Michael Price on Atheism and Objective Morality

Bizarrely, many atheists are bothered by the idea of objective or absolute morality. They seem to feel that it means judgmental, intolerant, sexually repressive morality as represented by the Abrahamic religions. Similarly the representatives of said religions seem to believe that their dogmas are objective morality and indeed the only possible source of objective morality. This is the opposite of the truth, objective morality does not need to be based on, and indeed cannot be based on, the Abrahamic religions.-Read more: Objective morals and it's opposite, religion

The delusion of religious faith

Religious faith deconstructed. Jeff and Matt from The Atheist Experience throw a Christian for a loop that he was not expecting.

Cultural religious pollution

The era of criminal speech starts.

It is OK to abandon Islam

Such a passionate language, marred in the United States as the sputtering of terrorists.

Abandon religion, abandon delusion, live without primitive shackles, you can make Arabic the language of the preservation of education it once was.

How To Train Your Craig (W L Craig fraud 9)

Special pleading
The gaps argument
Appeal to authority
Proof by faith
Anger is disproof (or even actually exists)



Attack of the Fifty Foot Craig

How C.S. Lewis fails (series Start)

Some thoughts on the pathetic nature of the C.S. Lewis classic "Mere Christianity"

Islamophobia all hype?

Indulging religion and the danger it represents, is like having a wild predator as a pet and hoping it will never bite.

William Lane Craig willful ignorance promoting pulpit prostitute

First we should watch just how the twisted and deluded apologist presents his case.

Below is a particularly interesting argument in that a logical concept can be twisted into use for the promotion of an irrational belief.

The thought “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” is a logical concept, in this case it is used to defend religion. This defense can be referred to as the diamond in the desert defense and it is quite common. Diamond in the desert is the claim that you cannot say with complete certainty that no diamond exists in the sands of a desert without first searching and sifting every grain of sand to identify any possible diamonds. Any person who has dabbled in logic regardless of any religious position can identify this as rational and reasonable.

We come into conflict when using this defense and reviewing the Abrahamic religious texts. Only the willfully ignorant superstitionist or disingenuous apologists (often using pious fraud as a shield) would claim the texts are flawless and contain no contradictions. A reading of the Christian texts show an “all or nothing” position, and in that position any single flaw that is provable negates the entire mythology, in effect it removes any “desert diamond” defense due to the claim of infallibility. Mr. W L Craig of course knows and understands this but chooses the disingenuous path, any religion could use the “desert diamond” defense rejecting infallibility but in this case Mr. Craig chooses Christianity because it is the most profitable for apologists manipulators.



W L Craig is an obvious pathological liar and a pompous parasitic narcissist, one of the worst pulpit prostitutes for profit, farming the feebleminded.

Below a simple refutation of the Argument from Innumeracy, Argument To The Future combination.

Miracle Meets Science and fails

What science can tell us about the “miracles" in the bible - well in the end just that there is no evidence to support the mythology.

Follow the scripture and expect results

What you see in the video clip is an unusually honest Christian propagandist and pulpit prostitute, you almost have a bit of respect for that level of devotion to delusion (or the money it produces).

As much as it may pain me to actually view something in the same way as the (disgusting and fraudulent) SPLC literal reading of any of the Abrahamic religions leave only specific conclusions.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."- Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

The Abrahamic religions at the textual level are without a doubt some of the most dangerous delusional “life guidelines” ever committed to paper.