Even More Evidence of the Deleterious Effects of the New Atheist Movement

FYI: this post has been moved here.


  1. Wow! You superstitious people really crack me up!

    You have the caterwauling, "I'm a victim" meme down to a science (or maybe I should say down to a faith, because faith roolz right?).

    She sounds like she is pretty well educated already. She also seems to be able to read between the lines adeptly as well. I think that she already has too much education for you dogma peddlers. She seems to have the ability to sniff out intellectual dissembling and dishonesty. That means that she is beyond the reach of religion.

    Religion is no match for someone who knows how to reason. If you are going to embrace religion, you have to check your reasoning skills at the door, because come on, religion makes absolutely no sense.

    Faith in a deity and reason are mutually exclusive intellectual positions.

    As to her comments, I missed the part where she says that she wants religious displays banned and only atheist displays allowed. That would be discrimination, and the atheists are very much against that. What we want is for all worldviews to be included, or preferably excluded from these displays. The point is that we want all to be treated equally. Obviously the preferred thing would be for no displays to be allowed and for everyone to hold their private "beliefs" privately.

    You people on the gawd team however, want your religious crap to be in everyone's face, and to EXCLUDE everyone else's worldview. That doesn't sound very loving and accepting to me. I thought that is what you people were supposed to be all about. Oh wait, I forgot that you gawd teamers are more about hypocrisy than anything else.

  2. I've seen this chick before. She calls herself Bohemian Hunter, a hint that she is a godless liberal hippie douche.

    This video was posted over a year ago, and she hasn' posted a single video since. She must have either gotten a life or scared away by hate mail.

    Mariono, you should review her video response to the Blasphemy Challenge, where she boasts that beleif in God goes against a person's freedom to create their own morality. Yes, the girl is a flipping moral relativist, because beleif in self is less dangerous than beleif in God. (iTheism, as you call it).

    And I'm sure by now you're not bothered by people like Rex. Like other atheists and anti-theists, they consider themselves morally and intellectually superior because of their lack of beleif in God (considering themselves wise, they become fools!).

    As to his comment: "Religion is no match for someone who knows how to reason. If you are going to embrace religion, you have to check your reasoning skills at the door, because come on, religion makes absolutely no sense."

    Yeah, tell that to Issac Newton and Albert Einstein, both theists with reason!

    And I beleive it's Albert Einstein who said "Religion without science is blind; Science without religion is lame!"

    Good Job, Mariono!

    P.S.: Have you ever considered critiquing ThAmazingAtheist? He's the biggest atheist clown on YouTube!

  3. BlameThe1st,

    Rex rambled but you didn't address his point, which was a valid one. The woman in the video asks for all viewpoints to be included or none to be included. At no point did she advocate special rights for the atheist perspective, as Mariano claimed.

    Some other points:
    - It's "Mariano", not "Mariono".
    - Albert Einstein was not a theist--maybe a deist. He also said, "The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."
    - TheAmazingAtheist is indeed a clown. If you want to critique a reasonable atheist, try Thunderf00t, dprjones, TheoreticalBullshit, DasAmericanAtheist, urbanelf, or Tooltime9901.

  4. Mariano said:
    "The Declaration of Independence states that we have inalienable rights that have been given to us by 'our Creator…nature’s God.'

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation is an organization established in the USA which is a country that was premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression."

    What many people fail to realize is that religious freedom, in reality, depends on secularism on the part of the state. If the state is not neutral with respect to religion (and this includes atheism as it is currently practiced), then religious oppression must inevitably result.

    Religions and religious communities can only be free when the state does not involve itself in religion. And in order for this to happen, religion also cannot be allowed to influence the state--a two-way street.

    I wrote a post on this issue on my blog: http://100treatises.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/why-religious-freedom-requires-secularism/

  5. And I beleive it's Albert Einstein who said "Religion without science is blind; Science without religion is lame!"

    Wow. How ignorant. Don't quote-mine Einstein. Read him in context.

    "Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
    Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes."

    Einstien did not care for your religion.
    Try reading about him first.
    You won't like what you will find.