Ontology and Proven Atheistic Idiocy

In short, a rock, e.g., has no will or other such manifest attributes of consciousness available; a human being, having something that surpasses the mere gray-matter physicality of the brain, has both consciousness and possesses a will, which directly relates to the spirituality of that part of a human nature that, by definition, contains the soul. 

A rational intellect, thus, cannot be alone explained by just having a physical brain because materiality as materiality cannot, e. g., ever will itself to achieve or create a mind.  Moreover, it has been, for instance, often well remarked how truly great a quantum leap it is, as is supported by much scientific verification, going from mere inorganic matter to the higher level of organic matter.

But, even organic matter, as with a brain, is still totally incapable of self-generating an actual mind qua mentality that can be just visually observed, as so containing pure intellect itself; typically, moreover, disembodied brains or intellects are not normally observed to exist in society; the unity of body and soul usually is, therefore, the natural, normal, or normative physical basis for the perceived existence of an intellect; to wit, the human intellect’s reality logically then presupposes a rational will and associated consciousness of being as both reciprocal and reciprocating entities.

Only professional or militant atheists are, it is thought, always to be intellectually excused for pretending to be disembodied brains just occupying space among their fellow human beings.  And, on that strong point of confirmed and sustained ontological reality, the proven idiocy of atheism gets confirmed, again and again, so absolutely.  Q. E. D.  

On the other hand, this aforementioned deficiency of intellection does not only afflict atheists but many (assumed?) theists as well such as, e.g., Michael Novak, author of No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers, who has written one of the most sophisticated defenses of atheism and atheists yet available in the English language. How so?

He, willingly, confuses and confounds deliberately great atheists and great saints as being very similar in their fairly same depth of passion and introspection, which is to be easily expected as part of the distinctive moral insanity, as a perverse or, rather, very highly perverted observation; it is, thus, bizarrely upheld by Novak, a man of many notable self-bred delusions no doubt.  Then again, he is, as can be additionally remarked, a major neoconservative (read: quasi-nihilist) of some public distinction who pretends to be a Roman Catholic, among other conceits.

For him, those bold, terrene, pretentious culture heroes such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, et al are, surely, actual candidates for secular “sainthood” without any question.  Nonetheless, even a honestly praised imbecility is — now get this — still imbecile, meaning regardless of any really nauseous intonations of blasphemous blessedness, of supposed intentions, exposed to a candid, though certainly fallen, world.  Good reading, in contrast, should include the fine work entitled: The Gods of Atheism by Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J. who was, in fact and deed, a Roman Catholic.

Athanasius contra mundum!