Skip to content
November 17, 2012 / itsnobody

Debunking the atheist claim “Less Religious or Atheist Nations are More Peaceful”

What a great fool it is to be an atheist.

Now the fools (atheists) have come up with more lies/atheistic propaganda. They discourage criticism and scrutiny of their atheistic propaganda because they know that their propaganda is all wrong and false.

Why would an atheist allow people to question, criticize, and scrutinize their propaganda since they are staunch anti-science fanatics and strongly the oppose the concept of criticism and scrutiny (one of the main principles in science).

Atheists claim that “less religious or atheist nations are more peaceful” and point out the murder rates in like 3-5 supposedly atheist countries (Denmark, Sweden, and New Zealand).

Now it’s time for me to debunk this claim:
Counterexamples: 
Religious countries in Northern/Western Europe with lower murder rates than New Zealand, Denmark, and Sweden:
– Austria
– Switzerland
Austria is one of the most religious countries in Northern/Western Europe according to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll, and Austria’s murder rate is lower than all atheist countries in Europe and lower than every single US state as well.
Less Religious and atheistic countries with high murder rates:
– Estonia
– Latvia
– North Korea

Estonia is the country in Europe with the lowest percentage of believers in God (lower than all the other countries in Europe) according to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll and 2008 Gallup poll and Estonia’s murder rate is consistently one of the very highest in Northern Europe year after year.

So this claim has thoroughly been falsified by me with counterexamples to both (religious countries with low murder rates and atheistic countries with high murder rates).

I wonder why atheists conveniently leave out Estonia when mentioning how peaceful atheist countries are? It’s probably because they feel bad that multiple sources clearly show that Estonia is the least religious country in the world and that Estonia consistently has the highest or one of the highest murder rates in Europe.

What a shame Estonia is for atheists.

Correlation is not causation:
Distorting statistics to support propaganda is easy since correlation is not causation.

The countries atheists point out as being “peaceful” had low murder rates long before they were less religious or atheistic.

Since they had low murder rates long before they were less religious or atheistic this tells us there’s absolutely no causal link between religiosity and murder rates, meaning the reason these supposedly “atheist” countries have low murder rates is despite being atheistic.

Racism is peaceful?:
The countries atheists point out as being peaceful also happen to be the most racist countries in the world (according to all the studies done). Is a country with daily or weekly racism what atheists consider as peaceful?

But I forgot, atheists don’t consider racism to be immoral or not peaceful.

100% of all atheist countries are extremely racist, there is not even one atheist country in the entire world that is not extremely racist.

What a great fool it is to be an atheist, it’s no wonder they discourage criticism and scrutiny of basically all of their claims and any other claim that they personally agree with.

If a claim really is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny, which is why atheists strongly discourage criticism of any claim that they personally agree with (knowing that it’s all wrong and false).

If we are to be honest with ourselves we can see that truthfully atheists are among the worst of all human beings, always out to deceive others, and trick people in order to gain converts.

Atheists will try anything to gain converts. They are so desperate and lame.

The simple fact is, I always win, always.

Sources for Religiosity:
– 2005 Eurostat Eurobarometer poll (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf)
– 2008 Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx)

Sources for murder rates:
– UNODC crime statistics (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls)
– Eurostat crime statistics (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-006/EN/KS-SF-12-006-EN.PDF)

Advertisements

115 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous / Feb 3 2017 5:01 pm

    Wow. That’s some really unbiased journalism. Starts ‘What a great fool it is to be an atheist.’ And the figures are wrong. If you’re so into debunking try ‘bunking’ God. Good luck

    • Stevie Lynn / Feb 14 2017 12:49 pm

      Why do articles like this always begin with ad hominem attacks? Do you think it is part of the brain washing scheme? Why are the people who write these articles so concerned with winning at the expense of facts/truth? Why are they so obtuse about the scientific method? Or is that just a straw man argument? Why does the author of this focus so much on Estonia and yet completely ignore the other data, which is a lot of data! Why doesn’t he realize that the causation was never declared by the original researchers, only correlation, and they were only debunking the commonly expressed rhetoric that religion makes people better behaved of which the data succesfully debunks as an absolute.

      So…what is the antonym for intellectual when it is not anti-intellectual?

  2. hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:22 pm

    How to control people lesson one. Make up a religion. Only teach this religion from age 3. Repeat this till 20. Tell them to be good i. What they learned to get some thing after death. Profit.

  3. hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:20 pm

    For those of you whom think religion lead to science. Your wrong. Its only after the vermain relized they were losing control that they turned to science. Athiest always 4 steps and BBC (before all nut jobs older then any found documentation) years ahead of even god him self.

  4. hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:09 pm

    Per most studies i have read today. The fool is the non secular person trying to win this argument.

    • hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:11 pm

      Wow you are so brain washed. Its funny.

  5. Brock Daniels / Aug 21 2016 12:05 am

    Please tell me this is a joke. North Korea? North Korea is not atheist, they believe in their leader as if he is a god. I once watched a documentary where a group of doctors went into North Korea to give cataract surgery to the citizens and as soon as each one got it they immediately started crying, bowing down to, and praising a picture of Kim Jong Il. The rest of the world knows these leaders are not deities but North Korean people are told all their lives that he is so they believe in him as one. The same goes for Estonia and Latvia, they were not “atheist” by choice but the old Soviet leaders forced them to be because they wanted to be seen as intimate powers, so people would not see god over them. That’s like me calling Catholics atheists because I don’t believe Jesus was a deity.

    • Anonymous / Aug 21 2016 12:06 am

      Ultimate powers

    • hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:12 pm

      Remember Catholics touch little boys private parts. They arent afraid of imaginary friends.

  6. Anonymous / Aug 17 2016 8:28 am

    May Jesus Christ bless this insane monkey who is incapable of reason.

    • hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:13 pm

      Jesus is a monkey. How can a monkey help a monkey?

  7. shaunlopes / Dec 11 2015 6:35 pm

    Bro, you forget El Salvador which it is 10 % of nonbelievers. Even higher than USA! See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_El_Salvador

    This country have the highest murder in the world. Most murders caused by gangs. Most gangs are in secular people.

  8. Atheists fight for ISIS / Jul 9 2015 3:26 pm

    One recent survey by the French Institute, CPDSI, found that 90% of those who adopted radical Islamic beliefs had French grandparents, and that 80% came from atheist families.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30119868

    • itsnobody / Jul 14 2015 10:03 pm

      But ISIS is weak in comparison to Communist atheists in North Korea, they executed and killed 1,200 Christians in 2013 and 2,400 Christians in 2014, but the atheist-controlled media has ignored that North Korea is an official atheist state according to every source.

      The Korean war from the 1950s resulted in more than 36,000 US military dead in such a short time, the violence there is really real.

      You notice atheists never say anything bad about North Korea since they are in agreement with North Korea.

      Sources:
      – World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia. Marshall Cavendish. Retrieved 2011-03-05. North Korea is officially an atheist state in which almost the entire population is nonreligious.
      – The State of Religion Atlas. Simon & Schuster. Retrieved 2011-03-05. Atheism continues to be the official position of the governments of China, North Korea and Cuba.
      – Elizabeth Raum. North Korea. Series: Countries Around the World. Heinemann, 2012. ISBN 1432961330. p. 28: «North Korea is an atheist state. This means that people do not pray in public or attend places of worship. Buddhist temples exist from earlier times. They are now preserved as historic buildings, but they are not used for worship. A few Christian churches exist, but few people attend services. North Koreans do not celebrate religious holidays.»
      – Chryssides, Geaves. 2007. p. 110
      – Alton, 2013. p. 79. As of 2005 the agency “Religious Intelligence UK” estimated 3,846,000 believers of Korean shamanism, 3,245,000 Chondoists, 1,082,888 Buddhists, 406,000 Christians, and the rest non-believers.
      – Association of Religion Data Archives: North Korea: Religious Adherents, 2010. Data from the World Christian Database.

  9. Anonymous / Jul 9 2015 3:09 pm

    “Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.” –

    Laurence J. Peter

    • hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:15 pm

      Hmm the irony. Lets see, one does not want to go to jail, while the other doesnt care to be their for ever in the after life. Reason that u noob

  10. James Payter / Feb 26 2015 5:22 am

    Funny this guy claims that atheists are of subhuman intelligence and make things up that can’t be proven…. Then persists in believing in a magic man in the sky who built the world in 7 days…

    What a fucking idiot.

    • Anonymous / Jul 9 2015 3:14 pm

      The fucking idiots believe the Universe was created by chance.
      The fucking idios atheists also believe Evolution made religions … necessary.
      Lol !

    • hellisloose / Oct 9 2016 4:16 pm

      The religious are the fucken idiots. Even Einstein did not belive im god. Boom nuks. Cause god did not create it but man did. And if god created it, show me a patent.

  11. T.Faraday / Jan 20 2015 3:36 am

    Only read a few lines before I saw a plethora of uneducated dribble. There are so many things to correct so I’ll start with the most basic and fundamental.

    You know what the main tenant of science is? Skepticism.

    Skepticism is the default position for every claim. It is having no opinion/belief until there is evidence of a phenomenon. Until then, claims are just stories. This is why atheism is the default position for religion. Everybody is born an atheist. We are all born completely unaware and lacking opinions about concepts of god, until someone tells us god exists.

    Yet, until there is scientific evidence of God, believing in him is unscientific.

    “Evidence” literally means “reason to believe”.
    “Scientific” evidence is a type of evidence that meets a minimum standard to ensure it is not faulty or invalid. It distinguishes whether or not evidence is reliable by requiring controls.

    For example, faulty unscientific evidence can be prone to cognitive biases, is unfalsifiable, has no predictive power, relies on retroactive and/or personal interpretation, etc. All cases of “personal evidence” have been used to the same weak extent in every mutually exclusive religion. Unless you account for those biases and controls, this polluted form of evidence has no merit.

    It would be irrational to not filter evidence into the kind that is ensured to be valid, apart from evidence with no traction. Ergo, believing in something without scientific evidence is irrational.

    Simply put, belief in God is irrational.

    However, people brainwashed to believe in god will not be able to reconcile this cognitive dissonance, and will backward rationalize around the problem in different ways. Many people make up special rules that religion is exempt from requiring evidence (reasons to believe).

    I’ll leave with with a Ricky Gervais quote of which I confirmed the statistics are accurate:
    “If all the Atheists & Agnostics left America, they’d lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences & less than 1% of the prison population.”

    I look forward to seeing your backwards rationalization spill onto this page.

    • itsnobody / Jan 20 2015 3:55 am

      What an unbelievably foolish (believably atheistic) response.

      We are all born illiterate, so why don’t you become so?

      Your form of “skepticism” is merely an argument from ignorance, assuming that something is false until proven true.

      Science (something atheists hate) makes no claims regarding the truth of any empirically untestable claim because it can’t.

      The rational position is that evidence of absence indicates that a claim is false and evidence of presence indicates that a claim is true, a mere absence of evidence doesn’t indicate anything.

      Everything in modern science from heliocentricism, gravity, the speed of light, atoms, GR, etc…lacked evidence during the time period that lacked empirically testability.

      Science can only make claims regarding the truth of empirically testable hypotheses.

      The reason why God lacks evidence is because God lacks empirical testability. Of course I’m confident that I really CAN experimentally prove that God and an afterlife (and many other things) really do exist if I had the resources I needed to empirically test those hypotheses. I just don’t have the resources right now, oh well I know the world isn’t ready for it yet anyway.

      The reason why these things lack evidence is because they lack empirical testability, not because they are false.

      If a hypothesis is empirically untestable this means it’s impossible for scientific evidence to exist for the hypothesis regardless of if the hypothesis is true or false.

      As for your laughable quote, the historical consensus is that religion directly caused the scientific revolution, this is just NORMAL BASIC HISTORY. The junk on anti-historian/anti-science/atheist fan sites has been thoroughly debunked by historians.

      Everything that led up to the scientific revolution (intensely studying astronomy and philosophy) would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to most (if not all) atheists.

      As I explained in my other post, human beings need food, water, and shelter for survival, not philosophy and astronomy. In all of pre-science human history not one civilization came up with an advanced astronomical without a religion causing them to.

      So realistically based on the historical evidence we can be nearly 100% certain that science just wouldn’t exist without religion.

      Estonia (the most atheistic country) has 0 Nobel prizes, Switzerland and Austria (the 1st and 2nd most religious Western European countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science.

      I don’t know how a group of people can be as nasty and low-acting as atheists are, the nastiest of all subhuman beings.

      In general atheists are stupid people, subhuman beings just like how you are.

      The #1 block to human progress throughout history always has been the atheists as I’ve shown in my other posts.

      • T.Faraday / Jan 21 2015 12:24 am

        I know you must deal with a lot of responses, but you need to improve your reading comprehension… and improve your understanding of the fallacies you cite
        _________

        >>”Your form of “skepticism” is merely an argument from ignorance, assuming that something is false until proven true.”

        Reread.
        I never said something is false because it hasn’t been proven.

        You’re confusion is probably why you don’t realize why I am using Webster’s definition of skepticism.

        Also, note that arguing from ignorance applies to any logically positive statement. Making a claim of any kind (saying something is true or false) are both violations when there is no evidence in support of that claim. Again, this is atheism/agnosticism represents: skepticism to applied to claims of deities.

        Atheists simply lack a belief in god(s). Presumably, you are an atheist regarding Ra, Zeus, Krishna, and every other god (except one). You are definitely an atheist regarding all the gods you’ve never even heard of.
        __________

        >>”We are all born illiterate, so why don’t you become so?”

        Reread.
        I never implied that our starting point should be a goal. I said we start with certain defaults and atheism is one of them. We should only add things to our collection of knowledge, once it is verified to be knowledge. If we don’t filter out illegitimate facts, we let garbage in.
        __________

        >>”The rational position is that evidence of absence indicates that a claim is false and evidence of presence indicates that a claim is true, a mere absence of evidence doesn’t indicate anything”.

        It’s true that absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily indicate anything. But again, this works against religion. There is no evidence of god, ergo there is no reason to believe in god, ergo a scientist would be atheist/agnostic about the existence of god.

        Furthermore, that’s not always accurate. If you took a logic class you’d know absences of evidence CAN indicate things, based on the contextual primers. If a donut shop operates such that it places all their donuts for sale in a display case, and the display case doesn’t have any of type x, that is evidence they are out of type x donuts.

        In any case where you ascribe attributes to something that should produce evidence, and there is a distinct absence of said evidence by that predictive model, it is evidence of absence. By assigning attributes to god, almost every definition of god I’ve heard has evidence against him.

        For example, scientific studies have conclusively shown prayer has no effect. Even studies funded by organizations trying to prove it does have an effect, ended up demonstrating it doesn’t.

        Ergo, if your god answers prayers (like “please heal [this] person”), he is not real.

        Alternatively you can whisk your definition of god to highest levels of abstraction using the vaguest definitions making sure he exerts no influence on the natural world, thus making it impossible to disprove him WHILE making him entirely irrelevant to the only known realm of existence.

        Right now, any influence of god remains undetected by any and all efforts to investigate his influence on the natural realm. By all accounts, the world we live in matches what we’d expect from a world without a god.
        __________

        >>”Everything in modern science from heliocentricism, gravity, the speed of light, atoms, GR, etc…lacked evidence during the time period that lacked empirically testability.”

        Again, no one is arguing unproven things are automatically false.

        Although you’d be interested to know each of those had compelling evidence supporting them (including semi-predictive models) when they arose. For example Copernicus resolved the planetary retrograde motion. By the time they were generally considered “proven”, the evidence simply was just more comprehensive with much greater predictive power. Of course, if they failed new tests, those models would have been thrown out.

        But again, that is all irrelevant. It’s all tangent to your failure to comprehend my post explaining skepticism means doubting claims, and that theists are the ones making a claim. The whole concept of god is a theistic proposal, of which skeptics don’t pay any more attention to than a concept of genies, fairies, or gnomes.
        __________

        >>”Science can only make claims regarding the truth of empirically testable hypotheses.”

        Close enough, but the whole point is that “unempirical testing” is a proven way to let bullshit into your brain.

        The crux here is that you consider empiricism as a current limit of science INSTEAD of a current limit of human knowledge. That is a blunder. If something is unknowable via methods of rational investigation, it doesn’t legitimize beliefs derived from irrational methods of investigation. It simply remains unknown.
        __________

        >>”Of course I’m confident that I really CAN experimentally prove that God and an afterlife (and many other things) really do exist if I had the resources I needed to empirically test those hypotheses. I just don’t have the resources right now, oh well I know the world isn’t ready for it yet anyway.”

        We both know this is bullshit. You’re either a pathological liar, severely brainwashed, a troll, or some combination. But that’s okay; I post for any spectators.
        __________

        >>”As for your laughable quote, the historical consensus is that religion directly caused the scientific revolution, this is just NORMAL BASIC HISTORY. The junk on anti-historian/anti-science/atheist fan sites has been thoroughly debunked by historians.”

        lol yes, just as medicine was brought about by disease. Doesn’t mean disease gets the credit for medical breakthroughs. Try harder.
        __________

        >>”[..]not one civilization came up with an advanced astronomical without a religion[…]”

        Unintelligible. But I don’t know of of any early civilizations without some form of religion, so it sounds like your point would have been dishonest at best.
        __________

        >>”So realistically based on the historical evidence we can be nearly 100% certain that science just wouldn’t exist without religion.”

        Laughable and irrelevant.

        When people enter into a religion they are told ideas by religious authorities and scripture. When people scientifically investigate something, they test their ideas. They are entirely distinct disciplines.

        Even if you argue they were religious, or religion had motivated some of them to practice scientific disciplines, religion still contributes nothing to the science.
        __________

        >>”Estonia (the most atheistic country) has 0 Nobel prizes, Switzerland and Austria (the 1st and 2nd most religious Western European countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science.”

        Completely irrelevant, so I won’t even bother fact checking it. It is several layers removed from what we variables we are measuring, (especially compared to my statistics), and it is not indicative of.. well anything.

        For someone who previously argued correlation != causation, I relish in you attempt to link several layers of correlations together and trying to draw a causation across the linked chain, all while using a single sample point.
        __________

        >>”I don’t know how a group of people can be as nasty and low-acting as atheists are, the nastiest of all subhuman beings.”

        The irony of your post is gold. Calling people nasty while referring to them as subhuman lol. You are definitely projecting your own prejudices onto groups of people who know almost nothing about.

        Just for fun, here’s a quick bio:
        I am an agnostic atheist, I grew up loving science class and watching Bill Nye for fun. I started saving for college when I was 7 years old, I now professionally program physics engines, I’ve done over 100 hours of free tutoring in various branches of advanced math, never yelled at another person past the age of 16, I have no police record because I have committed no crimes, I don’t smoke, I self financed my own education and living expenses past 21, I’ve never touched alcohol because I value my rationality and self control, and I’ve donated to over 12 charities (6 science charities) with Union of Concerned Scientists being the biggest recipient leading with $1200. I personal know 8 other atheists and they are all nicer than you.

        If I’m subhuman, I’m curious what that makes you. The groups filled with blind hatred are what I consider to be the scum of the Earth.

      • itsnobody / Jan 26 2015 12:22 am

        Comments like yours just re-confirm that atheists are subhuman in terms of intelligence.

        Now it’s time for me to completely ruin your arguments just copied and pasted from atheist blog sites.

        Unlike the fools (atheists) I can independently reason and think, atheists just mimic and copy.

        Reread.
        I never said something is false because it hasn’t been proven.

        You’re confusion is probably why you don’t realize why I am using Webster’s definition of skepticism.

        Also, note that arguing from ignorance applies to any logically positive statement. Making a claim of any kind (saying something is true or false) are both violations when there is no evidence in support of that claim. Again, this is atheism/agnosticism represents: skepticism to applied to claims of deities.

        Atheists simply lack a belief in god(s). Presumably, you are an atheist regarding Ra, Zeus, Krishna, and every other god (except one). You are definitely an atheist regarding all the gods you’ve never even heard of.

        Foolish.

        Maybe you should re-read your comment, you directly implied that it’s reasonable to assume that something false until proven true (an argument from ignorance).

        You said “Until then, claims are just stories” directly implying an argument from ignorance.

        You then gave the “weak” definiton of “atheist”…there are some atheists who believe that God doesn’t exist (not merely lacking the belief in God).

        Reread.
        I never implied that our starting point should be a goal. I said we start with certain defaults and atheism is one of them. We should only add things to our collection of knowledge, once it is verified to be knowledge. If we don’t filter out illegitimate facts, we let garbage in.

        LOL! Maybe you should reread your comment again…you said “Everybody is born an atheist. We are all born completely unaware and lacking opinions about concepts of god, until someone tells us god exists” implying that it is better…so I responded with we are all born illiterate so why don’t you become so?

        It’s true that absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily indicate anything. But again, this works against religion. There is no evidence of god, ergo there is no reason to believe in god, ergo a scientist would be atheist/agnostic about the existence of god.

        Furthermore, that’s not always accurate. If you took a logic class you’d know absences of evidence CAN indicate things, based on the contextual primers. If a donut shop operates such that it places all their donuts for sale in a display case, and the display case doesn’t have any of type x, that is evidence they are out of type x donuts.

        Well this is wrong, a mere absence of evidence ALONE is NEVER equal to evidence of absence.

        An absence of evidence WHEN evidence should be present is equal to evidence of absence however.

        Like for instance, with the Luminiferous aether, the hypothesis predicts that evidence SHOULD BE present if certain conditions are true, so experiments performed to detect the luminferous aether coming up negative (lacking evidence) are forms of evidence of absence, because evidence should be present.

        On the otherhand say for the multiple timelines hypothesis, there’s no way to gather evidence or detect if they exist, this is a mere lack of evidence which is NOT equivalent to evidence of absence.

        In any case where you ascribe attributes to something that should produce evidence, and there is a distinct absence of said evidence by that predictive model, it is evidence of absence. By assigning attributes to god, almost every definition of god I’ve heard has evidence against him.

        For example, scientific studies have conclusively shown prayer has no effect. Even studies funded by organizations trying to prove it does have an effect, ended up demonstrating it doesn’t.

        Ergo, if your god answers prayers (like “please heal [this] person”), he is not real.

        Alternatively you can whisk your definition of god to highest levels of abstraction using the vaguest definitions making sure he exerts no influence on the natural world, thus making it impossible to disprove him WHILE making him entirely irrelevant to the only known realm of existence.

        Right now, any influence of god remains undetected by any and all efforts to investigate his influence on the natural realm. By all accounts, the world we live in matches what we’d expect from a world without a god.

        That’s the problem with you people, you don’t understand basic history.

        The Church viewed “dealings in magic and divination” as a heresy and sponsored “natural philosophy”. Newton and others were known as “natural philosophers”. They believed that God set out natural laws and order behind reality.

        In short, the Church was responsible for causing methodological naturalism to exist, contrary to the lies in the atheist-controlled anti-science media.

        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.

        Again, no one is arguing unproven things are automatically false.

        Although you’d be interested to know each of those had compelling evidence supporting them (including semi-predictive models) when they arose. For example Copernicus resolved the planetary retrograde motion. By the time they were generally considered “proven”, the evidence simply was just more comprehensive with much greater predictive power. Of course, if they failed new tests, those models would have been thrown out.

        But again, that is all irrelevant. It’s all tangent to your failure to comprehend my post explaining skepticism means doubting claims, and that theists are the ones making a claim. The whole concept of god is a theistic proposal, of which skeptics don’t pay any more attention to than a concept of genies, fairies, or gnomes.

        A lot of fools (atheists) don’t know that the Copernican model was indistinguishable from the geocentric model, and geo-heliocentric models.

        By indistinguishable I mean that all made equally accurate predictions.

        It would be impossible to know if heliocentricism is really literally true if we go by Copernicus’ contributions alone.

        What tells us if a theory is true or false is whether or not it makes accurate predictions not how “simple” it appears in our human incredulity.

        We both know this is bullshit. You’re either a pathological liar, severely brainwashed, a troll, or some combination. But that’s okay; I post for any spectators.

        Can’t handle the truth can you? Why do you think I’m so confident in myself?

        It’s because I know now more than ever that I can really prove it, once I get to the resources to empirically test these hypotheses.

        The only reason that God, an afterlife, multiple timelines, the soul-mind, and other things are unproven is because they lack empirical testability, not because they’re false.

        I hope that I can spend my life gathering the resources I need, but it’s going to be pretty difficult (I need electrical equipment and around 1 MW of power for simple experiments, then around 1 GW of power for other experiments).

        I think that eventually I will succeed at gaining these resources and perhaps change the world!

        lol yes, just as medicine was brought about by disease. Doesn’t mean disease gets the credit for medical breakthroughs. Try harder.

        What a terrible analogy.

        It’s more like religion brought science into existence as to philosophy and astronomy causing the scientific revolution.

        Or more like cures and treatments caused by studying medicine.

        You fools (atheists) can’t handle that the junk on atheist blog sites and cartoon shows about the “Dark Ages” has been thorougly debunked by historians, it’s just common in anti-science/atheist circles.

        Unintelligible. But I don’t know of of any early civilizations without some form of religion, so it sounds like your point would have been dishonest at best.

        You can’t be this dumb and uneducated are you….the civilizations where people just focused on food, water, and shelter and behaved like animals, achieving very little had very little to no religion, as they are described in the Middle Ages.

        So you’ve been proven wrong.

        Laughable and irrelevant.

        When people enter into a religion they are told ideas by religious authorities and scripture. When people scientifically investigate something, they test their ideas. They are entirely distinct disciplines.

        Even if you argue they were religious, or religion had motivated some of them to practice scientific disciplines, religion still contributes nothing to the science.

        How is it irrelevant?

        Man you’re really stupid, I guess I have to explain again:
        – Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not astronomy or philosophy
        – Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model that came from intensely studying astronomy
        – The scientific method is a form of logical empiricism that came from intensely studying philosophy
        – In all of pre-science human history not ONE civilization decided to intensely study philosophy or astronomy WITHOUT a religion causing them to

        So in short, without religion there’s no NEED to do science.

        Here’s a real world without Christianity, Life Expectancy in the year 1960:
        – China (an atheist country undisturbed from Christianity): 43
        – Switzerland (the most religious Western European country): 71

        Sorry that you’re wrong.

        The majority of people in China weren’t even aware that science existed until like the late 1980s…lol what a joke you atheist clowns are.

        If you fools are correct please answer me this question: Why don’t we see in all of pre-science human history not even ONE human civilization spontaneously deciding to build up Universities and study astronomy and philosophy after gaining food, water, and shelter for no reason WITHOUT a religion causing them to?

        The overwhelming historical evidence shows us that human beings would focus only on food, water, and shelter and other things they NEED for survival and would not achieve anything more without a RELIGION causing them to.

        The reason why people were studying astronomy in Europe is because the Church NEEDED calendars not because “after gaining food, water, and shelter spontaneously they felt like studying astronomy”.

        The reason why Universities were invented is because the Church wanted a place to study religion and “natural philosophy” was an extension of religion.

        Completely irrelevant, so I won’t even bother fact checking it. It is several layers removed from what we variables we are measuring, (especially compared to my statistics), and it is not indicative of.. well anything.

        For someone who previously argued correlation != causation, I relish in you attempt to link several layers of correlations together and trying to draw a causation across the linked chain, all while using a single sample point.

        How is it irrelevant again?

        Correlation isn’t causation…what CAUSED people to intensely study philosophy and astronomy was/is RELIGION so RELIGION caused the scientific revolution.

        The reason why people were studying astronomy in Europe is because the Church NEEDED calendars so they became the biggest sponsor astronomy.

        Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not astronomy or philosophy….so without RELIGION there’s absolutely no NEED to do science.

        The reason why you are doing in science is because you are from a religious or initially religious country, if you weren’t you would be just like other atheist animals viewing science as just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

        You fools (atheists) lack the ability to independently think, so you never thought about it. Try to imagine a civilization just starting out, with no writing, no scientific method, no higher mathematics, no Universities, no Newtonian physics….where would science come from without a religion?

        If it was up to atheists they would probably exterminate science viewing it as just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time (the same as a religion).

        The irony of your post is gold. Calling people nasty while referring to them as subhuman lol. You are definitely projecting your own prejudices onto groups of people who know almost nothing about.

        I don’t like people who intentionally lie and spread false propaganda thoroughly debunked by historians.

        See my article “Common Lies Spread By Atheists” – https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/common-lies-spread-by-atheists/

        Just for fun, here’s a quick bio:
        I am an agnostic atheist, I grew up loving science class and watching Bill Nye for fun. I started saving for college when I was 7 years old, I now professionally program physics engines, I’ve done over 100 hours of free tutoring in various branches of advanced math, never yelled at another person past the age of 16, I have no police record because I have committed no crimes, I don’t smoke, I self financed my own education and living expenses past 21, I’ve never touched alcohol because I value my rationality and self control, and I’ve donated to over 12 charities (6 science charities) with Union of Concerned Scientists being the biggest recipient leading with $1200. I personal know 8 other atheists and they are all nicer than you.

        That’s nice but since you are atheist I view you as fully subhuman and hope that you die (naturally).

        You should try to learn basic history and thank religion for CAUSING science to exist.

        I find nothing rational or logical about atheism, only a bit on agnosticism.

        Modern science has proven that free-will is non-existent, so how can you be an atheist if you believe in science?

        Because of your atheist kind science has turned into just a joke as I explained in my other articles, just a laughable popularity contest about authority and incredulity rather than empirical observations and valid reasoning.

        See my other articles:
        https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/why-atheists-should-stop-doing-science/
        https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/the-threat-that-atheists-pose-to-science/
        https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/how-to-advance-science/

        If I’m subhuman, I’m curious what that makes you. The groups filled with blind hatred are what I consider to be the scum of the Earth.

        I have another article explaining why I view atheists as fully subhuman – https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/reasons-for-viewing-atheists-as-subhuman-beings/ .

        I don’t want to describe myself, though I consider myself as a higher being and view atheists as lower than human.

        Here’s a short-bio of myself: My parents and sister are atheists and I was agnostic up until around 2006 when I performed all types of experiments, made all types of empirical observations and discoveries, and had all types of experiences which caused me become a believer. I believe that I was chosen by God.

        Although I can’t be certain of everything, one thing can 100% certain to the highest degree: Atheists block human progress, hold back science, and pose the greatest threat to mankind.

        People have to realize the real threat that the atheist/agnostic/non-religious poses to society. If it was up to them we’d just be living in the stone age backwards with trees and grass, they all hate technology and science viewing it as artificial and unnatural and just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

        It might sound like a joke but the threat atheists pose to science is really real and it’s very likely that if society becomes atheistic/agnostic/non-religious enough that science will be exterminated.

    • BadReligion / Mar 7 2015 10:33 pm

      Tenets, not tenants. Tenants live in buildings, obeying the tenets of their leases.

    • Bryan / Aug 28 2015 9:24 am

      Mrs. Or Mr. T. Faraday allow me to tell you that you are my HERO in this post.

      Furthermore more to read the OP and the OP author’s reply to all your inquiries only show the violence that religion implies into human brains. Calling atheist fools yet most of the technology he/she uses to write this diarrhea of the mouth came from a possible atheist, at least computers did.

      You should write an investigation book and if you have already please let me know the titles of such.

      Thank you,
      Bryan “the fool”

      • Lucy / Dec 18 2015 1:07 pm

        I agree Mr. T. Faraday has won this argument for sure… the owner of this blog seems so uneducated that I can’t even read

      • Akash / Sep 25 2016 9:56 am

        Yupe. I have no doubt. One of the best online debaters i have ever seen. Thank you T Faraday. I learned a lot.

  12. Ryan Schick / Jul 16 2014 5:57 pm

    If you be negative towards people itsnobody then Jesus won’t accept you for heaven.

  13. Aaron Marsh / Mar 9 2014 3:04 pm

    “If a claim really is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny, which is why atheists strongly discourage criticism of any claim that they personally agree with (knowing that it’s all wrong and false).”

    Yeah, like all of those claims in the bible, they hold up…look at all the real world evidence of the Exodus….and surely all the animals can live on a boat for a year, then step onto a dead planet and find plenty of food, and of course God made sure all the inbreeding didn’t cause mutations that screw the population…well thought out indeed!

  14. Kala / Jan 30 2014 3:30 am

    http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/compare?country=ee#country=ee:py
    Paraguay: 89.9% of the population is Catholic

    Estonia
    Russians: 25.2%, 326,235 ppl
    Orthodox Christians(is probably over 98% Russian religion in Estonia): 16.2%, 176,773ppl
    http://www.just.ee/43477
    Darker areas have high % of russians(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russophone_population_in_Estonia.png)

    So conclusion, more religion more crime.

  15. Joe / Jan 9 2014 9:09 pm

    After looking through the site, yup, this is definitely satire. Really, beyond that, to the point of trolling except its not funny, just meant to make people angry. So… Why did you make this site?

    • Lucy / Dec 18 2015 1:08 pm

      Exactly, what’s the purpose of this site again?

  16. Joe / Jan 9 2014 9:02 pm

    Pretty sure this is sarcasm/satire. But you should label it as such so you don’t get all these comments. Or I guess that’s what you’re going for.

  17. Ronnie / Dec 24 2013 11:56 am

    This article was written by someone that never made it to highschool.

  18. Anonymous / Dec 22 2013 4:25 pm

    Wow, you know you can’t disprove a correlation with a few anomalous results. It’s amazing that you find the 1 in 10 countries that don’t fit the trend and say, ah ha! That proves there is no correlation.

    This article is so stupid it’s unbelievable. I have personally compared belief in god with homicide rates 25 major countries and found a strong correlation which I calculated to have a very high significance (I can’t remember exactly but it was definitely over 95%).

  19. Anonymous / Nov 11 2013 11:42 am

    You want to know why Estonia and other Baltic countries have high murder rate? It’s because of alcohol, the murders happen in peoples houses when stupid people drink way too much and acts of violence are carried through by momentary anger, it has in no way to do with religion. Actual murders on streets are very very isolated and when it does happen the media goes crazy over it.

    I bet you are going to make a argument that if more people in Estonia were religious they would drink less. Maybe, but that’s not the way to solve problem. Dictatorship would solve a lot of problems too, but also create more bigger problems. Same thing is with people believing in all powerful spagetti-monster in the sky.

    The high murder rate has to do with Estonia just recently getting their independence. These kinds of things can cause a lot of problems and Estonia has dealt with them very well I believe and come a long way since.

    The homacide rate in Estonia has been dropping very fast, for example in 1994 there were 400 murders a year in Estonia, but according to last year’s statistic it’s 65 so it is just matter of time until they reach Europe’s average, it might take some time, but again it doesn’t have anything to do with religion.

    So these murders that you think are caused by people being atheist are actually because few stupid people drink too much and commit murders in such state that they can’t control themselves. I’m not saying it’s okay, but you’re just taking some statistic and saying it’s related to religion.

    I’m sorry for my bad English.

  20. Lopez J. / Sep 18 2013 6:07 pm

    and here’s a country that has a high murder rate and its religious, ITS CALL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN FOOL. here is a peaceful one. NORWAY,, ICE LAND,, JAPAN,specially japan, one of the most peaceful yet 3rd in atheist status, and like 3rd in most peaceful in the world. note how no one liked your article. actually try searching of those “peaceful religious” countries prison mate status, how many of them are atheists, you’ll be jaw drop. very very very little. here’s another religious country you forgot to mention. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, which is one of the worst, Saudi Arabia, India, Iran, Uzbekistan, Libya, Nigeria, Oman, Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, you want more christian countries? Niger, Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zambia, Angola, Kenya, South Africa, not good enough how about Turkmenistan… etc… i can keep on going, not christian enough? try Dominican rep, Puerto Rico, mexico, Costa Rica, Ecuador, colombia, venezuela, brasil, hondura, and the most famous [drum roll] haitis. wow see how your supposed debuking falls to the ground. this article is shit, if they want to mention an atheistic messed up country they should mansion israel but i bet this coward bible freak wouldn’t cause it would be a disgrace to the so call gods people. ha fool.

    • Anonymous / Sep 18 2013 6:15 pm

      Try Norton Korea, China etc…the most atheistic countries are very very peaceful.

    • Anonymous / Sep 18 2013 6:19 pm

      22% of Norwegian citizens responded that “they believe there is a God”.
      44% answered that “they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force”.
      29% answered that “they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force”.
      5% answered that they “do not know”.

      Just do the math…

    • Anonymous / Sep 18 2013 6:21 pm

      In Iceland, 57 percent of respondents stated they were religious, 31 percent described themselves as non-religious, ten percent declared themselves to be convinced atheists, while two percent would either not answer the question or didn’t know how to respond.

      Thus, Iceland ranks 7th-11th along with Austria, Australia and Ireland, while China topped the list with 47 percent of respondents in the country being convinced atheists.

  21. Peter Blanche / Aug 19 2013 7:08 am

    1. that document is wrong. religious countries – switzerland? are u kidding me? the wikipedia article got it wrong. in the year 2010 20% were unaffiliated with any religion. this is from the federal office of statistic. i live in switzerland.

    2. if you totally fading-out the socio-economic & historical factor it doesn’t make any sense to compare countries. estonia and latvia are way poorer and have a higher rate of unemployment than switzerland and austria because they just to be part of the second world. (ex-communists) there is a big difference when you get forced to change your beliefs or if you make your own thoughts about it.

    3. that racism part is also big big bullshit. how do you want to compare it? countries with higher social standards and higher education are more likely to be less religious. and those are also the countries with lots of foreign workers from different parts of the world.

  22. Anonymous / Jun 19 2013 4:26 am

    I would love to see all of the “studies” this idiot keeps mentioning, LMFAO All the studies done show that Atheist countries are racist? What studies? Please tell me this because I have never met a racist Atheist, We have no reason to be.

    • Cristero / Sep 2 2013 10:33 am

      I did not even meet idiot like you.

    • Nolan Fajardo / Sep 29 2013 8:42 am

      no need to find one, theyre actually roaming in the internet these days

  23. foreropa / Jun 17 2013 4:40 pm

    By the way, Estonia is number 38 in the Global Peace Index, so no, not a shame for atheism, what a shame for you.

  24. foreropa / Jun 17 2013 4:32 pm

    If don’t believe atheist, believe facts. Compare the list of Global Peace Index: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/pdf/gpi/2013_Global_Peace_Index_Report.pdf
    And the list of countries with a majority of Atheist from the religious site Adherents.com in this page: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

    And oh, what a suprise, like 95% of the countries with higger Peace Rates, are the ones with more atheist. Coincidence, maybe, maybe not, but when you see this percentage well, you tend to see that countries with more atheist are more peaceful. See it for yourself.

  25. foreropa / Jun 17 2013 3:41 pm

    First you say there is no correlation between atheist and low rates, but the you use the same thing atheist do to say racist countries have bigger atheist rates. Very convenient, use the fact that helps you but do it when it help your point. You are no different.

    • Dan / Jun 17 2013 4:19 pm

      I don’t understand what you’ve just said. Please clarify.

  26. Dan / Jun 17 2013 2:22 pm

    Firstly let me say that I admire you on several levels: 
    – you’re willing to actually argue your case. Most Christians simply divert to “I just have faith” and don’t put up any argument. 
    – you’re passionate! … I love the backbone. 
    – you’re interested in finding evidence!!! … Shit this is rare for Christians. 

    With that said the fact that you would draw on a small wartorn country in Eastern Europe as your evidence shows me you’re desperate to make a point (this is known as “selection bias”) and it does more against you than for you. 

    Statistics point to a tendency or a direction but there’s always outliers. Just because I can find a 6ft 6inch girl doesn’t change the fact that girls tend to be under 6ft. 

    In the Global Peace Index, there’s a lot of Muslim counties at the bottom, Christian countries tend to be in the middle and athiest countries tend to be at the top of the ranks. Not every country fits that order but they tend to be that way. 

    You’re right that correlation doesn’t show causality however we have some pretty damning facts to consider… 

    … Holy books claim absolute morality and demand adherence. 
    … They also prescribe death and violence as solutions for common human behaviour like homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, graven images, gathering sticks on the wrong day of the week etc. 
    … They depict gods as violent and vengeful… And moral. 
    … They condone/prescribe genital mutilation of children. 
    … They create a psychological construct that this life hardly matters in comparison to an eternity of bliss or torture. 

    There’s also the damning fact that these so called systems of morality certainly don’t show up as better than having no religious system at all! 

    If we had a new “morality drug”, we would have to show some sort of moral improvement before we can issue its release. These religions don’t even have a placebo effect!! … At BEST they don’t do any harm, at worst it looks like they tune people out from their basic humanity. 

    You’re a smart and passionate guy. You may feel much happier when you succumb to your intellectual honesty on this issue. Alternatively you might feel better staying away from the debate based on evidence and just holding your beliefs on faith alone. 

    Faith by its definition is to believe something without supporting evidence. Sadly I have nothing but faith that one day humanity will evolve past the need for Bronze Age Palestinian theology. I’ve got no evidence for it but I just feel better believing it will happen. 

  27. Bobby Eaton / May 25 2013 1:03 am

    For one, atheists do not murder in the name of atheism or because no god exists. While, on the contrary, religion has, for centuries, persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, and murdered in the name of their gods.

    It is a misrepresentation to claim that atheists do not like, allow, or accept criticism, nor is it true that atheists discourage scrutiny and criticism. That is the job of the religious and has been for centuries. This is why religions rely on faith, and not on evidence or fact. Perhaps you are unaware of the terrorism, murder, torture, and imprisonment committed by religions such as Islam and Christianity. Other religions that have not been as warlike, have stuck to psychological warfare, but the 3 Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been the most violent, and employed the most harmful psychological warfare on human intelligence, dignity, and integrity.

    Perhaps you are forgetting those, who throughout history have numbered in the millions, who were persecuted by the religious, for speaking against religious fraud or even thinking outside the box of religious dogma. While Islam is often focused on for committing these crimes against humanity, Christianity has had a long history of being as brutal. Still to this day, even on television, we see preachers using psychological warfare on the populace to propagate their own agenda.

    Show us an atheist who consistently lies to nurture their agenda, and we will show you 2000 years and hundreds of religious priests, authors, and believers who have done the same. Atheists don’t have an agenda, nor do we need to lie to expose and speak out against religious fraud, terror, and cruelty.

    Atheists take personal responsibility and are autonomous moral agents because they do not believe in any god. The religious who claim that their moral compass is so corrupt that they cannot know morality with God are dangerous. This is a personal admission of resolving oneself of personal responsibility, and the failure to use one’s own critical thinking to make moral decisions. The idea that you can hurt others and ask God for forgiveness without involving those you hurt is a irresponsible practice. It is impossible for a believer to make the moral judgment that God is more moral than us, when that believer admits to lacking the moral capacity to know the difference. To be co-dependent on an invisible friend or even a another human to tell you what is moral is to choose to be a slave to stupidity and ignorance.

    Two, you cannot convert to atheism. Atheism is the natural position when one releases religious superstitions.

    Third, this is not about academically and honestly refuting atheist claims, it is about your ego. Using ad hominen arguments by calling atheists fools immediately concedes that your arguments are poor.
    You make no independent references to back up your claims, and claiming that you win, when the argument should speak for itself, shows concedes arrogance and egotism.

    • itsnobody / May 25 2013 12:58 pm

      For one, atheists do not murder in the name of atheism or because no god exists.

      But they do, Stalin and Mao murdered in the name of anti-religion and atheism. The reason why they bombed Churches and killed religious people was specifically because of their atheistic beliefs telling them that religion is bad.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

      “The state was committed to the destruction of religion, and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted ‘scientific atheism’ as the truth that society should accept. The total number of Christians killed, as a result of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated at over 20 million” (Paul Froese. Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 35-50)

      I’m sure due to your inherently stupid gullible nature you were unaware of this historical fact.

      While, on the contrary, religion has, for centuries, persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, and murdered in the name of their gods.

      Well it’s true that there have been isolated incidents of religious people murdering in the name of religion, but these make up mostly isolate cases and small number of deaths.

      Most deaths and killings that have occurred around the world have absolutely nothing to do with religion, fool.

      It is a misrepresentation to claim that atheists do not like, allow, or accept criticism, nor is it true that atheists discourage scrutiny and criticism. That is the job of the religious and has been for centuries. This is why religions rely on faith, and not on evidence or fact.

      If this is true then please point to me any atheist site or blog or forum that allows people to criticize atheistic beliefs as much as they want, like how I allow people to criticize and scrutinize anything that I say as much as they want.

      Instead all that your atheist kind does is accuse anyone who criticizes and scrutinizes atheistic beliefs as “trolling” or whatever in order to prevent people from criticizing atheistic beliefs, isn’t it true?

      Perhaps you are unaware of the historical fact that religion was what caused science to exist, not atheism. Religion right now relies upon faith, but this will all change in the course of the future the closer science comes towards the truth.

      Also you can rely upon faith and allow people to criticize you, to the two things are not directly connected.

      There are many unproven hypotheses in science that rely on faith, so what?

      Perhaps you are unaware of the terrorism, murder, torture, and imprisonment committed by religions such as Islam and Christianity. Other religions that have not been as warlike, have stuck to psychological warfare, but the 3 Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been the most violent, and employed the most harmful psychological warfare on human intelligence, dignity, and integrity.

      Perhaps you are forgetting those, who throughout history have numbered in the millions, who were persecuted by the religious, for speaking against religious fraud or even thinking outside the box of religious dogma. While Islam is often focused on for committing these crimes against humanity, Christianity has had a long history of being as brutal. Still to this day, even on television, we see preachers using psychological warfare on the populace to propagate their own agenda.

      Show us an atheist who consistently lies to nurture their agenda, and we will show you 2000 years and hundreds of religious priests, authors, and believers who have done the same. Atheists don’t have an agenda, nor do we need to lie to expose and speak out against religious fraud, terror, and cruelty.

      Perhaps you are unaware of the fact the vast majority of wars and killings around the world have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

      It just shows your gullible unskilled ignorant nature.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

      It’s true there have been some isolated religious wars, but these make up few compared to non-religious wars. Most wars were about land, power, political conflicts, not about religion.

      Atheists take personal responsibility and are autonomous moral agents because they do not believe in any god. The religious who claim that their moral compass is so corrupt that they cannot know morality with God are dangerous. This is a personal admission of resolving oneself of personal responsibility, and the failure to use one’s own critical thinking to make moral decisions.

      Generalizing and claiming that “atheists do this, and don’t do this” and “religious people do this, and religious people don’t do this” is a mistake.

      What about Jim Jones, the atheist who executed nearly 1,000 people (the biggest non-natural disaster US killing besides 9/11)?

      “My bishop knows that I’m an atheist. He— He knows that I— I— I recognize only love, when I say— I’ll say, “God is Love”— well, you heard my preaching. You know where I’m at.” – Jim Jones, Transcript Q 622, http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Tapes/Tapes/TapeTranscripts/Q622.html

      The idea that you can hurt others and ask God for forgiveness without involving those you hurt is a irresponsible practice. It is impossible for a believer to make the moral judgment that God is more moral than us, when that believer admits to lacking the moral capacity to know the difference. To be co-dependent on an invisible friend or even a another human to tell you what is moral is to choose to be a slave to stupidity and ignorance.

      I can easily say the same about the idea that “regardless of if you kill or not, after death there is no consciousness, it’s the same as sleeping in, everyone’s feelings, emotions, thoughts, and memories are nothing more meaningless electrochemical reactions”

      Two, you cannot convert to atheism. Atheism is the natural position when one releases religious superstitions.

      This depends on your definition of atheism and how you define a “natural position”.

      Third, this is not about academically and honestly refuting atheist claims, it is about your ego. Using ad hominen arguments by calling atheists fools immediately concedes that your arguments are poor.

      Just not true.

      I never used an argument ad hominem, I used name-calling. Ad hominems occur when you use personal attacks as a substitution for an argument, I did not.

      Calling someone a fool means absolutely nothing.

      You can make perfectly valid statements and call someone a fool, thus your hypothesis “calling atheists fools immediately concedes that your arguments are poor” has been falsified by me.

      You make no independent references to back up your claims, and claiming that you win, when the argument should speak for itself, shows concedes arrogance and egotism.

      This is not true, the 2005 Eurobarometer poll is a reference, as for the murder rates I didn’t mention the exact source but they can be found easily, I’ll bring them up if you want (it’s all from the official crime statistics published).

      The reason why I claimed that I won is because:
      – I falsified the argument with counterexamples (Religious countries with low murder rates, non-religious countries with high murder rates)
      – I showed that there was no causation since the supposedly now atheist countries that have low murder rates already had low murder rates long before they were atheist
      – Most importantly, no one has refuted any of my claims

      So in the end your rant is just another of way of you exhausting your anger, angry that I debunked a big lie atheist propaganda claim being spread by atheists.

      • Marion / Sep 12 2013 12:11 am

        ‘Well it’s true that there have been isolated incidents of religious people murdering in the name of religion, but these make up mostly isolate cases and small number of deaths.

        Most deaths and killings that have occurred around the world have absolutely nothing to do with religion, fool.’

        I’d like to point out the multitudes of wars caused by religion; when the disciples of Jesus went to spread the so-called ‘Good News’, they killed people to convert them. It was either die, convert or be in exile. This was the same for Muslims. Constantine converted to Christianity and made it the state’s religion (modern day Turkey).

        The Almohades. Yeah, probably haven’t heard of them. They killed people in Spain and around those countries to either convert to Islam, be exiled, or die. Moses Maimonides fled to continue his faith.

        The Crusades, which lasted for a few hundred years between the Muslims and Christians. They killed, butchered, raped and burned so many lives, and yet you call that an isolated killing?

        The reformation by Martin Luther in the 16th-17th century. Look that up for a start. This broke away from Catholicism to start Protestantism, which killed many people. King Henry the VIII converted to Protestantism and made it the dominant religion in England. The Catholics stole money from the innocents to build their stupid basilicas and told them that they would get to purgatory faster for paying.

        The colonization of USA and different countries by the British who either killed or converted unwillingly innocents. The French colonized different parts of Africa (ie Rwanda), who converted or killed unwilling people. Australia was colonized by the Brits. So was India. The Brits separated the Hindu’s from the Muslims, causing the Islamic country of Pakistan.

        Hitler. He OPPOSED the Jews, which may or may not have come from Luther’s reformation which caused anti-semitism. The number he killed stands at 7 million, but give or take some from that number, it still killed religious people.

        The creation of Israel by USA because of Einstein. This kicked out the Muslims to give Jews their ‘rightful’ land back. This has caused immense hatred between Jews and Muslims, which has lead to killings, rapes and homelessness.

        World War 2. USA won the war by bombing Hiroshima, which to this day, the Japanese can’t live well there because of the nuclear radiation. The main religion was Christianity, which supposedly against war. Good job.

        9/11. The anniversary was yesterday. Muslim extremists killed around 2500 people, but you’re going to see that as a minority to, right? And what about the continued war in the Middle East? What the hell has USA done in the Middle East other than kill so many innocents? It’s in the thousands, probably ten of thousands. And if you bring up Osama being killed, you must be naive. No one saw the body, he was chucked in the sea, and that’s it? Really? And they’re only pulling out the soldiers now?

        Christians and their wrongs. Read the Bible. It’s full, and I mean FULL of contradictions. Jesus said, “Do not judge or you too will be judged.” Here is Christ saying don’t judge, yet his father is ready to kill gay people, people who worship other gods, transvestites, the list goes on.

        And what makes you’re religion the correct one? Every religious person thinks they have the correct one, but they don’t. There are so many religions in this world (Christianity {which has so many variants}, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism. Just to name a few) and yet you have the audacity to think yours is right? Are religious people so arrogant to believe that in the entire universe, ‘god’ made us the highest being? If he is so powerful and all knowing, he would have known people would not believe in him and be against him. Why make us if he knew about it?

      • Anonymous / Sep 12 2013 7:43 am

        Everything you said is a bombarrdement of idiocies. For instance, Israel was created in 1948 thanks to the USSR and in spite of the US and the UK. The Soviets (atheists) planned with the nazis in 1939 the deportation of the Jewish in Palestine, then the nazis tried to deport them in Madagascar, and finally the Soviets joined the UK to fight the nazis and were happy to help the creation of Israel to get rid of the many Jewish who lived in Russia and Eastern Europe. Adolf Eichman was also a devoted Zionist. Just go back to school ! Moreover, see what Hitler said in the “table talk” about Christianity and why the nazis have burned so many churches in Poland , France etc… Many catholic priests were massacred by the nazis in central Europe , because most of the nazi top leaders were anticlerical atheists. Hitler never married at church, and hated to be seen at church for official event.
        Nothing you said is true. Pure atheism.

      • Anonymous / Sep 12 2013 7:53 am

        Recently, the German president asked for further investigations about this crime committed in France against Christian villagers :

        “The soldiers proceeded to the church and placed an incendiary device there. After it was ignited, women and children tried to escape through the doors and windows of the church, but they were met with machine-gun fire. A total of 247 women and 205 children died in the carnage. Only 47-year-old Marguerite Rouffanche survived. She slid out by a rear sacristy window, followed by a young woman and child.[3] All three were shot; Marguerite Rouffanche was wounded and her companions were killed. She crawled to some pea bushes behind the church, where she remained hidden overnight until she was rescued the following morning. Another group of about twenty villagers had fled Oradour-sur-Glane as soon as the soldiers had appeared. That night, the village was partially razed.
        A few days later, survivors were allowed to bury the dead. 642 inhabitants of Oradour-sur-Glane had been murdered in a matter of hours. Adolf Diekmann claimed that the episode was a just retaliation for partisan activity in nearby Tulle and the kidnapping of Helmut Kämpfe.”

      • Anonymous / Sep 12 2013 8:35 pm

        To the first Anonymous guy who said ‘Pure Atheism.’ Good job, you defeated that person against Hitler and World War 2 part. However, you didn’t even touch on anything else that person said. Nothing on the Crusades, Almohades, 9/11. Being a Zionist means that you are devoted to the creation of the Holy Land. So you’re saying that Hitler was all for killing people to get the state of Israel by being a Zionist? That just shows that extreme Judaism is disgusting, much like Christianity, considering Christianity came from Judaism. You also said nothing about the many other religions that he/she named; Islam, Judaism, Sikhism blah blah. Are they all wrong, and you have the right one? What about that last entire paragraph?

        I didn’t realise that the ‘merciful God’ wanted to have humans kill in his name. What’s that deadly sin called? Pride, isn’t it? Or maybe it’s sloth, since he won’t do it himself. Maybe it’s lust; for blood? How… disturbing, to be supposedly created from such a thing.

        Religion is based on nothing but faith, which is belief without evidence. Come on. Some invisible, omnipresent, all knowing guy in the sky is watching us kill each other? How malevolent. It’s been proven that the universe is expanding. I guess ‘God’s’ ego of his greatness is causing that.

      • @ idiot atheists / Sep 13 2013 1:23 am

        I just took one of the many examples of her stupidity when I commented what she believes to be true about WW2. If Marion is wrong about very well-known facts that occurred 70 years ago or so by the hands of the most known dictatorship and during the most documented period of human history , there’s obviously no reason to waste time to read what else she has to say. Beside, it’s her who really proved she is a plain idiot , I just underlined that evidence. 
        Would I waste my time to argue with the illiterate ones about science ? Of course not. 
        Another very well documented facts in recent history is that the state of Israel was made in 1948 by secular Jewish (most of them were socialist/communist and both nationalistic) , not by religious orthodox Jewish. For instance, the very first prime minister of Israel , David Ben Gurion was a committed atheist. Those atheists are responsible (with the soviet atheists) for the disfranchisement of the Arabs in Palestine. And many Zionists were/are even not Jewish at all.
        So, you too should read books about history and Zionism. 

        Everything you said is definitely a bombardment of falsehood, a proof of incredible lousy judgment. 

      • Anonymous / Sep 13 2013 1:48 pm

        “On May 17, 1948, three days after Israel declared independence, the Soviet Union legally recognized it de jure, becoming the first country to grant de jure recognition to the Jewish state.In addition to the diplomatic support, arms from Czechoslovakia, part of the Soviet bloc, were crucial to Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.”

      • Anonymous / Sep 14 2013 5:44 am

        I actually love reading stuff like this. Debates which are well fought over give me some good insight. I won’t say my position with religion, but it does make one wonder about all this and how facts can own other people. Well argued people, well argued.

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 16 2014 5:54 pm

        If you think atheists lie, what makes the bible true hmm?

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 16 2014 6:00 pm

        debunking the itsnobody claim: itsnobody is smart

    • Anonymous / May 25 2013 8:42 pm

      “The influence of secular revolutionary movements on terrorism extends well beyond Islamists. In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens notes that, long before Hizbullah and al-Qaida, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka pioneered what he rightly calls “the disgusting tactic of suicide murder”. He omits to mention that the Tigers are Marxist-Leninists who, while recruiting mainly from the island’s Hindu population, reject religion in all its varieties.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society

      • itsnobody / May 25 2013 9:56 pm

        Dawkins and Hitchens are perhaps the least intelligent atheists I’ve ever encountered.

        But they have a large following from gullible atheists, they believe anything they hear without questioning it.

  28. Joe / May 20 2013 2:27 pm

    Most crimes committed in “atheist countries” are being committed by Muslims.

    • itsnobody / May 25 2013 11:45 am

      lol, are you joking or are you really this stupid? I’m guessing probably just a gullible stupid person.

      Oh wait I forgot 100% of atheists are racists, aren’t they?

      The European countries with the highest Muslim populations (Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark) have the very lowest murder rates in Europe (also among the lowest in the entire world), so what “crime” are you talking about fool?

      The countries in Europe with the least non-white immigration, purest European stock, and lowest percentage of Muslims have the highest murder rates in Europe (these are Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia).

      On another note I think Europeans should deport/ban Muslim immigrants, then bring in lots of non-white non-Muslim immigrants. I know what atheists/racists are really after, and it’s not a non-Muslim society.

      A 0% Muslim population and a lots of non-white non-Muslim immigrants would really hurt the atheist/racist movement.

      Can your atheist kind cite sources or give valid reasons to support your assertions?

      Atheists claim that there’s so much crime committed by Muslims in atheist countries, yet the murder rate in those countries has decreased and is lower than all 50 US states?

      Can you explain where you got the idea that there was lots of crime there? I’m guessing blog sites or YouTube comments, you’re just a stupid gullible person right?

      Here’s the actual official crime statistic on murder in Sweden in 2012 (latest data): http://www.bra.se/bra/brott–statistik/mord-och-drap.html

      It says that Sweden’s murder count in 2012 was only 68, meaning Sweden’s murder rate in 2012 is 0.71 per 100,000, one of the lowest in Sweden history, lower than all 50 US states and almost every country on the planet, so what crime are you fools (atheists) referring to?

      There’s more crime in Sweden, but the murder rate in 2012 (with more Muslim immigration) is one of the lowest in all of Sweden history (you have to go back all the way to maybe the 1960s or 1970s to find Sweden murder rates that low, lol).

      I thought if there was more crime the murder rate would go up or at least be much higher than the years before, not be one of the lowest in all of Sweden history.

      So if there’s more ‘crime’ in Sweden then how can the murder rate drop down to an astronomically low level, does any fool (atheist) have an answer?

      • Ryan Schick / Jul 16 2014 5:56 pm

        Not all atheists are racist, probably like 39-49% or them are. I’m and atheist and I hate the idea of racism.

  29. ANTONY / May 17 2013 11:37 pm

    at least read the comments sir.almost all of them are negative responses.please consider stop
    writing unbelieveable stupid things on the internet ,and get a normal job if you can.there is no way someone pays you to write pure garbage .dont they read it first? and how can you come back after that backlash..even a 5 year old can do better
    im pretty sure there is something wrong with your brain faculties.
    and i am a christian,mind you ,but an educated one and i feel very sorry our religion has been hijacked by ignorant tetrapod mammals like yourself.shame on you dear sir!!

    • itsnobody / May 25 2013 11:51 am

      You’re just using an argument ad populum fool.

      Of course most of the comments from atheists will be negative since they’re so disappointed that I debunked one of their biggest lies being spread, so what’s your point?

      Having lots of negative responses doesn’t mean what I’m saying is false. You can make a perfectly valid true statement and get lots of negative responses. I hope you understand how it’s illogical to conclude that something is false if it gets lots of negative responses.

      How is it pure garbage if it’s all unrefuted, true, and verifiable?

      I have a normal high-paying job, so I don’t need anyone to pay me to write things. Even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t want to gain money from writing articles to educate people, and help them learn the truth.

      I don’t care if you are a Christian or not, this just means that you are a Christian who sides with the fools (atheists).

      • foreropa / Jun 17 2013 4:11 pm

        No, you have not proved your point, you are using only the information that works for you and leave aside the one that doesn’t. You take the countries with high atheism and with high crime rates to prove your point but leave aside that the majority of atheist countries have lower crime rates. Of course some of them will have high crime rates, but not the majority and thats whats being discussed here, not that a few have high rates. You trying to prove your point with facts that are an exception,  not with all the data. Most believers only try to justify their points with believes, that is good with you, but you are trying to prove your point using only what works for you and not using all the data available. And you say religion is not the cause of all wars, but anyone who knows history knows that religion is part of the problem and in many conflicts is the problem itself, just to say a few, the crusades, the first war, the Yugoslavian war, the palestinian war is fuel by religion, the Irish conflict, etc. And Pol pot and Lenin, and Mao, they were not real atheist, they created a religion were they were the divine forces, they use and manipulate people using the same tools religion uses to do what they did. I’m not saying atheist is more intelligent, but at least we try to have a critic thinking but the problem with religion is that if you think without critic you are training your brain to act like that in other aspects of life. I know I’m not going to convince you and I don’t expect I do, but I have to tell you this: when you use science, you have to use all the data available, not just the one that works to prove your point and discard the rest, and the data available proves that in most cases, not all, atheist countries have lower crime rates. That doesn’t mean a religious country cannot have lower rates also, not at all, just says what it says, that most religious countries have bigger rates than atheist ones. If you see the big picture and compare, when the majority of countries have bigger rates of religion, they have bigger issues. Maybe its not one because if the other, but it makes you think why the majority of atheist countries have lower rates.

  30. ANTONY / May 17 2013 11:14 pm

    i have never read so many lies and filthy propaganda in one paragraph before in my life.how can you sleep at night is beyond me.dont you have any decency at all?

    • itsnobody / May 25 2013 11:41 am

      If it’s a lie then why can’t your low-life atheist-loving mouth debunk any of it?

      Instead all that you do is throw personal attacks in disappointment that I debunked a great lie being spread by atheists.

      • Marion / Sep 12 2013 12:16 am

        If atheism is a lie, prove god to me.

      • Lucy / Dec 18 2015 1:21 pm

        I think itsnobody is “mental”

  31. Joey / Apr 21 2013 1:59 pm

    Ur going to compare the amount of religious people in Estonia , a country with a population of 1.3 million, and how peaceful the ENTIRE country is, to the rest of the world where they have 1.3 million+ people in just the capitals alone? That’s not even considered a “debunk”, sir…

    We can also say that a particular city with a population of 2,000 is the safest city in the whole world because there was no murders that year… Come on now…

    • itsnobody / May 25 2013 2:05 pm

      Ur going to compare the amount of religious people in Estonia , a country with a population of 1.3 million, and how peaceful the ENTIRE country is, to the rest of the world where they have 1.3 million+ people in just the capitals alone? That’s not even considered a “debunk”, sir…

      You can’t be this foolish (atheistic), then again since you’re atheist I guess you can be.

      The murder rate is in proportion to the population size. The higher the population size the higher the possible number of deaths is.

      The maximum number of possible deaths in a population of 1.3 million is much lower than the maximum number of possible deaths in a population of 100 million, you get that right?

      What’s your issue with mentioning the murder rate?

      The atheist countries atheists mention for having lower murder rates (Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, etc…) also have low population sizes, so the population size is irrelevant just for atheist countries with low murder rates? What a joke.

      We can also say that a particular city with a population of 2,000 is the safest city in the whole world because there was no murders that year… Come on now…

      A population of 2,000 means the maximum number of deaths in that city is 2,000.

      If there was a city with a 100 murders that had a population size of 2,000, would you say that city was very dangerous?

      Your population argument doesn’t make any sense, 1.3 million is much higher than 2,000. Why is the population size only an issue for the atheist countries with high murder rates and not an issue for the atheist countries with low murder rates?

      The rate is in proportion to the population size.

      Let’s put things into perspective:
      – No US state with a population size close to 1.3 million (New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii) has a murder rate as high as Estonia’s
      – Estonia had 100 murders in 2011 in a population of 1.3 million, Maine had 26 murders, New Hampshire had 17 murders, Hawaii had 17 murders
      – Sweden had 81 murders in a population of 9.6 million in 2011, Austria had 53 murders in a population of 8.4 million in 2010, Switzerland had 51 murders in a population of 7.9 million in 2010

      So Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland had lower murder counts than Estonia even though their population size is at least 6 times higher (meaning the maximum number of possible deaths is at least 6 times higher).

      Estonia really does have a high murder rate, and this murder rate is real.

  32. Anonymous / Apr 18 2013 2:38 pm

    We should all applaud this shining example of indoctrination and delusion. You don’t even have your facts right. Estonia is only 49% Atheist/Agnostic/Non-believer, so there is still a majority religious. You numbers and ideas are way off base.

    • itsnobody / May 25 2013 2:25 pm

      We should all applaud this shining example of indoctrination and delusion. You don’t even have your facts right. Estonia is only 49% Atheist/Agnostic/Non-believer, so there is still a majority religious. You numbers and ideas are way off base.

      Well it’s always a great laugh to see an atheist in delusion, lol.

      Which statistic shows that Estonia is only 49% Atheist/Agnostic/Non-believer (which would already make it one of the least religious countries)?

      Sorry but you’re wrong!

      Multiple sources show Estonia as the least religious country in Europe:
      – 2005 Eurostat Eurobarometer poll shows Estonia as the least religious (only 16% believe in a god) (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf)
      – 2008 Gallup poll (only 14% of Estonians said religion was important to them) (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx)

      Since multiple sources indicate that Estonia is the least religious country in the world, it’s probably accurate or close to being accurate, but it’s true that there’s issues in gaining statistics like these.

      It’s always a great laugh to see an atheist argument get completely KILLED off!

      I know that Estonia really has a high murder rate, I had a friend from Estonia’s who’s parents were murdered when he was 5-years-old.

      I win again, I win every time!

      • Anonymous / Jun 17 2013 4:01 pm

        Highly interesting that 97% of incarcerated Americans are religious, while 93% of the scientific community is atheist/non-believer. Religion is only a means to commit hate crimes against others and to justify it. get fucked you ignorant twat.

      • Nick Name / Jun 18 2013 9:14 am

        Hi retard !
        All atheists are self-claimed scientists.

         
        Higgs also acknowledged that many scientists in the field of physics are religious. He isn’t, but ascribes his unbelief to his upbringing and family life rather than to a disparity between science and religion.

         

      • Anonymous / Jun 18 2013 10:02 am

        This is for Nick Name since I can’t reply directly to him. First of all, everyone is a scientist at birth. Inquisitive and curious, it takes indoctrination and lies to turn that off. You are not a Christian at birth, and if you weren’t introduced to it, you never would be. My point is that educated individuals can see past the idiocy of organized religion and realize that it is the cause of some of the worst pain in the history of the world. Even if atheists say they are scientists, that has no bearing on the fact that professional scientists are most typically atheists. You are ignorant and can’t understand a 4th grade correlation of data. Please, suck on a railroad spike.

      • Anonymous / Sep 12 2013 10:26 pm

        Do you have any evidence that the atheists did the murdering?

  33. Anonymous / Apr 8 2013 1:03 am

    Why all the hatred? Criticize the idea, not the people. Calling atheists “fools” and the “worst of all human beings” just cheapens your arguments and makes you look like a bigot. You put all religious people (myself included) to shame with your hate-filled rants. Grow up.

    • itsnobody / May 25 2013 2:57 pm

      That’s funny, no one’s accused of spreading hatred when it’s atheists making fun of Theists as delusional, stupid, less intelligent, etc…

      But when I accuse atheists as being foolish and provide concrete evidence thoroughly debunking a claim it is labeled as “hatred”, what a joke.

      I don’t care who I put shame, putting your atheist friends to shame with the truth brings me joy.

      Truthfully there no part of me that considers the atheist kind as human beings, I view atheists as only subhuman beings mostly because of their racism and partially because of their foolish views.

      I guess I could consider a non-racist atheist as partially human or perhaps fully human.

      When I see an atheist crying in my mind I can only think “What a great joy it is, what a great joy it is that this terrible low-life racist is now crying”

      The only other atheists (who are not really atheists but impersonalists) that I could respect are the impersonalists, who accept an afterlife, and God as existing, but claim that what’s actually Supreme is impersonal.

      • Marion / Sep 12 2013 12:24 am

        What you are saying there, itsnobody, is that you have no moral compass whatsoever. If you need religion to tell what’s right and wrong, you need serious help. What makes a human human is if they can think, if they can feel, can communicate. Just like when the British colonized Australia and thought the Aborigines were subhuman, but they weren’t.

      • Lucy / Dec 18 2015 1:27 pm

        seriously , this guy needs help and soon! He talks like a uneducated five year old, and a cruel one too : “When I see an atheist crying in my mind I can only think “What a great joy it is, what a great joy it is that this terrible low-life racist is now crying” WHO SAYS STUFF like that ???

  34. Yves / Apr 5 2013 4:22 pm

    I meant to say I know that european atheists hate the scandinavian and anglo-saxon countries for being too Christians , for most atheists who live in Catholic countries do not know what is Protestantism .

  35. Yves / Apr 5 2013 3:58 pm

    Living in Europe, in the most atheistic country ( France has about 30% citizens who self-claimed to be atheists ) I’m very surprised to read that american atheists believe scandinavian countries are atheist.
    I know that european atheists hate the scandinavian and anglo-saxon countries for being too Protestant.
    At this time,the growing number of scandinavian atheists have almost no influence on social and legal decisions. And, you can see why :
     
     
    The many nonbelievers he interviewed, both informally and in structured, taped and transcribed sessions, were anything but antireligious, for example. They typically balked at the label “atheist.” An overwhelming majority had in fact been baptized, and many had been confirmed or married in church.
     
     
     
     http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  
     
    My guess is that american atheists dream of an heaven for White people, then they tend to take their dream for reality by rushing to judgement. 
    The Protestant culture is still well-rooted in Scandinavia even though atheism seem to progress ( especially in far right groups  →  Anders Breivik , the norwegian mass killer ) , but Sweden , Denmark or Norway are still far to be the racist heaven for atheists. 
    Just think about North Korea or Belarus !

  36. Yves / Apr 5 2013 3:43 pm

    In Europe , inmates who want to be released before the completion of term always claim they have found Jesus. ( So did Michelle Dutroux , the accomplice of her husband Marc Dutroux , the ultra-cruel belgian rapist pedophile . )  
    I guess it is logical to deduce such criminals were atheists before. 
    ( I know atheists will use the usual « no true Scotsman » fallacy … )
      
    No atheist in foxholes…or just another atheist scam ?
      
    Note that no inmate never claimed  he wants to be freed before his term is over, now that he turned from Christianity to atheism. 

  37. Nate / Mar 15 2013 2:11 am

    This article gave me cancer

    • Anonymous / Mar 15 2013 11:30 am

      you probably watched too much porn, Nate

  38. Anonymous / Mar 11 2013 12:44 pm

    You’re really stupid.

  39. Yves / Feb 24 2013 9:21 pm

    Atheists usually say they don’t like religion because it means war and intolerance. 
    Nowadays Chinese atheists persecute Tibetans and other minorities. But white atheists say that doesn’t counts because ,behind close doors , white atheists  say that   Asian atheists  – such as the North Korean peaceful and sympathetic regime –  are not real atheists.   
    It sounds a bit racist , doesn’t it ?

  40. Anonymous / Feb 12 2013 4:07 pm

    That is so true. Also, the most religious countries, like Brazil, Somalia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the safest countries with the lowest murder rates. Athiestic countries like Japan, Sweden, France and Norway are the most dangerous and crime infested.
    Theist-1
    Athiests-0

    • Tris Stock (@Tris_Stock) / Feb 13 2013 12:26 pm

      UNODC murder rates most recent year per 1000.

      Brazil 21.0
      Somalia 1.5
      Nigeria 12.2
      Saudi Arabia 1.0
      Iran 3.0

      Japan 0.4
      Sweden 1.0
      France 1.1
      Norway 0.6

  41. Anonymous / Feb 10 2013 2:01 am

    You are the smartest person on the planet. Almost like God himself.

  42. Anonymous / Feb 10 2013 1:54 am

    Its all about you brother! You always win!

  43. Troll? / Nov 24 2012 2:31 pm

    Seriously, honey, has your mom told you about this? Just because you say atheists are dumb doesn’ mean they are.

    • itsnobody / Jan 16 2013 1:40 am

      Thanks for demonstrating how dumb you are.

      You can throw personal attacks at me “honey” but in the end all of my statements remain unrefuted.

      How can the primitive atheist mind ever compete with a Theist mind like mine?

      It was always the atheist kind out to block human progress and hold back science from the very beginning, always. They continue to do so today as I clearly demonstrated in my other articles. Just look at how atheists have destroyed science and scientific progress after they took over in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

      Switzerland and Austria (the 2 most religious countries in Northern and Western Europe) have the 1st and 2nd most scientific Nobel laureates per capita (among nations with population > 1 million). Estonia the least religious country in Europe has 0 scientific Nobel laureates.

      Atheists don’t even believe in science, they think that it’s all just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, and just believe in living in the stone age.

      Of course the atheists have strongly discouraged experimentation in modern times now, because experimentation tells us what reality is like, not mathematical models, and they know that will be experimentally be proven wrong.

      It’s all of matter of time now, the closer science comes towards the truth the faster most forms of atheism will be eliminated, with impersonalism being the only form leftover. It is of course the atheists preventing this from occurring by preventing experimentation at all costs.

      Atheists are always so weak and afraid, always hiding behind authority and incredulity, and that’s it.

      Just with experimentation alone, lots of power, and some electrical equipment (not even needing mathematical models) I should be able to convert energy into matter (materialize things into existence) and come up with a way to cure or well-treat almost everything.

      If I complete the physics model that I’m working on then I should be able to come up with much more efficient technology, experimentally prove the existence of an afterlife and the personal and impersonal aspect of the true God, and open a up a whole new level of technology beyond imagination.

      Of course if I really do figure this out I would probably just keep it mostly private and secretive because I don’t think the world is ready and the government might not like this information getting out. So it would just be better if I kept it a big secret, until the world is ready.

      I’m sure there has to be others in the past who have figured out similar things.

      Anyone who talks to an atheist quickly finds that they are just dumb gullible people, just dumb.

      I think atheists all know they that science will disprove most of their claims eventually.

      • Anonymous / Sep 12 2013 9:37 pm

        Are you saying science is supporting religion, even though there’s the evolution theory, the aquatic ape theory etc etc? Majority of atheists turn to science to help and support their claims. Christians, Jews, Muslims and others turn to their sacred texts and founders works.

        As for experiment with turning energy into matter, treating disease and proving an afterlife, if you do that, I’d follow you anywhere. But I would like to ask, who are you to say the world is ready? With the billions of opinions on this topic of religion and atheism, how can one person do that? No disrespect or anything, but who will determine whether you receive the power to tell anyone? And if it’s so secretive, why bring it up on this forum?

  44. Chris R / Nov 19 2012 12:36 am

    Atheists are anti-science? One day you might reveal who you are. As it is you are such a coward that you dare not put your name and face behind your silly comments.

    • itsnobody / Nov 19 2012 7:32 pm

      Oh you’re just using another argumentum ad hominem! You can’t refute any statement I made by personal attacking me and asking me to reveal my identity.

      As for why atheists are anti-science it’s simple:
      – Criticism and scrutiny of all things is one of the main principles in science
      – Atheists oppose all criticism in general (except for beliefs they personally disagree with), and thus oppose science, so they are anti-science (in opposition to science)

      What a great fool it is to be an atheist.

      • Imraan / Jan 9 2013 5:26 am

        My dear author It is not atheist’s that are anti criticism but religious people and calling someone fools is no way start an unbiased statical article.
        Religion is based on belief rather than proof and those that require proof to believe become atheists (Mostly). And science also follows the law of proof to declare it a fact. Religion doesn’t because first a statement is made and everything else is proved by referring to that statement
        Case and point…..1. Jesus is the son of God ……then the rest
        2. Mohammad is Prophet of God ….then the rest

      • itsnobody / Jan 16 2013 2:08 am

        Thanks for demonstrating your low near subhuman level of intelligence (just typical with atheists).

        You claimed that atheists are not against allowing criticism and scrutiny of all things (one of the main principles in science) yet you never backed up this claim. Just point me to one atheist site or forum that allows people to criticize, scrutinize, and question them freely like how people are allowed to on my blog. Instead atheists will just accuse anyone who criticizes their arguments or beliefs as “trolling” and ban them. It’s a great strategy atheists/anti-science fans use to protect their beliefs from criticism and scrutiny.

        The reason why criticism and scrutiny is (or at least was prior to atheists taking science over) an important principle in science is because if something really is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny. This is the reason why atheists strongly strongly oppose criticism and scrutiny of their own personal beliefs and favored arguments, they know it’s all wrong and false so they discourage criticism.

        Then your next argument is just using a flawed definition of the word ‘religion’. Something being a “religion” has nothing to do with whether or not the beliefs have proof or not. There could be some religions where all the beliefs have proof, other religions where some of the religious beliefs have proof, and other religions where none of the beliefs have proof.

        Here’s an example:
        – In a lot of religions, drinking alcohol is thought to be something that’s bad for you. Science supports this assertion that alcohol consumption causes many problems. So is this religious belief no longer a religious belief since science supports this assertion?

        So you’re wrong in every aspect.

        Thanks for the laugh!

      • Anonymous / May 1 2013 12:22 am

        Watch the atheist experience on youtube, its a call in show, open to all. A number of different theists call in and defend their beliefs and try to counter or disprove scientific claims and the hosts debate them. Seems like you haven’t looked all that hard for the actual atheists, considering you’ve been too busy building your strawman. Oh also if someone calls you a troll when you spout your beliefs, it is because they don’t believe you to actually be as dumb as your arguments make you out to be, take it as a compliment.
        As for your post, no one has refuted because your facts are completely wrong, therefore your conclusions will be wrong. Done. Refuted.

      • itsnobody / May 25 2013 1:34 pm

        Watch the atheist experience on youtube, its a call in show, open to all. A number of different theists call in and defend their beliefs and try to counter or disprove scientific claims and the hosts debate them. Seems like you haven’t looked all that hard for the actual atheists, considering you’ve been too busy building your strawman. Oh also if someone calls you a troll when you spout your beliefs, it is because they don’t believe you to actually be as dumb as your arguments make you out to be, take it as a compliment.

        I’ve looked everywhere for atheists and encourage them to post their arguments (so that I can destroy them).

        On my blog page people are allowed to criticize and scrutinize anything that I say as much as they want. The reason I have done this is because my objective is to learn the truth, and the more people criticize and scrutinize things the closer we come towards the truth.

        As for this “atheist experience” group or whatever they are just the same as the other atheists, they have edited YouTube videos, and I wouldn’t want to verbally debate with anyone anyway since verbal debates are disorganized, I prefer written debates.

        These atheists, they are always so afraid of me, they are weak, useless.

        As for your post, no one has refuted because your facts are completely wrong, therefore your conclusions will be wrong. Done. Refuted.

        lol, you’re just using circular reasoning.

        You pre-assumed that my facts were wrong (base off nothing), and then said therefore you’ve been refuted, lol what great circular reasoning.

        Using your reasoning we can conclude that anything is wrong and false, just say “your facts are completely wrong, therefore your wrong, you’ve been refuted”, what a joke argument lol.

        If I’m wrong then please point out which fact (used as an argument here) is wrong? Go ahead and point it out please, lol.

  45. Tris Stock @mygodlesslife / Nov 17 2012 10:40 am

    You are right, correlation does not equate to causation, but then one wonders why you mention this after you use correlation to prove your point.

    I should also point out that, despite Sweden’s high rate of organic atheism, there is a state religion (The Lutheran Svenska Kyrkan). So it cannot be classified as an atheistic state in any meaningful sense.

    Denmark, to0, has a state religion; Den Danske Folkekirke. So cannot be classified as an atheistic state.

    New Zealand has no state religion, but according to its 2006 census, it boasts a 55.6% Christian population in an otherwise secular state. Atheism is on the rise, but it is a stretch to suggest it is in any way an atheistic nation.

    After the end of World War II in 1945, a stricter secularism was imposed in Austria, and religious influence on politics declined.

    Like Austria, Switzerland has no state religion, and is similar in its levels of belief, spiritualism and and non-belief to New Zealand.

    • itsnobody / Nov 19 2012 7:02 pm

      Your arguments are all just straw man arguments.

      I didn’t use correlation to prove my point, I used counterexamples, so you’re using a straw man.

      I also didn’t argue that Sweden was an “atheistic state”, I argued that the fools (atheists) use Sweden when arguing that “less religious or atheistic nations are more peaceful”, so it’s another straw man argument

      Only 15% of Sweden Church members believe in Jesus, http://www.thelocal.se/34370/20110615/

      So you’re basically arguing that these countries aren’t less religious or atheistic countries; if this is true why don’t you tell your atheist friends to stop using these countries when mentioning how supposedly “peaceful” atheists are?

      It’s also possible to be secular and religious, foolish (atheistic) one.

      I win again!

      I win every time.

      • Dustin Braden / Jan 15 2013 2:15 pm

        Austria and Norway have the same homicide rate: 6 per million. I don’t say that being an atheist makes you less violent. Education causes both pacifism and atheism.

      • itsnobody / Jan 16 2013 1:38 am

        You can’t be this stupid.

        If atheism makes you less violent then why does Estonia (the country with the lowest percentage of believers in a god in Europe) have the highest murder rate in Northern Europe?

        If atheism makes you less violent then why did the supposedly now less violent “atheist” countries have low murder rates back when they were EXTREMELY religious?

        A primitive atheist mind can never compete with a mind like mines.

  46. GreenDiamond / Nov 17 2012 5:20 am

    Hello Idiot Boy!

    “The countries atheists point out as being peaceful also happen to be the most racist countries in the world (according to all the studies done).” No, not “all the studies” show this::http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_113_en.pdf

    It is interesting that you use Austria and Sweden as your exaples of religios and non religious countries for the murder rates. Sweden historitcally had a very low murder rate until “multi-culturalism” was introduced into the country in the begining of 1980s (when 3% of the population were non-ethnic Swedes and now the rate is 19% and the murder rate is at an historic high). That aside, look at the racism difference between the countries.

    “Austria is one of the most religious countries in Northern/Western Europe” yet it is highly rasist- especially considering its election of righwing-racist politicians/party as well as self evaluated racism surveys. While Sweden has much lower numbers on these surveys and political election results despite its high level of atheists. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_113_en.pdf

    As to what atheists are calling “peaceful” I would imagine they mean that these countries don’t attack other countries (the opposite of “war” is considered “peace”). Plus, would you call a religious country like Iran (who hasn’t attacked another country in circa 200 years) peaceful despite the fact that defacings (burning of women’s faces with fire, acid, alkaloids etc as religion inspired punishment) peaceful. How about countries where hitting your wife is encouraged by religious leaders as a way of communicating your feelings on an issue within the marriage? Would you call these peaceful countries.

    • itsnobody / Nov 19 2012 6:46 pm

      The one who’s an idiot is you, Mr.GreenDiamond

      Sweden’s murder rate in 2011 is at a historical LOW, one of the lowest in decades, and one of the lowest in Sweden history!

      Source: http://www.bra.se/bra/brott–statistik/mord-och-drap.html

      “The level of 2011 is one of the lowest quotations in the past ten years.”

      A murder rate of 0.86 is one of the lowest murder rates in decades for Sweden and lower than almost all US states.

      The countries in Europe with the highest murder rates like Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are the ones with the least multiculturalism, lowest non-white immigration, and purest European stock!

      The European countries with the more non-white immigration are the ones with the lower murder rates.

      Where did you get the idea that Sweden’s murder rate was much lower prior to supposed “multiculturalism”?

      Is it from the Nazi Swedish media?

      The majority of immigrants in Sweden are European.

      The Somalian population in Sweden is less than 60,000! But from the Nazi Swedish media people would think there were millions of Somalis in Sweden, lol.

      There isn’t much multiculturalism at all in Sweden.

      The murder rate in Sweden has decreased with more immigrants, lol.

      I guess the murder rate is a big blow to the atheist/racist/White Nationalist movement.

      As for the racism in Austria vs. Sweden I don’t really know how it compares since there’s no way to objectively measure racism. Since Austria is criticized more for their racism my guess is that they are probably less racist than Swedes are.

      As for determining if a country is peaceful or not you would have to concretely objectively define the word peaceful.

      Well at least you can agree that you’re a low-life racist like all atheists are, that’s why they will never open up their low-life atheist mouth and voice any opposition towards racism.

      Thanks for embarrassing yourself and demonstrating how dumb, gullible, and idiotic atheists are. Atheists are basically subhuman in terms of intelligence.

      I have to warn the world about what atheists are trying to do to society, basically 100% of all White atheists agree with and support racism. This is why White atheists will do anything they can to prevent people from criticizing atheists for being racist.

      • milly / Mar 26 2013 11:37 pm

        “Since Austria is criticized more for their racism my guess is that they are probably less racist than Swedes are.”

        LOL

      • Anonymous / Feb 18 2014 4:14 pm

        are you fucking kidding me, in estonia there are 25% russians and the OP says that there is no multi culturianism, also if youve never heard then estonians and russians dont really like each other but most of them do

    • Yves / Feb 24 2013 9:37 pm

      GreenDiamond,
      You forgot how the Soviet Union was peaceful with neighbors and with it’s own people.
      As a Frenchman, I can tell you that France was more violent during the anticlerical years after the Revolution of 1789. Remember how Napoleon and his bloody atheist accomplices ruined Europe.

Post a Comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: