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.
“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.
I don’t know which idiot (or idiots) decided to go with IPv4 when developing a “world-wide network”.
IPv4 (even with NAT) has already approached it’s limits (see IPv4 address exhaustion).
IPv6 is the future.
264 = 1.844674407 x 1019 is IPv6′s standard subnet size.
2128 = 3.402823669 x 1038 is IPv6′s address space size.
IPv6 has an address space size of 2128 and a standard subnet size of 264, but anyone can throw around a bunch of numbers, let’s instead use a number comparison chart so you can see how the numbers compare.
The numbers in this chart are listed in ascending order (lowest to highest) in scientific notation (mostly).
| Number | Represents |
| 1.600 x 101 | Average number of shark attacks per year in the US. |
| 1.050 x 102 | Years since Einstein began imagining up General Relativity (as of 2012). |
| 8.760 x 103 | Hours in a year. |
| 3.271 x 104 | Deaths caused by motor vehicles in the US in 2010. |
| 3.285 x 104 | People who committed suicide in Japan in the year 2009. |
| 1.600 x 105 | Base pairs in endosymbiotic bacteria. |
| 8.700 x 106 | Number of species that exist in the world. |
| 4.594 x 107 | Internet users in Nigeria as of 2010. |
| 1.113 x 108 | Superbowl viewers in 2012. |
| 4.295 x 109 | IPv4 address space size (32-bit). |
| 4.434 x 109 | Earth’s total human population size in the year 1980. |
| 6.634 x 1011 | John D. Rockafeller’s total net worth in 2007 US dollars. |
| 5.660 x 1013 | US total debt (as of the time that this post was made) in US dollars. |
| 7.500 x 1018 | Estimated number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world. |
| 1.845 x 1019 | IPv6 standard subnet size (64-bit). |
| 3.260 x 1020 | Estimated number of gallons of water in the world. |
| 1022 | Estimated number of stars in the universe. |
| 4.339 x 1026 | Nanoseconds that have passed since the Big Bang. |
| 3.403 x 1038 | IPv6 address space size (128-bit). |
| 1063 | Archimedes’ estimate of how many grains of sand would fill the universe. |
| 1081 | Estimated total number of atoms in the universe. |
| 1.798 x 10308 | Max value of a 1024-bit or 1 kilobit unsigned integer. |
| 101050 | Possible chess games. |
| Infinity | Prime numbers that exist. |
NOTE: A maximum of 4 significant figures are displayed in this chart.
Given IPv6′s address space size and IPv6′s standard subnet size it would be virtually impossible for IPv6 to ever reach it’s limitations.
IPv6′s standard subnet size alone is over 2.4 times greater than the total number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.
IPv6′s address space size is literally over 10 million trillion times the total number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.
To give people another idea of how large the address space is, if each human being on Earth, each grain of sand on all the beaches in the world, each gallon of water, each nanosecond that passed since the Big Bang, and each star in the universe had all been assigned their own unique IPv6 address there would be still be easily more than 3.4 x 1038 unique IPv6 addresses leftover remaining. That’s how large the IPv6 address space is.
The quicker people switch to IPv6 the better!
So I’m super-busy with work, projects, and college, but I’ll try to sneak away some time to write this post.
From trying nothing, not working hard and having absolutely no dedication some how within the past week my blog has gained 10,000+ views.
For some reason my re-made version of ”Atheists/Racists Trying to Takeover” which simply criticizes racists atheists and racists atheist countries was taken down from YouTube for supposed “hate speech”. For some reason YouTube’s moderators don’t consider pro-Nazi and holocaust denier videos as “hate speech” so we can clearly see what the YouTube moderators are after is protecting atheists, atheistic beliefs, and atheistic arguments from criticism and scrutiny (an anti-science/atheistic view) or taking down videos that they personally disagree with. I don’t really understand how anyone can view criticizing racism or racists as “hate speech”.
Atheists all unequivocally oppose free and open criticism and are therefore anti-science fanatics (since free and open criticism is an extremely important scientific principle). Is there even one atheist in the world who stands up for or strongly supports free and open criticism?
Prior to atheists taking over, YouTube use to be a place where people could freely criticize basically anything, but now it’s just a place for Nazis/atheists to post their propaganda.
Other videos I thought of making:
“Rant on Stink Atheists”
“Top 10 Things Stink Atheists Don’t Know”
“The Slick Thick Atheistic Skull”
But with YouTube’s new anti-science “Must agree with atheists” I mean “hate speech” rules those videos will probably be taken down if I made them. Whatever happened to valuing free and open criticism?
If I don’t want a video be taken down from YouTube for “hate speech” all I have to do is:
- Post a pro-Nazi or holocaust is a hoax video
- Post a video supporting the idea that sub-Saharan Africans are genetically less intelligent
- Make fun of, condemn, or ridicule religion
- Voice some type of criticism that the YouTube moderators personally agree with
No doubt that atheists are disgusting people. For some reason atheists on YouTube have accused me of being a Jew, hillbilly, Asian, African, etc…Atheists I know in real life have thrown racial slurs at me as well. I had never experienced any racism in the US up until around 2004 when I got to know lots of atheists. No one really knows why atheists are so racist. It’s easy to see why 100% of atheist countries are extremely racist. People just have to realize that as long as atheists exist a non-racist world is basically impossible.
The entire world is becoming lame now, following the “hate speech” anti-science stance of the atheists. Whatever happened to people who loved and valued free and open criticism? I guess there are only a few left.
Back in like 2007 I use to just say whatever I was really thinking. Now I have to go through a special process before I say something:
- Censor out
- Check if comment injures someone’s emotions too much
- Check if criticism is allowed
Wtf? Things are so lame now.
Speaking of free and open criticism I’ve noticed that the majority of comments from atheists in the past week have simply been weak ad hominems, straw man, or baseless statements. Atheists’ comments show their uncivilized nature. The atheists who actually try to use arguments come up with the typical laughable weak atheistic arguments. I guess atheists have no ability to question or independently think, all they can do is copy.
It’s the Theist’s duty to teach atheists just as how Jesuit priest astronomers taught the flat square Earth believing Chinese about a round Earth.
Atheists’ comments also show how they value authority and incredulity above everything instead of valuing empirical observations and what’s actually valid or true above everything, thereby entirely ruining science and society.
In modern times science has turned into a laughable popularity contest where those with authority can propose anything unscientific and be taken seriously, and those without authority cannot propose scientifically sound things, being laughed at for simply lacking authority.
Modern day scientist don’t even try to be scientifically sound initially, they try to find authority figures to endorse them or gain authority themselves first. Look at all the things that appear in peer-reviewed journals that do not adhere to the scientific method or even attempt to adhere to scientific method.
Instead of focusing on empirical observations and the scientific method modern day scientists focus on who has authority and who doesn’t, what a joke. Why don’t scientists instead focus on arguing about empirical observations and what’s actually valid and true instead of arguing about who has authority and who doesn’t?
Imagine how far science, technology, and medicine would’ve been if atheists hadn’t ruined science, turning into a popularity contest.
No greater threat has arisen to mankind than the uprising of atheists.
Man I can’t wait to until I have time again so I can come back and entirely annihilate all the atheists’ comments…..
Man I don’t have that much time anymore now that college has resumed.
But refuting atheists’ arguments is unusually easy since all atheists can do is throw ad hominems, build straw man, and mimic and copy (they lack the ability to independently think or reason) so I’ll probably respond to some comments, but not all until I have the time.
I don’t really know if atheists are just gullible idiotic people or if atheists are just joking or a combination of both. How can anyone be as foolish as an atheist?
The reason why I can clearly explain things is because I have independently reasoned these things out, atheists have not. Just read my comments then read the subhuman atheist comments, you can see a clear difference.
How can the subhuman atheist mind ever rival the superhuman Theist mind?
All atheists can do is copy off from what I and other Theists taught them.
Theists have to teach the subhuman atheists about science, logic, and reasoning.
On another note, I re-uploaded a different version of “Atheists/Racists Trying To Take Over” on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAH499PqSpM
Here are some questions I have for the lowest of the low, the worst people, the most disgusting form of life, the most hateful of all human beings, the lowest possible form of existence – the atheist.
The questions are in descending order (from #10 to #1).
#10 – Do you take pleasure in telling lies or are you just so gullible that you believe any anti-religious lie you hear?
#9 – Are you only capable of mimicking and copying arguments you heard from Dawkins and other atheists?
#8 – What’s the reason that you continue to use racist atheists as viable sources, celebrate racist atheist biologists and racist/atheist countries?
#7 – Do you have any independent mind of your own or ability to question what other atheists say or think?
#6 – Why do you consider any criticism of atheists, atheistic arguments, or atheistic beliefs as “trolling” but not consider condemning, ridiculing, or making fun of religion as “trolling”?
#5 – Why have you intentionally remained silent in opposition to racism but not silent in opposition to Intelligent Design, Creationism, and many other things?
#4 – Why do you value high IQ as being worth more than contributions?
#3 – Why do you discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality?
#2 – Why are you an anti-science fanatic who strongly opposes free and open criticism, scrutiny, and questioning?
#1 – Who do you hate more, Jews or Muslims?
I’m looking forward to some answers to these questions if subhuman atheists have any answers.
I’ve noticed that within the past 3 days my blog has received more than 2,000 views, normally I get around 50-100 views per day.
I’ve also noticed during in the same time period my YouTube video entitled “Atheists/Racists Trying to Take Over” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGT2I1U_hzE) got taken down from YouTube for supposed hate speech. I’m guessing that some atheists started crying and got it taken down from YouTube. The video actually had an enormously positive effect and had caused many atheists to oppose racism.
Apparently the low-life YouTube atheist moderators don’t consider videos about the holocaust being a hoax as “hate speech” but they consider a video criticizing racists atheists as “hate speech”….what a joke YouTube has become now that atheists have taken it over.
YouTube at one point use to be a place where people could freely criticize basically anything, but now criticizing racist atheists is considered as hate speech. Eventually once atheists take over YouTube they’ll make it so that no one is allowed to criticize atheists, atheistic arguments, or atheistic beliefs by labeling any kind of criticism as hate speech.
All of the sites, forums, etc… atheists take over turn into an atheist fan site where people are just forced to agree with atheists and not allowed to criticize or question them. Why is this? Well atheists are naturally anti-science fanatics and very strongly oppose free and open criticism, one of the most important principles in science.
Once atheists take over YouTube it’s just going to turn into a lame atheist fan site agreeing contest where everyone either has to agree with atheists, or really agree with atheists. Otherwise if you disagree then it’s considered as “trolling” and “hate speech”.
Even countries atheists take over like Sweden have hate speech laws restricting and limiting free and open criticism. Basically all atheists strongly oppose the idea of free and open criticism. They want it so that certain authority figures subjectively determine what kinds of criticisms should be allowed or disallowed, they believe in limited and closed criticism.
Why should free and open criticism be encouraged and not discouraged like how atheists insist? If something really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism. The more people question, criticize, and scrutinize things the closer we come to the truth.
But since atheists probably view “seeking truth” as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time they probably don’t value the truth or care about the truth. I guess that explains why atheists discourage criticism and label all forms of criticism as “trolling” or “hate speech”.
What atheists value is protecting atheists, atheistic arguments, and atheistic beliefs from criticism and scrutiny, not the truth, so they are essentially anti-science fanatics.
Alhazen, the inventor of the scientific method said: “Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side”
Charles Babbage said “Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed”.
There’s no reason to protect any belief from criticism since any true statement will stand up to any amount of criticism with no problem. If anyone is concerned with learning the truth then they will always allow free and open criticism.
On my blog everyone is allowed to freely question, criticize, and scrutinize anything that I say. People are even allowed to throw insults at me or say anything freely. It doesn’t matter if I personally feel that a criticism is “stupid” or anything like that, I still believe that people should be free to criticize anything regardless of how strongly I agree or disagree with them.
On the other hand, which atheist allows free and open criticism? They are always out to ban and block anyone who questions, criticizes, or scrutinizes them.
What’s wrong with allowing free and open criticism? What’s the harm?
So my question for atheists is: What’s the reason that you’re an anti-science fanatic and strongly oppose, are disgusted with, and disagree with free and open criticism?
Since white atheist Swedes like all atheists are inherently hateful people, the lowest of all human beings, the most disgusting form of life, the worst people, here’s some questions for subhuman Swedes.
The questions are in descending order (from #10 to #1).
#10 – Do you take pleasure in giving angry stares to people all day?
#9 – Do you consider racial discrimination to be racism?
#8 – Do you believe that the holocaust was a hoax?
#7 – Who do you express more hatred towards, Africans or Eastern Europeans?
#6 – Do you think non-white males should be allowed to enter bars or clubs?
#5 – Do you consider anything besides violence towards a certain race to be racism?
#4 – How many rocks have you thrown at Somalians?
#3 – How many Nazis do you personally know?
#2 – Do you think that beating Jews is wrong or immoral?
#1 – Who do you hate more, Jews or Muslims?
No doubt that atheist Swedes are the lowest of the low, that must be why atheists continue to celebrate Sweden, they agree with and support Nazism and racism so strongly that they just can’t stop celebrating Sweden.
Since I believe in non-violence I can only hope that one day some type of natural disaster comes and just kills every single Swede off to the extent that not even one is left living. I can only hope for a natural disaster, unless of course atheists Swedes give up racism, but that’s probably even more unlikely than a natural disaster.
If tomorrow I woke up and saw on the news that a natural disaster had just killed off all Swedes I would be exceedingly happy, just like how I would be happy if I found out that all terrorists, murderers, or rapists died off by a natural disaster.
Is it even possible to drop lower than a Swede?
Is there any room for morality for those who believe that there is no afterlife?
Most atheists I’ve met also do not believe in an afterlife, although it’s possible to be an atheist and believe in an afterlife.
No afterlife basically means no consequence and that things end up the same regardless of your actions.
Let’s look at what this means in terms of basic morals:
If I lie, cheat, steal, or kill then after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, I can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
If I do not lie, cheat, steal, or kill then after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, I can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
I guess this is great news for people who want to lie, cheat, steal, or kill (or commit any other sinful action).
Similar for murder and rape:
If you brutally murder and rape someone then after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, you can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
If you do not brutally murder and rape someone then after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, you can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
Since the belief that there is no afterlife is linked to the belief that consciousness is composed of electrical signals in the physical brain this would mean that killing a human (or animal) would be equivalent to killing a radio or TV, since radios and TVs also function through electrical signals, further lessening the significance of murder (for those who believe that there is no afterlife).
This same thing would also apply for suicide:
If you commit suicide then after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, you can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
If you do not commit suicide then eventually you’ll die anyway and after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, you can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
This would also matter for wasting your life:
If you waste your life then after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, you can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
If you do not waste your life then after death there’s no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, you can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
In conclusion, if you believe that there is no afterlife and that life is meaningless then this means that all your actions are completely irrelevant and have virtually no meaning, regardless of your actions the end result is the same:
After death there is no more consciousness, no more stress, no more worries, no more problems, you can never ever remember anything that happened, it’s just like sleeping in all the time, everyone on Earth would eventually die anyway and everyone’s feelings, emotions, pain, thoughts, and memories are nothing more than meaningless electrical signals the meaningless result of meaningless evolution and meaningless natural selection.
Since the time that atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s, science has been turning into a pseudo-scientific joke. So it’s up to Theists to teach atheists how to advance science and human progress.
Here are my 5 main principles to follow for the advancement of science:
Evidence that something’s true is actual observations indicating so, not authority figures saying so, or pointing out if an idea does or does not push human incredulity as atheists foolishly believe.
In modern times if someone comes up with a repeatable observation or experiment that pushes human incredulity too far they have a very high chance of being ignored by the scientific community, just on the basis of incredulity alone. For some reason incredulity and authority is all that matters to atheists.
If society as a whole did not value authority or incredulity at all we would just go by what objective observations show and science would be much further ahead.
Experimentation over Mathematical Models: In modern times the atheist scientists who run things now value mathematical models over experimentation. Some how to the atheist mind, having mathematical models that cannot be empirically tested is better than having lots of experiments that give us actual data that reflects reality.
Experimentation is much more important than mathematical models. Eventually any mathematician or group of mathematicians will be able to create mathematical models after what lots of empirical data and experimental results show.
On the other hand having mathematical models that cannot be empirically tested tells us nothing about reality, it’s really just mathematical speculations.
Prior to atheists taking over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s, experimentation had been valued much more highly.
If scientists focused more on gathering lots of repeatable observations and experiments that can be duplicated (eliminating all possibility of error) instead of focusing on mathematical models that cannot be tested, science would be much much further ahead, and much closer to the truth.
Free and Open Criticism Encouraged: For some reason in modern times atheists intentionally discourage criticism and scrutiny labeling any kind of criticism as “trolling”.
It use to be that free and open criticism was considered an extremely important principle in science.
Charles Babbage said ”Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed”.
Instead of discouraging criticism, scrutiny, and questioning like atheists do we should be intentionally encouraging these things.
If a statement is actually true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.
The more people question, scrutinize, and criticize things the closer we come to the truth.
Belief without evidence, Intuition, and Originality Encouraged: Atheists intentionally discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality in modern times. But why?
History clearly shows us that belief without evidence, intuition, and originality causes scientific advancements.
There’s no harm at all in having lots of crazy hypotheses because empirically testing and observations will tell us what is true. Even if a hypothesis is completely wrong the process of trying to test it will likely give us new data about reality.
On the other hand there’s a great harm in having only beliefs with evidence. If someone only has beliefs with evidence then all they can do is mimic and copy things in science that already have evidence, a person would not be able to come up with new experiment ideas or new hypotheses (that initially have no supporting evidence).
Einstein would not have been able to invent his General Relativity idea if he only had beliefs with evidence. Faraday would not have been able to come up with his Field Theory if he had only beliefs with evidence.
We can clearly see from the history of science that intuition, originality, and beliefs without evidence has always been beneficial to the advancement of science. Imagine how far science would be if atheists hadn’t intentionally discouraged beliefs without evidence, intuition, and originality.
Just look at how much intuition and originality people had prior to atheists taking over in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Society should instead intentionally encourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality.
Contributions valued more than IQ or Prodigy: In modern times now that atheists have taken over society values IQ and prodigy over contributions.
The only people who value IQ highly are atheists or racists (it’s the same thing).
People who make revolutionary contributions are ignored in the media if they are not prodigies. On the other hand people who make no revolutionary contributions but are prodigies are celebrated as great geniuses in the media.
Back when Theists ran science, contributions use to be viewed as the highest achievement, not high IQ or being a prodigy.
The reason why society should value and celebrate contributions over prodigy or IQ is because contributions are what advances science and changes the world, not having a high IQ or being a prodigy alone.
I don’t really understand why atheists have de-valued contributions so much and placed IQ and prodigy above everything.
How can these contributions that forever change the course of history be less significant than a high IQ prodigy who contributes nothing?
If society viewed contributions as being worth more than IQ or prodigy then people would be more encouraged to contribute, and more motivated to advance science and human progress.
Throughout history atheists have always been threatening human progress and holding back science. If people would give up following the way of the atheist, science and human progress would be so much further ahead.
I know that modern science is in a sad state when all that matters is authority and incredulity instead of what is actually valid and true. If atheists hadn’t taken over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s and these 5 principles that I listed were followed we would most likely already be living in a utopia-like society where technology was super-advanced and there was no more disease or sickness.
We live in a world where authority and incredulity is what matters to scientists.
As long as atheists exist scientific progress will always be hindered and blocked. It would just be better for society if atheists stayed far away from science.
It’s almost as if atheists intentionally don’t want science to grow or advance.
The main reason I encourage science is because I know that the closer science comes to the truth the faster atheism will be exterminated. The only form of atheism that will be leftover in the future is impersonalism.
Those are my 5 principles to follow for the advancement of science.
There is a natural tendency for society consider atheists/racists as human beings, but why should society consider them as human beings?
Just as how society does not accept terrorists, murderers, or rapists as human beings, why should society accept atheists/racists as human beings?
The only atheists I can consider as human beings are non-racists atheists (if there is a such thing). I’ve only met one non-racist atheist, who was a non-white female atheist. I guess only some non-white atheists are non-racists.
100% of atheist countries are extremely racist, there is not even one exception. No one can name even one atheist country that isn’t extraordinarily racist.
I’m just glad that I live in the US, which is one of the least racist countries in comparison to all others. As a non-white male living in the US I can honestly say that I haven’t experienced any public racism. In the US I’ve been allowed to enter every bar and club I’ve tried with no problems (even when I traveled to deep South).
The only racism I’ve experienced in the US has been from atheists/racists in private. I can only imagine how racist society would become if atheists took over a whole country. The more atheists you get to know the more you realize how racist they are.
Countries atheists take over like Canada, Australia, Netherlands, France, Russia, and others will immediately become racist and nationalistic nearly overnight specifically because of the atheist population. All the regions atheists take over in the US will also become racist like California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New England.
Initially I thought most of the racism in atheist countries had been caused by the Muslim population. However after closer inspection I found that atheist countries with extraordinarily low Muslim populations are also extremely racist and that the discrimination in atheist countries is not against Muslims only.
New Zealand, an atheist country, has an extremely low Muslim population so the atheists there instead discriminate against Asians.
“The survey, conducted annually by UMR Insight Ltd since 2000, showed that 77 per cent of New Zealanders consider that Asians are discriminated against more than any other group. This figure is up from 75 per cent in 2009 and 74 per cent in 2008″ - http://www.hrc.co.nz/2011/asians-still-the-most-discriminated-against
This survey most likely understates the discrimination in NZ. If we went by the actual percentage of male Asians living in NZ who have experienced racial discrimination the percentage would probably be higher (this survey is the percentage of New Zealanders who consider that Asians are discriminated against more than any other group).
“It is disturbing that most participants in the research had experienced some form of racism” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10345507
In New Zealand, throwing racial insults at a male Asian who is walking down the street alone is just a normal thing that atheist New Zealanders do.
If they see a male Asian alone some atheist New Zealanders might say something like “What’s up Kung Pao chicken? Why don’t you take your slant-eye back to Asia you stupid chink”. Or they might be more creative with their insults and first politely ask “Which direction to the airport?” then when the male Asian responds they’ll say something like “Well why don’t you take your family there and go back to Asia you stupid Asian”.
If they don’t throw racial insults at Asians they might instead throw trash or a half-eaten hamburger at Asians. Most Asians in New Zealand try to walk in groups to avoid the normal racial abuse in NZ. In New Zealand that type of racism isn’t out of the ordinary or strange, it’s just a normal, common, everyday thing.
Sweden another atheist country has a reasonably significant Muslim population (but still less than 5%), but white atheist Swedes do not only hate Muslims but also Jews. According to the Jews who fled Malmo most of the threats Jews faced came from left-wing white Swedes and a very small segment of Muslims.
“He describes for the newspaper how people call him “damn Jew” (‘jävla jude’) when he walks to synagogue and that his friends are frequently harassed and threatened.” - http://www.thelocal.se/24632/20100127/
Swedes don’t only hate Muslims, they also hate Jews and Africans. The racist gunman in Sweden tried to kill off a black man waiting at a bus stop, and also many others (http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/10525/dark-skinned-swedes-live-fear-racist-gunman).
In April 2011, white Swedes held a slave auction at the most prestigious university in Sweden, Lund University.
“This racism is becoming all too common. Of course it is irritating. They (the nations) claim it was a joke but this is based on widespread attitudes that people from Africa or have dark skin are of lower value.” - http://www.thelocal.se/33290/20110419/
Remember, Sweden has a population of less than 9.5 million and is nearly 100,000 sq km larger than Germany (which has a population of over 80 million), so it should be extraordinarily unlikely that any racist events would happen in Sweden if the majority were not racist.
Latvia, another atheist country has an extremely low Muslim population (2000 or less Muslims, less than 0.1% of the population) yet Latvia is arguably even more racist than Sweden or Denmark. Latvia is already almost like a pure Nazi/Nationalist country. Racism in Latvia is a daily part of life according to case studies done (http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/14-Public_Presentation_Paris_2005/Presentation2005_Paris_proceedings_en.pdf).
Denmark, Czech Republic, and every other atheist country is also racist.
No one can name even one atheist country that isn’t extraordinarily racist.
People have to realize that an atheist world = a racist world.
Geographical distance doesn’t matter (New Zealand is geographically distant from Sweden), what matters is how high the atheist population is.
From these observations we can conclude that the racism in atheist countries has very little to do with Muslims. It’s just that in modern times Muslims are the easiest target so atheists only mention Muslims knowing that lots of different groups already hate Muslims. Mentioning Muslims only is a great strategy that atheists/nationalists can use to push atheist/nationalists laws. But even if atheist countries had a 0% Muslim population they would still find a group to hate like Jews or Asians or Africans.
In reality white atheists hate all non-whites, not just Muslims, they simply mention Muslims only knowing that lots of groups already hate Muslims.
The atheists in the US also have the same hatred as the atheists in other countries. Tom Metzger the founder of the Neo-Nazi group White Aryan Resistance is an atheist despite the fact that the atheist population in the US is low. There’s a dis-proportionally high amount of racist atheists in the US.
Since there are so many Nazi atheists I already know that lots of Nazis/atheists are rejoicing at the progress made in atheists/racist countries.
Other liberal atheists like Richard Dawkins, Richard Lynn, and James D. Watson have all voiced their support of scientific racism.
Such a disgusting low-life it is to be an atheist. No one really knows why atheists are such disgusting people, the lowest of the low. Instead of acknowledging that racist atheists even exist all atheists will do is change the subject to claiming that Theists are racists. The reason they do this is specifically because they agree with and support racism and don’t want anyone to criticize racist atheists or racism in general.
These people called “atheists” are truthfully the worse people you will ever find. Anyone who knows an atheist knows the type of people that they are.
When people strongly disagree with something they voice opposition. The main reason why atheists have remained silent in opposition to racism is specifically because they agree with and support racism.
Nationalists all know that religion is one of their greatest enemies (if not their very greatest enemy).
The next thing that atheists/racists will start saying is things like:
“Nationalism is not racism”
“What’s wrong with being a Nazi?”
“Racial discrimination is not racism”
“Believing that certain ethnic groups are genetically inferior or superior in terms of intelligence is not racism”
So what atheists are going to argue next is that nothing can be considered as racism.
People have to realize that this problem is directly caused by the atheist population.
No one really knows why atheists are such hateful, racist, evil people, the worst of all human beings. If atheists aren’t going to oppose racism, then it’s up to Theists to do it.
I dream of a world where there doesn’t even exist the smallest slightest amount of racism, but realistically as long as atheists exist that kind of society is quite impossible. By the year 2030 there should be lots of atheists/nationalists countries.
Is there a such thing as a white non-racist atheist? If there are then why don’t they ever speak out and voice any opposition to racism like how they voice opposition to Intelligent Design and many other things?
The simple fact is atheists speak out against lots of things, but racism is not one of them.
Knowing how racist atheists are I can only imagine what would happen if they took over a whole country. I’ve tried lots of things to get the racists/atheists I know in the US to stop being racist but nothing has worked so far. I know the type of people that atheists are.
Since I don’t want to live a Nazi/Nationalist/Atheist world I have to voice opposition.
I know there’s only a little bit of time left before atheists/racists try to take over the US as well and turn it into a Nazi/nationalist hell. It’s only up to Theists to voice any opposition to racism.
If anyone here reading this is an atheist, then I just want you to know that I truthfully don’t consider you or any of your other low-life racists atheists friends as human beings, but instead as subhuman beings.
In conclusion in order to reduce racism society shouldn’t accept atheists/racists as human beings unless they give up their racism.
“Where ever and whenever there is a predominance of atheism there is always racism, always” – itsnobody
Different authors have different interpretations and explanations of what “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” or “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” means. It’s time that someone clears up the confusion surrounding what Ockham’s razor is.
Many people simply have the wrong definition or concept of what Ockham’s razor is. Wrong, incorrect flawed definitions of Ockham’s razor exist all over the internet.
Ockham’s razor DOES NOT mean:
“the simplest explanation is most likely true”
“choose a simpler hypothesis over a more complex hypothesis”
“only what the simplest explanation shows must be true”
“a complex hypothesis is most likely false”
Here’s my definition of Ockham’s razor:
“the conclusion drawn from making the least possible amount of assumptions”
Of course my definition of “making the least possible amount of assumptions” that I independently reasoned out is vastly superior to basically every other definition of Ockham’s razor given. But now that atheists have taken over everything all that matters to people in modern times is just things like authority and incredulity rather than what’s actually valid and true.
Using my definition it’s very easy to clear up all misconceptions about Ockham’s razor.
Ockham’s razor doesn’t say to choose a “simpler” hypothesis over a more complex one. What someone personally feels is a “simpler explanation” is subjective. Ockham’s razor simply says that all that we can assume to be true is what is drawn from making the least possible amount of assumptions.
Making the least possible amount of assumptions we may conclude that a seemingly complex hypothesis is true or that a seemingly simple hypothesis is false. It doesn’t have anything to do with what seems complex or seems simple.
Take for instance this example – the many-worlds interpretation. The many-worlds interpretation may be true, but right now making the least possible amount of assumptions we cannot assume that it is true. If observational evidence arises that directly shows the many-worlds interpretation to be true then making the least possible amount of assumptions we would be able to conclude that the many-worlds interpretation is true.
What a shame that so many people misunderstand Ockham’s razor.
In conclusion:
- What seems like “the simplest explanation” is subjective
- The conclusion drawn from making the least possible amount of assumptions is completely objective
If society moves towards my superior definition of Ockham’s razor of “making the least possible amount of assumptions” it would be very easy to avoid confusion, errors, and misconceptions.
It would also be impossible for Ockham’s razor to ever be inaccurate using the definition I provided.
