Immoral fucktardery

The Christian fascist fucktard rides again, with retarded bullshit about moral subjectivism. This caricature of fundamentalist Christian fascism really is dumber than a box of hammers: Remember that 25% of this country shares his views. If they all voted at once, we'd have a government that would put Hitler to shame as a half-assed dictator.

First of all, asking a dozen atheists their opinion on a blog doesn't say anything at all about the philosophical implications of atheism. You have to do actual philosophical analysis, which requires logical thought. I suppose this fucktard must be excused: clearly any sort of logical thought is beyond his very limited cognitive capacities.

He tries to declare subjectivist meta-ethical accounts inferior because they are not objective; an endeavor akin to condemning football because it isn't baseball.

If [an atheist] does take into account the needs of others because of feelings and emotions (”empathy”), he is acting irrationally. Feelings are not logical arguments. There is no such thing as a “moral” action on atheism, all actions are undertaken for pleasure or personal preference.

We'll put aside the gall and irony of this fucktard lecturing us on rationality.

It is irrational to believe or act upon untrue (false, meaningless or unprovable) assertions of fact. Feelings, emotions, desires and preferences are true facts; they are properties of an individual's conscious mind. It is therefore prima facie rational to act on one's desires. (Of course it's possible to believe and act upon false facts about the world because of one's emotions or feelings, but merely acting upon one's feelings is not irrational per se.)

Indeed to claim that one does or should act only on logical arguments is trivially inconsistent: All logical (syllogistic) arguments depend on premises, which are themselves by definition not based on logical arguments. Simply making up premises about the world, calling them facts or truths, and then claim one is acting "rationally" on the basis of logical arguments derived from those arbitrary premises is irrational; not because the premises are arbitrary, but because one is falsely and dishonestly labeling one's own preferences as objective, universal truths.

The fucktard gets one thing right: "On atheism, there is no reason for an atheist to constrain his pursuit of happiness." That's absolutely correct. There is no reason for me to constrain my own pursuit of happiness. But of course actually achieving happiness is a non-trivial matter, especially given more than six billion other people also pursuing their own happiness. Pragmatic logic dictates that I can achieve the greatest happiness usually by compromising and cooperating with these other people. Unless, of course, they're fucktards or bastards intent on oppressing and exploiting me.

Indeed, the fucktard's mention of the pursuit of happiness reveals much about his own moral beliefs: being moral consists of being unhappy; the unhappiest person is the most moral person. In his emails to me, the guy comes off as a smug, self-satisfied and entirely happy person; his sort of "Christian" morality, then, would seem to consist of demanding that other people be unhappy to satisfy his own happiness.