Skip to content
December 6, 2011 / itsnobody

Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

Atheists often claim that atheism is some how more rational or logical than Theism.

In reality however there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument. 100% of atheistic arguments are illogical.

I challenge any atheist to propose any argument they have here so I can explain how and why it’s illogical. Feel free to post any argument in the comments section here. Everything is free and open here.

This challenge is for atheists who believe either of these:
- God does not exist
- God is unlikely to exist

This is NOT a challenge for atheists who:
- Make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God

I’ll update this article with refutations as people post arguments.

[UPDATE 12.08.2011] – So far no atheist has proposed any argument (I don’t consider that ad hominem as an argument)

[UPDATE 12.17.2011] – Replied to Anon, I am looking forward to more and more arguments and criticisms for me to debunk. Hopefully if more and more people post arguments or questions I can eventually debunk virtually every atheistic argument that exists.

[UPDATE 02.15.2012] – I am short on time, but I updated this post with some new refutations. I will eventually refute all of the laughable arguments atheists have provided. Their arguments are so weak it’s just too easy. I get my arguments from my own independent mind, so how can atheists compete? All they can do is copy arguments from other atheists.

Responses to Arguments:

“Well I don’t believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, [insert something that lacks proof here]” – A common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that it’s a non-sequitur. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence of a FSM, celestial teapot, etc…Contrary to what delusional atheists you can’t refute something by pointing out that you also don’t believe in something else that lacks proof.

Pointing out that you don’t believe in something else that lacks evidence does nothing to refute the existence of God or even indicate that existence of God is unlikely, so this argument is invalid.

Here’s an example applied to something else:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because I don’t believe in a FSM, invisible dragon, celestial teapot, etc…” – The atheist’s reasoning

Here’s a valid argument:
“The luminiferous aether does not exist or is unlikely to exist because X empirical observation indicates so”

Since this FSM argument does nothing refute the existence of God or indicate that the existence of God is unlikely it is an invalid, illogical reason given for believing that God does not exist or that God is unlikely to exist.

Argument from free-will – Another common argument used by atheists. The problem with this argument is that there’s more scientific evidence against free-will than God so it requires MORE faith to believe in free-will than it does to believe in God.

Since it takes more faith to believe in free-will than God any atheist who believes in free-will will have to admit that faith, evidence, and science has nothing to do with their disbelief in God. Believing in free-will would effectively ruin all the atheistic arguments connected to evidence and science.

Since this argument assumes that free-will exists the very act of arguing this requires MORE faith than believing in God (effectively ruining all evidence-based atheistic arguments).

God is something complex – This argument is simply a straw man. God has never been defined as complex except only by atheists. I don’t know why atheists constantly use this convenient straw man.

If God exists then why do bad things happen?/The Earth is full of suffering – Another common argument used by atheists, what a shame that it’s based off a straw man. The Earth has been defined as an evil place full of suffering and God had never been defined a being who if exists would mean that the Earth would be a place of enjoyment. Heavenly worlds had been defined as good, enjoyable places, not the Earth.

So evil existing on Earth is perfectly consistent with God existing.

God violates Ockham’s razor – This argument just arises from a misunderstanding of what Ockham’s razor is. Ockham’s razor tells that we can only assume the very least to be true, it does not (as atheists believe) tell us that extra assumptions are false. It only tells us that you cannot assume that extra assumptions are true.

For instance prior to General Relativity Ockham’s razor would’ve told us that “Newtonian physics is an extremely accurate model in certain conditions”, it would not have told us that “General Relativity is false or unlikely to be true”.

Through Ockham’s razor we would conclude that modern science tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God (just as with any empirically untestable hypothesis).

“Cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt equates to non-existence” – This argument can be easily be falsified with counterexamples.

Here are some counterexamples:
- Quarks prior to the late 1960s
- Newtonian gravity prior to Newton inventing the mathematics for Newtonian gravity
- General Relativity prior to the mathematics for General Relativity being developed
- A planet far far faraway that cannot be observed
- Atoms and electromagnetism prior to scientists finding ways to empirically test the existence of those things
- Everything in modern science proven to exist now during the time period that it was empirical un-testable

There are many many many things that human beings cannot directly perceive with their senses that really exist. Many things I mentioned on this list can only be indirectly detected, so they cannot be directly seen, felt, or heard even in modern times.

Here are somethings that may exist that human beings cannot directly or indirectly detect in modern times:
- 1-dimensional strings (quadrillions of times smaller than quarks)
- multiple universes
- gravitons

The simple fact is human beings can only scientifically know what’s within the realm of empirical testability, everything outside of that human beings cannot know (scientifically).

“I have never directly seen, heard, or felt the presence of any God” - You haven’t directly  seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt? God has been defined as something that cannot be ordinarily seen, heard, or felt. This is simply a form of circular reasoning. Since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis then God cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt by definition. So this argument can be reduced to saying “I have never directly seen, heard, or felt something that cannot be directly seen, heard, or felt”.

Biblical inerrancy: It’s possible that the Bible contains errors and that God exists so this argument does nothing to show the non-existence or unlikelihood of God. Showing that the Bible contains errors isn’t the same as showing that God doesn’t exist. Arguing against Biblical inerrancy is different from arguing against the existence of God. Arguing that the Bible is full of errors is an argument against Biblical inerrancy, not an argument against the existence of God. The conclusion violates Ockham’s razor so this argument illogical.

What Created God?: God is defined as causeless and requires no Creator. If atheists are arguing that everything requires a cause and that God must have a cause this claim can easily be falsified in science. Energy has no creator, it just had always existed, yet atheists do not object to anyone claiming that energy is causeless, eternal, and all-existing. Many atheists believe that the universe is eternal and always existed…so how can someone argue that the reason why God cannot exist is because God must have a cause but then claim that everything besides God doesn’t require a cause? By what reasoning did atheists conclude that God requires a cause?

No compelling arguments for the existence of a God: Compelling arguments as in scientific evidence for something can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis. So this again is circular reasoning, just the same as saying “There’s no scientific evidence for something that there cannot be scientific evidence for”. If no one finds a way to test the existence of God, multiple universes, the string theory or anything else empirically untestable then scientific evidence cannot exist for it. All hypotheses and theories in modern science that have scientific evidence today were unproven and lacked evidence during the time period that they were empirically untestable.

Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.

The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism of their arguments is specifically because they are anti-science fanatics and know that their arguments and beliefs are wrong and false, so they ban and block anyone from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing their arguments. If a statement is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so why do atheists intentionally prevent criticism for?

Since I know my statements are true I intentionally encourage criticism.

Atheistic arguments are so laughable and weak, I don’t know how anyone can seriously take atheistic arguments seriously. If atheists really take their arguments seriously then they must be foolish, idiotic, senseless, or not understand anything about logic or science.

There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

October 22, 2013 / itsnobody

Richard Dawkins – a closet Nazi White Nationalist racist

“It is an article of passionate faith among “politically correct” biologists and anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway.” – Richard Dawkins, from The Evolutionary Future of Man (1993)

“When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.” – Richard Dawkins, 2007 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/01/internationaleducationnews.religion)

Richard Dawkins had organized anti-Israel protests back in 2002 (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/08/highereducation.israel). So most likely Richard Dawkins IS a closet Nazi White Nationalist.

Dawkins seem to be pretending to be less racist now in modern times since many have criticized him for being racist (because of free speech, something atheists unanimously oppose).

Richard Dawkins’ beliefs fit in perfectly with White Nationalism:
- To support scientific racism as opposed to the creationist delusion
- To view Martin Luther King Jr. as just another dumb delusional creationist reverend
- To oppose Israel and hate Jews

So Richard Dawkins is probably secretly a White Nationalist, just like how the vast majority of White atheists are secretly or openly White Nationalists, and just like how 100% of all modern day atheist countries like Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, New Zealand, etc…are all White Nationalist countries.

You just have to realize that all atheists are in on this.

Here’s a comment from an atheist from a regular atheist fan site (not meant to be a racist web site):

Wow, you are very soft if Stromfront is too hard stuff for you. It is the most neutral place. You find VERY few republicans there, Biblebelt Neocons have NEVER been popular in the circles. They are even seen as bigger enemies than democrats! Stick around, once the shock and denial passes, you will follow the white rabbit too.

Read more: http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/11/atheism-and-white-power.html

We already know that in the US Tom Metzger (founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance) is an atheist, and also that Larry Darby (former state director of the extremely popular atheist group ‘American Atheists’) is a holocaust denier.

People have to realize what atheists/racists are trying to do society before it’s too late, I don’t want the US to become as racist as modern day atheist countries are and there’s absolutely zero opposition towards racism in the atheist community.

I hope I can get society to view atheists as subhuman beings before it’s too late.

When you see an atheist, don’t hesitate, view this person as a subhuman being, like nothing.

May 10, 2013 / itsnobody

Socialism – The best choice for White Nationalists, racists, and Nazis

A pure socialist society with no market is the best form of government for a White Nationalist/Nazi/Whites-only type of society. Racism/White Nationalism/Nazism all fits in perfectly with far-left liberal socialism.

The main reason why liberal atheists support socialism is specifically because they agree with and support racism.

How racists benefit from socialism:
- No need for immigration and no benefit from immigration

With a socialist form of government since there is no market, there’s no need for immigration, and no benefit from immigration. The free market system actually grows and benefits from immigration, in many cases even from illegal immigration.

This is probably the main reason that a socialist form of government is the best for White Nationalists/atheists/Nazis.

- Prevents non-whites from moving to White countries

The free market system creates jobs and many companies bring in immigrant workers. With socialism there won’t be any jobs available for immigrant workers.

Finding jobs in states with socialist laws is much more difficult than in states that have more of a free market system.

Socialism in other countries also benefits White Nationalists because if the people in other countries had socialism they would have no need to move to Western countries.

Since they wouldn’t have any need to move to Western countries there would be very few non-white immigrants attempting to go to Western countries.

- No benefit from serving non-white customers, no one can boycott

In a free market system, companies benefit by serving any customer regardless of race since they would gain more profits. With a socialist form of government, there is no benefit from serving non-whites.

This of course is perfect for a Whites-only type of society.

Say for instance there’s a socialist store, since everything is free, and no one can boycott anything the socialist store can just serve White customers alone (ignoring anyone else) without having to worry about their company falling under or anything.

The same with socialized medicine. In liberal atheist countries like Sweden socialized medicine makes racial discrimination extremely easy. They don’t have to serve non-whites, and in many cases serving non-whites would hurt their country. Socialized medicine allows them to serve their own kind first, and just ignore others.

Just look at the areas where there’s a free market, like restaurants, attractions, etc…they attract non-whites and companies gain money from serving non-white customers. With socialism you can prevent non-whites from going outside.

- Hate speech laws to prevent people from criticizing racists

With hate speech laws no one can criticize you for being racist. You can interpret any type of criticism as “hate speech” and that would include criticizing racists.

“Free speech” or allowing people to criticize others for being racist makes it very difficult for racists. Someone’s whole family name could just go down as racist if someone found out that they were racist and it would look really bad for them. So free speech only makes private secretive racist comments acceptable.

With hate speech laws people can be as racist as they want knowing that no one is allowed to criticize them for being racist.

- Stops non-whites and low IQ groups from doing certain jobs

With socialism the government determines your ability (they would most likely use IQ testing or some other tests to determine your ability) and you would only be allowed to do jobs that’s within your ability.

This means if your dream is to be an astronaut but the socialist government says you’re only capable of working as a janitor, garbage man, or lawn mower then that’s all that you can do.

This of course is perfect for a Whites-only type of society.

In a free market free society there are all types of high paying jobs available that don’t require much IQ type intelligence. In a free market system money is power so this means that all types of low IQ people could have lots of power.

- Any policy that makes things hard for businesses is better for a Whites-only type of society

The more regulations and the harder it is for companies to setup, the better it is for a Whites-only type of society. Most liberal states have extremely low non-white populations for this reason already.

When companies setup they almost always bring in non-white employees and non-white customers, making a Whites-only type of society impossible.

So any policy, regulation, law, etc…that makes things difficult for companies, causes them to go out of business, or not setup works to automatically preserve a Whites-only type of society.

This includes policies that supposedly help out minorities like minimum wage. States that set the minimum wage very high automatically prevent companies from setting up there or cause them to go out of business or hire less employees which in turn causes them to not bring in non-white employees and customers.

So if you really want to live in a Whites-only type of society support any policy, regulation, or law that makes it hard for businesses!

In Conclusion:
- A socialist government is perfect for a Whites-only White Nationalist type of government
- A free market free society is perhaps the worst thing for a Whites-only type of society
- Liberal atheists all know that socialism is better for a Whites-only type of society and racism, that’s why they support socialism

March 23, 2013 / itsnobody

Movement to get society to view atheists as subhuman beings rather than as actual human beings

Petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/consider-atheists-as-subhuman-beings-rather-than/
Goal: 15 million signatures

I set the number to 15 million because the combined population of Sweden and New Zealand (the two most disgusting racist atheist countries) is less than 15 million.

In modern times 100% of all White atheist countries are extremely racist like Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, and any other White atheist country.

My goal is to get society in general to view atheists as subhuman beings rather than as actual human beings since the atheist kind intentionally refuse to even acknowledge that racist atheists exist and criticize them.

Truthfully a dog is much higher form of existence than a low-life atheist is.

There’s a big difference between correlation and causation, the rise the atheist population directly causes White Nationalism and racism to increase because:
- There’s no mainstream Christian denomination that accepts White Nationalism
- The belief in evolution and natural selection directly causes one to believe that certain ethnic groups are genetically less intelligent like liberal atheists James D. Watson and Richard Lynn point out

We have yet to see the atheist community come out and openly oppose racism, so until that time I’ll always view them as subhuman beings.

To read atheists’ responses see the other posts here:
- http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/why-are-atheists-so-racist/
- http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/why-society-should-not-accept-atheistsracists-as-human-beings/

I’m still waiting for atheists to answer three simple questions I posed:
– If you’re not a racist then instead of simply claiming not to be racist to me why don’t you open up your low-life atheist mouth and voice opposition towards racism and criticize racist atheists?
– Why do you want people to not to criticize atheists for being racist?
– What can be considered as evidence that atheist countries are racist (since peer-reviewed studies, objective racist events, an racist parties gaining power don’t constitute as evidence)?

My guess is White atheists will never answer the questions.

If atheists had actually disagreed we would expect their responses to be like this:
- Acknowledging that 100% of all White atheist countries are extremely racist
- Criticizing them for being racist

Atheists’ responses are like this:
- Nothing can ever be considered as evidence that any atheist country is racist (like peer-reviewed studies, objective racist events, and racist parties gaining power don’t count)
- Anything can be considered as evidence that the US or any religious country is racist
- Change the subject to claiming that only religious people are racist
- Do everything they can to prevent people from criticizing atheists for being racist

The responses from atheists tell us what they care about:
– They care about making atheists appear as “good non-racist” people
– They care about making religious people appear as bad people
– They care about ensuring that no one is allowed to criticize atheists for being racist
– They care about getting people to stop criticizing atheists for being racist

That’s it.

Since they prevent people from criticizing racist atheists we absolutely know they must either agree with and support racism or not disagree strongly enough to say anything.

If it was something like gay rights, or abortion rights or something like that they wouldn’t be remaining silent, this is because they disagree strongly.

You have to realize that every White atheist is in on this together. They’re going to everything they can to ensure that no one is allowed to criticize atheists for being racist.

The rise in the atheist population is a dream come true for White Nationalists.

Atheists being such disgusting vile people will do everything in their power to ensure that no one is allowed to criticize atheists for being racist, thereby allowing atheists to be as racist as they want.

Because atheists intentionally refuse to oppose racism there’s no part of me that considers them as human beings, but instead as fully subhuman beings.

You have to realize that every single White atheist is in on this together.

There’s only like 10-20 years left for the US, once the atheist population goes up in the US it’ll be just like 100% of all modern day atheist countries (Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, etc…)

The US has 0.7% atheist population (according to the 2008 ARIS report) and:
- Tom Metzger the founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance is an atheist
- Larry Darby former state director of popular atheist group “American Atheists” is a holocaust denier

We can predict which countries are next by looking at the rise in the White atheist population:
- Australia
- Canada
- The Netherlands

They’re up next.

People have to realize the seriousness of this situation, truthfully atheists are the lowest of all subhuman beings. There doesn’t even exist one fuckin atheist in the world willing to criticize other racist atheists, so you have to realize what’s going to happen.

Atheists are only willing to try everything they can to prevent people from criticizing racist atheists. They strongly agree with and support racism so they don’t want people to criticize other racist atheists because they know that criticism would reduce the racism.

I’ll always view atheists as subhuman beings until they come out to oppose racism (which of course I’m guessing will never happen).

March 12, 2013 / itsnobody

The historical truth about Nazism and Christianity

“We are the joyous Hitler Youth,
We need no stinkin’ Christian virtue
Our Fuhrer is our savior and future
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We wish to be pagans once again.

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water vessel,
The Church should hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth everywhere.”
- Nazi Youth Song (The 12-year Reich: a social history of Nazi Germany, 1933-1945 By Richard Grunberger. P. 442)

The fools (atheists) have tried to convince people of laughably historically inaccurate claims like “Nazism had it’s roots in Christianity” or that “Hitler was a very religious Christian motivated by Christianity”.

Atheists as a whole are weak, primitive, and small-minded people, this is why they discourage people from looking at actual historical sources and what the historical evidence shows. Atheists only encourage people to read things from atheist fan sites and live in denial.

The main sign of how weak the atheist kind are is their disgust with criticism and scrutiny (one of the main principles in science). Since they know that all of their claims are false and wrong they don’t allow people to question, criticize, and scrutinize their claims. If something really is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny, this is why criticism and scrutiny is an important principle in science (as I repeatedly explain in many of my articles).

Time to wake up the atheist/anti-science crowd: The historical consensus is that Nazism is either unrelated to Christianity or fundamentally opposed to Christianity.

Even the supposedly intelligent atheist Richard Dawkins (the leader of the foolish and disgusting) has made the historically inaccurate error of claiming that Hitler was a Christian (even though every valid historical source indicates otherwise).

Of course atheists aren’t very fond of using actual historical sources, just nonsense found on atheist propaganda sites (these sites obviously do not allow criticism and scrutiny of their laughably historically inaccurate claims or even cite any historical sources).

Let’s start off with what the most prominent Nazi officials thought of Christianity (during a time period when Germany was a very religious Christian country):

  • “We will have to deal with Christianity in a tougher way than hitherto.  We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict.  If our generation does not do it then it would I think drag on for a long time” – Nazi leader, Henrich Himmler (Nazism;  A History In Documents And Eyewitness Accounts, 1919 – 1945 by J. Noakes and G. Pridham)

    “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” – Nazi associate, Hermann Rauschning (Gesprache mit Hitler (Zurich, 1940))

    “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” – Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler (Heiden, Konrad (1935). A History of National Socialism. A.A. Knopf, p. 100)

    “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable” – Nazi Party Chancellery, Martin Bormann (Conway, John S. (1997). The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, p. 383. Full Letter)

    Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Party philosopher wrote in his 30-point plan for the National Reich Church:
    “- The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches.
    - The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
    - The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible.
    - The National Church will clear away from its altars all Crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.
    On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf and to the left of the altar a sword” ( Shirer, William Lawrence (1990). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 240.)

Historians and Researchers on Hitler’s religious views:

  • “[Hitler] was not a Christian in any accepted meaning of that word.”

    - Historian, Max Domarus (Adolf Hitler; Max Domarus (1 April 2007). The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-0-86516-627-1. Retrieved 6 August 2012.)

  • “”Hitler did not believe in the afterlife, but he did believe he would have a life after death because of what he had achieved.”

    - Historian, Laurence Rees (Rees, Laurence (11 September 1997). The Nazis: A Warning from HistoryBBC BooksISBN 978-0-563-38704-6.)

  • “….if we consider Christianity in its traditional or orthodox form: Jesus as the son of God, dying for the redemption of the sins of all humankind. It is a nonsense to state that Hitler (or any of the Nazis) adhered to Christianity of this form.”

    - Researcher, Samuel Koehne (Koehne, Samuel, Hitler’s faith: The debate over Nazism and religion, ABC Religion and Ethics, 18 Apr. 2012)

  • “[Hitler was not a] practising Christian”

    - Historian, Richard Overy (Overy, R. J. (2004). The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 280-282.)

  • Many historians believe that Hitler hated Christianity but did not want to directly confront the situation (since Germany was a very religious Christian country)

    Source: (Robert S. Wistrich (1 May 2007). Laboratory for World Destruction: Germans and Jews in Central Europe. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 375–. ISBN 978-0-8032-1134-6. Retrieved 25 August 2012.)

But what about Hitler’s alleged “pro-Christian” speeches, “Positive Christianity”, and ties between Nazism and the Church:

  • The historical consensus is that the biggest opposition towards Nazism was the Church

    (Yahil, Leni; Friedman, Ina; Galai, Hayah (1991). The Holocaust: the fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945. Oxford University Press US. pp. 57. ISBN 978-0-19-504523-9. Retrieved 2009-08-10)

  • Many historians believe that the Nazis wanted to exterminate Christianity, this is supported by Alfred Rosenberg’s statements, and other historical evidence

    Sources: (Bonney, Richard, Confronting the Nazi war on Christianity: the Kulturkampf newsletters, 1936-1939, p. 10, Peter Lang, 2009, Griffin, Roger (2006). “Fascism’s relation to religion”, in Cyprian Blamires World Fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1. Santa Barbara CA: ABC-CLIO, p. 10, Mosse, George Lachmann (2003). Nazi culture: intellectual, cultural and social life in the Third Reich. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, p. 240: “Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church.”, Bendersky, Joseph W. (2007). A concise history of Nazi Germany. Rowman & Littlefield, p. 147: “Consequently, it was Hitler’s long range goal to eliminate the churches once he had consolidated control over his European empire.”, Shirer, William L. (1990). Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster, p 240: “And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”, Wheaton, Eliot Barculo (1968). The Nazi revolution, 1933-1935: prelude to calamity:with a background survey of the Weimar era. Doubleday, pp. 290, 363: The Nazis sought to “to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch.”)

  • Hitler’s alleged “pro-Christian” public speeches come from during the time period when Germany was a very religious Christian country and when the Nazis didn’t have power (and thus needed to support Christianity to gain power), after the Nazis gained power, in the mid-1930s Hitler’s “pro-Christian” attitude fell away completely, and many Churches were closed down by Hitler

    (Halls, W.D. (1995). Politics, society and Christianity in Vichy France. Oxford: Berg. pp. 179–81. ISBN 1-85973-081-7.)

  • Many historians believe that the gap between Hitler’s public views and private views had to do with  not wanting to publicly fight against the Church since Germany had been an extremely religious Christian country during Hitler’s time

    (Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War: How the Nazis led Germany from conquest to disaster. London: Penguin. pp. 547–8. ISBN 978-0-141-01548-4.)

  • “Positive Christianity” which was invented by Alfred Rosenberg (who already hated Christianity) gained very little support and failed miserably since it was not supported by any mainstream Christian denomination, by 1940 Hitler gave up on supporting “Positive Christianity” since it failed to gain any traction

    (Poewe, Karla (2006). New Religions and the Nazis.Routledge, p. 30.)

Another important thing to note:

  • Recently a great fool (atheist) Richard Carrier has claimed that the book “Hitler’s Table Talk” is nonsense and full of false quotes. This is propounded on many atheist fan sites and most atheists being exceedingly gullible really believe that it’s true.

    However the opinion of Richard Carrier (the source atheist use for this claim) is not accepted by historians and the historical consensus, this entire claim is just nonsense atheist propaganda found on atheist/anti-science fan sites.

    Richard Carrier offers no hard evidence of his claims. Carrier and his supporters are about the only ones who believe that the book “Hitler’s Table Talk” is entirely inaccurate.

    An example of a joke atheist fan site that propounds this lie is nobeliefs.com (http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm). The site actually provides no hard evidence that the book “Hitler’s Table Talk” is inaccurate and simply discusses circumstantial things that would apply to any book published in the past during Hitler’s time (like no recorded audios leftover of the conversation). Even in modern times there are no recorded audios of many conversations that people have. The entire site in general just ignores the historical consensus and historical evidence.

    The original Table Talk books were published in 1951-1953, and everything indicates that these books are as legit as any other Table Talk book in history could be.

    Every historical source (except for Richard Carrier) clearly indicates that the book “Hitler’s Table Talk” is authentic, reliable, and accurate, despite what atheists want to believe and what Richard Carrier believes.

    Sources: (Kershaw, Ian (2001). Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris. London: Penguin. pp. xiv. ISBN 978-0140133639., Piper, Ernst (January 2007). “Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich (extended review)”Journal of Contemporary History 42 (1): 47-57, esp. 49-51. Retrieved 14 January 2013., Shirer, William (1960, 1998). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. London: Arrow Books. pp. 234–240.ISBN 978-0-09-942176-4., Evans, Richard J. (2008). The Third Reich at War: How the Nazis led Germany from conquest to disaster. London: Penguin. pp. 547 (546–9). ISBN 978-0-141-01548-4.).

  • There is also lots of other nonsense found on atheist sites about how every anti-Christian Nazi quote is some how inaccurate. The main strategy these atheists use is to point out one historian who disagrees and ignore the historical consensus as a whole. So you might as well be arguing that the holocaust was a hoax.

    The reason why most historians do not accept this nonsense propounded by atheists that “every anti-Christian Nazi quote is a lie” is simply because multiple different sources (that have nothing to do each other) clearly indicate how anti-Christian the Nazis were.

    It is highly unlikely that different sources that have absolutely no connection to each other would just decide to intentionally lie and some how match up with each other.

    There are many other different sources besides “Hitler’s Table Talk” that all clearly indicate that Hitler was anti-clerical at at least one time period in his life.

    How can every different source that indicates that Hitler was anti-clerical be a made up lie? It doesn’t make sense.

    Besides this we also have undeniable evidence that many Nazi officials were anti-clerical, so it all matches up and explains why the historical consensus doesn’t side with the “pro-Christian Nazi” arguments delusional atheists use.

    Why can’t atheists face reality instead of living in denial?

To summarize the weak pro-Christian Nazi arguments atheists use:
- Make up lies about how the book “Hitler’s Table Talk” was false or how any source indicating anything anti-Christian about the Nazis is false, even though every historical source and the historical consensus indicates that it’s completely accurate and reliable
- Ignore the historical consensus that Nazism is either unrelated to Christianity or fundamentally opposed to Christianity
- Point out pro-Christian speeches Hitler made when the Nazis didn’t have power and when Germany was an extremely religious Christian country (meaning that if Hitler opposed Christianity it would’ve been political suicide and the Nazis would’ve dramatically reduced their chances of gaining power)
- Ignore the historical fact that after the Nazis gained power all of Hitler’s supposed “pro-Christian” behavior ended
- Point out Nazis mentioning a type of “God” even though Henrich Himmler made it clear that when he mentions “God” he is referring to the Pagan Germanic God “Wralda” and Martin Bormann also indicated that he was not referring to any Christian God
- Point out “Positive Christianity” (which was invented by the Nazis and not accepted by any mainstream Christian church) and ignore the fact that Hitler abandoned supporting “Positive Christianity” because it failed and churches continued to oppose it and Nazism in general
- Ignore the fact that the vast majority of historians do not believe that Hitler was a Christian at all, only a very small minority do
- Ignore everything anti-Christian that Hitler did or said
- Ignore all the anti-Christian speeches Nazi officials made
- Ignore how anti-Christian in general Nazism was even during Hitler’s time when Germany was a very religious Christian country
- Ignore the undeniable fact that during Hitler’s time and in modern times no mainstream Christian denomination accepts White Nationalism or any form of it

Henrich Himmler and the other Nazis were very worried about Christianity, but with the non-religious and atheist population rising they won’t have to anymore. The rise in the atheist and non-religious population is a great thing for the Nazi movement.

An ominous warning to the world:
-  The best thing that ever happened to the Nazi/White Nationalist movement is people being less religious and atheistic, because this would guarantee that oppositions towards White Nationalism ceases (since the main opposition towards White Nationalism is Judeo-Christian religions)
- In the US with a 0.7% atheist population Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance is an atheist
- It’s happened in 100% of all White atheist countries (they’ve all become Nazi-ish) like Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, etc…, and will happen in countries with growing atheist populations (Australia, Canada, The Netherlands), and eventually in the US once the atheist population goes up

In conclusion:
- The historical consensus is that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or opposed to it
- Most historians do not believe that Hitler was actually a Christian
- In time Nazism will grow in popularity as the atheist and non-religious population rises (specifically because this causes opposition towards Nazism to cease)
- Everything I’ve written about Nazism and Christianity can be confirmed by concrete reliable historical sources and the historical consensus, just double-check, or tripe-check it if you want
- Atheists will try everything in their power to prevent people from criticizing other racist/Nazi/White Nationalist atheists  and racist atheist countries, this is because atheists strongly agree with and support racism and White Nationalism.

Enjoy these last days in the US, once the atheist and non-religious population goes up that’s it, the Nazis and White Nationalists will attempt to take over!

February 18, 2013 / itsnobody

Debunking the atheist claim: The Less Religious and Atheistic are more intelligent

The fools (atheists) have come up with more propaganda, that the less religious and atheistic are more intelligent.

As I’ve said in my previous articles there is nothing more disgusting to an atheist than allowing criticism and scrutiny of beliefs that they personally agree with. This is because atheists are staunch anti-science fanatics and strongly strongly oppose allowing all things to be subject to criticism and scrutiny (criticism and scrutiny is one of the main principles in science).

Since atheists are extremely gullible people who do not question claims that they personal agree with (since they are anti-science) I’ll do it for them.

This argument atheists use is a clear example of how correlation is not causation.

Since correlation is not causation this makes it extremely easy to distort statistics and come up with all types of propaganda. You can find all types of coincidences that occur and falsely link them as the cause since correlation is not causation.

Now it’s time for me to debunk this claim.

Richard Lynn (a great fool/atheist) claims that more religious countries are less intelligent than less religious countries.

The trick he uses here is comparing the average IQ of the religious vs. non-religious in different ethnic groups.

If we use the ethnic group as a control variable and look at the average IQs of religious vs. non-religious countries within the same ethnic group we see that the IQ difference is very small, that the least religious countries in Europe have lower average IQs and that many religious European countries have high average IQs.

Religious countries in Europe with high average IQs (according to Lynn’s data):
- Switzerland (average IQ 101)
- Austria (average IQ 102)

Czech Republic and Estonia are the least religious countries in Europe:
- Estonia (average IQ 97)
- Czech Republic (average IQ 97)

Estonia has 0 Nobel Prizes (not even one), Switzerland (one of the most religious countries in Europe) has the most scientific Nobel Prizes per capita (among nations with population size above 1 million).

If there was an actual causal link between religiosity and IQ we would expect the least religious countries within the same ethnic group to have higher average IQs, not lower average IQs.

Richard Lynn and other liberal atheists use this exact same trick when claiming that conservative states are less intelligent than liberal states. The keyword here is states.

Most conservative states have more non-whites than liberal states and most liberal states have low non-white population sizes. So let’s use the ethnic group again as a control variable.

Average IQs of conservative states with low non-white populations:
- Montana (average IQ 103.4)
- North Dakota (average IQ 103.8)

Average IQs of liberal states with high non-white populations:
- California (average IQ 95.5)
- Hawaii (average IQ 95.6)

Source: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20(2006)%20Estimating%20state%20IQ.pdf

Once again we see that there is no causal link between political affiliation and average IQ within the same ethnic group. So conservative states like Montana and North Dakota have higher average IQs than all European countries (from Lynn’s data)!

Then we have another fool Helmuth Nyborg who claims that White atheists have higher average IQs than White religious people. He claims that White atheists score around 6 points higher than White Dogmatics.

But I read Nyborg’s paper (http://www.econ.ku.dk/mehr/calendar/seminars/mehr04102012/Nyborg.pdf/) and found that it’s just propaganda filled with errors.

Now to destroy Nyborg’s claim.

The White Dogmatics scored an average IQ of 105 (which would already be higher than almost every country in the entire world) and White atheists scored an average IQ of 111. With an SD of 13 and average IQ of 105 vs. 111 would be insignificant, and with the sampling error factored (which would probably be around 4-6 IQ points) it’s really insignificant.

Another problem is that Anglicans and Jews scored higher than atheists in Nyborg’s study (which Nyborg conveniently doesn’t mention), see table 6 (Anglicans average IQ 113, Jews average IQ 112).

Another other problem is that Nyborg obtains an average IQ of 111 from a sample of just 39 White atheists. With a sample of just 39 people it would only take a few high IQ people in the group for the average to be at 111. Since it’s a small sample size we know that the average IQ is probably inaccurate. For the Dogmatics he uses a large sample size of over a thousand people. Gaining an average IQ of 111 with a sample size of over a thousand people would require a much higher count of high IQ people than in a sample of just 39 people. We could use the same trick and choose 39 people from the Disciples of Christ group and gain an average IQ of 120 if we wanted!

Another problem is household income not correlating with an average IQ of 111 (from the sample of just 39 atheists). From table 8 (in Nyborg’s paper) atheists rank 12th in household income which would correlate better with an average IQ of 104-106. Anglicans and Jews rank 1st and 2nd in household income which correlates well with their high average IQ and other groups also correlate well with the household income, but White atheists don’t fit in at all with the household income data. Lots of Dogmatic groups have higher household incomes than atheists. The household income was gained from a sample of over 87,000 atheists (not 39 people). Since the household income doesn’t correlate with the supposedly high atheist average IQ (gained from just 39 people) this clearly tells us that the average IQ of 111 gained from a sample of just 39 people must be completely wrong. Since atheists rank very low (12th) when it comes to household income this means that either atheists have much lower average IQs than the sample of 39 people indicates or that household income and average IQ are not causally linked.

If you understand basic arithmetic then you should know why a sample size as low as 39 would be highly unreliable.  We could find 39 smart people from basically any group, it doesn’t really mean anything.

In Conclusion:
- The household income data (from a sample of nearly 88,000 White atheists) doesn’t match into the supposedly high White atheist average IQ (from an extremely low unreliable sample of just 39 White atheists) suggesting that within the same ethnic group the more religious are more intelligent
- This argument that atheists use is a clear example of how it’s easy to distort statistics since correlation is not causation
- Based on the data from atheists, IQ differences are very small between different groups within the same ethnic group regardless of religious beliefs or political affiliation
- The main causal link between high IQ and low IQ is the ethnic group (based on the data from liberal atheists)
- In the end all atheists have are tricks
- Nothing really fits in as perfectly together as does liberal atheism, White Nationalism, and Nazism

January 29, 2013 / itsnobody

Why Contributions are more important than Super-High IQ and Prodigious talents

There once was a time when the world valued contributions as the highest achievement, these days are over thanks to the atheists.

Now that the atheists have taken over science, contributions have been severely de-valued to such an extent that people don’t even mention significant contributors anymore.

People who win Nobel Prizes or make Nobel Prize winning contributions aren’t really considered as much of a genius as 200 IQ+ people who contributes nothing.

What’s valued highly in modern times is just super-high IQ or prodigious talents alone. That’s what’s celebrated in the media and everywhere now, not people who make contributions that require lots of intelligence.

Since contributions have been de-valued by atheists, people as a whole are now discouraged from contributing, and since contributions are what advance science and technology, people are discouraged from advancing science and technology.

I’ve asked atheists why they’ve de-valued contributions (that require lots of intelligence), but no atheist has answered this question.

What people are encouraged to do is simply score high on an IQ test, not contribute.

Prior to the fools (atheists) taking over if you wanted to be known as super-smart you would have to come up with contributions that require lots of intelligence to demonstrate your super-smart level of intelligence, not simply score high on an IQ test alone.

Since nearly 100% of IQ 200+ prodigies don’t go on to contribute anything significant (in the Nobel Prize winning range) this tells me that once IQ goes up to a certain point IQ is actually “Learning Speed Quota”, not “Intelligence Quota”.

This “Learning Speed Quota” hypothesis of mine matches basically all of the data. So super-high IQ prodigies would be people who can learn academic material quickly. This would also explain all known links to IQ, why self-discipline predicts GPA better than IQ, why some people with low or below average GPAs have high SAT scores, and why the vast majority of IQ 200+ prodigies don’t turn out to be Nobel Prize winners or the ones who make the most significant contributions.

Once computers become faster it should be relatively easy to get machines to learn material quickly, score above 200 on IQ tests, and do everything that super-high IQ prodigies can do, but it would probably be extremely difficult to get computers to come up with contributions that do not rely upon learning already existing material.

So in other words, once computers become faster high IQ (non-contributing) prodigies will become useless just as how calculators have replaced mental arithmetic champions.

Now onto why contributions are more important than super-high IQ or prodigious talents:

Scenario: It’s WWIII and the US National Defense is trying to come up with new advanced weapons and technology to win the war.

Which person is more useful:
- Someone who comes up and develops new efficient national defense weapons
- Someone has an IQ above 200, but can’t come up with anything

Scenario:  A country has a Food Crisis problem and there isn’t enough food to feed 50% of the population.

Which person is more useful:
- Someone who comes up with new agricultural methods that solves the Food Crisis problem
- Someone who has an IQ above 200 and a 4.0 GPA, but can’t come up with any solutions to this problem

Scenario: A deadly unknown virus has spread and has infected 20% of the population already.

Which person is more useful:
- Someone who finds a new ground-breaking cure or treatment that stops the virus
- Someone who’s a great prodigy and has an IQ above 200, but cannot find a new cure or treatment

Scenario: A software company is running into issues with their database speed and efficiency.

Which person is more useful:
- Someone who invents a ground-breaking new data structure that solves their database problems
- An IQ 200+ prodigy who has a high GPA at a prestigious University, but cannot solve the problem

The world needs contributions to solve all world problems and change the world, not simply people who can learn academic material quickly (super-high IQ).

So why don’t the vast majority of IQ 200+ people go on to win Nobel Prizes or make ground-breaking contributions?

Take for instance Abdesselam Jelloul, the person who allegedly has the highest adult IQ in the world. He hasn’t contributed anything in the Nobel Prize winning range or even close to coming close to. Why is this?

The other person who has a tested adult IQ above 190 is Christopher Langan, who also hasn’t contributed anything in the Nobel prize winning range.

My hypothesis is that “Contributing Power = IQ and some X relationship to Originality” or something similar to this.

With this hypothesis we would conclude that:
- Someone who has an IQ above 200 with no originality would be able to contribute nothing significant
- Low IQ people with lots of originality would also not able to contribute
- Someone who has an IQ in the 90s with lots of originality would be able to contribute lots in certain areas
- The highest contributing power would be the individual with the highest IQ and the highest originality
- In order to be able to contribute in certain areas (like mathematics or physics) you would need a certain minimum IQ or Learning Speed Quota.

The main problem with this hypothesis is that originality is not objectively measurable, but this hypothesis seems to fit the data nonetheless.

By focusing on Contributing Power rather than IQ alone we can encourage both high IQ and contributions, and also find and predict the people who will make ground-breaking contributions.

We need to come up with a reliable Contributing Power test since IQ tests are merely Learning Speed Quota tests.

The worst thing that ever happened to society was the rise in the atheist population, no other group of people have severely de-valued contributions as much as the atheists have.

If we had encouraged people to have a high Contributing Power we would be encouraging high IQ and contributions as well. So it’s really a win/win situation if we value up Contributing Power.

In conclusion:
- IQ tests are merely “Learning Speed Quota” tests, this hypothesis matches all of the data (if anyone has a counterargument to this hypothesis please post it)
- My hypothesis is that “Contributing Power = IQ and some relationship to Originality”
- Society as a whole should go back to valuing contributions more than IQ, since it’s what the world needs

January 24, 2013 / itsnobody

Martin Luther King Jr. – A Delusional Creationist Reverend

A few days ago, in the US, Americans celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. day. According to liberal atheist biologists Martin Luther King Jr. was just another delusional creationist reverend.

In 2007, the most celebrated liberal atheist biologist James D. Watson attempted to debunk creationism, propounded by Martin Luther King Jr. that “all men are created equal”:
“there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but people that have to deal with black employees find this not true” – October 2007, liberal atheist, James D. Watson

Liberal atheist biologists believe that certain ethnic groups are more aggressive, more prone to crime, that some can run faster than others, and that certain ethnic groups are more intelligent than others.

Evolution tells us that it’s absolutely impossible for different ethnic groups that evolved to have different brain sizes and brain structures (that were geographically separated for at least 30,000 years) to have the identical intelligence.

Liberal atheist Richard Lynn published his book “Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis” in March 2006. According to Richard Lynn, sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ less than 70 and admixtures lower the IQ.

All of the atheists that commented on my article called “Why are atheists so racist?” agreed that blacks were genetically less intelligent and we know that in modern times 100% of White atheist countries (like Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, etc…) are extremely racist.

So it’s only a matter of time before the US becomes as racist as say New Zealand or Sweden.

According to the 2008 ARIS report the US has only a 0.7% atheist population, and Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance is an atheist, Larry Darby former state director of the extremely popular atheist group “American Atheists” is a holocaust denier.

The US right now is one of the very least racist countries (in comparison to most other countries). Racism will become more visible in the US within 10-20 years from now specifically because of the rise in the atheist population in the US.

The atheist population directly causes racism to increase because:
- Opposition towards racism ceases once the liberal atheist population goes up (there’s no mainstream Christian denomination that accepts or allows White Nationalism)
- Support for scientific racism (accepting evolution and natural selection as fact as opposed to the creationist delusion) grows
- Race-mixing and admixtures will be discouraged (because according to liberal atheists admixtures lower the IQ)
- Justifying anti-immigration laws will become extremely easy once society accepts the links between ethnic groups, IQ, and crime
- Atheists intentionally refuse to criticize other racist atheists (which means that they either agree with and support racism or don’t disagree strongly enough with racism to criticize other racist atheists)

People have to just face reality and realize what’s going to happen to society once the liberal atheist population goes up. It’s happened in 100% of all modern day predominantly White atheist countries.

The  best form of government for White Nationalists is obviously socialism and anti-immigration (similar to the Nazi Germans). In a socialist society everyone is viewed as inequals and assigned a job by the government according to their ability (their ability would be determined using IQ testing or some other tests administered by the government). With socialism there would also be no need for any immigration or any benefit from immigration, and no one would be able to boycott anything or criticize any racists. People would be stuck with jobs that the government decides they are capable of and it would be extremely easy to keep the low IQ people down. So the far-left liberal atheist Karl Marx style socialism is perfect for a Whites-only type of society (whereas a free market free society is a terrible thing for a Whites-only type of society).

A fine example of how racists benefit with socialism can be seen with Sweden’s socialist health care system. In Sweden (on a daily basis) there is discrimination in the health care system. Doctors, nurses, and other government employees freely discriminate against anyone. What’s going to happen if Swedes don’t serve some immigrant seeking medical treatment? The answer is nothing. The government won’t go out of business, boycotting the health care system would do nothing, the employees won’t be fired, and serving more immigrants would actually hurt them.

On the other hand with a pure free market health care system companies benefit financially from serving anyone who has money regardless of their race and people can boycott companies. So if companies don’t serve someone in a free market health care system they run the risk of going out of business or being boycotted.

So with socialism racists can racially discriminate as much as they want without anything negative happening to them or the government.

It’s just a matter of time now, so all the non-whites in the US enjoy these last few years leftover before the atheists/racists take over.

I’m just warning the world, again.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers

%d bloggers like this: