vakras foetus unbowed atheist head

reason the enemy of belief

Unbowed Atheist first appeared as a Demetrios Vakras blog when 10 articles were published on 15 June 2013. These articles can still be found at


[gelded - re-edited, later]


I rejected the concept of "god" as an absurdity at age 7. The logical fallacies that constitute the desire to believe in that which is not, that which cannot be, and which can never be - "god" - do not become less fallacious as time progresses. However, in 2001 some intensely pious god-believers, who faithfully followed their religious doctrine committed mass murder on behalf of their fantastic delusion of god (fantastic = fantasy). Suddenly post "9/11" atheism was racism if criticism of religion included in the ambit of that criticism, criticism of the fantastic delusion of Islam. Apparently Allah, a being who exists in the fantasy of one branch of theists, is a god who though unable to exist in the realm of logic, is beyond criticism. This too was once Christianity's stance; protecting a chimera capable of being destroyed by the light of reason who needed protection from reason. Until 2001 I was an atheist with leftist inclinations. After 2001 I, as atheist, have been declared "far right" and "racist" by critiquing Islam, as if it is somehow different. The god-fantasy remains a fantasy regardless of whether the fantasy is called Allah, YHWH, Christ or Ormazd.

Demetrios Vakras, 15 June 2013

atheists persecuted worldwide ahteists killed

Unreason (the irrational) is imposed by brute force by the state. This is known as "rule of law" and is to be followed and accepted blindly. The Nazis observed "rule of law", hence why Germans of the Nazi era simply "followed orders".

Australia observes "rule of law", as too do Saudi Arabia, Iran and Greece.

In the show-trials against the Nazis at Nuremberg, rule of law was dispensed with by the court, to allow it to rule that observance of rule-of-law by the Nazis was unlawful, while at the same time claiming that for the court to do this was itself rule-of-law. In countries like Australia the public are, according to the court, "protected from knowing" as duty to the public, when in reality it is the court that seeks to protect itself.

Logic is anathema to law. In other countries, (eg USA), the question of rule-of-law is discussed. Not so in Australia, becasue the court protects Australians. How dada.

beleif to be convinced of something regardless of evidence

Nuremberg trials
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Quincy Wright, writing eighteen months after the conclusion of the IMT, explained the opposition to the Tribunal thus:
The assumptions underlying the Charter of the United Nations, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal are far removed from the positivistic assumptions which greatly influenced the thought of international jurists in the nineteenth century. Consequently, the activities of those institutions have frequently been vigorously criticized by positivistic jurists ... [who] have asked: How can principles enunciated by the Nuremberg Tribunal, to take it as an example, be of legal value until most of the states have agreed to a tribunal with jurisdiction to enforce those principles? How could the Nuremberg Tribunal have obtained jurisdiction to find Germany guilty of aggression, when Germany had not consented to the Tribunal? How could the law, first explicitly accepted in the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, have bound the defendants in the trial when they committed the acts for which they were indicted years earlier?[69]

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."[70]

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."[73]"

beleif to be convinced of something regardless of evidence

"Belief" is to accept an idea or premise without question, either

1) on the absence of any evidence, or

2) by refusing to apply logic (reason) when in consideration of it.

Hence a belief is a conviction held uncritically that is accepted "to be so", and believed. Only when reason is absent can supernatural beings such as tooth fairies, or god(s) exist.

*note: a belief is not the equivalent to a logical corollary. And, a logical corollary is not "an opinion". Australia's judiciary conflate these concepts and deem them to be of the same meaning.

In Australia the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) is guided and bound by the supernatural, "god".

The Supreme Court of Victoria therefore acts on an unstated understanding that it has an obligation to enforce "god", and therefore by abuse of laws and statutes that already exist, the Supreme Court of Victoria (in the form of individual judges) brings down judgements that clearly intend to assist in the prohibition of any act or deed that might cause a diminishing of "god".

A variety of legislative acts can, and are, utillised by the Australian judiciary to effect such a prohibition. Defamation law in Australia is a particularly powerful and effective tool that is successfully utilised by the judiciary to achieve prohibition of criticism of religion. Contempt of Court to prevent the exposure of judicial misconduct is another.


The assailing of reason is a political phenomenon which means that political considerations and outcomes form part of the court's function*.

*note: "politics" derives from the Greek word for "culture"/"civilization", πολιτισμός, "city", πόλις, and the mechanics of govenance, πολιτικά, and includes in its ambit all of the elements that together form part of a "civilised society". The courts represent the political will of the people in the form of legal Acts legislated by the government. The courts therefore enforce the political views that underpin the legislation. The notion that there is an "apolitical judiciary" is high farce.

Religion, a constituent element of culture, πολιτισμός, is enforced by law, (which itself is an element of culture, πολιτισμός) because the laws themselves are based on the very culture which is based on religion and religious values.

george patton OZ jurist religion is basis of laws and values  book cover
A Textbook of Jurisprudence, January 25, 1973 by George Whitecross Paton

*George Whitecross Paton wrote that religious values underpin Australian (English) law.

Paton is cited by the British-Pakistai Mufti, Muhammad Taqi Usmani who writes that only in religion can the values of right and wrong, be found:

"... man should seek guidance from God and follow the revealed doctrines."

He quotes Paton (though this might be a translation from the English to Arabic, and then from Arabic back to English):

"The famous author of jurisprudence, George Paton has written: 'What interests should the real legal system protect? This is a question of values in which legal philosophy plays its part ... But however Much we desire the help of philosophy, it is difficult to obtain. No agreed scale of values has ever been reached indeed. It is only in religion that we can find a basis, and the truth of religion Must be accepted by faith or invitation and not purely on the result of logical argument. (Portion: Jurisprudences p. 121).'" p. 16, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, "Islam and Modernism".

(Note:, the unusual capitalisations and disjointed sentences are how Paton's passage is quoted in the mufti's book)


Islam and Modeernism book cover
Islam and Modernism, by Muhammad Taqi Usmani

According to Mufti, Muhammad Taqi Usmani:

"... secular intellect has totally failed to define the good and the bad. Hence there is no solution to the problem except that the man should seek guidance from God and follow the revealed doctrines."

The values of "good" guidance found in the Koran. These are:

* wage jihad until all are Muslim;

* waging jihad is an act of good;

* jihad against non-Muslims is obligatory and being killed while killing non-Muslims gains the jihadi automatic entry to "Paradise".

In the 2009 exhibition and publication Humanist Transuhmanist these very Koranic passages, the constituent elements of Sharia, were cited and criticised.

koran is the source of sharia Sharia is to do what is commanded in Koran - kill, behead, murder
"The Koran is one of the main sources of Sharia", from the Australian government broadcaster (ABC).

Adolf Hitler defined by Christian morality
George Whitecross Paton wrote that Jurisprudence is based on the "truth of religion", a stance he shares with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis who based their philosophies on the Bible ( Christian fable of an "atheist" Hitler ).


Added 30/12/2014

A religion is a pseudosophy, a false claim to wisdom which is totally lacking in evidence to support it. Religion is a "philosophy" arrived at solely in the absence of reason. The absence of reason breeds theism. Religious ideas are an abstraction - they cannot be "defamed", they have no "human rights" and ideas cannot seek protection of their rights (ideas lack anima, ψηχή and cannot therefore act for themselves or be in possession of any feelings that can be "hurt"). Religious "philosophies" cannot and do not spontaneously come into existence. Religious "philosophies" have been constructed by individuals, expressed by individuals and documented by individuals. These religious constructs created by others, are adopted by other individuals who are unrelated to the creators of the religious "philosophies" they come to adopt. To be religious is to adopt the "philosophy" created by another, and adopt it without critical analysis, adopt it purely on faith. Certain countries (Australia) have sought to make unlawful the criticism of religious ideas on the grounds that since these ideas are held and expressed by individuals they hurt the feelings of the individual holding them. These are, to repeat, ideas that have not been created by the individual holding them. Certain countries (Australia) allow for individuals to sue for defamation because the religious ideas they hold are criticised by another. The claim by such contries (Australia) is that the religious ideas held define the holder of those ideas. And, that having these ideas exposed to the light of reason will cause the holder of these ideas embarrassment and humiliation for holding them.

We ARE NOT blood-clots created in the image of god, out of Adam's rib, who were created in 6 days in order that we are to be worshiped by angels who are made of fire, as we watch the sun rise out of a puddle of mud somewhere in the far, far, east, and that this being so therefore obligates us to behead non-believers. Belief is possible only when our critical faculties fail us. In the absence of reason arises theism. To declare this allows, in some countries (Australia), for those making the declaration to be sued for defamation.

Australia's defamation law HAS to be amended - the way it is enforced nullifies any obligation to protect the rights included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In the Catch the Fire decision, below, Nettle, Ashley and Neave, left open the prospect of suing critics of ideas for defamation (no. 33)

 austlii logo

[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]
Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal

Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006), SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA, COURT OF APPEAL


Analysis of the Tribunal’s reasoning

32 ... as I see it... because the Tribunal adopted the Bropho test instead of directing itself to the question of whether the Seminar as a whole incited hatred of Muslims based on their religious beliefs, it did not give a great deal of consideration to the distinction between hatred of the religious beliefs of Muslims and hatred of Muslims because of their religious beliefs. The Tribunal appears to me to have assumed that the two conceptions are identical or at least that hatred or other relevant emotion of or towards the religious beliefs of Muslims must invariably result in hatred or other relevant emotion of or towards Muslims. In my view, that is not so.

33 ... It is essential to keep the distinction between the hatred of beliefs and the hatred of their adherents steadily in view.[26] Beyond that, it is a matter for the law of defamation or the law relating to misrepresentation and misleading and deceptive conduct or, possibly, criminal sanctions.

35 The third difficulty with the Tribunal’s reasoning, as I perceive it, is that the Tribunal’s failure to observe the distinction between hatred of beliefs and hatred of adherents to beliefs has resulted in the Tribunal deciding the matter on the basis that the Seminar was not a "balanced" discussion of Muslim beliefs...

The authority of the Supreme Court of Victoria is derived by "Divine Right" as the court's own coat of arms shows. This is a court that believes (remembering that a belief is an idea held without any evidence to support it) that "god", an entity that fails when reason is applied to it, gives it authority. It is therefore self-evident why the court would seek to protect religion from criticism. A critic of god undermines the authority of this court. An "association" of the court's god with Hitler, would, under such a circumstance, constitute an "egregious defamation".



A recent court decision against this author is written about by Israeli author Dov Ivry

dov ivry emilios kyrou mistrial in vakras case cover



unbowed atheist - blog
leeanneart - blog
Redleg V Artists directory
Redleg V Artists
Demetrios Vakras art website
Lee-Anne Raymond art website
Vakras Δαίμονας website

Injustice Hits Rockbottom Downunder