Skip to content
November 10, 2012 / itsnobody

Why atheists should stop doing science

Atheists are the lowest possible form of life and the most disgusting people that exist.

Atheists ruin everything they touch and are now trying to ruin modern science, turning it into nothing more than a laughable popularity contest.

Here are the reasons why atheists should not participate in science:

  • Atheists are disgusted with using empirical observations and valid reasoning and only like authority and incredulity
  • Atheists are disgusted with experimentation and only like mathematical models alone (even empirically untestable mathematical models)
  • Atheists are disgusted with contributions and only like super-high IQ talents or prodigious talents
  • Atheists are disgusted with belief without evidence, intuition, and originality
  • Atheists are disgusted with the concept of free and open criticism and scrutiny (which use to be a main principle in science) and label criticism as ‘trolling’
  • Atheists are disgusted with using the scientific method

Now that atheists have taken over science the days of using empirical observations, valid reasoning and testing hypotheses is over. What modern science is about now is mostly just authority and incredulity alone. In modern times scientists are now giving up on debating about what empirical observations and valid reasoning tells us, they instead argue about “what credentials does this person have?” or “how much does this idea push our incredulity?” and that’s it.

Atheists are trying to re-define the definition of science to “whatever authority figures claim is science” instead of “what matches a certain criteria to be science”, so science is now nearly 100% just about authority alone.

A fine example of this is the “String Theory”. The String Theory matches the exact definition of pseudoscience it is accepted as ‘science’ just because of authority alone (and no other reason). I’ve asked String Theory fans to explain how the String Theory is science and they’ve only responded with arguments from authority and incredulity. There’s many String Theory solutions that allow for other dimensional beings, an afterlife, and spirits existing, so if the String Theory is considered as science so should that String Theory solution.

To any atheist reading this: Please just stop doing science, go home and just focus on food, water, and shelter. Just stop doing it if you already participating and if you are considering participating then don’t.

After atheists took over science in the late 1960s 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.

Atheists can’t really do anything right.

It was always the atheist kind holding back and threatening science, always from the very beginning.

The same progress that would take me and other Theists just around 20-30 years would take atheists around 1000 years or more.

Without atheists blocking scientific progress science and technology would be much much much further ahead.



Leave a Comment
  1. rednig / Oct 29 2016 5:47 pm

    Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven’t come up with any new cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published time and time again, and a practiced Young Earth Creationist can handily draw them like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you’re prepared in advance, it’s easy to beat down any Young Earther with a quick verbal body slam. You’re not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.

    So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:

    Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity. Young Earth Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Young Earthers often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

    Young Earth Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Young Earth Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

    One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

    A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

    The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

    Here’s another Young Earth argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Young Earth Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

    In a related vein, Young Earthers also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at

    Another effort to fight science using logic states that It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

    You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, called genetic drift, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

    For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for Young Earthers to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

    Those are the standard arguments. One thing I can’t easily prepare you for are the non-standard arguments you might get from a creationist who doesn’t know his business very well. For example, when evangelical actor Kirk Cameron and Christian author Ray Comfort were given a platform by ABC television in April 2007 to express their beliefs to the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge, they didn’t even know the standard arguments and just started throwing random stuff out left and right in a way that’s much harder to debate intelligently. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy had a similar experience when debating moon hoax believer Joe Rogan, and he summed it up quite aptly by pointing out that it’s easy to know the science better than a believer does, but a believer can easily know the pseudoscience way better than you. Stick with what you know, and don’t allow an unpracticed creationist who’s all over the place to steer you off the track.

  2. Anonymous / Aug 31 2016 11:35 pm

    It is interesting website that I have never seen before. The host is very smart one and with many good characters and knowledge. It is definitely a good web. Good luck

  3. Ryan Schick / Jul 31 2014 8:52 am

    “be the first to like this”
    Everybody hates you. And for reason.

  4. Joe / Jan 9 2014 9:19 pm

    At first it seemed obvious that this was satire, but now I can’t tell…

    • Anonymous / Feb 23 2014 5:38 pm

      My feel exactly, bro.

  5. Anonymous / Nov 1 2013 6:14 pm

    Well you can go fuck yourself. What have you do for the world that gives you the right to diss atheist like that. Unlike the sad piece of shit that you are, some atheist (Albert Einstein) have done great stuff in their life. If don’t know what you’re talking about then just keep you’re opinion to yourself, cause when you do shit like this you’re gonna get a lot of hate for people. So from my point of view, you should go get yourself a life.

  6. adam c / Sep 29 2013 12:31 pm

    as an atheist and prospective physicist, i can say that:
    -i always use valid reasoning and mathematical results when performing experiments and testing theories, and do my best to make sure something is peer-reviewed before considering it.
    -i believe that experiments are the only way to support and prove a hypothesis.
    -i think that IQ is ridiculous (richard feynman’s IQ was 124, but his CONTRIBUTIONS to science were outstanding, which makes him a great scientist in my book), and i only really value someone’s contributions to science and humanity as what makes them intelligent or a moral being.
    -why would one choose to believe something when there is nothing to really back up that very belief or something that was deduced without any intuition? it is preposterous. i have agreed with your statement, but i can assure you that anybody who is not a moron will agree that being dissatisfied with belief without evidence is a good thing, as it allows for more EXPERIMENTS and more EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION to happen (yes i did not only refute your point but used another of your points against you).
    -no true atheist is close-minded about criticism, as they have most likely criticized their previous religion when they converted to atheism. maybe the only atheist that are like this are the hipsters who are wannabe philosophers (yes i know, they bother me as well), but they do not normally participate in science (they are your regular art history majors), so that part of your argument should be non-existent.
    -i do not, in any way, disagree with the scientific method, nor does any other atheist to whom i have ever spoken.

    Oh and to OP, as i doubt you have any true knowledge of string theory, other than it is a theory in physics that will make you look smart and credible when talked about, maybe you should look up string theory to find out what it is really about (or reply to me and message me to find out what it really is, as the terms used may be a bit high-level). i will tell you that NO solution to string theory will support an almighty being (string theory is about elementary particles, not god… string theory will also not be proved, as it is a theory…). Many great scientists were atheist/agnostic (Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Niels Bohr, Einstein).
    You have shown no appeal to ethos, nor logos. Learn the art of rhetoric, then revise your argument.

    • nickofthyme / Aug 12 2014 8:31 pm

      From what I see he surpasses you in the art of rhetoric. Of course, my being a man of letters and not of science, what do I really know?

  7. itwillsetyoufree / Sep 20 2013 1:16 am

    itsnobody, I think I understand where you are coming from. I can only disagree with calling people “subhuman”.I believe in order and respect . I would rather say that atheistic thinking is DANGEROUS and unproductive (for those that read i will explain my statement another time , although i can now say that it’s more or less because of their bad science but i will attempt to explain it through another angle or with other words). I believe that you want to educate ?or convince? or warn someone? .. I don’t really know. i encourage you to continue firmly but with LOVE. Also i perceive that you have great depth of thoughts……..respond me and i will discuss more iF yu don’t mind.

  8. Anonymous / Jun 11 2013 4:53 am

    Just calm down your religion does control how good your inventions are and atheists are just as smart as Christian’s

    • Nick Name / Jun 11 2013 7:42 am

      Are you talking about Alfred Kinsey , the smartest atheist scientist ? You like this guy , don’t you ?

  9. Anonymous / Jun 11 2013 4:51 am

    If you were a true Christian you would know to love every one for who they are as it sys in the bible

    • Nick Name / Jun 11 2013 7:39 am

      ” If you were a true Christian you would know to love every one for who they are as it sys in the bible. ”  

      Atheists always say the Bible teaches violence and pedophilia. 
      Your statement sounds like an opportunistic flip-flop.
      You truly look like an anonymous daft punk…this topic is about science.

      • Anonymous / Jul 22 2013 2:39 am

        Why do you assume he is an atheist? Anons comment doesn’t even sound like something an atheist would say.

    • nickofthyme / Aug 2 2014 6:30 pm

      I don’t take people seriously who start off sentences “if you were a true Christian” because they are so often NOT.

  10. Yves / Apr 19 2013 3:53 pm

     Atheists have appealed to science in defence of their atheism since the first avowedly atheistic manuscripts of the mid seventeenth century. However, as the German expert on atheism Winfried Schroeder has shown, the relationship between early modern atheism and science tended to embarrass rather than strengthen the fledgling atheism’s case.
    With respect to atheism and science, theism is widely regarded by historians as having had the best scientific arguments on its side well into the eighteenth century.
    The renowned Denis Diderot, atheist and deist in turns, could still say in 1746 that science posed a greater threat to atheism than metaphysics.[3] Well into the eighteenth century it could be argued that it was atheism and not theism which required a sacrifice of the intellect. As Schroeder has pointed out, atheists were scientifically retrograde until at least the mid eighteenth century, and suffered from their reputation as scientifically unserious.[4]

    Sources :  University of Cambridge   

  11. Lin Jialin / Jan 3 2013 7:16 am

    Err… Hi blogger. I am a religious person (more specifically, a Christian) and I think this post is too emotional. A lot of your accusations here are rather unfounded and border on personal/group attack. Chill out. And I agree with ultimomos. You are clearly an intelligent person so please in your debates, display a decorum that matches your intelligence. In addition, if you are a Christian, I would like you to read this transcript of a Youtube video:

    [start] Hey there! I’m Emanuella. I’m a Christian. I have been a “good” Christian most of my life. It was my identity. I used to like to tell people how “good” I was, how I kept all the Commandments. I thought that was “Good”……

    Then I realized something…I Failed!!! “Christian” was just a name I wore…kind of like a pretty coat over a dirty body…It didn’t match my heart. Here’s why:

    If you were an Atheist or Agnostic or anything else…And if you didn’t agree with me…I would disdain you as a person. I feel like a hypocrite! I feel disgusting! And I can’t take it anymore! I wasn’t interested in being your “Friend”. I just wanted to change you. I thought that was my job.

    Christianity is about being like “Christ”. Jesus loved everyone, First. If they didn’t accept what He said, He still loved them. Its not my job to change you, I can’t. But its my job to love you. That I can.

    So this is an appeal to my Christian Brothers and Sisters, not all but some… stop the Damnation. Stop the Judgement. Stop the Religism. Thats not our business.

    It doesn’t matter how well you can preach…How many Bible Verses you’ve memorized or How many people “think” you are all that. If you don’t have love, you’re nothing. Love is not a chore. Its a revelation. The Christ you serve revealed it in its purest form.

    Gandhi said: “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians.”

    Don’t be one of “those”. This is an invitation….
    Start the LOVE…Join the movement… [End]

    So please, show love. To be frank, you are not going to win over anyone no matter how clever your arguments are with that kind of attitude. On a side note, if I have offended you, I apologise. Just to clarify, I am not trying to judge.

    One last thing, to all agnostics/ atheists out there, Science is great but it hasn’t answered all our questions yet. For example, evolution still remains a theory; there is no conclusive evidence to proof that whatever Darwin proposed is correct. In fact, there are many missing links in fossil records that suggests that the slow, gradual evolution of species could not have taken place. Moreover, do you know of something called the Cambrian explosion in biology? ( To sum it up, it is a relatively short amount of period when major animal groups (phyla) appeared at around the same time. Therefore, whoever says that science has explained away the need for God needs to reconsider.

    I believe that faith and science can coexist. I also don’t think that it is wrong to have an inquiring mind. However, please do not rule out the possibility that there is God even before you have investigated. You do not want to realise that there indeed is a God, only after you die, do you? So if you are interested, I recommend these two books to you: The case for faith and The case for a Creator, both written by Lee Strobel. After his wife became a Christian, he decided to investigate, questioning experts in various fields of Science, just to prove her wrong. Look where he is nowadays? He is a pastor. Just before you dismiss his case as one of a weak minded man getting fooled by religious propaganda, I would like to remind you that he holds a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale law school as well as a journalism degree from the University of Missouri, and is the formal legal affairs editor of the Chicago Tribune ( l. I realise my ‘comment’ is getting too long-winded so I shall just end by saying, read those two books and let the evidence lead you where it will.

    Have a nice day:)

  12. itsnobody / Nov 19 2012 9:18 pm

    The case is closed.

    The main block towards scientific and technological progress throughout history has always been the atheist population.

    Here’s the atheist’s version of science:
    – “Some authority figures said this, all that matters is that they are authority figures, they don’t need to provide empirical observations or valid reasons to support their assertions”
    – “What’s pro-science is mimicking and copying what authority figures agree upon, it’s not about using empirical observations or testing hypotheses to see what’s actually true or false”
    – “A group of scientists have agreed to this, and say this, so it must be true, anyone who questions or criticizes their views are anti-science, science is about agreeing with what authority figures have concluded”
    – “Why come up with experiments when we can come up with empirically untestable mathematical models?”
    – “Since we don’t have any beliefs without evidence call we can do is copy things that already have evidence”

    Here’s an atheist debate:
    – “What’s this person’s credentials?”
    – “How much does this idea push our incredulity?”
    – “How many authority figures agree?”
    – “Why would we discuss what empirical observations and valid reasoning tells us?”

    So the atheist’s version of science is just copying scientific “facts” and going by authority and incredulity.

    Modern science is just a laughable popularity contest.

    How lame and disgusting.

    Some atheists don’t believe in using technology and science, they think that human beings should just live with food, water, and shelter alone and want the world to live in the stone age.

    Atheists really can’t do anything right, they should just go home. Truthfully there is no lower form of life that exists.

    Within 20-30 years, with funding and resources I by myself could definitely come up with more advanced technology and science than savage atheists.

    The atheist measures advancement not by how much it changes the world and our daily lives, but by technical achievements alone.

    What would happen if we had a contest to see who could come up with more advanced science and technology within 20-30 years, 1000 Theists vs. 1000 atheists, each get an island of their own?

    I know what would happen if I lead the Theists, we would win easily and basically have a Utopia-type world with all possible problems that human beings face solved. The type of technology the Theist island would have would be things like cures for all things and a Resource Generator.

    The atheists would be stuck with the same technology thinking “We don’t have any beliefs without evidence, we don’t like experimentation, all we’re going to do is copy science that’s already been done and apply what’s within the realm of what’s in modern science. It’s a terrible thing to have belief without evidence and think far outside of what’s already within modern science”. The type of technology the atheist island would have would be things like a faster computer that does basically the same things modern computers already do.

    Everyone on the atheist island might have just gone home and committed suicide.

    The simple fact is atheists are basically subhumans to society and can’t really do anything.

    • Ryan Schick / Jul 31 2014 8:53 am

      Why don’t you just shut down this wordpress to show you are a good person?

  13. Chris R / Nov 15 2012 12:42 am

    Funny how the most religious guy at work can never get anything right first time. He ALWAYS screws up. Meanwhile me and my fellow atheists will continue to develop new and advanced products that clowns like you are incapable of designing. It’s fun work when you understand science and physics and do experiments to advance one’s knowledge.

    I cannot see you demonstrating expertise in anything yet except swearing and being rude to people.

    • itsnobody / Nov 19 2012 7:54 pm

      That’s funny the least religious guy at my work can’t get anything to work, I always have to correct these fools and get everything working perfectly.

      So what’s your idea of advancement? Copying things and getting it to work right the first time?

      So what “advanced product” are you working on?

      The atheist’s idea of advanced technology is something primitive like a faster computer. That’s what they call “advanced”, LOL

      I guess we know how intelligent atheists are.

      Face the facts fool (atheist), against me you’ll never win, regardless of all the ad hominems you throw at me.

      • Chris R / Feb 2 2013 11:37 pm

        How many inventions do you have – smart ass

  14. Whateverman / Nov 13 2012 6:17 pm

    Atheists are the lowest possible form of life and the most disgusting people that exist.
    Dollars to donuts, you don’t brag about this blog to your Mom.

    • GreenDiamond / Nov 16 2012 5:02 pm

      I will be laughing about that one for weeks! Nice one, Whateverman!

    • itsnobody / Nov 19 2012 8:06 pm

      I don’t think I went far enough.

      Even a dog is a higher form of a life than an atheist, atheists are worse than animals, and lower than the lowest, the most disgusting form of life.

      Time is running out in the US, once the atheist population goes up, racism and White Nationalism is guaranteed.

      How is it possible for someone to be as low-acting as an atheist?

      • Chris R / Feb 2 2013 11:38 pm

        Your stupid dog didn’t help invent the disk drive that is in your computer , I THE ATHEIST did that. Ungrateful jerk that you are.

      • GustavoX_AF / Oct 9 2013 8:30 pm

        You are scum!

      • itsnobody / Oct 12 2013 7:42 pm

        Definitely not, the ones who are lower than scum are the atheists.

        Nothing has set back science and the progression of mankind as much as the atheist population has, nothing

        All atheists have in response are personal attacks and ad hominems, because they can’t refute any statement that I’ve made

  15. GreenDiamond / Nov 10 2012 7:29 pm

    Can you give any references to studies that support your hypothesis or are you just totally out of any sustance to say? Intelligent people have intelligent things to say. Idiots just can’t seem to know when they have nothing of value to contribute. yet, they can’t shut up either. Idiot!

    • itsnobody / Nov 19 2012 8:49 pm

      I have lots of intelligence and intelligent things to say.

      As for referencing studies, that’s quite impossible since no studies have been performed on (most) of the claims I have made here.

      However everything I said can be backed up with empirical observations, even if no study has been performed.

      Here are the observations:
      The String Theory: An example of how atheists are trying to re-define the definition of science to “whatever authority figures consider to be science” rather than “what matches a certain criteria to be science”, of how all that matters in modern times is authority and incredulity, and how atheists are disgusted with experimentation and just like mathematical models

      Prior to the fools taking over, “String Theorists” would’ve just been known as mathematicians and no one would’ve taken them seriously unless they found a way to empirically test their ideas.

      Media ignores contributors, just celebrates super high-IQ “geniuses”: There are lots of sites made by atheists where they de-value contributions and only discuss IQ alone. How disgusting, here’s one made by a low-life atheist .

      In modern times who’s celebrated for their contributions alone (not prodigious talents or IQ)?

      If someone wants to prove that they’re super-smart in modern times all they have to do is score high on an IQ test, it wouldn’t matter if they contribute nothing.

      Back when Theists ran science if someone wanted to prove that they were super-smart they would have to come up with some contributions that demonstrate that they are super-smart, not simply score high on some IQ tests.

      Since atheists discourage contributions, and contributions are what advance science, atheists discourage scientific advancement.

      Life expectancy growth slowed down after the late 1960s and early 1970s: This can be shown on any graph. Atheists just can’t do anything. The life expectancy in the 1960s was already in the 70s, lol.

      Richard Dawkins and other atheists discourage ‘belief without evidence’: Without “belief without evidence” there’s little room to generate new testable hypotheses, and thus little room for scientific growth. If Faraday didn’t have any “belief without evidence” then Maxwell’s equations would probably be non-existent today.

      Modern day peer-reviewed literature: Just read some of the stuff that appears in journals, it’s quite obvious that modern science is just a joke, they don’t even attempt to adhere to a valid scientific methodology or use the scientific method (if possible). What matters is “Does this person have the authority to publish this?”, how laughable.

      The fools still mostly cite things from the early 1970s or earlier.

      Atheists disgusted with criticism and scrutiny: Just visit any atheist-run site, they’ll ban and block anyone who criticizes their views, or they’ll have to “pre-approve” comments, lol. If there’s one thing atheists unequivocally oppose it’s allowing criticism and scrutiny of beliefs they personally agree with.

      So basically all of the observations and data clearly supports all of the claims that I made.

      Suggestion to the fools (atheists): Go home and just focus on food, water, and shelter alone. Leave doing real science up to Theists.

      • ultimomos / Nov 24 2012 7:45 am

        You sir are absolutely disrespectful, arrogant and a complete detriment to your fellow theists. Once you resort to mudslinging to defend a point it’s obvious you have no further argument. At it’s base science is only progressed by experimentation, absolute scrutiny and finally demonstrable proof. Every atheist I know openly accepts and even invites arguments to their beliefs, simply for the fact that it allows them to further consider and refine the values they hold.

      • ultimomos / Nov 24 2012 7:50 am

        Sadly you’ve defined fairly accurately the more common arguments to theis but debased them with your behavior. After reading your first post I believed debating you would be an interesting process but after reading further and seeing that your view boiled down to nothing but hate I’ve reconsidered.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: