Skip to content
September 23, 2011 / itsnobody

The threat that atheists pose to science

Throughout history atheism and atheists have always been detrimental to scientific progress and advancement. It’s time that someone speaks out against what atheists are doing.

Atheists and atheism have been given a free pass for far too long. Everything atheists touch and take over immediately becomes ruined and destroyed. Atheists are just like uncivilized animals, it’s up to Theists to civilize these uncivilized savages.

Since atheists don’t seem to understand what science even is it’s up to Theists to teach them.

The worse thing that ever happened to society was atheists taking over science. Theists have to make science become scientific again now that atheist animals are trying to ruin science and turn it into a pseudo-scientific joke.

Now that atheists are taking over certain things are happening in modern times to science:

- Experimentation and the Scientific method going into disuse

In the past when Theists ran science empirically untestable hypotheses or theories were not considered scientific. But ever since atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s they eliminated empirical testability as the main requirement needed for something to be considered scientific and substituted empirical testability with authority.

What this means is now if someone has authority they can propose any empirically untestable theory or hypothesis and it will be considered scientific. Gravitons, multiple universes, the string theory, etc…can all be considered scientific and allowed into peer-reviewed journals with no problem if they simply have authority figures to back them.

So why can’t atheists understand that something cannot be scientific unless it meets the requirement of empirical testability?

Atheists don’t seem to have any problem with voicing any opposition to things like Intelligent Design, so why don’t they voice any opposition to things like the string theory? It’s because atheists don’t genuinely care about what’s is science or not, they care about advancing their own political agenda or making fun of religion, not about science. This is the reason that atheists never will voice any opposition to empirically untestable theories but always voice opposition to Intelligent Design, because atheists are insincere and don’t actually care about science.

Back when Theists ran science the scientific method and scientific method alone would determine whether or not a hypothesis or model or theory was valid not authority or personal incredulity. If someone wanted to be taken seriously they absolutely needed to find ways to test their hypotheses, not just authority figures to back them.

It is the scientific method that determines if something is valid or not, not authority or incredulity as atheists believe.

In modern times now that atheists are taking over they instead focus on mathematical speculations rather than experimentation and the scientific method.

If I have the mathematics for something but no way to test out if my mathematics are valid then I essentially have nothing more than speculations. With this reasoning I can claim that virtually anything is true if I have the mathematics for it (even though I have no way to test out if my mathematics are valid). That is not science but instead pseudo-science since it does not adhere to the scientific method.

Some atheists have even gone so far as claiming that mathematical models are more important than experimentation. What this means is now in modern times if you have a repeatable experiment but the conclusions drawn from that experiment push scientists’ incredulity too far and you have no mathematical model you have a very high chance of being laughed at and ignored.

On the other hand if you have a mathematical model with no experiments or empirical observations to back it up, or anyway to test out if your mathematical model is valid, but authority figures to support you, you won’t be ignored by scientists in modern times.

In modern times atheists are pushing scientists away from focusing on experimentation and instead towards focusing on mathematical speculations and incredulity alone (pseudo-science).

What this means is now scientists don’t try to let reality unfold itself by looking at experiments and observations they instead try to fit their models into certain select observations and intentionally ignore other observations that contradict their models.

So what’s science without the scientific method and empirical testing? It’s the atheist version of science or pseudo-science!

- Free and open criticism destroyed

I was watching the news and saw someone claim that if you don’t agree with what most scientists believe then you’re “anti-science”. Of course the exact opposite is true. Blindly agreeing with what most scientists believe is actually an anti-science position. Questioning, criticizing, and scrutinizing what scientists believe on the other hand would be pro-science. Science isn’t about agreeing with what most scientists believe.

Back when Theists ran science free and open criticism was considered an important scientific principle.

Science use to be all about free and open criticism, questioning, scrutinizing, and attacking positions so that the truth would come out. The more people question, criticize, and scrutinize the closer we come to the truth.

But now that atheists have taken over they intentionally discourage questioning, scrutinizing, and criticizing positions based off nothing more than authority and incredulity (once again). After atheists took over science in they also made it much harder to get things into peer-reviewed journals, thereby blocking out free and open criticism.

So what’s science without free and open criticism? It’s like a fan site forum where moderators ban and block anyone who criticizes their fan-based positions.

