Skip to content
October 25, 2015 / itsnobody

Petition to view atheists as subhuman

I’m trying to start a new petition to view atheists as fully subhuman, subhuman beings.

I had a petition on another site but some atheists cried and got it removed for “hate speech” or whatever, nasty people always trying to force and impose their way and their beliefs onto the entire world.

So if you agree with me that atheists should be viewed as subhuman just a post a comment, it’ll count as like a signature.

On my other blog post I explained why I view atheists as fully subhuman as opposed to partially human or human:

Reasons for viewing atheists as fully subhuman:

  • Atheists refuse to oppose racism and nationalism but voice up their position on things like gay rights and abortion rights
  • 100% of all modern day atheist countries are extremely racist/nationalist beyond imagination (Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, New Zealand, and every other atheist country)
  • Atheists and the atheist-controlled media refuse to attack free-will believers like how they attack Creationists even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is like a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution(young Earth Creationists are more rational than free-will believers)
  • Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical consensus that religion directly caused the scientific revolution and insist on telling lies thoroughly debunked by historians (there aren’t any modern day historians that believe in the “Dark Ages” lie portrayed in the atheist-controlled media)
  • Atheists refuse to acknowledge the undeniable historical fact that Faraday’s religion directly caused Maxwell’s Equations to come into existence, and instead lie and portray the opposite
  • Atheists are trying to redefine the definition of science so that all that matters is authority and incredulity instead of empirical observations and valid reasoning, turning science into pseudoscience
  • Atheists are trying to throw away a very important principle in science – criticism and scrutiny, and turn science into pseudoscience
  • Atheists don’t allow people to question, scrutinize, and criticize atheistic arguments, they just breakdown and cry and interpret any criticism as “trolling”
  • Atheists insist on telling many lies thoroughly debunked by historians and scientists (see my post “Common Lies Spread By Atheists“)
    – From post, Reasons for viewing atheists as subhuman beings

Larry Darby the former state director of the popular atheist group “American Atheists” is a holocaust denier, Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group “White Aryan Resistance” is an atheist, Alex Linder owner and operator of the popular White Nationalist forum “VNN” is an atheist, etc…..you have to realize that every White atheist is in on this racism/White Nationalism/Nazism thing together as one.

The dream of a Whites-only type of  society is finally coming back. Back in 1988 no one in Sweden supported the Nazi party, it’s only in 2010 that they gained support.

I predict that the US will probably become as racist as say New Zealand by the 2030s once the atheist population goes up like it is in atheist countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Latvia, Denmark, etc…

Some people think that I’m wrong, but I know that I’m right that the atheist/agnostic/non-religious population directly causes White Nationalism to rise because the main obstacle to White Nationalism right now is the Church and religion.

The only way that a non-white can get support from the atheist community is if they claim to be gay, if you’re a non-white non-gay you can’t get any support from the atheist community.

If you say something like “I hate gays” or “someone beat up some gays” the atheist community would come out up to voice up their position but if you say something like “I hate blacks” or “someone beat up some blacks” the atheist community would intentionally remain silent since basically every White atheist strongly agrees with racism and nationalism.

If the atheist community comes out to oppose racism and White Nationalism like how they voice up their position on gay rights and abortion rights then I would view atheists as human instead of subhuman.

I don’t think that will ever happen…the atheist community unanimously supports racism and White Nationalism, either by directly agreeing with it or remaining silent in opposition to racism and White Nationalism.

All of the atheists I’ve known are racists, I don’t know any non-racist atheists…they support gay rights but also support racism.

All of the atheist evolutionists I’ve spoken to believe in free-will…ROFL can you believe it? Non-determinism falsifies evolution and evolution requires a deterministic universe…but free-will believers use non-determinism as evidence that free-will exists….what a bunch of idiots…there aren’t any evolutionists who value evidence, enough said.

If someone values evidence they would be much MORE certain that free-will is non-existent than they would be that the science fiction story called “evolution” is true because the evidence telling us that there’s no free-will is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution…but evolutionists are less certain about free-will and more certain evolution….how ridiculous…it shows you how stupid they are…dumb people.

Atheists can’t handle what modern science has proven, that certain individuals are chosen and destined to achieve certain things.

Atheists can’t stop me, they’re nothing more than savages, untrustables, untouchables.

Only certain individuals like me are chosen, just like modern science says.

The real solution ending White Nationalism is the systematic extermination of atheism and atheistic beliefs.

In conclusion, fuck atheists, fuck the atheist community, and fuck anyone fuckin offended by any of my fuckin comments.

It’s the free market, free speech, free society!
Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

So please comment and add in your signature if you agree!

Advertisements

47 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. mandy jones / Feb 17 2017 12:10 pm

    There human beings like you and I. You disgust me sir.

    • rednig / Feb 17 2017 10:56 pm

      I doubt she cares. After all, look what agnostics did to Jesus, they turned him over to atheists.

  2. rednig / Oct 29 2016 5:48 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • rednig / Oct 30 2016 5:08 am

      the above is not my comment, but an atheist too frightened to come out and admit he’s mentally challenged because he’s an atheist.

      DNA can weather thing in a protected place (deep freeze, sub-zero) for a guestamated 100,000 years. Left on the surface of the ground or buried in sand or limestone (both very permeable) it decays rapidly. Left for 60 million years, nothing would be left. Gee, we find DNA alla time, gosh. That you cannot question science means something about your mind. Sorry, this isn’t Nazi Germany or the USSR. We’re allowed to question science.

      Yet, YEC scientists have shown plausible research about most things you take for granted, and no scientist will. I take it you never read any articles by YEC researchers.

      Which evolution are you talking about?

      Evo is viewed as the dogma of the failing new atheism. It’s called Scientology, creating a religion of science, which Hitler and Stalin did.

      http://creation.com/the-evolution-of-the-horse

      Only an idiot would trust Wikipedia as a teaching aid. Anyone claiming the credentials can go in and make changes.

      Look up out-of-sequence fossils and you’ll find thousands of them.
      http://www.icr.org/article/6207/
      http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html

      Evo has always been used to detail culture and society. Jefferson stated the African hasn’t the intellect (being closer to ape) to make it in white society. The KKK and Nazis are based on just that. The USSR used that to control the population, and China as an excuse to getting rid of unwanted tribes.

      Evo has no excuses but it makes a lot of people very wealthy, and keeps politicians in power. Without it, no society would make a very good nanny state because religious people shy away from government and handouts.

      Ray comfort isn’t a scientist, but is a speaker, and a very good one. He’s a good teacher, and because of him and thousands of others, creationism is now being taught in schools along with evo. Thanks to people like Ben Stein, people are studying both, and evo comes up with too many holes and too much greed, and very little science.

  3. rednig / Oct 17 2016 12:39 am

    Oh, my God, this is hilarious! what’s the atheist word of the day, kiddies!? Harris, the rapist!

  4. rednig / Oct 17 2016 12:37 am

    You must be what Hispanics call a poloc to quote a rapist. Please try truth. I know you think the little, dark box of urban legend is truth, but that’s only one more atheist anti-intellectual whine. Try adding proof of what you say, then we can discuss how atheism does cause a reduction in the IQ, as you’ve shown here.

  5. Anonymous / Aug 17 2016 8:34 am

    May God bless this subhuman brother of ours, that has a brain of a rotten potato.

    Matthew 7:1-5

    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    • rednig / Aug 17 2016 9:23 pm

      Judge as you would be judged by. Jesus was speaking to BROTHERS about BROTHERS. According to your post,, believers should have donated their children to Tiberius’ need to rape and torture small children. BTW, Tiberius was an atheist. The Bible is also very clear about what to judge and when. So, because it’s nobody isn’t a believer, that just made you look like a fool. a judgmental one, at that.

      • the truth / Oct 15 2016 7:07 pm

        “You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you.’ If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.”
        — Tracie Harris, The Atheist Experience

  6. xXx_MormonBoi_xXx / Jun 26 2016 9:12 pm

    As a christian I can safely say you are a below average potato muppet.

  7. Freddy / Jan 21 2016 12:13 pm

    This article is littered with fallacies: strawman fallacies, false cause fallacies, composition/division fallacies, texas sharpshooter fallacies, appeal to authority fallacies and lots of ad hominems…
    Don’t you think it’s kinda bigotted to simply lump all atheists into one category? Atheists are… Atheists do this… Atheists do that… I myself am an atheist and do not hold the view of any of your nine points listed. Yet you view me as subhuman?
    How about posing an atheist questions as to his opinions and finding out some truth rather than arrogantly stating “this is what atheists opine”?
    Awaiting your response.
    Cheers!

  8. Anonymous / Jan 12 2016 3:24 pm

    I agree, they claim to be better than religious people and more alert and open minded because they “haven’t been brainwashed” by religion. Well, as you have mentioned in a previous post I read, they are like animals. They live with no goal whatsoever, the sleep eat poop and then when they die they get thrown in a ditch underground somewhere where they rot and decompose.

    • Anon / Feb 3 2016 7:18 pm

      You have a point there unlike the other Anonymous who lied to the guy who made this blog.

  9. Anonymous / Jan 7 2016 12:45 pm

    LOL.Thanks for the laugh. Your an idiot. Not one logical statement here. Just a child stamping their foot.

    • itsnobody / Jan 9 2016 10:51 am

      Just more personal attacks from the fools (atheists)…they can’t compete with my superhuman mind with their subhuman atheist mind.

      Why don’t you fools understand that repeatedly throwing personal attacks at me doesn’t refute any statement that I made?

      Ahahaha I will always view atheists as subhuman!

      • the truth / Oct 15 2016 7:08 pm

        Your god is a sick creature.

        “You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you.’ If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.”
        — Tracie Harris, The Atheist Experience

    • Anon / Feb 3 2016 7:19 pm

      It’s ironic that you apply those characteristics to itsnobody when they apply to you too.

      • Peter the MIGHTY / Jun 26 2016 8:31 pm

        How many times were you dropped on your head as a child

  10. MattyG / Dec 3 2015 6:19 pm

    you have the iq of a below average potato

    • rednig / Dec 4 2015 3:59 am

      And someone must have less intelligence than that. After all, a sense of humor is a good sign of intelligence, and atheists seem to have nothing there. It is true, then, that atheism causes the IQ to fall? So far, studies indicate that. Hw terrible…

      • pixelguy10 / Dec 19 2015 7:53 am

        Itsnobody isn’t joking. If he was, he wouldn’t commit this much.

    • itsnobody / Dec 28 2015 9:05 pm

      How foolish (atheistic).

      As usual all the atheists do in response is throw personal attacks in desperation.

      Atheists can’t really say anything valid just stick to throwing childless personal attacks.

      • Jonathan / Aug 28 2016 6:09 pm

        Your tears are delicious. I love all the theists getting absolutely mad, mad enough to write paragraph after paragraph. Please aim your tears for this cup. 🙂

      • rednig / Aug 28 2016 10:28 pm

        Tears of laughter? Certainly. Amazing how modern atheists claim to be the vanguard of intelligentsia only to have such low IQs. Sociologists are concerned because, after all, atheism seems to lower the IQ. Nations that go atheist are shown to be less intelligent. What is the average of the modern atheist? 72? Less? Who else would commit suicide over hate but a modern atheist. It is hilarious in a macabre sort of way while it’s exploding all around you, and yet you aren’t bright enough to see it 🙂 Enjoy Islam while you still have something of a head on your shoulders, please. Yes, thank you for the laugh. I love this!

  11. JHon / Nov 28 2015 7:38 pm

    Hey dude, what do you think about space travel. Will humanity leave the solar system one day? Most christian think its impossible. What do you think?

    • rednig / Nov 28 2015 9:39 pm

      I look up and see a wide, fascinating universe above. Do the stars sing to you, pleading for you to move among them? A space jockey (astronaut) said that, and smiled. He was a Christian and like him, I believe God made the universe for His children to enjoy, to use, to move around in. It’s not a question of will we, but when will the anti-science atheist politicians allow us to. Remember, W is a Christian. W planned for and put the money towards having a based on the moon, then BO took the money and killed the planning. NASA had voted for him, but I doubt many will make the same mistake, voting for an agnostic. I write. My best work, most popular is SF. Not Fantasy, but hard science fiction. We have the capacity. All we need is the politicians to get out of the way before France or China beats us to the stars. Keep it in your heart and we will.

      • the truth / Oct 15 2016 7:09 pm

        “You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, ‘When you’re done, I’m going to punish you.’ If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your God.”
        — Tracie Harris, The Atheist Experience

    • itsnobody / Dec 28 2015 9:42 pm

      Space travel has been possible for a long while now.

      Most likely the US government has had the technology since the 1920s.

      If you use portal technology it’s pretty easy to travel anywhere in the universe nearly instantly.
      If you use technology manipulating gravity it’s also possible, but more complicated.

      But once the food crisis arises and the possibility of WWIII with Russia and China I don’t think many people will care that much about space travel.

      Without water people die within days, without food people die within weeks.

  12. rednig / Oct 27 2015 2:19 am

    Agreed. Since Marxism took over, atheism has plunged into darkness. No group is more in denial of reality. Like small children, they demand to be treated as gods, no matter how foolish they look. No poll based in reality shows them to be better than any other group. Even rapists are considered more trustworthy. Psychologists are saying that if these people consider truth to be relative to the situation, then they must consider reality to be, as well: Make it up as they go along. Insane asylums are filled with them.
    Keep up the good work. Every time I post something of yours, I get some very nasty feedback. 🙂

    • pixelguy10 / Dec 19 2015 8:05 am

      Okay, I feel like I have to, so I’m gonna debunk this. The prison population is over 70% Christian, and 0.2% atheist. Even if there was an equal amount of atheists as there are Christians in this world, there would still be so few atheists.”No group is in more denial of reality.” What do you mean by this, exactly? We don’t want to be treated like Gods. No one in our group wants that. When do we ever go out to big events with a megaphone and shout “Do you know how much Darwin hates sin? Do you know hw much Darwin loves you?” I didn’t think so.
      Irrelevant to the claims in this comment, atheists are definitely not anti-science. We just have different ideas of science. Atheist’s main idea is evolution, biology, chemistry, and technology. Your idea is evolution, biology, chemistry, and technology that were all the result of the amazing mind of our lord! And most Catholic churches go completely against science. When you see a debate between a diehard Christian and an evolutionist, who is using science on their side? There are very few anti-scientific atheists, mainly the ones that are young, depressed, or have an unstable life. If atheists were anti-science, we wouldn’t have radium, polonium, curium, other highly radioactive elements, many computer brands, so many films, factors of biology and evolution, and other commitments to society. Here’s some more, if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

      • itsnobody / Dec 28 2015 10:20 pm

        Only 0.7% of the US is atheist according to the ARIS report so prison statistics are useless.

        Estonia is the most atheistic least religious country and Estonia has one of the highest murder rates in Europe.

        North Korea is an atheist country and also has a high murder rate.

        The religious European countries like Italy, Switzerland, Austria, etc…have extremely low murder rates.

        Darwinists who believe in free-will? How ridiculous!

        Polls show that 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will…LOL! They are stupid as fuck.

        How can you believe in a theory which requires determinism with almost no entropy and increasing complexity and order, and free-will at the same time?

        How can you be willing to question the unbelievably concrete evidence telling us that there’s no free-will with unscientific junk yet unwilling to question the unbelievably weak evidence supporting evolution with valid scientific criticisms? Only if you don’t really care about or value evidence like most evolutionists.

        It really shows you the type and kind of people that evolutionists are. It’s their type and kind that have been ruining science turning it into a laughable popularity contest rather than something about empirical observations and valid reasoning.

        I don’t think any evolutionist actually values evidence, they care about promoting evolution as true, not about what the scientific evidence shows us.

        There would be a big media outcry if Professors question evolution with valid scientific criticisms, whenever this happens the well-controlled atheist-controlled media comes out to attack the Professor and force them to accept the unbelievably weak evidence supporting evolution, on the other hand Professors are allowed to question the evidence on free-will with all types of crackpot unscientific junk or almost any other hypothesis or theory with unscientific junk.

        An example of this can be seen with the great fool (atheist) Professor Daniel Dennett who believes in evolution but questions the evidence on free-will with all types of unscientific junk. Dennett has said he disagrees with evolutionists on free-will since evolution requires free-will to be non-existent and questions the evidence on free-will all types of crackpot unscientific junk but the media hasn’t attacked him for his belief in free-will, he’s not fired or kicked out. But if Dennett would’ve question evolution with valid scientific criticisms he would’ve been heavily attacked in the media and possibly fired, just because evolution is so well-protected by the nastiest lowest form of life – atheists.

        It’s really dangerous to have people believing in free-will especially if you’re a neurosurgeon, you could end up paralyzing or killing someone because you believe in free-will!

        Neuroscience shows us that neurons make decisions, if you go with the crackpot free-will believer you might end up assuming they can control things and paralyze, impair, or kill a patient. If your brain’s vital centers behaved non-deterministically or disorderly as free-will believers think you would die.

        On the other hand if you believed that evolution is false it wouldn’t matter for anything since evolution has virtually no real-world applications.

        The evidence free-will believers use (non-determinism, disorder, and unpredictability) falsifies evolution…ROFL!

        Questioning the evidence on free-will is equivalent to questioning evolution!

        Evolutionists are such stupid, idiotic, dumb, dense, moronic people they don’t even understand how evolution and free-will contradict each other, truly stupid people.

        It really shows you how well-controlled the atheist-controlled media, how they don’t care about evidence just forcing their way and their beliefs onto society.

        If we can convince authority figures to publish science fiction stories in peer-reviewed journals it’ll be as scientific as evolution is!

        Instead of using experiments, empirical observations, and valid reasoning you just imagine that something is true then get other authority figures to agree on the imagination – that’s basically the evolution theory. Almost nothing in the evolution theory uses the scientific method, empirical testing, experimental verification, or valid scientific methodologies.

        That’s not a scientific theory, it’s a science fiction story. That’s why the story of evolution from the 1990s is different from the story of evolution in the 2000s, which is different from the story of evolution in the 2010s…it’s just a science fiction story…since the evidence is unbelievably weak supporting the story the story keeps changing over and over again.

        The story of how free-will is non-existent has remained the same throughout science history, the more experiments on free-will we have the harder it is for free-will believers to deny the evidence, the more we attempt to empirically test if free-will exists the more concrete evidence we have indicating that free-will is non-existent.

        Basically every single atheist in the world is anti-science and strongly opposes the concept of criticism and scrutiny.

        There aren’t any atheist blog sites that allow full-fledged free speech like how I do. This is because atheists are weak, anti-science, and will just break down and cry.

        If a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny, this is why criticism and scrutiny use to be encouraged.

        If you know your statements are false of course you would have to stop any type of criticism and scrutiny.

        They strongly disagree with treating evolution the same as any other scientific theory and believe in treating evolution as special and different where you first pre-assume it’s true then make up all types of nonsense (non-science) to explain how it could happen even when it doesn’t work.

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

        Atheists can’t do anything right.

        Atheism and non-religion has always been the biggest blocks on human progress as the historical evidence shows us.

        Atheists can’t handle that certain individuals are chosen that certain events must happen.

      • pixelguy10 / Jan 27 2016 6:10 pm

        13-15% of America’s population is atheistic. If the ratio was shifted, it would still be signifigant. I actually check to make sure my sources are sighted.
        Middle east is all I have to say.
        That’s because of the ONE FUCKING LEADER THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE INSANE.
        I’ve seen that a lot of your arguments are related to dishonesty, yet also proof. You have no proof that we are not free-will, yet you say we lie about it. So almost every single poll from the best sources say this and all of a sudden (when you’ve trusted them for long) you decide to turn on them because of this. Is this because you expect them to say what you want them to?
        I think your idea and my idea of science are pretty similar, subtracted by a diety, which is so insignifigant. If we are turning science around, could you give a few examples for once unlike ever? And you say “concrete evidence” but you provide none.
        If you don’t think we value evidence, why aren’t you providing any while I spend hours a day searching for it? And then, what is what you call “scientific evidence” showing us?
        When did I ever force you to believe in evolution? When did anyone? And do you even know the fucking scientific method? You form your hypothesis first before going into any research and studying-that’s the point.
        You know what, I’m going to stop on this because this is getting the both of us nowhere:
        I see you talking about “personal attacks” often, but you use the same wordings over and over like “fool (atheist)” and that lowest form of life shit that doesn’t make any fucking sense whatsoever. You’re like the Bible, hypocritical and contradictory. Don’t expect an answer back from me because you can consisely make your point without having to write a book.

      • Anon / Feb 3 2016 7:20 pm

        ^ How ironic it is that you called the Bible hypocritical and contradictory when you come as being those ways.

      • pixelguy10 / May 6 2016 11:09 am

        Explain.

      • rednig / May 6 2016 2:07 pm

        pixelguy, sorry, but the urban legend you use was done on prison population in 1924 and even then was rejected as being false. It’s more now. It’s not 70% Christians in prison, it’s 70% of people who claim a church ’cause gramma belonged. Of that 70%, less than 40% ever go to chapel, and even then most do so only during Easter and Christmas. Why? Candy and cake. Atheists and agnostic make up the vast majority of convicts. Why? If it feels good, do it; ya only go ’round once, so enjoy!

        After atheists slaughtered 110 million in only 89 years of the 20th century, trying to claim atheists are less likely to commit crime is like calling bald a hair color.

        For that matter, if you look into the FBI, you’ll find agnostics are far more likely to commit crimes of passion than anyone else, except atheists. Atheist Dawkins has said he’s worried that now as Christianity fails in Europe (due to atheists), something far worse may take its place. It is. It’s called Islam, and Muslims do not just hate atheists, they want them dead as the worse sort of blasphemers. Where before Christianity formed a wall against them, keeping them within boundaries of nations (mostly Christian and Buddhist) they had conquered, and even driving them out of some Christian nations (Spain, Crete, Southeastern Europe) now they’re gaining power. Atheists have done this. And atheists will be the major losers. they might behead us, but atheists are supposed to be burned alive to cleanse the earth.

        In nations where slavery had been abolished and wiped out, where atheism is growing, so is slavery. Mexico, an atheist nation since 1912, has about 6 million. The US, growing in atheism, about half-a-million, and the atheist party, the DNC, calls it a low-priority issue.

        Nazism thrives in atheist nations. Look up how popular all things Nazi are today in the US and Europe. Gay rights, bestiality, nature as god. Hitler had it all as part of the party. And, even more, Hitler stated if he did believe there was a god, he’d be a Muslim.

      • pixelguy10 / Jun 12 2016 10:12 pm

        TL/DR

      • rednig / Jun 15 2016 9:55 pm

        Golly gee wow, are ya out there shouting sig heil!? Anyone who believes atheists are nicer people is not quite bright, let alone intelligent. It’s not ordinary people who consider atheists to be inhumane, but psychologists.

        110 million slaughtered by atheists in 89 years
        20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE
        http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

        http://vesselanaw.wordpress.com/5-most-theistic-vs-5-most-atheistic-european-nations-statistical-comparison-theism-v-atheism/
        5 MOST THEISTIC VS 5 MOST ATHEISTIC EUROPEAN UNION (EU) NATIONS STATS

        Prison population in England and Wales by recorded religion,
        31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000
        http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html

        Britain is worse than South Africa and US. The most violent country in Europe:
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

      • pixelguy10 / Jun 19 2016 2:03 pm

        Communism’s to blame, my friend.

      • rednig / Jun 20 2016 5:37 am

        Chico, that’s a No True Scotsman fallacy. What is the core belief in communism? Not communism (living in a commune) but atheism. The UK is not a communist nation, but is atheist. Mexico, not communist, but certainly atheist. Cuba atheist. Nicaragua, once atheist (when they were committing genocide on Moskitos Indians, before the Moskitos stopped them by killing off the military). the list is endless of atheists slaughtering people to force them to become atheists. Leniin, Mao, Hitler all wrote that the destruction of religion was paramount to them and their cort belief. Meyers, Dawkins, Harris, the core belief is the destruction of religion. And see where it brought us. Atheists so weakened the spirit of the people over Christianity Islam is now attending to you. Atheists invited Muslims in and now Muslims are killing the people they hate the most, atheists. We’re closing in on the Hunger Games in the US, as did the USSR, China, N. Korea, and so many other nations. And then Islam will do its best to destroy you.

      • pixelguy10 / Jul 24 2016 6:30 pm

        TL;DR, but Cambodia is communist, Russia is communist, Belarus is communis, Cuba is communis, Venezuela, eh… but most communist countries are moderate Christian countries.

      • rednig / Jul 24 2016 11:51 pm

        Communist in name only. The USSR was atheistic. Actual communism was given little room in any ‘communist’ nation. Where are the communes? Few, if any. Mexico under the PRI had more communes than the USSR. Venezuela is fighting to get rid of communism and atheism alike. Both failed the people, but the government officials thrived and got wealthy. Atheism is the backbone of communism, not communes. Peace.

      • pixelguy10 / Jul 28 2016 4:43 pm

        No communist nation has a commune, and never has. Every single one works the shit out of its people and none have free time. I want you to explain to me how atheism is to blame.

      • pixelguy10 / Jul 28 2016 4:44 pm

        Why can’t you accept that the genocide was put in place to spread communism? Mao Zedong said himself he killed millions to spread communism across the world.

      • rednig / Jul 28 2016 8:46 pm

        What’s in a name? You can call a cabbage a rose, but would it smell as sweet? There is no such thing as communism except in name. They were atheists and spread atheism. They slaughtered and still do religious leaders and control what little there is. The USSR tried communes. I had a friend who worked in one. I asked, what did you do? “I drive the tractor” (it was a tobacco farm). Yeah, what else? “Nothing. If they needed the tractor run, i drove it.” He worked a few days a week. Sure, there are those who did work hard for nothing, but people demanded pay for their time. The worse sorts of labor went to gulags, which are true communes. The ideal of Communism was to spread atheism, and the Manifesto is plain on that. If the idea was to spread communism, creating a place where one gives and gets equally, then they missed the mark by a kilo-kilometer. Atheism, nothing more, nothing less. Now I have to go talk to people about terrorists targeting atheists and gays. And why voting for the DNC will get them killed.

      • pixelguy10 / Jul 29 2016 12:25 am

        I am baiting you. I have wasted at least 25 minutes of your time. This is fucking hilarious.

      • rednig / Jul 29 2016 6:41 pm

        Wow, It’snobody is right, atheists are stupid. It took a few minutes to load the platform–which you provided–for others to see and understand atheists are murderers, rapists, and worse. Thank you. You people really are your own worse enemies.

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: