’t conceive of approaching a question without one, but also in an attempt to weaken you with self-doubt, falter (as one must in the face of enigmatic babble so confidently asserted) and thus claim the greater “wisdom” for his vanity, disguised as”Higher UnalterableTruth”… It’s an old trick that isn’t an act of kindness.

Some people just can’t or won’t recognize the utterly fallible, presuppositional nature of their own circular logic. Let him do his own research, rather than trying to get others to do it for him with childish cat-and-mouse play at the expense of valuable time with no true value creation as the objective. I’d swat the gadfly away and leave him alone to deduce why I think his pointless line of questioning is sinister and worthy of derision… Though I think I’ve adequately answered that, it’s not my personal responsibility to provide him with any further clarity, nor make abject excuses to justify myself to a dissembler for their casual amusement.

I doubt that he would grant me that dubious service, and I wouldn’t ask him to… Further, I don’t reward duplicitous smoke-and-mirror conduct with a graciousness that I don’t feel. I dismiss it as untrustworthy. I feel it’s my duty to seek clarification and avoid a muddying of the waters in discourse. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I suspect that he knows what he’s doing. I am no-one’s play-thing. No-one should be. I despise cruelty, including willful deception . If somebody were to seriously ask me to justify “why”, I could not find them ethical .

I wouldn’t wrangle with such an individual about how “I know that cruelty is bad”. That is self-evident among most Humans and the ideal need not be returned to the speculative obscurity from whence it came to maintain it’s inherent value in Society. The Poster’s a charlatan that appears to have little regard for others’ cognitive skills and too much for his own. He is unmasked by his own hubris, and this is no simple “inference”. I say it outright. I will not take the pill.. Lol… Regards… 9ish.

Well, again: I could go fallacious point by fallacious point but why not explain the situation and ask the same question to Atheist Two?:

What is obfuscating is when Atheists launch right into fire and brimstone condemnation and then simply refuse to answer questions about upon what premise they do so. Rather than feeling I have access to a more refined understanding of things than others, I beg for clarification and none is forthcoming—merely the next round of condemnations. How could you come to the conclusion that I am attempt to instruct, rather than to learn through dialogue when I keep asking question in order to learn through dialogue?

You seem to be condemning 1) self-aggrandizing sophistry, 2) self-indulgence, 3) arrogance, 4) sadism, 5) attacks on integrity, 6) parsing of language, 7) not engaging in skillful or productive thinking, 8) engaging in clever sounding word-salads, 9) attempts to win an argument through bafflement and misdirection, 10) not finding the truth of it. These are things you judge me of committing and for committing yet, upon what premise do you do so?
Simply stating “To my mind” is no justification for anything.

Well, Atheist One came back with:

You say you want to learn through dialogue, but the heart of your communication is what I said it is: an assertion couched in a disingenuous, hackneyed question that asks how, without subscribing to the archaic, alleged ‘holy book’ you consider the only legitimate repository of ethics in human history – “How can you ‘arrogant’ non-believers in the Bronze Age belief system I’m here to defend and promote POSSIBLY know anything is not beneficial to personal well-being OR a reasonably rational and peaceful society UNLESS you have MY unimpeachable owner’s manual to teach you the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

You want to learn, you say? Here’s a thought, Ken: Use your imagination or draw on available sources to inform you as to how people who don’t think their brand of magic book, or ANY brand is the only way to know they probably won’t make things better, generally, by, say, setting their neighbor’s kids on fire or trying to rob and/or rape people if the mood should strike them. I bet you might learn how that’s possible. If not? I probably can’t help you further and you might want to just stick with your book of slave etiquette and instructions on who to stone to death to honor the owner of everything that is, was, or ever will be. Mmkaay?

Oh well, I tried; so much with attempting to reason with the unreasonable.

Then came another reply from Atheist Two:

More nonsensical ramblings from you… I hardly need a recounting of a post that I authored myself , Sir. I use concision and mindfulness when I write. I highly recommend it. I haven’t the time nor the inclination to attempt communicating with you. Seek your answers elsewhere. You’re looking to be “right”, rather than correct and I’m finished trying to reason with those who can’t be reasoned with. You offer no profound message, you simply regurgitate the same arguments, insuring that you’ll always arrive at old conclusions. You’d have me attempt to communicate with a stone and I’m not playing this game with you. I was straightforward and forthright in my post to pyannaguy. I stand by what I said.

Do your own homework Go and ask a psychiatrist if you want answers. I don’t work for free. When it comes to discussion, I choose not to foster it with those where it would be an exercise in futility. If you want to call that “avoiding the argument”, then by all means do. I’m not interested in your fairy-tales, myth worship,or spiritual crises. The End. Best of luck.

(ellipses in original).

It seems that once Atheists have exhausted their emotive reactions they give up when they realize that you are not going to fall for their bait: they besmirch you, the Bible, Christianity, etc. wanting you do follow their lead. However, when you do not do so but rather go on the offense they have nothing else to offer.

Thus, I replied with this and the discussion ended as Atheist One and Atheist Two gave up. You will note that I paraphrased Atheist Two since their statements were generic:

Hello again friend, most interesting indeed.
Well, now you leave me wondering if you are unwilling or unable to reply to a simple request when you dismissively state, “Seek your answers elsewhere” without any sort of substantive reply. Generically referencing “a post” is generic enough to be meaningless. I understand that being emotive feels good but it does nothing to further reasoned discourse.

If you read what I wrote you would know that I keep begging personages such as yourself to express something besides emotions and do not seem to get very far but I understand that you’re looking to be “right”, rather than correct and I’m finished trying to reason with those who can’t be reasoned with because you keep skirting the issue. You offer no profound message, you simply regurgitate the same arguments, insuring that you’ll always arrive at old conclusions. Even though you’d have me attempt to communicate with a stone I will keep seeking engagement in reasoned discourse. I was straightforward and forthright in my post reply to you and [Atheist One].

I stand by what I said. Do your own homework but I am not emotive or childish enough to tell you to go and ask a psychiatrist if you want answers. I do volunteer my time. When it comes to discussion, I do, sometimes, choose not to foster it with those where it would be an exercise in futility as there is always a chance that they will break away from emotive taunting and deal with the actual issue at hand. Indeed, you have done nothing but avoid the argument.

Now, you seem to be condemning 1) nonsensical ramblings, 2) looking to be “right”, 3) those who can’t be reasoned with, 4) those who offer no profound message, 5) those who regurgitate the same arguments, 6), arriving at old conclusions, etc. yet, upon what premise do you do so?