- Belief without evidence, intuition, and thinking far outside discouraged

Atheists like Richard Dawkins intentionally discourage belief without evidence. So what can someone do in science if they have absolutely no beliefs without evidence? Well all they’ll be able to do is mimic and copy scientific facts or things that already have evidence.

Faraday and Einstein would not have been able to come up with their hypotheses if they had no beliefs without evidence or intuition. Without beliefs without evidence or intuition you have little room for generating new hypotheses, which means scientific progress would be limited and hindered. Initially many hypotheses start off with very little to no scientific evidence.

There is no harm in having lots of seemingly strange or crazy hypotheses because the scientific method and empirical observations will speak up and determine what is true (not authority or personal incredulity). The more testable hypotheses the better.

On the other hand there is a harm in having a lack of testable hypotheses. If Einstein never proposed General Relativity then scientific progress would’ve been hindered. The less hypotheses that exist the less chance there is of scientific progress.

We can see from history that belief without evidence, intuition, and originality directly cause scientific advancement and progress, so why are atheists intentionally discouraging these things?

So what’s science without any new hypotheses? It’s just like mimicking “scientific facts” or things that already have evidence.

In conclusion, science is not about authority or personal incredulity or about protecting positions from criticism or about mimicking scientific facts like atheists foolishly believe.

Science is about determining the truth using the scientific method and empirical observations. It is observations, empirical testing, and the scientific method that determine what is valid or invalid, not authority or personal incredulity like atheists believe. It is through questioning and criticizing that the truth comes out, and it is through intuition and beliefs without evidence that new hypotheses are generated.

We can see that atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the very greatest threat to mankind. No greater threat has arisen to science and mankind than the uprising of atheists. Back when Theists ran science, science use to be much more scientifically sound.

It would just be better if atheists stayed far away from science instead of trying ruin science like how they’ve ruined every other thing they’ve touched. You let a bunch of atheist animals run loose and look at what they did to science.

As long as Theists are alive there will always be people like me who wish to keep science scientifically sound.

Science is no longer about testing hypotheses and using empirical observations like it use to be back when Theists ran science. Now that atheists have taken over science, science is primarily about authority and personal incredulity, and turning into a big pseudo-scientific joke.

Atheists have held back science and human progress for far too long. Just look at what atheists have done to science since they took over in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it’s time that other Theists speak out against what they are doing to science.

Science is not a popularity contest, it is not about who has authority, and it is not about what seems impossible or possible (incredulity)!

All those who wish for science to go back to being about the scientific method, empirical observations, empirical testing, testing hypotheses, and experimentation should join me now and speak out against what atheists have done.

This is the nature of the threat that atheists pose to science.

About these ads

50 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Luis / Jan 24 2014 8:49 am

    Dude, the only ‘threat’ that atheists pose is to your unwashed, Taliban-like sky-God. Science is fine without this abomindation. Get a fucking grip, mate.

  2. southwestbiblestudies / Jan 13 2014 5:47 am

    Atheists have a theory, evolution. They lie and call it science. I explain to them that I understand their theory, and it is not true. But they can never understand this simple concept. They simply think, if someone doesn’t believe in evolution they lack the intellect to understand it. As if, it was multi-variable calculus. They simply can’t understand the concept that the reason why people don;t accept their claims, is because they have knowledge conceptually of the claims themselves. So any argument anyone makes, is simply met with you don’t understand. When you explain why something an atheist believes is incorrect, they just re-assert what was just explained was incorrect.
    Its like the atheist says 5+5=9 then you say, I understand you claim 5+5 =9 Let me explain why you are incorrect and why it is 10. Then you spend 30 minutes writing something or explaining, concluding with 5+5 =10. Then the atheist replies with 5+5=9 you don;t understand math. When talking to an atheist, it doesn’t matter what arguments you make or what you say. They can’t comprehend them. If you explain something to them, they will say I never said I made that claim. They never make static claims. If you ask them where do you think life comes from? They say, atheism doesn’t make claims about this. For the atheist it’s all about the assertion. The assertions they make come before all reason, all reason to the contrary. You could predict the responses to your article. Its going to be an atheist saying you don’t understand this or that, they can never comprehend that someone knows something unless one of their authority figures says so. The atheist never knows something on its own merit, it has to be filtered through one source another, They never appeal to their own reason, yet they constantly express that they do.

    • Luis / Jan 24 2014 8:57 am

      Learn about endogenous retroviruses, psuedogenes and convergent phylogenies, and stop crying. Genomics really does shit on the Bible, sorry to say. Only an infantile dedication to an invisible friend blocks you from realising that basic fact. Instead of throwing around a bunch of accusations (your post was actually devoid of any content), you should perhaps educate yourself instead of mouthing that you ‘understand’ evolution while conveniently neglecting to mention what you know about it and how you know it isn’t science.

      Failing this, you’ll just continue to sound like an ignorant maggot.

  3. Ryguy / Nov 13 2012 4:32 pm

    On the subject of untestible theory..

    Darwin theorized that genetic mutation allows for species to adapt to their environments. We now know that these ‘mutations’ are a result of genetic programing that can be qualified scientifically at a molecular level. Darwin didn’t know this and couldn’t possibly test this however, a few hundred years later this observation, this unqualified theory has been proven definitively accurate.

    Further to the point… if you have such a great concern for the integrity of science and scientific practice, how the hell do you deamonize atheists when by your own standard of ‘scientific measurability’ – you can’t possibly prove or dissprove god.

    • newenglandsun / Nov 29 2012 7:38 pm

      “how the hell do you deamonize atheists when by your own standard of ‘scientific measurability’ – you can’t possibly prove or dissprove god.”
      I didn’t read the entire article but if you look up books like “God: The Failed Hypothesis” and “The God Delusion” or even the documentary “Enemies of Reason” the main problem is not so much with atheists running the scientific method, the main problem is using the scientific method to refute the existence of God.
      I have no problem with science and multiuniverse hypotheses and evolution and I actually affirm strongly these things. I simply don’t see theism in conflict with science since I also affirm these are two different things. However, as a theist, I know that defending theism in light of the scientific evidence is a theological statement and not a scientific statement. The only way theism should be defended is by properly demonstrating exactly what you said and then showing that there is no contradiction between science and theism since they are two different subjects.
      Likewise, atheism is a completely different subject from science as well. It is erroneous to assume that since everything runs on natural processes than naturalism must be the true philosophy.
      There is no evidence for god and no evidence against god and therefore science is not allowed to make a dogmatic statement that there is/is no god.

  4. itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 1:11 am

    Well as usual I win all the arguments and debates, it’s really no challenge.

    In terms of argumentation logic I myself versus an atheist would be like the speed of light vs. the speed of sound, there’s just no comparison.

    The comments here from atheists only confirm and re-confirm that all that atheists value is authority and incredulity. Most of the comments just discuss this alone and are quite boring and repetitive.

    If I’m so wrong and such an idiot then it should be very easy for atheists to refute statements that I make. They can’t refute any statement I made so they just discuss authority and incredulity.

    The comments here from atheists clearly show why atheists should just stay very far away from science. Using valid reasoning and empirical observations is not something that atheists are a fan of. What atheists are a fan of is using authority and incredulity.

    Atheists are basically subhumans to society and basically subhuman in terms of intelligence.

    Everything on my blog site is free and open, people are allowed to post whatever they want here and are encouraged to question, criticize, and scrutinize statements that I make.

    So if I’m so wrong why can’t atheists refute any statement that I made?

    • Anonymous / Sep 15 2012 7:03 am

      I have concluded, after seeing the reply you posted to my comment and to all other comments here, that you are in SERIOUS need of medical help. Look, one thing I’ll say here is, everyone has a right to an opinion, of course, but an opinion such as this one of yours is, well, frightening, in terms of the harm it can cause if it comes to the notice of anyone as crazily misotheist as you are anti-atheist. Remember that one stupid comment can cause a huge deal of damage. As to refuting statements that you make, you said ” Anyone who talks to an atheist quickly finds out that they just aren’t very intelligent people.” So Pauling, Dirac, Chandrasekhar, Crick, Watson, Feynman and Higgs are the ones who have held back science and retarded scientific progress, th ones who are ” not very intelligent ones ” ? Give me a link between a person’s IQ and whether he believes in God or not. And as for atheists discouraging belief without evidence, believing in God, for whose evidence there is ABSOLUTELY no proof is alright, but proposing alternative theories, based on thought, to explain observations in physics is not ? It isn’t as if the string theory is just a random idea that popped into some scientist’s head one fine day, it has been proposed after some consideration. It may not be explaining physics well enough right now, but that doesn’t make it ammunition for you to fire at atheists. New theories and ideas are, more often than not, modifications and corrections of old ones, and learning from previous mistakes is how science has previously progressed. And all work at the LHC is useless ? Wow, genius, how dare they start work on it without your seal of approval anyways, huh ? I greatly doubt whether any of this will even get into your thick head. Well, one thing I’m happy about is that the opinions expressed in the article are JUST those of a fool with a PC, internet connection, unlimited time and very limited brains at his ( or her ) disposal. Thankfully, science is still in the hands of those who study science as science only, not as propaganda to hunt down atheists, or label them as animals or subhumans.

  5. Anonymous / Aug 13 2012 1:25 am

    Which is it, Atheist have “substituted empirical testability with authority” or “any empirically untestable theory or hypothesis and it will be considered scientific”?

    “In the past when Theists ran science empirically untestable hypotheses or theories were not considered scientific.”
    This would then mean:

    The Special Theory of Relativity
    General theory of relativity
    Bohr, Plank – Quantum mechanics
    The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
    Bohr’s model of atomic structure
    Bohr’s principle of complementarity
    Lets just say all of Theoretical Physics
    Germ theory of disease

    Are you stating that any ideas (hhypotheses) that had not yet been emperically tested/observed are not considered “Scientific”?

    You have also in a previous post pointed to string theory as pesudoscience because the theorists have no way of testing the theory currently. “The String theory is really just mathematical philosophy.”

    So when the General theory of relativity was proposed it was essentially pesudoscience because the theorist has no way of testing the theory.

    “- Belief without evidence, intuition, and thinking far outside discouraged

    Atheists like Richard Dawkins intentionally discourage belief without evidence.”

    Here you have part of the point. It is not reasonable to believe a claim for the sole reason they have stated the claim is true.

    “Faraday and Einstein would not have been able to come up with their hypotheses if they had no beliefs without evidence or intuition.” Just because a question was formulated does not mean they believed the question was true.

    Just as we should not have excepted General Relativity as true when proposed (before experimentation, emperical observation) other claims, god claims, should not be.

    “On the other hand there is a harm in having a lack of testable hypotheses.” Yes, as you stated, “When Theists ran science””this was not considered scientific”, I can see how this would have been harmful to science.

    “Science is not a popularity contest, it is not about who has authority, and it is not about what seems impossible or possible (incredulity)!” Exactly, this is why science and not religion should be taught in school. This is why science and not religion should guide social policy. This is why science should be left to explain what we do not yet know, and not religion.

    • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 12:44 am

      Well at least this fool tries to gives reasons, so I can at least commend this foolish person for giving reasons.

      The Special Theory of Relativity
      General theory of relativity
      Bohr, Plank – Quantum mechanics
      The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
      Bohr’s model of atomic structure
      Bohr’s principle of complementarity
      Lets just say all of Theoretical Physics
      Germ theory of disease

      Everything here had testable predictions or were testable within a short time period after they were proposed, unlike the String Theory.

      Are you stating that any ideas (hhypotheses) that had not yet been emperically tested/observed are not considered “Scientific”?

      No. I’m stating that any hypothesis that is empirically untestable and makes no testable predictions is not scientific.

      There’s a difference between something having testable predictions and not being tested yet versus not having any testable predictions.

      So when the General theory of relativity was proposed it was essentially pesudoscience because the theorist has no way of testing the theory.

      That’s not true GR had testable predictions from the beginning. Proposed in 1915, already having many testable predictions which were confirmed later on (like in 1919).

      Here you have part of the point. It is not reasonable to believe a claim for the sole reason they have stated the claim is true.

      Just because a question was formulated does not mean they believed the question was true.

      Just as we should not have excepted General Relativity as true when proposed (before experimentation, emperical observation) other claims, god claims, should not be.

      Just a straw man. I’m not arguing that people should believe anything without evidence.

      I’m arguing that belief without evidence and using intuition shouldn’t be discouraged and wouldn’t be any harm if empirical testability and valid reasoning were emphasized.

      Exactly, this is why science and not religion should be taught in school. This is why science and not religion should guide social policy. This is why science should be left to explain what we do not yet know, and not religion.

      Just another straw man. I never argued that religion should be taught in school.

  6. Anonymous / Jun 16 2012 3:13 am

    atheists are not very bright as a whole and the article is spot on the money. Just read the comments on here from atheists they speak for themselves. Science is about observing an event then explaining the mechanism by which the event occured through testable logical explainations that can be repeated over and over again. That is true science. For example watching lightning happen then hypothesizing about how it occured then testing the hypothesis until you can repeat the original event i.e. make your own lightning. No atheist has ever done this. All they do is say nuh uh whenever someone says something contrary to what they believe in.

    • Anonymous / Sep 14 2012 1:36 pm

      ” Atheists are not very bright as a whole ” ? You IDIOT, what is the link between atheism and a person’s intelligence ? Atheism is simply the belief that God doesn’t exist, due to lack of reasonable evidence or whatever contradiction(s) one can pose. And no atheist has ever followed the scientific method ? What makes YOU think you have sufficient knowledge to make such a comment ? Just how many atheists have you observed ? Exactly what part of the definition of the word “Atheist” implies disbelief in the scientific method ? If I were as big a MORON as you, I could consider some of the stupidest people I’ve ever seen, and take their religious beliefs into account, and thereby conclude believers of so-and-so religion are stupid. BUT THAT IS JUST PLAIN DUMB AND IMMATURE. I won’t criticise any theists, since that would make me just as DUMB as you. All I’ll say is that not all theists are as holy as the God they believe in. Atheism isn’t about hating all believers. I pity you, seriously, because stupidity is the greatest downfall of humanity. I don’t have anything against you for you being a theist, it is the stupid notions you have about atheism and atheists that I’m against.

      • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 12:54 am

        Anyone who talks to an atheist quickly finds out that they just aren’t very intelligent people.

        They are gullible people who just believe anything they hear without questioning it.

        The comments here from atheists clearly show it.

    • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 12:23 am

      Yes it’s true, their responses clearly confirm and re-confirm that all that atheists care about is authority and incredulity alone.

      If I’m so wrong and such an idiot or whatever then it should be relatively easy for any atheist to refute my points, but they don’t, instead they just talk about authority and incredulity.

  7. les / Feb 8 2012 5:22 pm

    This ‘blog’ reads like a 4-year old using words it can’t yet fully grasp but knows will impress adults…

    Yes that’s an ad hominem but it’s just a waste of everybody’s time to have a debate with a crazy person.

    • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 12:21 am

      Yeah I can’t grasp so much that you refuted not even one statement that I made.

      To summarize your response “I agree that my response is an argument ad hominem and I justify it by using my incredulity”

      So your response further confirms that all that atheists value is authority and incredulity.

      Thanks for the laugh!

  8. eveningperson / Feb 7 2012 6:11 am

    Dear Mr Nobody,

    In an ideal world, everybody’s opinion would get the consideration it deserves. In the real world, of course, time is too short to ensure this.

    However, you have made a number of assertions, without making any effort to produce evidence or reasoning in support of them. Some of these assertions are false, or at best half-truths presented misleadingly in an attempt to spin them. You don’t actually appear to know much about science, or to have attempted to find out anything beyond picking out talking points from Conservapedia or similar sources.

    I suggest you educate yourself in some actual science. Not the whole of it – it’s much too big – but some field where work is actually moving forward very fast right now. For example, genetics. You don’t have to understand it all, just get a feel for how scientists work. Follow their arguments, and their experiments, and see how each influences the other. And see how it links to other fields.

    Scientists are the strongest critics of current scientific theories, and theories survive because they have withstood this criticism. To pick out one item you mention, some physicists (Lee Smolin is one) strongly criticise string theory. There are many criticisms, but I don’t think that ‘it is developed by atheists’ is one of them. If string theory eventually produces genuine explanations that offer real insights not available from other theories, it will survive. Otherwise, physicists will move on to other, more promising, things.

    Meanwhile, I think your opinion IS getting the consideration it deserves. It’s a basis for thoughtful mockery, here, in Pharyngula and maybe elsewhere.

    (Declaration of interest: I have no religion, and I taught and researched in science to postdoctoral level.)

    • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 12:16 am

      The points I made come from my independent mind.

      The points you made are just all personal attacks, how boring. “I think he should learn science and he’s so wrong, man he’s so wrong”.

      Why don’t you try to refute even one point that I made? Which point in the article lacks evidence or reasoning? You didn’t point any (an example of an argument that lacks evidence and reasoning, lol).

      If atheist scientists supposedly disagree with the String Theory being considered as science then why is it still in science?

      So my points remain all unrefuted (ALL unrefuted).

      As usual the fools (atheists) don’t give any valid reasons to support their assertions, they just talk about authority and incredulity like this fool has.

      • eveningperson / Sep 17 2012 9:28 am

        There is nothing in my reply to you that is an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy so I don’t use them. (See Wikipedia for a definition.)

        I made no personal attack on you, merely perfectly reasonable observations about the quality and validity of your arguments.

        The statement ‘there is a green teapot down a latrine on a planet in the constellation Hercules’ is not one I can refute. As far as I am aware, no-one can refute it. That does not mean it is a statement worth anyone’s time to consider.

        Most of your statements are of approximately the same nature, and it is too much effort to find anything that may be of interest in your outpourings. This does not mean you have won any sort of argument, as you have made none.

  9. MikeTheInfidel / Feb 7 2012 1:35 am

    “Everything atheists touch and take over immediately becomes ruined and destroyed.”

    Tell that to Sweden, you silly bastard.

    • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 12:10 am

      Sweden is a disgusting Nazi country dumbass filled with daily racism. In 2010 SVP (a pure Nazi party) gained a seat in Sweden.

      Fuck Sweden and fuck anyone who supports them.

  10. stewartt1982 / Feb 7 2012 12:36 am

    I’m an atheist and scientist … I’m not sure of your background but I don’t think you understand scientists or how science works in this day and age.

    Since you mentioned string theory I’ll briefly discuss that (I’m a high energy particle physicist) as I’m familiar with the topic.

    Firstly, it is not that one believes in string theory, not in the same was as a theist believes in a god … string theory has many features that make it attractive as a theory of further explaining the universe. This makes it attractive to study, and many theorists and experimentalists (yes, experimentalists, empirical data – look at the LHC excluding some forms of string theory) are currently doing just that.
    It is true that string theory hasn’t, so far, been as successful as it had been hoped when people began working on it in the late 80s and 90s … nor has it produced many testable predictions yet. This does not mean it is wholly incorrect, or that physicists should stop working on it.

    On the otherhand there are physicists who are looking at other approaches who question string theory … look at Lee Smolin who works on Quantum Loop gravity at the Perimeter Institute.

    It is not that scientists don’t question current theories, but they also don’t simply throw them away when there isn’t enough evidence either way.

    • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 12:08 am

      Since you are a modern day mainstream scientist I’m pretty sure that I would understand much more about scientific concepts than a misinformed person like you.

      My ability to independently reason things surpasses basically all human beings.

      Let me explain for a misinformed person like you:
      - The String Theory being attractive is just an argument from personal incredulity.
      - The String Theory has no unique testable predictions and LHC doesn’t confirm anything.
      - The String Theory is currently unfalsifiable, so nothing can indicate that it’s incorrect
      - There is no low-energy observation that can falsify the String Theory, so LHC experiments are irrelevant
      - Even if the String Theory was 100% false you would still be able to have countless String Theory solutions that match into GR and QT, isn’t this true?
      - Since regardless of if the String Theory is true or false you would still be able to match any low-energy observation to a String Theory solution, matching ST into low-energy observations tells us nothing about the truth of the String Theory

      I hope that cleared up somethings for the fools (atheists). I have to teach them about everything.

      So we can see that so far no one has given any valid reason as to why the String Theory is science.

  11. Poe / Feb 6 2012 9:56 am

    “Everything atheists touch and take over immediately becomes ruined and destroyed. Atheists are just like uncivilized animals, it’s up to Theists to civilize these uncivilized savages.”

    Hey all ya athiests, this is how a “not an ad hominem” looks. You should try it one day.

    • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:56 pm

      Yeah it’s not an ad hominem, it’s just name-calling.

      I’ll explain slowly for the subhuman atheists:
      - If someone refutes an argument and throws personal attacks it’s name-calling
      - If someone throws personal attacks in substitution for refuting an argument, it’s an argument ad hominem

      Stupid subhumans, I always have to teach them.

  12. eveningperson / Feb 6 2012 6:14 am

    I’ll answer this, although I know

    ‘Tis exemplar of the law of Poe.

    I would have written something ruder

    But the fellow’s sick with Dunning-Kruger.

  13. a / Feb 6 2012 5:50 am

    Here’s a Hudibrastic verse on woo,
    for superstitious folk like you.

    The Christian’s Jehovah, an Almighty God,
    is a capricious and cantankerous clod;
    and, so far as I can tell,
    the Christian often is as well.
    Confused by dogma, the foolish fogey
    can’t fathom the nature of that Bible Bogey.

    Is it a father, his son, and a g-g-ghost too?
    Well, it should be obvious that’s ridiculous woo.
    And Christians claim this god, in its Empyrean lair,
    is omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent and fair,
    but, with the problem of theodicy,
    their dogma is Christian idiocy.

    The Jew’s Yahweh, the meshugener, the jerk,
    set Jews strict rules on when to work,
    how to dress, and what to sup or sip,
    and giving baby boys the snip.
    Myths of Bronze Age, goat-herding nomads,
    have them, metaphorically, by the gonads.

    The Moslem’s Allah, a fierce desert djinn,
    demands under ‘Islam’, literally, ‘Submission’.
    Apostasy is treated just like a crime;
    they’ll threaten to kill you, to keep you in line,
    and if you dare draw Mohammad in a comic cartoon,
    there’ll be riots and killings from here to Khartoum.

    Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist,
    Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Mormon, and Scientologist,
    Confucianist, Shintoist, and Taoist too,
    Spiritualist, Wiccan, and the New Ager into woo.
    Yea, verily, those of each and every religion,
    are mired in the miasma of superstition.

    So, why should yours be the one true faith,
    in a magic, phantasmagorical wraith?
    Belief, without evidence, is just plain crazy,
    ignorant, stupid, or thoughtlessly lazy.
    When evolution happens, it’s due to Natural Selection,
    and life derives no purpose, at a theistic god’s direction.

    • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:53 pm

      This is just a straw man. I don’t actually follow any one religion, I just try to observe what’s actually true, and in that process I’ve found that there are many things that are true and false in many different religions.

  14. Nobull / Feb 6 2012 12:56 am

    When theists ran science – they burned Giordano Bruno, jailed Gallileo, and killed untold number of witches. Are you totally insane?

    • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:35 pm

      Except that science didn’t exist during Bruno’s time and the Church was the main sponsor and cause of science.

      Stop watching TV like a stupid idiot and learn reality and the historical consensus

  15. Nobull / Feb 6 2012 12:51 am

    Holy Zeus , you really should get help fast

    • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:48 pm

      Yeah I should get so much help because my statements are flawless! LOL thanks for the boring ad hominem

  16. the word of me / Feb 5 2012 9:55 pm

    So you’re saying that those theist scientists that believe in Adam and Eve and Noah’s flood and the Exodus are the one’s doing good testable science…and the atheists are not?

    Where, pray tell (sorry), did you get this idea?

    • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:44 pm

      No stupid what I’m saying is that prior to the fools (atheists) taking over science, science was more scientific and much better than now.

      So your argument is just a straw man.

  17. euclidnever / Feb 5 2012 9:08 pm

    itsnobody says “Atheists don’t seem to have any problem with voicing any opposition to things like Intelligent Design, so why don’t they voice any opposition to things like the string theory?”

    I would suggest that most theists and athiests alike, if they are scientists, will voice opposition to Intelligent Design but not string theory simply because string theory follows from, or is at least suggested by, our current best practice in physics. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, flows from religious beliefs and is not really part of science at all.

    • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:42 pm

      As usual you gave no valid reasons to support your assertion!

      The String Theory isn’t physics dumbass it’s just a mathematical model that cannot be empirically tested. Why can’t you provide any valid reasons as to how the String Theory is science? How is the String Theory “suggested by our current best practice in physics”.

      Explain how the String Theory is science. Give a fuckin reason, why the fuck won’t atheists give any valid reasons?

      All they do is make statements without giving reasons.

  18. Chris P / Feb 5 2012 8:46 pm

    That;s funny – the religious people I have worked with are so poor at science that they aren’t much help at all. The more religious they are the more likely they are to say ” I love shooting small animals for fun” which of course hints at their total hypocrisy – killing the creatures their supposed god created for them. The religious waste valuable time and money at church praying and reading the bible instead of learning science or engineering.

    Why would I think that the religious are any good at anything when they cannot figure out amongst themselves what the one “true religion” is. They all disagree about which church to go to.

    So, given you have an imaginary god to help you out with his inerrant teachings in the bible – why can you not figure out which religion is the right one. You’ve had at least 2000 years. Mitt’s a crazy Mormon who believes in magic gold plates and underwear and Rick doesn’t.

    • itsnobody / Sep 15 2012 1:27 am

      What a stupid idiot. Everything that lead up to science is what atheists would call “philosophical nonsense and a waste of time”

      Can’t you fools discuss anything besides authority and incredulity?

  19. Anon / Feb 5 2012 8:42 pm

    I declare Poe’s Law on this article.

  20. Anonymous / Nov 19 2011 5:36 pm

    definitely a big moron

    • itsnobody / Nov 19 2011 7:29 pm

      Instead of refuting any statement I made you just say that I’m a moron…what a great argumentum ad hominem, lol.

      I guess atheists are subhuman in terms of intelligence. It’s up to Theists to teach these uncivilized animals about science and logic.

      • AE3Kr0n / Feb 5 2012 8:19 pm

        Will you be teaching us by burning, or drowning?

      • lol / Feb 5 2012 9:06 pm

        “what a great argumentum ad hominem”
        You just spent a whole article calling atheists savages and uncivilized. and now you cry because someone who you insulted insults you back? Grow up you child.

        Oh and by the way, are you so naive to believe that only ideas that are completely done and dusted are allowed into scientific journals? String theory is a hypothesis just like any other that scientists use to explain a phenomenon. The reason it gets published is because real scientists go out and perform real experiments to test them and then other scientists read the results and debate its implications. You obviously have no understanding of the scientific method if you cannot understand this. The reason biologists are opposed to intelligent design is because it is not even a hypothesis. It makes NO predictions, is NOT testable and the only people who advocate it are just trying to justify their preconceived conclusions. The argument works like this “I don’t know how it happened, its too hard to understand, so god did it”.

      • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:40 pm

        There’s a difference between name-calling an argument ad hominems dumbass.

        How is the String Theory a scientific hypothesis? The String Theory makes no unique testable predictions and no unique String Theory prediction has never had any experimental confirmation, so what are you referring to?

        You haven’t given any valid reasons to support your assertions (like most atheists).

        You just said it’s science because it’s in journals (which is an appeal to authority). Scientists can put whatever they want in journals and things highly inaccurate have appeared in journals many times.

        So to summarize your pathetic argument “The String Theory is science because some scientists said so”, which is purely an appeal to authority.

        The String theory has NO unique testable predictions and is NOT testable.

        Give a FUCKIN REASON. Give a valid reason instead of just using authority.

      • lol / Feb 6 2012 12:05 am

        “Everything atheists touch and take over immediately becomes ruined and destroyed. Atheists are just like uncivilized animals, it’s up to Theists to civilize these uncivilized savages.”

        WOW it really is incredible how much you’ve been brainwashed. It must be nice to view the world in such a simplistic way, where atheists are the root of all evil. Here’s some advice: neither religion nor politics are black and white issues.

        I really can’t tell if you’re a troll or are genuinely that brainwashed and stupid. Sometimes with theists you just can’t tell.

      • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:46 pm

        Yeah yeah so this is just a lame argument ad hominem “I repeatedly say that he’s so brainwashed and stupid and I refuted not even one statement that he made”

        Don’t worry you’ll have lots of support from the anti-science/atheist community. They believe in just using authority and incredulity alone now, LOL.

        Science is just a big pseudoscientific joke.

      • Andrew / Feb 6 2012 12:23 am

        This is the internet. You want peer review, this is not the place to get it. Also, you fail at logic.

      • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:47 pm

        Modern day peer-review is just a joke dumbass. They let in anything that authority figures “claim is science”. That’s how science is run now.

        Things don’t have to match a certain criteria, it’s just authority.

        I succeed at logic, basically flawlessly.

        This is the internet and on my blog page things are about as free and open as they can possibly be. Atheists don’t allow people to freely criticize them or their arguments, they have to pre-approve comments, lol.

      • Poe / Feb 6 2012 9:58 am

        “Everything atheists touch and take over immediately becomes ruined and destroyed. Atheists are just like uncivilized animals, it’s up to Theists to civilize these uncivilized savages.”

        Look at this, all ya filthy athiests. THIS is how a NOT AN AD HOMINEM looks. You should try it some time.

  21. Aries metow / Oct 26 2011 3:14 pm

    You dont know what your’e talking about

    • itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:36 pm

      I know so little that you refuted not even one statement that I made!

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers

%d bloggers like this: