Satirical Article On Atheism

[Supreme]

OK, thought you guys might like this. I have edited out offensive language, and am withholding the link, for the website would be no doubt considered ultra offensive by most Muslims.

Atheism is a religion for people who worship science Richard Dawkins instead of God. It is most notably the only religion without any real basis or organization whatsoever. Its followers are no less uneducated, dogmatic and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim Muslims, Christians, Hindoos or Jews are.

Where atheism stands out is in the insistence that it is based on fact, and not based at all on faith. As there is no way to use logic to prove or disprove the existence of God, atheism is, in fact, based completely on theory and faith. Atheists may be the True Non-Believers, but their arguments are still rubbish, and will ultimately all just end up burning in Hell.

Atheists suffer from a rare, aggressive form of unwarranted self-importance. Atheists invariably think they are smarter than you, since they were the first to figure out how to question a pre-existing concept, or because they don't believe in God. In fact, it is the norm, not the exception, that an atheist is committed so completely to their disbelief that they'll not even consider theistic arguments, and then wonder out loud about and criticize theists who don't question their own beliefs, usually discrediting their opponent as stupid, closed minded, brain washed, or, most ironically, bigoted. (The moderation of the particular theist's faith never accounted.) Any time they claim that they only want food for thought and conversation they invariably lie, as that statement is always later followed by the declaration that discussion with a theist pointless or like talking to a brick wall.

They believe that some philosopher (e.g., Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins or Karl Popper) has proven atheism. However, they will of course dismiss any philosopher that believes in God. The circular argument goes like this:

1. Anyone who believes in a God is stupid, ergo
2. anything they say is stupid, ergo
3. even listening to said person would be wasting the intellectually superior atheist's time.

Those who aren't busy posting threads about the deep meanings in a System of a Down song are vlogging it up on the YouTube and cry about how they are being mistreated by the evil "xtians".

Atheists have a very critical choice when they make the change, they either claim to believe in magic (and mean it) or call evolution bull****, since most are so fat, ugly, and stupid at this point that they have no choice but to think magic is real, since there is no way "Survival of the Fittest" can be true with people like TAA still stealing our oxygen.
Ex-Christian-Atheists

As much as everyone enjoys an Atheist's company, you will feel nothing but utter love being with what can only be described as ex-Christian-Atheists. These are the people who actually fell for the idea that believing nothing actually makes you smart, and are the only people still stupid enough to compare God to unicorns. On top of forming whole arguments around horrible analogies, they will probably try begging forgiveness from God, still hoping to make it into heaven. Lulz will ensure.

More likely than not, these are the people you will see everywhere who try and scream on the internet without either THE FURY or Exclamation points, so you have to have the pleasure of reading it all over again.

An example of such stupidity:

* God is a myth made up by sheep trying to control more sheep.
* My age doesn't matter. I'm still smarter than you.
* I haven't told my parents yet, because I'm still 27 and don't want to move out for being a genius.

Its a good thing that the internets have voice, or we would be darned.

Since atheists don't believe in God, they don't care about morality. All atheists are moral relativists. Given the chance, they would rape and murder every member of your (or their own) family, simply because they can. Stating this to an atheist will result in a 10-page rant about how morals are natural and are pre-programmed to keep us from murdering our families, friends and neighbors for their delicious cake. Nevertheless, the atheist will fail to realize that nobody cares, and will keep on ranting far after the listener gets bored and walks off or stops reading.

Atheists are consumed by the delusion that religion somehow is the cause of all conflict and that it is directly responsible for every war and murder that has ever occurred in history, when in reality it is just a source of major lulz for their more temperate kin. Of course, most atheists fail to realize that, with or without religion, there will always be stupid people in the world who will fervently believe anything they read.

Failing to justify man-made morals, they resort to a comparative exercise. The main crux of their argument rests on body counts, but a short sample of atheist leadership data reveals a different picture.

* Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
* Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
* Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 10 million plus dead
* Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
* Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead
* Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead
* Maximilien Robespierre, father of secular France, Atheist: 40,000 dead

PROTIP: When in an encounter with an atheist and this issue comes up, simply point out that atheist dictators killed millions of people over the past century and murdered hundreds of thousands in an effort to eradicate religion itself, because, you know, mass murder is the inevitable result when a community becomes too intolerant of outlandish dogmas and too fond of critical thinking.

The atheist will undoubtedly respond with, "BUT THEY DIDN'T KILL IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM!!11", which is rubbish, because they obviously did.

 

[Skavau]

Lol, I know the website you got that from. I recommend no-one as Supreme said look it up.

 

[DataPacRat]

I know precisely where that article is posted - in fact, I skimmed through it last night, while also skimming its report on furries, and other subgroups, and Conservapedia's articles on the same subjects. ED's (the site's initials) article on Islam is... something to behold.

And you know what? I laughed. They were insulting groups I'm a part of, and have articles insulting particular individuals I know... and yet, I don't think anyone involved in ED should be killed, or even stopped. Looked at a certain way, the whole of ED is a work of art - a very /strange/ work of art, something that couldn't have existed a decade ago, art that is designed to offend just about anyone who takes offense at anything; but art nonetheless. Nothing in ED is factual, except for those random factoids that are necessary in any work of fiction, like having Spiderman swinging through Manhattan's landmarks.

 

[جوري]

OK, thought you guys might like this. I have edited out offensive language, and am withholding the link, for the website would be no doubt considered ultra offensive by most Muslims.

Atheism is a religion for people who worship science Richard Dawkins instead of God. It is most notably the only religion without any real basis or organization whatsoever. Its followers are no less uneducated, dogmatic and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim Muslims, Christians, Hindoos or Jews are.

Thanks for this I owe you one and how true!

all the best

 

[VizierX]

Atheism is just a sick joke.

 

[Strzelecki]

^ Ditto..........

 

[DataPacRat]

Thanks for this I owe you one and how true!

Out of curiosity; if you think that ED's article on Atheism is "true", then does that mean that you think it's article on Islam will have a similar level of accuracy?


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[Supreme]

Out of curiosity; if you think that ED's article on Atheism is "true", then does that mean that you think it's article on Islam will have a similar level of accuracy?


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

Dude, word of advice: don't go there.

 

[VizierX]

How do you delete posts? :hmm:

 

[Skavau]

Dude, word of advice: don't go there.

He's apparently a part of them, Supreme.

 

[DataPacRat]

He's apparently a part of them, Supreme.

Only as a member of the audience, not a contributer.

 

[جوري]

Out of curiosity; if you think that ED's article on Atheism is "true", then does that mean that you think it's article on Islam will have a similar level of accuracy?


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

What is ED? to me that spells erectile dysfunction!-- I have only read the above and found it astoundingly truthful!

all the best

 

[Supreme]

What is ED? to me that spells erectile dysfunction!-- I have only read the above and found it astoundingly truthful!

all the best

Haha.

Well, it doesn't stand for the above. It's the website that I got the material off of, but its content breaks so many forum rules, that there shall be no link posted and hopefully no more mention of it! I did not post the article to bring attention to the site, I posted it because I personally found it funny and thought Muslims would too.

 

[DataPacRat]

What is ED? to me that spells erectile dysfunction!-- I have only read the above and found it astoundingly truthful!

all the best

Encyclopedia Dramatica.

The article copied by the original poster is at [Mod: inappropriate site]. Their article on Islam is [Mod: inappropriate site]. My question to you was to point out that their article on atheism is as accurate as their article on Islam, or their article on furries, or their article on anything else; that the whole thing is, as this thread's title indicates, satire, parody, caricature and mockery; and that if you believe one article without believing the others, then you are being inconsistent at best, and hypocritical at worst.

 

[DataPacRat]

Haha.

Well, it doesn't stand for the above. It's the website that I got the material off of, but its content breaks so many forum rules, that there shall be no link posted and hopefully no more mention of it! I did not post the article to bring attention to the site, I posted it because I personally found it funny and thought Muslims would too.

Which of these Quranic quotes would you say is most relevant as to how Muslims believe they should act?

2:83: "speak kindly to mankind"
5:8: "let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly"
17:53: "speak that which is kindlier"
31:19: "Be modest in thy bearing and subdue thy voice"
49:11: "neither defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames"

Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[جوري]

Encyclopedia Dramatica.

The article copied by the original poster is at [Mod: inappropriate site] . Their article on Islam is [Mod: inappropriate site]. My question to you was to point out that their article on atheism is as accurate as their article on Islam, or their article on furries, or their article on anything else; that the whole thing is, as this thread's title indicates, satire, parody, caricature and mockery; and that if you believe one article without believing the others, then you are being inconsistent at best, and hypocritical at worst.

I have no intention on reading their Islamic satire.. I'll say this much-- it probably echoes some truth.. surely folks don't purely concoct things up without at least several foul encounters.. I have stated before in your welcoming post that 99% of the atheists I have encountered were vile abominable creatures.. you'd said you were hoping to change that or at least give a different perspective.. perhaps you are a bit mellower than the zealots I have encountered but you carry the same ideology and the same agenda!

The article in fact echoes my encounters to a T.. I can't stop you from reading the Islamic satire and finding truth in it, it really is inconsequential to me either way, more so finding it 'inconsistent of hypocritical' surely folks see what they want in others without some articles to write so matter of fact. character assassination isn't enough incentive for me to find one piece illuminating and another ridiculous.. all that matters is whether or not the contents echo real life encounters.. and the above in fact does for me!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

I did not post the article to bring attention to the site, I posted it because I personally found it funny and thought Muslims would too.

I would have found it funny too if it were not so true.

 

[tango92]

has anyone else noticed atheists tend to be ugly people?

i know three atheists in my school,

my perpetually drunk maths teacher (i mean he is literally downing whisky or something from his flask during lesson)
a kid in my physics class, who is a skinny whoos
and a kid doing philosophy who has a face full of spots

but the one striking thing about all is how horrendous they are, not only their outside by you feel theyre ugly on the inside

 

[Skavau]

has anyone else noticed atheists tend to be ugly people?

i know three atheists in my school,

my perpetually drunk maths teacher (i mean he is literally downing whisky or something from his flask during lesson)
a kid in my physics class, who is a skinny whoos
and a kid doing philosophy who has a face full of spots

but the one striking thing about all is how horrendous they are, not only their outside by you feel theyre ugly on the inside

You derive your opinion of all atheists by three in your school?

 

[جوري]

has anyone else noticed atheists tend to be ugly people?

Dawkin' spawn