Skip to content
November 4, 2012 / itsnobody

Common Lies Spread By Atheists

When atheists speak they are almost incapable of not telling lies.

If atheists  are not intentionally telling lies then this means that they are just so stupid, idiotic, gullible, and ignorant that they foolishly believe anything they hear in the low-life atheist media.

No one really knows why the atheist media intentionally spreads lies. The historian Ronald Numbers has debunked many lies (see spread in the atheist media. The only time you’ll hear positive things about religion is in actual historical documentations and journals, not in the low-life liberal atheist media.

It’s time for me expose many common lies that have been spread by atheists.

Lie: Historians believe that “The Dark Ages” was a terrible time of superstition that held back the growth of science


Modern historians don’t believe in the “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the liberal atheist media and the “Dark Ages” is what lead up to the scientific revolution.

During the supposed darkest part of the “Dark Ages” (The Early Middle Ages) they had:
– Metallurgy
– Shipbuilding
– Advances in architecture
– Early philosophy
– Artwork
– Agricultural boom
– Higher life expectancy than the Roman Empire and many other so-called “bright” age civilizations

So the early Middle Ages was actually a very bright period in human history.

The Roman Empire is often seen as a “bright age”, but in my opinion it was one of the very Darkest ages in history:
– Infanticide was common
– Had a full prohibition on autopsies which prevented medical advances from being made
– Had a lower life expectancy than many other civilizations and ages (only around 28)
– Made virtually no significant mathematical or philosophical achievements

Truthfully, the Roman Empire was really a “Dark Age”.

During the Middle Ages they had:
– Made infanticide illegal
– Revived the practice of autopsy
– Had a higher life expectancy than many civilizations
– Made significant philosophical and mathematical achievements

The supposed “Dark Ages” is what lead up to the scientific revolution because the scientific method and Newtonian physics comes from studying philosophy and astronomy and the Church revived Greek texts and was the biggest sponsor of astronomy.

Sources: Welch, Martin (1993). “Discovering Anglo-Saxon England”. University Park, PA: Penn State Press. Freedman, Paul (2004). “Medieval Studies”. In Jordan, William Chester. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Verdun, Kathleen (2004). “Medievalism”. In Jordan, William Chester. Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Snyder, Christopher A. (1998). An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Lie: During The “Dark Ages” people were killed for doing science


No one was killed specifically for doing science in the history of the scientific revolution. People were executed for being heretics and for political reasons, but not for doing science.

“No scientist to my knowledge, or to the knowledge of friends of mine who work on the history of the scientific revolution, ever lost his life because of his scientific views” – Ronald Numbers

The Greeks had executed and killed many philosophers and people, but no one labels their ages as “Dark” for that reason.

The ones who actually executed people specifically for being scholars according to the “Records of the Grand Historian” were the Chinese during the Qin Dynasty (Ren, Changhong. Wu, Jingyu. (2000). Rise and Fall of the Qin Dynasty).

Lie: The Church prohibited autopsies and dissections 


Church leaders ordered autopsies and they were carried out regularly from at least the 13th Century.The ones who had a full prohibition on dissection and autopsy were the Pagan Romans, not the Christian Europeans.

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) had ordered an autopsy and some have suggested that Christian theology revived the performance of dissections and autopsies.

Sources: ‘Indeed, very early in the thirteenth century, a religious official, namely, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), ordered the postmortem autopsy of a person whose death was suspicious’, Toby Huff. P Prioreschi, Determinants of the revival of dissection of the human body in the Middle Ages’, Medical Hypotheses (2001).

Lie: Most Science is due to the ancient Greeks


The Greeks never did science, they did pseudoscience and mathematics, the scientific revolution began when people stopped following Greek philosophers. Alhazen, the one who invented the scientific method urged people to question the work of Greeks.

Aristotelian physics is completely pseudo-scientific and it was only until people began questioning and abandoning the work of Greek philosophers that the scientific method and Newtonian physics came into existence, and the scientific revolution really began.

Following the work of Greek philosophers severely held back and prevented the scientific revolution.

You can clearly see in history that the scientific revolution began when people ABANDONED the work of the Greeks:
– Abandoning Ptolemy’s geocentric view
– Abandoning Aristotle’s physics (just junk on the four elements and other pseudo-scientific ideas)
– Abandoning Euclid’s work on optics (which is just completely backwards and nonsensical)
– Abandoning Galen’s work on anatomy (incorrect on veins, arteries, etc…)

What a great burden the Greeks work has been, stopping and preventing the scientific revolution.

Sources:   William Harvey, De motu cordis, cited in Allen G. Debus, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1978), p. 69., E. Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1996), pp. 59–61, 64.

Lie: During the Middle Ages the Church taught that the Earth was flat


The vast majority of medieval Christian scholars believed that the Earth was spherical and round.

“There was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference” – Ronald Numbers

The ones who had actually believed that the Earth was flat were the Chinese, who had believed that the Earth was flat and square until the 17th century when Jesuit priest astronomers introduced the spherical round Earth idea to them (Needham, Joseph (1986). Science and Civilization in China).

Lie: The Church and religion had prevented naturalism and encouraged belief in magic and the “supernatural”


The Church was the main cause of methodological naturalism. The Church sponsored natural philosophy and encouraged people to study natural philosophy.

The Church viewed “dealings in magic and divination” as a heresy and sponsored “natural philosophy”.

Throughout history all Christians were natural philosophers and naturalists like Newton, Euler, Faraday, etc…it’s only been in relatively recent times that atheists have tried to conjure up a “supernatural vs. natural” war. It seems to have been conjured up in the 1980s by atheists.

The historical consensus is that Christianity was responsible for causing methodological naturalism.

Source: Ronald L. Numbers (2003). “Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs.” In: When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Lie: The Church taught people not to seek knowledge


The Church and religion had encouraged reason and to seek knowledge.

“If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed, they were only made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities” (Edward Grant: God and Reason in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 2001)

There are many passages in the Bible which encourage seeking knowledge and valuing reason:
“My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge” (Hos 4:6)
“For wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her” (Prov 8:11)
“Buy the truth and do not sell it; get wisdom, discipline, and understanding” (Prov 23:23)
“If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” (Jam 1:5)
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Lie: The Church viewed mathematics as the work of the devil

Truth: There was no time in history when the Church viewed mathematics as the ‘work of the devil’.

The Church used many Biblical verses to justify teaching mathematics and never considered it as evil at anytime. There are many Biblical verses encouraging people to study mathematics.

Saints, Bishops, Priests, etc…had used the Biblical verse “Thou has ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight” (Wisdom 11:21) to justify studying and learning mathematics.

Sources: Nicholas of Cusa, Trialogus de possest 150-153; Watts 44-50.

Lie: Giordano Bruno was executed for doing science
Lie: Giordano Bruno’s contributions were significant to the scientific revolution
Truth: Giordano Bruno was not executed for doing science and Bruno made no significant contributions relevant to the scientific revolution.

“..the Italian Inquisition did incinerate the sixteenth-century Copernicun Giordano Bruno – but for his heretical views about the divinity or non-divinity of Christ, not because he believed in the infinity of the world or because he was a Copermicun. He argued that Christ had no human body and that his death on the cross was merely an illusion, which got some church authorities a little upset with him” – Ronald Numbers

Giordano Bruno made absolutely no significant contributions relevant to the scientific revolution, like nothing, so we could speculate that without him existing at all that the scientific revolution could’ve occurred quicker.

There’s really not even one thing that Giordano Bruno did that’s remotely relevant to the scientific revolution, just read the nonsense and pseudoscience in his books.

“Bruno pushes Copernicus’ scientific work back into a prescientific stage, back into Hermetism, interpreting the Copernican diagram as a hieroglyph of divine mysteries.” (Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, by Frances Yates. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London)

Lie: Galileo had been burned, tortured, and hanged for committing a heresy


Galileo had never been executed or tortured or beaten, he instead was placed under house arrest where he lived comfortably and wrote books. Galileo had been studying astronomy because the Church was the biggest sponsor of astronomy (because they needed calendars). He wrote his book “Two New Sciences” while under house arrest.

Lie: Galileo or Copernicus were the main people who solidified the heliocentric model


Newton was the one who solidified the heliocentric model, with Galileo’s contributions alone it would be difficult to distinguish geo-heliocentric and heliocentric models, with Copernicus’s contributions you can’t distinguish between geocentric and heliocentric models (they would both be making equally accurate predictions) (Henry, John (2001). Moving heaven and earth : Copernicus and the solar system. Cambridge: Icon. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-84046-251-7).

Galileo never provided any direct proof for heliocentricism, his contributions at best merely show that there was something wrong with Ptolemy’s view. The Church was correct that given Galileo’s contributions the heliocentric view could not be held.

“appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance.” (J. L. Heilbron)

The Church was the biggest sponsor of astronomy and had no problem with heliocentric models being used as calculating devices or being studied, they only had a problem with heliocentricism being taught as a literal description during the time period when it was impossible for anyone to know if heliocentricism was literally true or false.

The reason people had not believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun during Galileo’s time was because:
– Sensory perception (human beings can clearly see the Sun moving around the Earth)
– No way to distinguish competing models
– Not enough evidence for heliocentricism
– The Greeks (specifically Ptolemy)

The one who actually solidified the heliocentric model was Newton (who was more religious than all the other scientists that lived during his era).

The simple fact is, it’s just impossible to know if heliocentricism is literally true with Galileo’s contributions since everyone can clearly see the Sun moving around the Earth with their own eyes!

The geocentric model makes extremely accurate predictions in certain conditions and would still work for many practical matters, but is it literally true?

The geo-heliocentric model also makes extremely accurate predictions in certain conditions, is it literally true?

So with Galileo’s contributions how were people supposed to know that the heliocentric model was literally true and not just merely an accurate model?

Remember, we can all see with our own eyes the Sun moving around the Earth!

But even with Newton’s contributions heliocentricism would still be unproven, it was only until 1838 when the parallax was detectable that heliocentricism was proven.

Shortly after Newton’s Principia was accepted in the 1740s the Church dropped all opposition towards heliocentricism and the most religious European countries were the first to accept heliocentricism, not the least religious countries.

The Church stopped opposing heliocentricism (being taught as a literal description) long before it was actually proven.

Lie: All Newton did was claim that gravity and the laws of motion exists


Newton invented a higher branch of mathematics, mathematical methods, did work on optics, developed a model of the universe, laws of motion, laws of universal gravitation, and came up with arguably the most complex geometric proofs in existence.To believe that all Newton did was say that “I think gravity exists” as many atheists believe is an exaggerated understatement.

Considering the few resources available during Newton’s time Newton accomplished a lot.

Lie: Electrical technology exists despite religion


Electrical technology is mostly due to Michael Faraday (who is called the greatest experimentalist in history) and his religious beliefs.

Faraday was part of a Sandemenian sect that believed that all things were unified as one. Faraday emphasized this belief that magnetism and light (as well as gravity and everything else) were linked as one specifically because of his religion, which in turn caused James Clerk Maxwell to come up with Maxwell’s equations (which is where most of our electrical technology relies on).

During Faraday’s time the idea that magnetism and light were linked as one was ridiculous beyond imagination, so ridiculous that almost all the scientists that lived during Faraday’s time ignored his ideas. James Clerk Maxwell was one of the very few scientists who even considered the idea.

So we can conclude with near 100% certainty that if it wasn’t for Faraday being so super-religious that Maxwell’s equations would’ve taken a much longer time to come into existence (much later than in 1861) and probably not exist even today because James Clerk Maxwell and other scientists would’ve never dared to even attempt to link magnetism and light as one if it wasn’t for Faraday.

During Faraday’s time Faraday had been much more religious than all the other scientists that lived during his era.
“Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” – Michael Faraday

So if Faraday hadn’t been so super-religious Maxwell’s equations (and all the technology made possible because of Maxwell’s equations) would probably be non-existent in modern times.


Lie: Science exists despite religion


Science exists specifically because of religion. The scientific method comes from studying philosophy and Newtonian physics comes from studying astronomy. Religion caused people to study both philosophy and astronomy.

“Only recently we have got a very good study of Catholicism and early modern science from John Heilbron, whose prize-winning study The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories argues that the Roman Catholic church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other – and probably all other – institutions. What would we have done without the Catholic Church?” – Ronald Numbers

The historical evidence clearly shows us that after human beings gain food, water, and shelter without religion there would be no need to study astronomy and philosophy.

Human beings need food, water, and shelter for survival and history show us that all human civilizations revolve around these needs alone.

It’s impossible for any civilization to start off with the scientific method and Newtonian physics, and there’s no example in history out of all the civilizations that exist of any group of human beings deciding to intensely study philosophy and astronomy after gaining food, water, and shelter without a religion causing them to do so.

It is my hypothesis that everything that lead up to the scientific revolution would’ve been viewed as philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to an atheist in the same way that modern day atheists would view alchemy as nonsense.

So religion was what directly caused science to exist, since religion was what caused people to study philosophy and astronomy, and since the scientific method, higher mathematics, and Newtonian physics came from studying philosophy and astronomy.

There are many many many other lies that atheists tell. I will probably update this page with more lies as time passes by.

I don’t know how a group of people who claim to be smarter and superior to everyone can be so gullible as to believe all the lies they hear in the atheist media. No one really knows if atheists just enjoy and take pleasure in telling lies.

We can be completely certain that: Atheists have historically always been the main block towards scientific progress, continue to block scientific progress in modern times, and continue to spread historically inaccurate lies today.

After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing much slower, technology started growing slower, and physics became stuck with empirically untestable hypotheses.

Atheists just can’t do anything.

In modern times atheists are trying to turn science into a pseudo-scientific popularity contest where authority is all that matters. An example is the String Theory. It’s only now since atheists took over science that empirically untestable mathematical models can be considered as science. Whenever asked to give a valid reason as to how the String Theory is science all atheists respond with is an appeal to authority or an argument from personal incredulity.

So modern day “science” is just a pseudo-scientific laughable popularity contest mostly about authority and incredulity alone rather than empirical observations and valid reasoning.

My suggestion to atheists: Stop doing science, go home and focus on food, water, and shelter since everything that lead up to the scientific revolution would’ve been viewed as philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to you.

Who can be as disgusting as an atheist? They’ve always threatened scientific and technological progress from the very beginning.



Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous / Oct 6 2016 5:05 pm

    Maybe you should do some research before you act people for their beliefs because christians are the reason the world is screwed

  2. F.U / Jul 23 2016 12:06 pm

    Anyone who labels himself an atheist is just as much a cult member as the embarrassing hate spreading monotheists.

  3. Dim Swan / Aug 15 2015 4:51 am

    I applaud to you, oh my dear enlightener of the damned. I’m myself, being an university teacher, extremely tired of all that unstoppable flow of ungodly lie, which comes out from the atheists in the past centuries. And it more than just ungodly – it plainly stupid and disgraceful.
    I also see atheist like subhumans, stranglers of freedom (remember, that throughout human history there is no atheistic regime , which wasn’t a bloodthirsty dictatorship), enemies of progress etc. But want to remind you one very important thing: they are absolute losers – both in historical perspective and soteriological matters – and therefore should not be shunned and discriminated, but greeted with compassion and hope for future salvation in hands of whatever extrasensorial entity you believed in.
    So, I hope, that your completely justified opinion about godless people do not cloud your judgement and your treatment of atheists is still just and honorable. Do not forget the golden rule.
    Let the Flame illuminate your way.

  4. Anonymous / Aug 8 2015 3:32 am

    itsnobody is one of the most committed and cleverest trolls I’ve encountered. S/he is socially detached for sure and argues against what s/he knows to be true. It like haggard claiming to hate homosexuals yet, inwardly, he was a homosexual

  5. Anonymous / Dec 5 2014 2:33 am

    Believing in a magical invisible person in the sky that snapped his fingers and everything existed, including talking snakes and unicorns (both in the bible) is the sane thing to believe???? You sir are a brainwashed idiot of the highest magnitude. LOL at least i know when you eventually die, that will be the end of it for you.. please do not have children. that is all.

    • itsnobody / Jul 9 2015 8:44 am

      Dumb and dense as usual.

      Here’s the issues with your foolish (atheistic) statements:
      – The Church viewed “dealings in magic and divination” as a heresy and sponsored “natural philosophy” that’s why Newton and others were known as “natural philosophers”
      – God had never been defined as a “magic invisible person in the sky”…rather during the Middle Ages they believed that God had existed before the heavens and the Earth, before the sky was formed, as the Creator of the universe, with no ordinarily visible image…this is clear from Middle Age literature and arguments in the Middle Ages

      The one who’s brainwashed is you and other fools (atheists)…that’s why you don’t allow people to question your foolish (atheistic) statements…always hiding.

      You can keep throwing personal attacks but it doesn’t refute any statement that I made.

      I will always view atheists as subhuman beings.

      Just go home and keep copying things you watched on cartoon shows.

    • Gordon / Jul 16 2015 10:16 am

      Ha! God love ya…I remember thinking the same thing when I was an atheist. Then I stopped listening to television and second hand facts I never researched myself and stopped listening to people claiming all scientists are atheist when in fact it couldn’t be further from the truth, finally admitted that I was an atheist because it was cool and trendy until i ended up actually reading the bible myself and not letting any christian preacher’s church agendas influence my decisions anymore. Your so precious pretending to know shit only to look incredibly ignorant when no book will validate your trendy Hollywood’s ‘devil may care’ programming.

      • fuzzysdoll / Sep 24 2015 7:19 pm

        Oh, so one out of a hundred scientists believes in a god. So that makes it an intelligent decision.
        BTW, Ken Ham and Eric Hovind are NOT scientists.

      • itsnobody / Sep 28 2015 10:47 am

        Where did you get your statistics from? The historical consensus is that religion directly caused the scientific revolution.

        Most certainly everything that led up to the scientific revolution would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to most atheists.

        What’s going to happen in the future if atheists take over is that we’re going to revert to the state of an animal. We’re all born illiterate, humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not science so most likely atheists will try to exterminate science in the future viewing science as the same as a religion!

        Who claimed that Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, etc…were scientists? They are in the same boat as evolutionists, as evolution is merely a science fiction story.

        It doesn’t matter what scientists personally believe, what matters is what the scientific evidence shows (just using an appeal to authority).
        79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will even though the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution, ROFL!

        There aren’t any evolutionists who value evidence.
        Enough said.

        If evolutionists valued evidence we would predict that they would be more certain that free-will is non-existent and less certain about evolution, not the other way around.

        Since atheists are naturally anti-science they’re trying to re-define the definition of science so that authority and incredulity matters more than scientific evidence, valid reasoning, and empirical observations.

        79% of evolutionary biologists believing in free-will isn’t equivalent to scientific evidence that free-will exists, just the same with any other claim.
        What scientists personally believe doesn’t matter, what matters is what the scientific evidence shows.

        Atheists can’t handle that certain individuals are chosen and destined achieve certain things like modern science proves.

        Evolutionary biologists being dumb and uneducated don’t even realize that non-determinism falsifies evolution (non-determinism is usually used by free-will believers as evidence that free-will exists), ROFL!

        The evidence they use to support free-will falsifies evolution, ROFL!

        Things can’t evolve in a non-deterministic world, I tried to explain this to my atheistic evolutionist friends who believe in free-will, but they don’t get it, real stupid people.

        In general evolutionists are dumb, stupid, and uneducated, they don’t understand anything about science, they don’t even belong in science.

        That’s why the “story of evolution” keeps changing, because it’s not based on evidence, but instead based on imaginations and speculations. The story of evolution from the 1990s is very different from the story of evolution now, it’s just a science fiction story.

        Evolution is the only theory in modern science where imaginations and speculations are taken seriously as evidence, for every other theory or hypothesis the standard in science is that “imaginations aren’t the same as scientific evidence”.

        The standards of evidence for evolution is “if you can imagine it happening, that’s good enough evidence” for every other scientific theory and hypothesis people know that in the normal standards of science “imaginations and speculations aren’t equivalent to scientific evidence”.

        Evolution is protected like a religious belief so people aren’t allowed to treat evolution the same as every other scientific theory open to criticism and scrutiny, it’s not even a real theory, it’s a real science fiction story.

        The fact that people are allowed to question the evidence on free-will (or any other theory or hypothesis in science besides evolution) with unscientific junk and not get attacked, but aren’t allowed to criticize evolution with valid scientific criticisms because they would get attacked and kicked out shows you how well-protected evolution is and how evolution is not even a scientific theory, but a religious belief, a science fiction story.

        Of course evolution is false? How do I know? Explosions and atomic bombs don’t decrease entropy as evolutionists predict!
        Basically every physicist and engineer should know that evolution is false.

        I wonder what really happened in the past, obviously evolution is ruled out as possibility.

    • Anonymous / Feb 16 2017 4:27 pm

      Know the God you are attacking, the catholic church doesn’t see God the way most atheists see him like some magic guy in the sky, plus research history look at Rodney stark a NON CHRISTIANs historian without christians the world would not have many of the good things in the earth, read real legit historians IT’S ALL THERE

  6. Phoenix / Dec 1 2014 3:07 am

    Lie: During The “Dark Ages” people were killed for doing science

    During Stalin’s rule of the Atheist Soviet era ,hundreds of scientists were tortured to death for opposing Mendelian Genetics (founder of this discipline was a priest).And yet no one calls that era the Dark Ages.

    • Phoenix / Dec 1 2014 3:09 am

      My apologies:A major typo

      Lie: During The “Dark Ages” people were killed for doing science

      During Stalin’s rule of the Atheist Soviet era ,hundreds of scientists were tortured to death for supportng Mendelian Genetics (founder of this discipline was a priest).And yet no one calls that era the Dark Ages.

  7. Michael Gordon Till / Aug 25 2014 9:24 pm


    The church killed many people for believing in other gods.
    The church slaughtered people for not believing in one god.
    The church murdered people for pointing out Ecl 12:3 He is GOD among GODS(There is more than one or this is just stupid.)
    The church excommunicate(s) people for pointing out that Jesus(Emanuel of Nazerath) says, and this is from the bible. “Bow not before me, for I am not the great father.” Jesus of Nazerath is NOT GOD. He tells you to worship god, not him.

    The church has not removed the portions of the bible that says the earth is flat. It did not release an official statement until 2002, May 12th, 8a.m. GST. that the earth was round.

    The flat Earth is established and can never move?! The Sun hurries back to where it rises?!
    The Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 verses from the Bible in this section were sent to me by Abdullah Bisyir; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.
    “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)”
    “The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world [The deceiving translators should’ve said “earth”, not “world”] is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 93:1)”
    “Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world [Again, the deceiving translators should’ve said “earth”, not “world”] is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)”
    “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)”

    “The greatest Lie to use is really the truth seen from a different angle”.-DesCartes

    • itsnobody / Sep 8 2014 6:32 pm

      Stop spreading propaganda thoroughly debunked by historians.

      The Church never even once executed anyone for scientific views and was the main sponsor of science.

      The stuff you mentioned is common in anti-historian circles LOL.

      ROFL at the flat Earth claim.

      The historical evidence clearly shows that most Christian scholars believed in a round Earth.

      If your lies are true then how do you explain Jesuit preist astronomers introducing the spherical Earth idea to the Chinese who thought the Earth was flat until the 17th century?

      Comments like these reconfirm that atheists should be viewed as subhuman.


  8. Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:24 pm

    I have a feeling itsnobdy has sheltering hardcore-christian parents. Itsnobody would probably say “this is proof atheists hate all non-theists.” But there is a difference between Sheltering hardcore-christian parents and Christian parents.

    • Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:25 pm

      Either that or he is a Jehova’s witnesses.

    • itsnobody / Sep 8 2014 6:59 pm

      No fool (atheist).

      My parents and sister are atheists.

      All you fools have in desperation are personal attacks and lies.

  9. William / Jun 6 2014 10:29 am

    I sort of skimmed through this and as a Christian I strongly disagree with this statement. “Atheists really deserve to be laughed at, deserve to be made fun of, and deserve to be viewed as fully subhuman.” This is not how Jesus would want us to treat others. Anyways I would strongly suggest removing this, our re-posting this with a little more tact in a less defensive stance.

    • itsnobody / Sep 8 2014 6:58 pm

      But why should people who intentionally keep spreading lies be considered as human as opposed to subhuman?

      The historical consensus and evidence is clearly on my side.

  10. itsnobody / May 23 2014 12:28 am

    Looking at the historical evidence we can be 100% to the highest extent that: Atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the very very greatest threat to mankind.

    If atheists had run things initially most likely there would be no such thing as science and DEFINITELY not Maxwell’s equations in modern times.

    Can’t the fools (atheists) see that only a religion would be enough to cause the scientific revolution?

    The Church strongly encouraged reason, they believed that knowledge came from God and that lies came from Satan.

    Atheists just believe in living in the stone age, they think that “science” is just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, think that technology is artificial and unnatural, and just believe in living backwards.

    Let’s look at the evidence:
    China (an atheist country)’s life expectancy in 1960: 43
    Switzerland (the most religious Western European country)’s life expectancy in 1960: 71

    After atheists took over science in the late 1960 and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, physics became stuck with empirically untestable hypotheses, and technology started growing slower.

    US Life Expectancy in 1961: 70
    US Life Expectancy in 2011: 78

    How is it possible for so few medical advances to be made over a 50-year period?

    It’s the big block atheists have on human progress.

    Let’s look at more evidence:
    – Switzerland and Austria (the most religious Western European religious countries that still have around 20% of the population believing in Young Earth Creationism) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita (among nations with a population size above 1 million)
    – Estonia (the most atheistic country in the world) has 0 Nobel prizes (not in any science or non-science field)

    If only the fools (atheists) hadn’t taken over…just imagine how far science and human progress would’ve been by now (2014)!

    Atheists in general hate science and want to exterminate science and technology because of global warming and other crap. They just believe in living backwards with no technology or science at all.

    Message for atheists: Go home, focus on living with grass, and stay away from science

    The greatest threat to mankind: The atheist population

    It’s for science and technology!

  11. itsnobody / May 11 2014 4:58 pm

    I hope I can encourage people to do the right thing: View atheists as subhuman beings.

    Atheists really deserve to be laughed at, deserve to be made fun of, and deserve to be viewed as fully subhuman.

    Why should society tolerate the lies and nonsense atheists spread?

    The anti-historian/atheist media has done everything in their power to suppress the undeniable truth that there were no “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the media and that religion directly caused the scientific revolution.

    The anti-historian/atheist media has also suppressed the truth about Faraday’s religious beliefs directly causing Maxwell’s equations, perhaps the biggest revolution in human history.

    Anyone who understands the history of science would know that during Faraday’s time the idea that magnetism and light were linked as one was not merely ridiculous, but super super ridiculous beyond imagination.

    Everyone thought during Faraday’s time that magnetism was one thing and light was something else, they were two separate things with no direct connection to each other.

    If Faraday had been an atheist or less religious he would’ve never believed something so ridiculous (he would’ve just thought “I have only beliefs with evidence, why would I believe something so ridiculous that magnetism and light are linked as one”), we know that with near 100% certainty, and JC Maxwell would’ve definitely NEVER attempted to link magnetism and light as one, meaning Maxwell’s equations would probably not even exist now in modern times! (Meaning that radios, WiFi, cell phones, radar, and everything else that relies on electromagnetic wave communication would not exist)

    Maxwell’s equations made light-speed communication possible.

    It’s quite clear from Faraday’s writings and journals that he insisted that magnetism, light, gravity, and everything in general was linked as one regardless, even if the experimental results didn’t support his views. It’s JUST because of religion that Faraday believed so.

    Faraday’s idea was so ridiculous that almost every scientist completely ignored his view, JC Maxwell was one of the very very few scientists who even considered the idea as possible.

    When JC Maxwell really proved that magnetism, light, electricity were linked as one it shocked the entire world, maybe even more so than General Relativity did!!!

    It’s hard to explain how ridiculous that idea was that magnetism and light are linked as one was during Faraday’s time…ridiculous beyond imagination.

    The historical evidence on this is so clear…how can the fools (atheists) deny it?

    The truth is religion directly caused the scientific revolution and Maxwell’s equations to exist.

    Human beings really owe everything to religion!

    Truthfully, atheists are the nastiest people in the world, the lowest of all subhuman beings.

    What a terrible thing the atheist/anti-historian media is for telling so many many lies.

  12. marvth3martian / Dec 5 2013 4:39 am

    Spin, cherry picking on an epic scale, ignorant and badly written. A shame, because there is some truth here, but it gets lost in the vitriolic ineptitude of the presentation. This is the sort of ‘writing’ (and I use the term loosely) that only serves to widen the gap between theists and atheists and not something I’d be proud of. Troll-fodder at best.

    • itsnobody / Dec 8 2013 8:28 pm

      What a fool.

      Everything written here is completely accurate and 100% true.

      It’s not cherry-picking, it’s completely accurate and true.

      Cherry-picking would be if there were only 1 or 2 atheist fan sites or forums with these lies, instead almost every atheist fan site and forum has at least 1 of the lies listed here.

      Just visit atheist/White Nationalist forums they still talk about the fictional “Dark Ages” that no modern day historian believes in.

      You responded by merely throwing a personal attack without refuting even one point here, so your response is just a lame argument ad hominem.

      It’s not that there’s some truth in it, it’s that it’s all true, lol.

      If you disagree then feel free to refute some points rather than just throwing baseless personal attacks.

      Go ahead and name the parts inaccurate, wrong, badly written, or whatever. You won’t, lol.

      Thanks for showing how atheists are subhuman in terms of intelligence and subhumans to society.

  13. Aperio Contra / Nov 14 2013 3:34 pm

    Uh… These aren’t lies, they are mistruths most definitely, but not lies. A lie implies malice and intent, whereas these are misconceptions, misconceptions that atheists spread, most definitely (I’ve heard them from my atheist friends, myself), but they have neither the malice nor intent to deceive to be considered lies.

    Being an Atheist does not qualify a person to speak about physics, science, and history, so it is very possible (even likely) a person can be an Atheist, but not understand the nuances of these situations.

    What I’m getting at, is that by the same reasoning I can accuse you of lying simply by pointing out that Newton wasn’t even the linchpin for the Heliocentric Solar system, and that your oversimplification left out the works of Tycho Brahe (The physicist, not the Penny Arcade guy), Giordano Bruno, Kepler, Copernicus, and even Einstein. All of which contributed to these models. By leaving these men out and saying that Newton lynch-pinned it all (or even implying Galileos contributions as Negligible, even though his discovery that objects revolved around other objects is one of the more important aspects of the theory, as proved through observation) is untruthful. But, these are oversimplifications, not lies. The difference is the intent to deceive. That’s not to mention the whole “Nobody Executed for scientific ideals,” statement, that ignores the story of Giordano Bruno, who was a scientist who was executed during this time for holding beliefs contrary to the Catholic ways of teaching (Though I hesitate to call all of those beliefs “Scientific,” some of the ideas included Heliocentrosism and the idea that stars are really other suns that are really far away, with possible other Earths around them).

    Now, I will say thank you for trying to clear up misconceptions, but you’re not proving liars of Atheist, all you are proving is that being an Atheist doesn’t qualify a person to speak with authority on many of these subjects. To say outright that an Atheist cannot open their mouth without lying is being disingenuous with intent. By that you undermine your argument. It is certainly possible that an Atheist can speak, while maintaining honesty. You certainly show the intellectual capacities to understand that, so why spread something that is blatantly untrue? Is it not possible that a person can be Atheist and know these mistruths for what they are? Is it not possible that there are groups of Atheists out there who don’t spread these mistruths because of a respect of Science? I can speak from experience that I have defended religion on multiple cases when people are spreading lies. I have been the first to say that the Crusades were not about religion, but more about property, they were simply staged (and in many cases romantisized) With religious intent. Many atheists scientists are more than willing to point out that much of the early and modern contributions to Science were done by religious peoples. Such as the discovery of Algebra, the number Zero, The Cartesian Method (A progenator of the Scientific Method), and even Black holes (First Theorized by a Bishop). So I ask again, why frame it as if we are all liars, when all you can point out is, at best, Atheists are just as capable of holding false beliefs as anyone else. That we, shockingly, human.

    I’m not saying you’re lying, but I think you should know better than that.

    • itsnobody / Nov 27 2013 12:00 am

      What a complete idiot.

      You’re just plain wrong. Giordano Bruno contributed nothing relevant to the heliocentric model, he merely mentioned the heliocentric model as an idea. Mentioning the heliocentric model as an idea isn’t a contribution relevant to anything.

      Anyone can guess and mention an idea that could turn out to be right, but merely mentioning an idea means nothing.

      Most of Bruno’s guesses were completely wrong, like the four great elements, the aethers, the eternity of worlds, and more.

      Guessing an idea isn’t the same as providing evidence or proof of anything.

      Giordana Bruno provided no type of evidence or proof of anything, he just came up with wild speculations, some of which turned out to be somewhat accurate.

      The reason why people believed that the Sun moved around the Earth is simply because we can see with our own eyes the Sun moving around the Earth and it’s impossible to know otherwise (with the evidence available during Bruno’s time).

      The simple fact is it’s impossible to know if the geocentric, geo-heliocentric, or heliocentric model is literally true with Copernicus’ contributions alone since all of these models would make equally accurate predictions.

      The geocentric model makes extremely accurate predictions still today and would work for many practical matters and human beings can clearly see the Sun moving around the Earth with their own eyes, does that mean that it’s literally true?

      If not, then how were people supposed to know that the heliocentric model was literally true and not merely an accurate model with Copernicus’s contributions alone?

      You can come up with all types of models that are accurate in certain conditions and make accurate predictions in certain conditions, but are not literally true, that’s what you fools (atheists) don’t understand.

      Giordana Bruno made absolutely no contributions relevant to the scientific revolution, like nothing, he just speculated a bunch of ideas, which means nothing.

      If Giordana Bruno hadn’t existed we could speculate that the scientific revolution could’ve occurred quicker.

      Merely speculating ideas is completely different from providing evidence or proof for an idea.

      If you disagree then explain.

      What I’m getting at, is that by the same reasoning I can accuse you of lying simply by pointing out that Newton wasn’t even the linchpin for the Heliocentric Solar system, and that your oversimplification left out the works of Tycho Brahe (The physicist, not the Penny Arcade guy), Giordano Bruno, Kepler, Copernicus, and even Einstein. All of which contributed to these models. By leaving these men out and saying that Newton lynch-pinned it all (or even implying Galileos contributions as Negligible, even though his discovery that objects revolved around other objects is one of the more important aspects of the theory, as proved through observation) is untruthful.

      But you’re wrong again. I didn’t claim that Newton proved heliocentricism, just that he was the one who solidified the heliocentric model, which is completely true.

      That’s not to mention the whole “Nobody Executed for scientific ideals,” statement, that ignores the story of Giordano Bruno, who was a scientist who was executed during this time for holding beliefs contrary to the Catholic ways of teaching (Though I hesitate to call all of those beliefs “Scientific,” some of the ideas included Heliocentrosism and the idea that stars are really other suns that are really far away, with possible other Earths around them).

      Willfully ignoring the historical consensus just shows how delusional atheists are.

      Why can’t you fools (atheists) get over the fact that Giordano Bruno WAS NOT EXECUTED FOR HIS HELIOCENTRIC BELIEFS BUT FOR HIS HERETICAL BELIEFS.

      Him being executed had absolutely nothing to do with his heliocentric beliefs.

      I’ve provided numerous sources which atheists in denial just ignore, here’s some more:
      “Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.” (“Giordano Bruno”. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.)

      “in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When […] Bruno […] was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology.” (Sheila Rabin, “Nicolaus Copernicus” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online, accessed November 19, 2005))

      .”..the Italian Inquisition did incinerate the sixteenth-century Copernicun Giordano Bruno – but for his heretical views about the divinity or non-divinity of Christ, not because he believed in the infinity of the world or because he was a Copermicun. He argued that Christ had no human body and that his death on the cross was merely an illusion, which got some church authorities a little upset with him” – Ronald Numbers,

      Giordano Bruno was merely a pseudo-scientific heretic.

      Claiming that he was executed for being a scientist (or pseudoscientist) would be equivalent to a famous scientist in modern times murdering someone, being convicted and getting the death penalty and people saying “that person was killed by the government for his scientific beliefs”.

      But in reality they weren’t, they were executed by the government for other reasons and just happened to be a scientist.

      So I ask again, why frame it as if we are all liars, when all you can point out is, at best, Atheists are just as capable of holding false beliefs as anyone else. That we, shockingly, human.

      You’re just re-confirming that atheists are subhuman beings and stupid people unwilling to accept reality even when presented with massive amounts of historical and scientific evidence contradicting their delusional anti-religious beliefs propounded in the atheist media.

      If atheists aren’t intentionally telling lies then they are just so stupid, gullible, and ignorant that they don’t know that what they’re saying is false.

  14. Anonymous / Sep 20 2013 2:30 pm

    I appreciate all the information you provided, and I understand the frustrations with spreading the truth over these lies.

    Would it be possible to take a less hostile stance. Even if you are in the right, it still gives them ammunition if you speak of atheists in a belittling form.

    Many theists may have been atheists at some point prior in their life, and I know many generous atheists as well.

    Perhaps we could gently inform them of their errors?

    1 Peter 3:15

    15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

    • itsnobody / Nov 5 2013 9:19 pm

      I’m not trying to be hostile I’m just trying to tell the truth to people since atheists intentionally keep spreading lies.

      If you visit almost any atheist fan site or forum at least 1 of these lies is spread there.

      Atheists deserve to be laughed at for telling lies and people deserve to know the truth.

      I’m just hoping I can get more and more people to not hesitate, and consider atheists as fully subhuman (not even as partially human).

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:28 pm

        At what point in the bible does it say “atheists are fully subhuman.”?

  15. Yves / Mar 5 2013 10:53 am

    Atheists lie so much that people (included nonbelievers) never trust atheists :

  16. Not God / Feb 8 2013 8:49 am

    “There are many many many other lies that atheists tell.” Wow. Just wow. We tell no more lies than the average person does, and markedly less than the average theist.

    I think you also said in another post that “it’s up to theists to educate them.” There is a study (link below) that proves that atheists know more about religion than theists.

    Good luck keeping this perspective.

    ( )

    • Yves / Mar 5 2013 8:24 am

      Isn’t a vicious method to falsify Gospel’s words to make believe the Spirit of the Bible advocates racism ?
      Isn’t the evidence that atheists lack of arguments to defend their cause ( hide their legacy : the scientific racism and the position of Blacks in their evolution ladder)?

      When Brian Fields (President of the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers) and his accomplices of racist American Atheists falsified the Colossians 2:33 verse which they pretend says :

      Slaves, obey your masters !
      , isn’t it an hate call ?
      Couldn’t they just copy-paste the true word used in this verse which is servants    rather than slaves   …plus the entire verse ?
      No , they can’t … 
      It’s not only a matter of poor historic knowledges ( at this time, servants are employees ) , it is a proof of poor moral backgrounds. If there is any proof of the Bible supporting racism, why do atheists have to falsify the truth ?
      Atheists lies are satanic !

    • Yves / Mar 5 2013 8:33 am

      The sample of Christians is much higher in the USA than the atheist one, that is why you will mechanically find more bad results in any topics… It is just a mathematic evidence. Do you really think that North Korean atheists are more skilled in religions ?

    • Yves / Mar 5 2013 10:51 am

      …actually Colossians is in the New Testament but not in the Gospels. 
      But I’m quite sure no atheist knew it. 

    • itsnobody / May 18 2013 12:30 pm

      Atheists more knowledgeable? The study you cite just has to do with answering random biased questions that people who devised the study came up with.

      Basically every atheist/delusional thinks that there was a “Dark Ages” of Christianity and that the Church executed people for doing science. If you don’t believe me then just ask a delusional/atheist, they’re so gullible lol.

      I’m sure the study you quoted didn’t ask anything related to that or any of the lies I listed, so your study is irrelevant.

      The study you cite also uses the same trick as all the other studies showing “atheists as smarter”, it just averages the scores in different ethnic groups.

      The study you cited shows White evangelicals, Whites/atheists, White Jews, and White Mormons as having the highest scores, lol. The groups with the White admixtures like the White Catholics and White mainline, have lower scores, I wonder why (oh yeah Richard Lynn says that the admixtures lowers the IQ).

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:31 pm

        itsnobody probably doesn’t know there is such thing as an illogical creationist argument, I know for sure itsnobody doesn’t know there is such thing as a logical atheist argument.

  17. Liam / Dec 16 2012 6:23 pm

    Actually perhaps it would be more appropriate to give an example. If you were to imagine yourself as a computer program, every time you started your operating system up exactly the same things happen. Now imagine your hardware were flesh and blood, it is trying to get as close as possible to starting up correctly. Each and every human life experienced is an example of this. They say our imperfections make us different and that is what is special. What is special about us is that we are the same. Ask a soldier, someone on the cutting edge of darwinism how he feels about his buddies.

    • itsnobody / May 18 2013 5:33 pm

      Well there are many ways to look at it and claim that people are very different or all the same.

      But that’s not what’s ultimately important to me.

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:33 pm

        most every article has something at the top that is not backed up like:
        “100% of all atheist arguments ar illogical”
        “100% of atheists are racist”
        “I think I’d know more about evolution than someone with a PhD in biology.”

  18. Liam / Dec 16 2012 6:11 pm

    It is ridiculous to think of these as being lies spread by athiest’s. I understand what you are saying, but rather than lies they often cite ‘popular’ histories as a means to discredit religion. Whilst religion has many, many crimes to answer it is sometimes answering for the wrong crime. I am not defending religion and that must extend to any belief system. Believing in gravity for example is as strange as believing in god. I do not believe in god, I do believe in gravity for the time being. That being said I must be open to the belief that everything will float, turn yellow, disappear or mimic me if I consider myself truly fluid within the system in which I exist, rather than considering myself fluid only within the PERCEIVED RULES of the system in which I exist. There will come a day when ‘things’ like us become ‘immortal’, but even that day will end. I can assure from experience, the human mind is not a thing that is compatible with ‘real’ systems. It was never designed as such, but rather to be compatible with a subset of real systems. Therein lies the trick, it is only ‘compatible’, the world it ‘lives’ in is very different to the world it exists it. Effort on these matters is a recursive waste of time, look at all the texts religious or secular dealing with these things. You must realize what life is. You must accept it’s finality. If you do not you are likely to engender behaviours that can hurt your yourself (the race homo sapien). When you die, you do not die, your genes do not disappear, your thoughts are not banished nor indeed are your feelings, other names and faces are attached to them yes, but you are always in the stream. The idea that they are not precisely ‘your’ feelings and therefore are not equivalent is egotism, easily dealt with and then any fear is dissipated.The ‘I’ or ‘me’ as you imagine it does not exist and therefore does not need saving. There is no ‘you’ you are a compilation in terms of software – ‘learning’ and hardware which is modular it has no ‘soul’. In these beliefs there exists no doubt and therefore no fear. Be at peace, you will live as long as there is life.

    • itsnobody / May 18 2013 4:15 pm

      But they are lies spread by atheists, just visit any atheist forum or web site and you can see atheists continuing to spread these same lies debunked by the historical consensus. So many atheists still believe the “Dark Ages” myth and the lie that “without religion technology would be ahead”. How anyone be this stupid and gullible?

      As for determining the truth I prefer emphasizing the following:
      – The scientific method
      – Valid reasoning and valid methodology
      – Repeatable objective experimentation
      – Empirical observations
      – Criticism and scrutiny of all things
      – Intuition and observations from the mind (to generate hypotheses)
      – Emphasizing finding ways to empirically test hypotheses
      – Authority and incredulity having absolutely no value

      I feel that the above is efficient for determining the truth, the only problem is when you hit the limits of what can be empirically tested, then you run into the realm of the unknown.

      Of course the atheists have severely de-valued everything above specifically because they know that they will be proven wrong, so they have to take certain precautions.

      • Anonymous / Feb 23 2016 5:44 pm

        shut the fuck up please.

  19. Lucifer Ash / Nov 29 2012 2:09 am

    This blog. Is by far. Literally. THEE. Most fucking stupid thing I’ve ever read on this fucking planet. Who even gives a shit enough to argue about any of this to some troll who research’s all this shit off the internet? Notice why he only fucking reply’s a week or a month later. You literally cannot argue with this person because everything he says he believes is fact, and/or to fucking ignorant and stuck up to even open his tight asshole to any other ideas rather then his wannabe always correct ideals of his. Christians fucking hate people like you. Send this blog to ANYONE you know that’s christian. Show it to the church. Any church. Even fucking Osama bin laden would think this shits batshit crazy. Plus considering he cant prove literally ANYTHING because every time someone factually shits on his face he does nothing but reply with 1-10 words. A poster will take about a good 2-5 minutes typing out all the shit they do and then he just types out a simple sentence saying its not true. After literally having the truth shoved down his fucking throat he just simply replies saying its not true. This dude is seriously one of those types of ignorant shits that just don’t want to admit the truth. Hes so caught up in this thing that i GUARANTEE wasn’t his choice. Hey Mr. Blogger. Please reply answering if you chose your religion. And that it wasn’t shoved down your fucking throat as a child by some religious obsessed freaks you’d call parents. I dont even know what to say. Your just on the losing side of all these arguments. You sir belong in a fucking mental place. I cant wait for this god of your’s to send you to hell. The look on your face. I wish i could see it.

    • Dannaday Coats / Apr 29 2013 5:26 am

      Haha. Talk about a bitter loser.

    • itsnobody / May 18 2013 1:40 pm

      What a bunch of crap.

      Throwing personal attacks at me refutes nothing that I’ve said.

      Everything here is backed up by the historical evidence and historical consensus. How is it “batshit crazy”? I cited countless sources.

      Are you mad that I destroy your atheist friends so easily? Instead of throwing personal attacks at me why don’t give an example of me losing an argument or try to substantiate your claims? I win every time.

      You haven’t substantiated anything, just threw attacks.

      As for my parents and family, my Dad and Sister are atheists, my Mom is mostly non-religious, so I have absolutely no psychological built-in reason to believe in the God that I believe in.

      It’s just what I’ve discovered, and I’m 100% certain of myself.

      As for hell, I’ve discovered that many different hellish and heavenly worlds exist, it’s really true. It turns out that there are many miniature worlds all around us, they exist like miniature portals (it seems that the portal and the world maybe the same thing!). However, since they are miniature in size the effects they have on us are mostly unnoticeable, but using lots of power and some modified electrical equipment I believe that I can amplify the size of these portals, demonstrate the effects of these portals on a macro-level, and perhaps even travel to other worlds.

      But you should know that even after an afterlife, heavenly worlds, and hellish worlds are scientifically proven to exist there will still be one form of atheism leftover – impersonalism. They will say that what is actually Supreme is something like an impersonal force. So in the course of the future the debate will only be about personalism vs. impersonalism.

      It’s all true, and I’m 100% certain of myself, that’s why on my blog criticism and scrutiny of my claims is allowed.

      In the end, your rant is just sounds like a way of you being upset that I win every time, and that my statements are flawless.

  20. Peasles / Nov 24 2012 12:41 pm

    Talk to an actual historian and bring up the term “Dark Ages” and see how much condescension they can throw at you with just one withering glance. The “Dark Ages” is a terrible term used by laypeople who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.

    • itsnobody / May 18 2013 1:12 pm

      Atheists don’t understand anything about history, on basically every atheist forum and web site they continue to spread the “Dark Ages” lie.

  21. Chris R / Nov 15 2012 12:48 am

    Wow what a waste of your time. Atheists and the atheist media rarely discuss any of those subjects. Maybe one atheist may have been misled into saying something like you said because religious clowns love them their quote mining tricks. Religion is BS – end of story. It had something to do with science once upon a time because people did not understand how we really evolved and how this planet was formed. Now we know – religion is BS.

    • GreenDiamond / Nov 16 2012 4:59 pm

      Well said Chris R. They cannot even prove that I am not god.

      • itsnobody / May 18 2013 1:11 pm

        Oh it’s the same low-life racist/atheist who wants to turn the world into an atheist agreeing contest.

        Using a machine I should build in the future, I would be able to easily prove that you are not God.

        However given what’s available in modern times I could prove that you are just an ordinary human being, which in turn would prove that you are not God.

        Contrary to what the fools (atheists) believe, you can prove a negative, you just use a proof by contradiction.

    • jon / Jan 13 2013 9:01 pm

      Butthurt baby? You are a fag, end of story. Following your rational argumentation.

      • Anon / Feb 3 2016 7:15 pm

        You’re one to talk, whiner.

    • Dannaday Coats / Apr 29 2013 5:27 am

      Jon is correct. You are clearly a fag.

      • Anon / Feb 3 2016 7:16 pm

        You and Jon lie like dogs.

    • itsnobody / May 18 2013 12:40 pm

      Of course atheists and the atheist media rarely discuss it, they feel really embarrassed about it so they have to avoid mentioning it all costs.

      Religion is BS says the person who believes in free-will (even though there’s more scientific evidence contradicting the existence of free-will then there is contradicting the existence of God)?

      During this time period we live in it appears as if religion is BS to many, but in the future it will be science that pushes people towards religion.

      The ones preventing this from happening are the atheists/anti-science fans.

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 27 2014 3:21 pm

        Jeez, how much of a bigot can someone get?

      • TheGuyLaughingAtYourPerceptualBias / Oct 31 2014 7:36 am

        A lot of the stuff you said is actually factual, but you did twist some things and make some pretty wild claims that have no evidence to support them. You claim that without religion science wouldn’t exist because atheists only care about the basic necessities and wouldn’t care to think about philosophy and astronomy. First of all, that argument is impossible to prove since you have no way of knowing what would have happened without religion ever existing. Plus, religion isn’t the reason that human civilization began to think about understanding the world. Having free time was. Once humans stopped being nomadic and built houses and had farms they had a lot more extra time since they no longer had to spend all day trying to get food and travel and survive, so in that extra time they became to think. So, are you saying that atheists don’t wonder and try to understand the world and that only religious people do? That makes no sense because curiosity is in human nature, so atheists as well as religious people would have thought about trying to understand the world, and science is just a quest to understand the world. Have you ever thought that the reason that religious people are responsible for so many of the early scientific discoveries was because pretty much everyone was religious back then and that atheism was so uncommon it basically didn’t exist? Also, I’d like to point out that you’re wrong about how science will push people towards religion. Science has been pushing people away from religion. The number of atheists around the world is only rising as we make more scientific discoveries and learn more about the world. The fastest growing religion is no religion. Why do you think that modern scientists, some of the smartest people in the world, are atheist? And don’t bring up how scientists used to be religious hundreds of years ago, that was hundreds of years ago. We understand so much more about the world now than we did then, and these atheist scientists don’t perform in pseudo-science and untestable hypotheses like you said. You used one example of String Theory to prove that everything they do is untestable, but one example doesn’t prove anything. I can give you one example of scientists with a testable hypothesis. Just look at the Higgs Boson. It started out as a hypothesis that they had been unable to test at the time. Now, they tested it and found it and it’s being called one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. Scientists have untestable hypotheses and they have testable hypotheses. They always have. You named a few great examples of scientists whose hypotheses were untestable at their time, like Galileo and Giordano Bruno, so its possible that in the future we’ll find evidence to support String Theory, or maybe evidence that proves it wrong. One more thing I want to say. The average nonbeliever is smarter than the average religious person and a study has proven it.


  1. Petition to view atheists as subhuman | itsnobody

Post a Comment

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: