Neoatheists: evidence is whatever they want it to be

atheistkult race genes

It’s like the new Satanism. Wanna rebel against your parents? Make up stuff about how humans were “evolved” for polygamy, to be Communists in large groups and reject the concept of belief as it applies to a singular divinity but conveniently not any of the surrounding concepts, virtues, rights etc. Never learn what a single piece of Negative Evidence could do to your specious arguments [boom, big boom]. If it pisses off Christians it must be right, because Christians never built anything worthwhile and you have all those fancy Atheist nations to point to, look how well they’re doing…

It’s like a stock reply I give now when I hear somebody did a heinous thing;

“Morally bankrupt? You mean an atheist.”

– and it’s true, they literally believe in nothing pertaining to religion (do not allow them to steal reclaim the good parts under some BS like ‘humanism’, fuck no it doesn’t wash, you use a Word you mean the Word); they are the philosophical, ethical equivalent of sociopaths. Totally amoral. Words like good and evil mean nothing without divinity, the examplar of them. It really winds up their hamster, you should try it.

BTW, there are many genes, asshole! Here’s one off the top of my head.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1717.abstract

Since the inception of this internet thing, you don’t get to say “it doesn’t exist” in a pretentious nasal tone unless you go out and look for it, moron!

3 responses to “Neoatheists: evidence is whatever they want it to be

  1. While I empathize with your anger(?) regarding the general tenor of atheist advocacy, especially among the self-proclaimed “atheism plus” crowd, it’s worth contemplating that many among the Dark Enlightenment are atheists, and that’s no accident of statistics.

    Atheism, strictly defined, makes one claim: “I don’t believe you.”

    This claim could be easily refuted with evidence or philosophy, but if men from Kant to Francis Collins can’t manage it…

    Much more to say, but I’m not here to argue point-by-point.

    • I said in the title “Neoatheist”, the Atheistkult. Ordinarily, a person would mention it once, when asked whether they believe. They use it as identity politics, a shield, a blameless one. They argue non-sequiturs and try to appear saintly because all religion is evil, right? /sarc

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w

Connecting to %s