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.
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.
We have not heard the atheist-controlled media come out to attack free-will believers like how they have attacked Creationists even though the gaps Creationists point out are much much bigger and more objective than the gaps that free-will believers point out, but why is this?
It’s because the atheist-controlled media doesn’t really care about evidence, science, or proof, they care about ridiculing religion. I’m sure if people had attacked evolution for non-religious reasons they wouldn’t have that much of an issue with it.
- Physics tells us that free-will MUST be non-existent, that free-will is a scientific impossibility, it’s impossible
- Physics doesn’t tell us that evolution MUST be true (or even anything close)….
The neuroscientific consensus is that free-will is non-existent.
I haven’t heard even the tiniest peep from the atheist-controlled media attacking free-will believers, have you? People can freely talk about and discuss free-will at Universities without much issue, but they cannot do the same with evolution, why? If you go to a University and say “I believe in free-will” or “that free-will could exist” nothing would happen, but if you don’t believe in evolution you could get fired.
If you visit anti-science/atheist forums they allow discussions of free-will with no issue, but not discussions of evolution, even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is about a thousand times more objective and concrete than the evidence telling us that evolution occurred only through the known mechanisms, lol, what a joke the anti-science atheist clowns are.
The Scientific Evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent:
- Repeatable experiments (Libet’s experiment, RT experiments, Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimuli, etc..)
- Repeatable observations (drugs and chemical reactions altering consciousness)
- EVERYTHING in every single field of modern science (physics, chemistry, psychology, neuroscience, biology, medicine, etc…)
So the only way that free-will can exist is if somehow all of modern science is wrong.
Believing in free-will would require much more faith than believing that evolution is somehow false, but because of the atheist-controlled media most people wouldn’t know. I haven’t seen any documentaries in the media attacking free-will believers like how they attack Creationists, have you?
A Proof By Contradiction that free-will believers must not believe in science or care about evidence, or proof:
- If it’s true that you believe in science and care about evidence and proof then you would be around 100% certain that free-will is non-existent
- Believing in free-will contradicts this claim, proving that a free-will believer must NOT believe in science or care about evidence or proof
Now onto why the gaps free-will believers point out are insignificant and much smaller than the gaps Creationists point out.
Debunking the two main “gaps” free-will believers use:
- Circular reasoning: Quite common in free-will believing circles…they’ll say something like “free-will exists because I can choose to do [some action here]“…the only problem with this argument is that it’s circular reasoning.
You can’t conclude that you can choose unless you already assume that free-will exists. So this is just the same as saying “free-will exists because I assume that I have free-will and can choose”…which is basically equivalent to saying nothing.
If free-will was 100% non-existent we would conclude that “you feel inside that you can choose when in reality you always uncontrollably act”…this hypothesis of course matches every single piece of data perfectly. You don’t need to invoke the existence of free-will to explain anything.
Circular reasoning (concluding something by first assuming it) isn’t evidence of anything…
- Non-determinism: There’s three main issues with the infamous non-determinism argument from free-will believers:
- Neurons aren’t quantum particles or even close – Why would anyone believe that non-deterministic effects would apply to something as large as neurons (at least 18,000 times larger than most atoms)?
- Unpredictable will isn’t free-will - If we did somehow apply non-determinism to the brain it would be equivalent to saying that “someone who always has an uncontrollable spontaneous brain disorder has free-will”…how is that free-will?
- Challenging all conclusions drawn from determinism - If you believe that non-determinism can apply to the brain and neurons then you’re challenging basically all conclusions drawn from deterministic physics, like heliocentricism, General Relativity, radiocarbon dating, and every other conclusion drawn from deterministic physics. So do you free-will believers believe that we can throwout all the evidence telling us that heliocentricism is true (since it uses deterministic physics)? If you don’t, then why would you believe that we can throwout all the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent?
There can’t be any free-will. When you keep questioning why you did something you’ll see that it’s ALWAYS traced back to an uncontrollable reaction, not a choice or any choosing.
Most free-will believers/atheists would ridicule young Earth Creationists who attack radiometric dating, but we can see that free-will is more of an outlandish claim!:
- Radiometric dating pre-assumes that determinism is true, that “a collection of atoms of a radioactive nuclide decays exponentially at a [PREDICTABLE] rate described by a parameter known as the half-life”
- A carbon atom is around 0.22 nm in diameter, compared to 0.004 mm – 0.1 mm for a neuron, so neurons are around 18,000 – 450,000 times larger than carbon atoms!
- If the fools (atheists) believe that non-determinism can apply to something as large as a neuron, they must certainly believe that it would apply to something as small as a collection of carbon atoms, meaning that radiometric dating would be invalid if they are correct!
- Believing that non-determinism would apply to things as large as neurons would completely negate the accuracy of radiometric dating (meaning the decay time is unpredictable)
Just a simple example of how the gaps Creationists point out are actually more rational and much bigger than the gaps that free-will believers point out. Is it more irrational to believe that non-deterministic effects would apply to something as small as a collection of atoms or to something as large as neurons?
Questions for free-will believers:
- If the scientific evidence supporting evolution is enough to convince you then the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent should be MORE than enough to convince you, so do you believe in evolution or not?
- If the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent isn’t enough to convince you then the scientific evidence supporting evolution shouldn’t be even close to close to enough to convince you, so do you believe in evolution or not?
- Do you believe that all of modern science in general is wrong (since if free-will exists it would mean so)?
- Do you have any other reason for believing in free-will besides the two main gaps I pointed out?
The gaps Creationists point out when attacking evolution are much bigger and more objective than the gaps that free-will believers point out. This is because physics doesn’t tell us that evolution must be true like how it tells us that free-will must be non-existent.
The story of how free-will is non-existent has remained consistent throughout scientific history (since the scientific revolution began!).
The story of how humans evolved keeps changing over and over again. This is because the scientific evidence supporting evolution is very weak in comparison to the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent. If you read books on how humans evolved from the 1990s it’s very different from modern day books (2010s+) on how humans evolved, and that’s the change that occurred only in around 20 years. It’s only been since 2008 that Denisovans have even been discovered!
For instance, recently (December 2013) a 400,000 year-old Denisovan human fossil has been discovered in Europe distorting the previously accepted picture of human evolution. The mtDNA analysis shows the fossil to be Denisovan, which is real shock and hard to swallow, so hard that most biologists still insist that it must be homo heidelbergensis regardless of the mtDNA analysis.
“The story of human evolution is not as simple as we would have liked to think,” Meyer said. “This result is a big question mark. In some sense, we know less about the origins of Neanderthals and Denisovans than we knew before.” – http://www.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html
The reason why the story hasn’t been consistent for evolution is because the scientific evidence supporting evolution isn’t nearly as objective as the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent (based on direct observations, experiments, and really everything in modern science).
Physics doesn’t tell us that evolution must have occurred just as modern day biologists believe, that’s why evolution is so much weaker than the non-existence of free-will.
- If you say you do believe in free-will, then this is basically equivalent to saying that you don’t believe in science or care about evidence or proof
- If you say you don’t believe in free-will, then you must already believe in some type of God
- If you say that you aren’t certain or sure if free-will exists, then you shouldn’t be certain of anything in science
So it’s just a lose/lose/lose situation for the atheists.
If we as a society gave up on the free-will delusion then:
- No one could blame anyone, knowing their actions to be uncontrollable
- It would be very easy to forgive and forget, not hold grudges, etc…
- We could look at the scientific causes of negative behavior and try to eliminate negative behavior rather than merely blaming people
- People could see the true innocence of all beings
The delusional belief in free-will causes so many issues in society, mainly causing people to unnecessarily blame each other.
- There can’t be any such thing as “free-will” (based on everything in modern science)
- The reason why the media has attacked Creationists has absolutely nothing to do with science, evidence, or proof, but with ridiculing religion
- The media hasn’t come out to attack free-will believers and is directly responsible for allowing the delusional belief in free-will to continue
- If you believe that free-will is debatable then you should believe that evolution and everything else in science is debatable
- The media and free-will believing atheists in general do not care about evidence, science, or proof, it was just a LIE
- Atheists in general are disgusting people, the nastiest people, the lowest form of life, animals, manimals, savages, subhuman beings
- The main block to human progress has always been atheists
I have some more questions for the fools (atheists), they are always so foolish (atheistic).
Here are my questions:
#10 – Why can’t atheists accept the historical consensus on Nazism and religion (that Nazism is either unrelated to or opposed to Christianity) instead of spreading lies debunked by historians?
#9 – Since there’s more scientific evidence contradicting the existence of free-will than there is contradicting the existence of God or supporting evolution, do you have an issue with people who believe in free-will?
#8 – Since abiogenesis lacks evidence and is unfalsifiable, do you have an issue with people who believe in abiogenesis?
#7 – Why can’t atheists accept the historical consensus that Faraday’s Sandemanian religion directly caused him to believe that magnetism, electricity, and light were linked as one which in turn caused James Clerk Maxwell to formulate Maxwell’s Equations (so religion is responsible for modern day electrical technology)?
#6 – Why after more than 6.5 years of this blog post ( http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/11/atheism-and-white-power.html ) being up hasn’t there not been even one anti-racist comment from an atheist there (100% of the comments from atheists support racism or White Nationalism) since it’s a NORMAL atheist blog site?
#5 – Why are 100% of all modern day atheist countries (like Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Latvia, Estonia, etc…) extremely racist and nationalist beyond imagination according to the studies done there?
#4 – Why can’t atheists accept that I falsified their popular claim that “atheist nations are peaceful” with examples of violent atheist countries like Estonia and North Korea?
#3 – Why does the atheist community remain silent in opposition towards racism and White Nationalism yet voice their position and speak up on things like gay rights and abortion rights?
#2 – Why aren’t there any atheist blog sites or forums that allow free and open criticism like how I do but instead interpret any type of criticism as “trolling” or something like that (an anti-science stance), since criticism and scrutiny is an extremely important principle in science?
#1 – Why can’t atheists accept the historical consensus that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and that there were no “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the delusional anti-historian atheist media?
The reason why criticism and scrutiny use to be an important principle in science prior to the fools (atheists) taking over is because if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism. So the more people question, criticize, and scrutinize things the closer we come towards the truth.
But now that the fools (atheists) are taking over they’re trying to make everything about authority and incredulity, and eliminate criticism all together by interpreting any type of criticism as “trolling” thereby turning science into a pseudo-scientific popularity contest.
Overall, I hope to achieve my goal of getting society to view atheists as subhuman beings as opposed to actual human beings, not partially human, but fully subhuman.
It’s the free market free speech free society, it’s a terrible thing for a Whites-only type of society.
Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!
It looks like the value of evidence and what evidence means has become obscured now that the fools (atheists) have taken over science.
The fools (atheists) have tried to trick people into believing such lies as:
– “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
– “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
– “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”
– “You can’t prove a negative”
– “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Now to debunk these claims:
If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve said feel free to criticize, scrutinize, or question me. Unlike the fools (atheists) who strongly strongly discourage criticism and scrutiny of any claim they personally agree with by subjectively interpreting any type of criticism as “trolling” I encourage and invite criticism, this is because if a statement really is true then it would stand up to any amount of criticism. So the more people criticize, scrutinize, and question things the closer we come towards the truth.
– A mere lack of evidence by itself tells us nothing about if a hypothesis is true or false
– Contradictory evidence indicates that a claim is false
– Supporting evidence indicates that a claim is true
– Supporting and contradictory evidence can only exist if a hypothesis is empirically testable
– Evidence can only be relevant if a hypothesis is empirically testable
I think I would understand evolution and natural selection much better than many PhD biology students, so I’ll explain exactly how evolution and natural selection support ethnic discrimination.
Liberal atheist biologists all unanimously agree that Martin Luther King Jr. was just another dumb delusional creationist reverend trying to spread creationist propaganda.
Creationists believe that all humans are equal before God, but liberal atheists know that it’s just the creationist delusion.
Liberal atheist Richard Lynn published his book “Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis” in March 2006, explaining how evolution supports racism.
Perhaps the most celebrated liberal atheist biologist of all time, James D. Watson made his statements on how evolution supports racism:
“There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”
“inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”
“there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”
- Liberal atheist biologist, James D. Watson, DNA co-discoverer, October 2007
Liberal atheist biologists think 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, but can these claims be justified with science?
The answer is definitely YES.
Let’s look at these claims:
- Certain ethnic groups are more aggressive, more prone to crime
According to many studies decision making and aggression are connected to brain activity in the frontal lobes. Studies have shown that adults have more brain activity in their frontal lobes than teenagers do when processing emotions (Begley, S. February 28, 2000. “Getting Inside a Teen Brain.” Newsweek. Brownlee, S. August 9, 1999. “Inside the Teen Brain.” U.S.News. Giedd, J.N. et al. October 1999. “Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study.” Nature. Vol 2, No 10, pp. 861-863. Medical Data International. June 15, 1998. “Don’t Understand Teens? Researchers Try to Provide Insight.” Medical Industry Today.) leading to more rational decision making than teenagers .
But since different human ethnic groups have radically different brain sizes (varying from around 1100 cc – 1500 cc) there’s no doubt that this same implication that applies to adults versus teenagers would also apply to different ethnic groups.
Justifiable with science: YES
- Certain ethnic groups can run faster than others
“Sternlight said that she was amazed that whether people ran fast or slow, uphill or downhill, everyone had about the same swing time at top speed. Those running 14 mph and those running 27 mph both took between 0.37 and 0.4 second to swing one leg in front of the other.
What limits top speed, then, is the minimum time you take to swing your leg into position for the next step,” Sternlight concludes. “That’s evidently a fundamental limit for all humans. What determines how fast you can run is how fast you’re going when you reach that limit.” (Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements.
Weyand PG1, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000 Nov;89(5):1991-9.).
Since different ethnic groups have different physical traits, undoubtedly just as how some ethnic groups are genetically taller than others there will be certain ethnic groups that genetically can run faster (achieve greater ground forces).
Justifiable with science: YES
- Certain ethnic groups are more intelligent than others
According to multiple studies brain size and intelligence are directly linked (Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence, MA McDaniel – Intelligence, 2005 – Elsevier).
According to multiple studies different ethnic groups have different brain sizes varying from 1212 cc – 1518 cc (Cultural Correlates with Cranial Capacity. Courtland L. Smith, Kenneth L. Beals, 1990. American Anthropologist.).
So since it’s been proven that different ethnic groups have radically different brain sizes that must mean that they also have different intelligence levels (assuming that brain size and intelligence are linked).
We already know with 100% certainty that brain size varies greatly from ethnic group to ethnic group.
Justifiable with science: YES
Debunking Creationist Myths:
- Since human beings are genetically very close this means they must all be very similar in terms of intelligence
Since brain size has been proven to be controlled by few genes this makes this argument irrelevant.
What genetics shows us is that very small gene changes have big effects in reality, even though they are very small. This means what matters in reality is the significance of the gene changes and not the genetic distance.
There can be two individuals genetically very distant that have similar brain sizes and two other individuals genetically very close with radically different brain sizes since brain size is controlled by few genes.
“there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as a single species” (Coppinger & Schneider, 1995)
The greyhound breed can run around 39-45 mph while the average dog breed can only run around 17 mph, even though dog breeds are genetically closer together than human ethnic groups are!
In short, being genetically close doesn’t indicate that intelligence would be similar since brain size is controlled by few genes.
- “Race” is a social construct
This one is actually true and not a myth.
It’s quite true that “race” is a social construct, just something made up, but the ethnic group isn’t a social construct, it really exists. The ethnic group is something objective that can be seen in genetics objectively.
But is saying that certain ethnic groups are more intelligent really that different from saying that certain “races” are more intelligent?
“Race” isn’t something scientific, but the ethnic group is, so evolution and natural selection would support ethnic discrimination.
- All human beings came from Africans therefore all different human ethnic groups have the same intelligence
Just another nonsensical argument.
Human beings coming from Africans, an ape-like ancestor, or bacteria doesn’t indicate that all human ethnic groups have the same intelligence levels as Africans, an ape-like ancestor, or bacteria.
This goes back to the genetic distance argument. What matters in reality is significance of the gene changes, not genetic distance or the ancestral root.
Eventually in time everyone decided to view Martin Luther King Jr. as just another delusional.
So what does this mean? Why does it matter?
There is no way to look at modern science and evolution in a non-discriminatory way, it’s impossible.
Just as how liberals believe that the government should take action based on what science tells us about global warming so too do liberal atheist biologists believe that the government should take action based on what science tells us about the ethnic groups.
In the future, once people finally accept science and evolution it seems that they decided to separate out ethnic groups or exterminate certain ethnic groups (I can’t tell which one happened, but it’s one or the other).
Human ethnic groups WILL be separated out by 2200 or earlier, all around the world!
The quicker people accept modern science and evolution the quicker this WILL occur.
That’s why it matters.
So enjoy these last days while you can!
One of my goals in life, well just for this year is to get society as a whole to start viewing atheists as fully subhuman.
I want society to consider atheists as fully subhuman as opposed to partially human or fully human and be viewed as lower than dogs, cats, rats, and other animals until they come out to oppose racism/nationalism because of the racism/nationalism directly caused by the atheist population.
We know in modern times that 100% of all atheist countries (New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, etc…) are extremely racist/nationalist.
I predict that by the year 2030-2040 the US will become far more racist/nationalist because of the rise of atheism in the population (right now the US is one of the least racist countries in comparison to others).
Since my hypothesis that “the atheist population directly causes White Nationalism/Nazism/racism to thrive and grow” is empirically testable we can predict which countries are up next to become racist/nationalist/Nazi by looking at the rise in the atheist population: Australia, Canada, The Netherlands.
Now I explained in high details before exactly how the atheist population directly causes racism/Nationalism/Nazism to grow, it’s not correlation, it’s causation.
The proof is simple:
– There aren’t any mainstream Christian denominations that accept White Nationalism or Nazism.
This has been true throughout history, Christians believe that “all men hath one blood” and that Christianity is for the whole world not one nation.
So if there was no Christianity it would be almost guaranteed that there would be far less opposition towards White Nationalism/Nazism/racism.
What happens once the atheist population goes up is:
– There’s no more opposition towards racism/Nationalism/Nazism
– If you attempted to oppose racist/Nationalist/Nazi atheists other supposedly “non-racist” atheists would do everything in their power to stop you from opposing racism
– Racist/Nationalist/Nazi atheists are finally free to be as racist/nationalist/Nazi-ish as they want
After criticizing the atheist community for being racist not one atheist commented like this “I think that there really are racist atheists and I think that racism is terrible” or in some other manner opposing racism.
Instead the atheist comments all fit into these categories:
– Agreeing with and supporting racism/nationalism/Nazism
– Doing something to “stop people from criticizing atheists” for being racist/nationalist/Nazi-ish
How do atheists accomplish the feat of “stopping people from criticizing atheists for being racist/nationalist/Nazi-ish”, like this:
– Try to make atheists look good (many ways to do this)
– Change the subject to claiming that only Christians or Theists are racist
– Claim that nothing can ever be considered as evidence that atheists or atheist countries are racist/nationalist (and that anything can be considered as evidence that Theists are racist, LOL!)
– Claim that you can’t be racist and atheist or something else ridiculous and laughable (that’s been thoroughly falsified)
– Try to stop people from performing studies that atheists know would make atheists look racist and bad (like I’ve strongly suggested performing studies on ‘The Religious views of people who identify themselves as White Nationalist’ in the US, but the atheist community is trying to stop it)
– Throw personal attacks at me or others who criticize racist atheists
So from the responses from the atheists, we can see that the atheist community is concerned with: Making the atheist community look good (by stopping people from criticizing racist atheists), thereby allowing racist atheists to be as racist as they want.
Notice that on things like gay rights and abortion rights the atheist community comes out to voice their position, but on racism the atheist community remains silent in opposition towards racism or tries to stop people from opposing racist atheists.
There’s nothing preventing the atheist community from opposing racism and voicing their position like what they do on things like gay rights and abortion rights.
If you’re a White Nationalist/Nazi/racist AND an atheist, it’s like a dream come true, a win/win situation:
– There’s no opposition towards you
– If someone attempts to oppose you the supposedly non-racist atheists would do everything in their power to stop them
– You’re FREE to be as racist/nationalist/Nazi-ish as you want
If you can support the extreme far-left on social and fiscal issues you can bring back a Whites-only type of society!
Support the belief in evolution, oppose Israel, and support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!
Back in 1988 no one in Sweden supported SD (the Nationalist party) or SVP (the Nazi party) they got 0%, they only gained power in the year 2010 in Sweden when the atheist population went up.
Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi movement White Aryan Resistance is an atheist, and Larry Darby former state director of the extremely popular atheist group “American Atheists” is a holocaust denier even though the US has only a 0.7% atheist population!
I hope I can encourage the world to do the right thing: View atheists as subhuman beings, the lowest form of life, the enemy, the liar, the fraud, the worst of all subhuman beings until they come out to oppose racism (probably never).
The racist/Nationalist atheist future is almost here!
“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.
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.