let the record show that I am Agnostic A few months ago, I was roaming the internet with no real goal. I was flipping through Youtube videos when A thought came to my mind. That thought: “How do atheists deal with death if they do not believe in an afterlife”. I typed in “Atheist death” and got a plethora of vids. I clicked the first one, a video by TheAmazingAtheist, and felt dirty after 35 seconds. The speaker, the titular atheist, set up a scenario where he, or any other atheist, is attending the funeral of a religious friend’s grandmother. He said that if this person was to approach you, the atheist in this scenario, and told you that she was in a better place, you shouldn’t tell this person “the truth”. The truth is that, in his words; “She is fucking dead and no longer exists and you should just get the just get over it.” After viewing this video, I began to watch other atheist Youtubers to see if they were all this…colorful. I watched another vid about life and death, which was just a group of atheists explaining how they view life and death. One, by they name of DarkMatter2525, said that eternal life in any form of the afterlife “would be boring”. I watch one by a man named Dusty Smith, or CultOfDusty. He was ranting about this comedian who was making fun of atheism. The comedian said: “You folks know a group of people I have problems with, the atheists.” Mr. Smith comes back with: “You’ve got a problem with atheists? What about Nambla, you sick fuck? What about them?” I stopped watching there because I was dumbfounded by this man’s logic. I watched one by The Friendly Atheist; I found him to be a smug, self-centered, and high on himself (he also has a punchable face), but he’s not so bad. After some more videos and a little research (I looked through some Facebook pages, Youtube comments, and Memes) I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t like the atheist community that much. They’re snobby, cocksure little pissants with a passion for “science and reason”. Their internet community acts as if the human race doesn’t stop believing In God by tomorrow, the entire planet will fucking explode or something. The high-ranking celebrity atheists make some of the most revolting remarks toward religion I’ve ever heard. “Atheism is just a denial of theism, we don’t have to prove anything.” My problem with this is that if you were to go Huffpost Religion and look through the comments, you will find a shit ton of “God’s not real, get over it!” posts. Now, The burden of proof is defined as the obligation to prove one’s assertion. When one says “There is no God”, they are asserting that what they say is the truth. They must back up said statement with evidence, which is more than likely to be the stand by “My proof is that you have no proof”. Just cause some english comic says you don’t need to prove anything, you can’t just ignore the laws of reason. If you make a claim, be it rational or irrational, you must give evidence to back it up. “Everyone is an atheist; I just happen to believe in one less god than you do.” The response to this argument comes from Encyclopedia Dramatica, the satirical Wiki. Just because it comes from a comedy site, doesn’t make it any less true. -”A common atheist argument that asserts that since Christians believe in only one god, but none of the other countless gods worshiped over time such as Zeus or Thor, everyone is an atheist. This argument is easily dismantled by pointing out that atheism, by definition, is the universal rejection of ALL gods, not just some. Since Christians believe in a god, they cannot be atheists, making this argument invalid.” “Religion doesn’t approve of sex.” Mormonism, Islam, and some Buddhist sects allow you to have multiple wives. Don’t mean to be silly about this, but you get to bang a different chick every night. And if you do some terrorist shit for ISIS, you get 72 virgins when you die! “Atheism is the default religious stance; theists are the only ones who must prove their bullshit.” One again, ED gives us the answer in this two part attack. -”Atheism and agnosticism are the same concepts” (which is only proven by other atheists). This statement alone fails because rejection isn’t the same process as ambiguity. For example, if you see a fine piece of ass on a woman but her face reminds you of Arguecat, it might take you a moment or two to decide if it’s really worth ramming your cock into. On the other hand, if Arguecat’s ass was in front of you, a “Hell no” is appropriate (unless you’re a sick fuck). The former is different than the later because the thought of tapping that ass is considered and has a very real possibility of being acted upon, rather than simply walking away and deciding to not act upon the anus. In neutral agnosticism, both sides have equal consideration, and thus the claims of either aren’t explicitly rejected or accepted. How such simple logic seems to elude the most masterfully tactical of atheists seems to point to the presence of one condition. Not only is the atheist here unscientific for confusing a denial of a claim with testing of a claim, but his method of thinking is fundamentally dangerous. -”Hitchens’ Razor is the default method to be presented with an argument”, again, a claim presented rarely outside of atheist circlejerks. However, what the atheist doesn’t realize is that inductive reasoning is required for basic pattern recognition. Without it, we wouldn’t know that yiffing makes you a sick fuck! We would have test all possible yiffing until somebody does it in a way that turns out pretty cool, to gain the evidence that all yiffing is totally gay. To test that would require endless yiffing as furries are creative in every field except for human interaction, story plots, and everything else that isn’t directly related to animals and semen. Ergo, acceptance without evidence is part of what differentiates humans from robots, since it’s part of a survival mechanism that’s been embedded into us. Therefore, Hitchens’ Razor (see below why this argument fails on its own) isn’t the default action to take in the face of new information. And there we have it folks, another attempt to not have to prove bullshit by atheshits dismissed with not only logical, but humanistic reasoning. “If you believe in God, you must believe in Unicorns and Mermaids, too.” Unicorns are rhinos and Mermaids are manatees. Apologetics 101, but still true. “What about angels and demons, smart guy?” I can’t give you a good fight there. They may not be real. I don’t see how them being fake proves without a shadow of a doubt that there is no creator. “Pascal’s wager is so stupid. Why do people still use it?” It’s easy to understand. It takes out all the back and forth bullshit and gives us a simple look at all possible outcomes. “All wars are caused by religion.” Here are the major religious wars fought over history and the human cost of said wars. -Thirty Years’ War: Total deaths: 3,000,000 to 11,500,000 -French Wars of Religion: Total deaths: 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 -Second Sudanese Civil War: Total deaths: 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 -Crusades: Total deaths: 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 -Lebanese Civil War: Total deaths: 130,000 to 250,000 Here are the deadliest wars fought over history and the human costs for those wars. -World War 2: total deaths: 60,000,000 to 85,000,000. not directly caused by religion. -Mongol conquests: total deaths: 40,000,000 to “70,000,000. not caused by religion - Three Kingdoms War: total deaths: 36,000,000 to 40,000,000. not caused by religion -Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty: total deaths: 25,000,000. not caused by religion Religion DOES cause wars, but not on the scale of political and territorial wars. That about does it. Thanks for reading! Leave your hate filled below.