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.

August 17, 2014 / itsnobody

Top 10 Questions for Atheists – Part II

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!

August 3, 2014 / itsnobody

What’s with evidence?

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:

Claim: “Lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence indicates that a claim is false”
Claim: “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence”
Correct Claim: “Contradictory evidence is evidence of absence”
Claim: “Assuming that things are false until proven true is valid”
Correct Claim: “Assuming that things are false because of contradictory evidence is valid”
In order to falsify these statements we can just point out counterexamples:
– Everything proven to exist or be true in modern science now lacked evidence in the past
– Unproven mathematical theorems of the past

If a mere lack of evidence indicates that a claim is false then we should expect everything in modern science to be false since everything in modern science lacked evidence during the time-period that it lacked empirical testability.

There was no shred of evidence for everything in modern science now from the heliocentric theory, atoms, quarks, black holes, electromagnetism, General Relativity, Newtonian gravity, and so on during the time-period that these things lacked empirical testability.

So this completely falsifies the reasoning that a “lack of evidence” indicates that a claim is false.

Many theories and hypotheses have been falsified in science with contradictory evidence, not a mere ‘lack of evidence’.

So what’s contradictory evidence? It’s just evidence that contradicts a claim.

Contradictory evidence can only exist if a hypothesis is empirically testable, so evidence is only relevant if a hypothesis is empirically testable.

Claim: “You can’t prove a negative”
Correct Claim: “You can prove a negative”

In mathematics and logic it’s easy to prove a negative, just use a proof by contradiction or counterexamples. There are lots of negative proofs that exist.

Here’s an example, a negative statement: “There is no such thing as the greatest odd integer” can easily be proven by using a proof by contradiction.

You can prove a negative by falsifying a positive, like if someone claims “Every odd integer is prime” then using a counterexample like the integer 9 you would prove the statement “Not every odd integer is prime” true.

In science it’s easy to prove a negative or positive statement as long as it’s an empirically testable statement, just use a proof by contradiction, counterexamples, or rephrase the negative statement into a positive statement.

Here’s an example:
– To prove that acupuncture does not work use a proof by contradiction (assume the hypothesis that “acupuncture does work” then arrive at contradictory data for that hypothesis)
– To prove that acupuncture does not work rephrase the negative statement into a positive statement then prove it (prove that “acupuncture is indistinguishable from a placebo effect” or that “acupuncture is useless in treating anything”)

So we can easily see that you can prove negative mathematically and scientifically (as long as the hypothesis is empirically testable).

Of course it’s important to remember that it’s impossible to prove or disprove any empirically untestable claim.

Claim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Correct Claim: “Extraordinary claims require the regular standards of evidence”

This statement is very common in the media and elsewhere, but it’s merely an argument from personal incredulity.

Basically what this statement is saying is if a claim pushes your incredulity you would somehow need different standards of evidence to believe. But history and science tells us that using your incredulity to determine whether or not a hypothesis is true or false is an invalid methodology that would give highly inaccurate data. Basically everything in modern science might push anyone’s incredulity!

In science things require the same standards of evidence and proof regardless of how much they might or might not push someone’s subjective incredulity.

Requiring different standards of evidence because of incredulity is invalid because incredulity is something subjective (and not objectively measurable) and what tells us what reality is like isn’t incredulity but empirical observation.

Reality behaves the way it does regardless of human incredulity.

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.

In Conclusion:
– 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

May 22, 2014 / itsnobody

How evolution and science support ethnic discrimination

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!

April 26, 2014 / itsnobody

Final call to view atheists as subhuman beings

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).

Nazis/atheists rejoice!

The racist/Nationalist atheist future is almost here!

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).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers

%d bloggers like this: