an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

There You Go. Fuckwittery.

This honking horn of shite, by P P Simmons (a ‘Birther’ conspiracy theorist as mad as they come), is an astonishingly wrong spunk of witlessness that arch fuckwit Bob ‘PiltdownSuperman/Stormbringer’ Sorensen linked to recently.

It’s worth going through point by point…..

One of the characteristics of atheism that is immediately noticeable is the overwhelming amount of foul language that is used. Even the most educated among them seem to suffer from the affliction of tourette syndrome. As much as I hate to do it I was forced on a couple of occasions to delete comments due to their graphic content. I have to repeatedly remind these self proclaimed animals that foul language and belittling others in order to prop yourself up are leading indicators of a lesser intelligence.

Oh, I don’t know! I think a bit of well put together swearing can be extremely effective, and very very funny when done well. Witness the invective fueled rants of Malcolm Tucker in ‘The Thick of It’! On a serious note, I think people tend to swear at theists like P P Simmons because those theists say such utterly stupid things. Sometimes the only correct reaction is to call someone a ‘fucking tool’.

Now we get into the meat of the issue as far as mental dysfunction is concerned. Atheists repeatedly deny that atheism is a religion. That is a classic delusion. It reminds me of Saddam Hussein’s press secretary, affectionately known as “Baghdad Bob” telling reporters in an outdoor press conference that U.S. tanks had not entered the capital while in the background the entire world witnessed United States Army tanks rolling through town right behind him. Well, Baghdad Bob could probably be excused for his deceit considering the circumstances but is there any real excuse for the atheist besides severe mental illness? No. Their attempts to hide behind the cloak of non-religion have failed miserably. One atheist will say “we have no belief in any god so we have no religion” and recently another atheist commented “there is no way that God could possibly exist” which is a classic positive assertion of a negative belief. It confirms the religious nature of atheism because in order to know that there is no way god can exist a person would have to know everything there is to know about everything and have been everywhere in the universe and beyond. That requires a little more faith than I am willing to give it and still not refer to it as a religion. And by the way, Buddhists don’t believe in God either and society has no problem calling it a religion. Again classic delusion.

Here we go again, ‘atheism is a religion’ bleats another clueless halfwit, in the hope that it will become true. Well, two things – atheism is, by definition, the LACK of a belief in gods or the supernatural (more of which later), and; since when has ‘religion’ been a BAD thing to these people? They use the word ‘religion’ as if it’s something to be avoided at all costs, all from the comfort of their…um….religion.

You’ll not be surprised to learn that Sorensen, the only other person I’ve ever heard claim atheism is a cause of brain damage, is the only person to have commented on Simmons’ post.

Now, moving right along here there are some disturbing doctrines within the religion of atheism that are cause for concern. It has been brought up repeatedly that since atheism teaches that humans are nothing more than animals, it would be completely acceptable for one human being to eat another if it was a matter of life and death. I believe the theological word for this doctrine is CANNIBALISM!

Yeah, you read that correctly, he said ‘cannibalism’! This lunatic seems to think that atheists will happily eat dead human beings….mental.

This acceptance of cannibalism as a religious tenet really does confirm the old saying, “If you remove God from academia the best one could ever hope to achieve is to end up with highly educated barbarians”. The acceptance of the doctrine of cannibalism into the religion of atheism is the fulfillment of that statement.

What evidence to you have to back up your naked assertion? You may have had a couple of non-believers state that they would, if faced with no other choice but their own death, eat the remains of an already dead fellow human, but that’s a LOOOOONG way from Cannibalism being a ‘tenet’ of the non-existent ‘religion’ of atheism. And, to be honest, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a significant percentage of atheists who would eat human flesh. Seriously, I can’t believe we’re discussing this stupidity!

I want to touch on one last aspect of the religion of atheism in this segment and that is the value of the human experience. At least one atheist with whom I had extensive conversations with, publicly lamented his own personal use of painkillers and antibiotics because he felt he was doing a disservice to the religious doctrine of evolution. By keeping himself alive he felt he was hindering the process of natural selection and he wished he could sacrifice himself to the process rather than artificially maintain his existence. Now if that doesn’t call for some sort of inquiry then society is beyond help.

That person was an idiot, and I submit to you that he didn’t actually exist. If a non-believer made that statement then he clearly has no idea how evolution by means of natural selection works. Be honest, you made him up.

Let me end this segment with a quote from one atheist in particular which was extraordinary even for an atheist

Even if atheists were “destroying society.” what have humans done well in the first place to deserve to dominate the earth. We use up resources faster than any other organism and more than we need. We control populations of other species, and we make them go extinct. We need houses, clothes, things made by OTHER people, just to survive. All other organisms are much more efficient and can survive without any of this s**t. I deserve to die, you deserve to die, all humans deserve to die.
– Atheist

Again, you’ve quoted the opinion of one person as if it matters. I disagree with this individual, and I know many many others who would similarly disagree. To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you’ve made him up as well.


Naturalism is a philosophy. It is embraced by every atheist. Here is how defines naturalism in the context of our discussion.

How do you know? How do you KNOW that EVERY atheist embraces Naturalism? I know atheists who don’t. You seem to be confused PP, you seem to think that all atheists think alike, when in reality the ONLY thing we have in common with each other is our lack of belief in things that don’t exist!

4. Philosophy.

a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

There you go. Naturalism. Not only does naturalism deny the existence of God, but it also declares the non-existence of any other realm except the natural. Therefore, by embracing the philosophy of naturalism, atheists have come up with several pseudo-qualifiers which have enabled them to be embraced by society. The sub-doctrine of evolution by natural selection is perhaps chief among them. The apologists of Atheism use incredibly harsh tactics to put unbelievers in their place. They use their time in indoctrination mills to nurse from the breast of elitism and embrace the illusion of intellectual superiority while ingesting the talking points they will later use on people like me. Here are some examples from atheists who proudly illustrated the doctrine of naturalism.

Dude, you sound like an insane conspiracy theorist nut case! Here are the citation free quotes he then provides…..

The difference is that one can feel and MEASURE the wind. That measurement can be repeated and verified objectively. Can your god be felt by everyone with the gift to feel? Can your god be objectively measured? Can we all agree on said measurement? Your analogy is as solid as the design of the hindenburg. Atheist

And what’s wrong with what that person said, PP? Do you have physical evidence that your god exists?

If one has seen no evidence of God, then faith doesn’t even enter into the issue. Faith is only employed to support that which is *not* perceived. Faith is only employed when you willfully reject what your five senses/brain are telling you. There is a MOUNTAIN of physical evidence to support the theory of evolution. Doesn’t mean it’s perfectly correct. But tell me- where’s the evidence for God’s existence? Never mind providing a mountain. Just give us a scrap of objective evidence. Atheist

Again, I see nothing wrong with this. What point are you trying to make here?

Throughout history, most Gods have eventually faltered and failed. Even the God of Abraham, conveniently placed “outside the universe” eventually must meet the same fate. He is a manifestation, and at times he has been a worthy one. But humanity will certainly leave him behind, as they have left all others. Is this bad? I don’t knowand not knowing is OK with me. Atheist

Yet again, I’m lost as to what’s wrong with that paragraph

Perhaps future generations will find that the tendency to create/worship deities was an important part of the evolution of our species. Wouldn’t that be ironic? Atheist

And it would also probably be true. Increasingly it looks like religion might be a side effect of the evolution of morality. Ironic indeed. So far none of these statements have been even slightly unreasonable.

There you go. As you can see, there is really no attempt to hide this doctrine. It is, as I have previously pointed out, a delusion bubble. 

When did you do that?? I must have missed it, and I’ve read EVERY WORD of your bum gravy post! Listen, PP, merely saying something doesn’t make it actually become true. I know you follow a religion that wrongly promotes the Primacy of Conscience over the Primacy of Existence, and I know that you wish to make the arbitrary become reality, but really – what a load of crap!

It’s an existential paradigm separate from reality and is trying desparately to displace reality in spite of the inevitable outcome.

– This is where PP starts to go properly insane, claiming that his fantasy world is real, whilst insulting those who accept the evidence of the world around them

As an observer of the human condition I see how people, when confronted with the notion that there is no other reality than the natural, simply shake their heads in unbelief and walk away disturbed that anyone would believe such nonsense. 

Are you living in an insane asylum? Because I can’t imagine ANY rational human beings thinking that the supernatural is real! I think you’ll find the ACTUAL truth is that people walk away from YOU, shaking ‘…their heads in unbelief’.

And yet the ranks are swelling among the atheists. Why. How is happening? Are they succeeding at displacing reality? Hardly. 

Wait a second, your pal Bob Sorensen claims the exact opposite! Why can’t you lot make up your minds? Is it because you have virtually no idea what reality is? Atheism amongst populations is directly linked to increase in education and intelligence. As people become smarter and better educated, they realise how irrational religious belief is.

These apparent victories are signs of the soon return of Jesus Christ to the earth. It is part of the “strong delusion” and “great falling away” that must happen before His coming. 

Brilliant! The delusion is strong with this one!

People will mock Christianity and say things like “where is the promise of his coming”? According to Peter we shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. The Devil is playing his flute and people are dancing in his shadow like pigs to the slaughter house.

I bet you were really proud of that last bit, weren’t you, PP? Even though it marks you are a card carrying mad man.


Now I know that many atheists have never heard of these doctrines but that is irrelavent. If you were to ask a room full of Calvinists what the five points of Calvinism are you would receive a room full of blank stares in return for your effort.

What? You earlier claimed that these were the tenets of atheism! Now you’re saying that most atheists DON’T believe them?  Moving on….

The fourth doctrine of Atheism surfaced almost immediately. It is the doctrine of Liberalism. Let’s allow to define it for us.

1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

There you go. Liberalism. The key word in that entire definition is the word “unrestricted”. Atheists want to live without moral or social boundaries dictated to them by a greater moral authority. In their defeated minds God doesn’t exist so his statutes are meaningless. Everything becomes subjected to circumstance. I once listened to well known atheist apologist Dan Barker explain the set of events that would make rape a morally acceptable act.

Again, I can only say ‘what?’ Let me ask you a question, do more secular cities and states in the US have higher or lower crime rates than religious cities and states? Do secular nations like Denmark and Norway have higher levels of violent crime than deeply religious nations like Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iraq? I’ll save you the time googling, the answer is that secular societies have LOWER crime rates than religious ones, and that includes lower rates of teen pregnancy. Basically, people tend to be BETTER when they don’t believe in gods!

The doctrine of liberalism has led to the modern holocaust of abortion, the destruction of the traditional family, the enslavement of the entire western world due to liberal governing practices leading to unfair taxation, and the degradation of the human condition due to the removal of the restrictions that kept us intact. As Margaret Thatcher one said, “The Facts of Life are Conservative”. Liberalism removes humanity’s preservative and leaves it out on the table to rot. The foul stench of the decay is on full display in the comment sections of my websites which I will not be quoting here. The rotten language spewing forth from these self proclaimed animals is evidence enough to indict them all of destroying whatever dignity the western world once posessed.

It’s paragraphs like the above that make me think PP Simmons is unhinged.

There needs to be no other nod to the ones who claim the soon return of Jesus Christ than the wide spread acceptance of the doctrine of liberalism and Atheism has made it a primary element in its constitution.

Gibberish, just gibberish.


Over the years atheists have gone to great lengths to hide behind the cloak of non-religion. Whenever someone like me comes on the scene, atheists come out by the hundreds to defend the “non-religion” of Atheism. I refer to those people as apologists. There’s no doubt they are highly intelligent and skilled debaters. However, resulting from their attempts has been some overwhelming evidence to support a doctrinal structure that appears to form a constitution. I have been able to isolate five “doctrines” as I call them and this third element is extremely disturbing on a psychological level. It is the doctrine of defeatism. Here’s how defines it.

Defeatism? Once again I can only point out that you’re pulling this stuff out of your arse. Don’t worry though, readers, he takes this line of ‘thinking’ further – 

the attitude, policy, or conduct of a person who admits, expects, or no longer resists defeat, as because of a conviction that further struggle or effort is futile; pessimistic resignation.

Holy crap! I really hope that P P Simmons is a parody, the thought of someone actually thinking this way is too terrifying to comprehend. Listen, you dimwit, I don’t know ANY atheists who are pessimistically resigned! Let’s go back to those secular nations shall we? Who’s happier, those who live in non-religious Norway, or those who live in deeply religious Pakistan? Without exception polls and studies show that secular societies are happier by many many degrees more than their religious neighbours.

There you go. Defeatism. As someone who has personally experienced the love of God in both an emotional and tangible sense, it is heart wrenching to read many of the defeatist comments posted on my various internet ministries. For example, one gentleman who will go unnamed expressed a public lament for having to take antibiotics and painkillers because he felt he was slowing the process of evolution. Here are some other examples of the doctrine of defeatism as expressed by actual atheists.

You’ve already told that story, it was unconvincing the first time, and telling it again doesn’t help. He then presents some more quotes from ‘atheists’….

There is NO loving, personal deity that has a specific plan for individuals & such claims are nothing more than a desire & tenacity to carry on living & a reluctance to accept you’re not special.

I could care less what name i give to ur pethatic therapy group! the fact is, it’s all about ME, life has no meaning, so stop pretending u can do better, just shut up and get on with ur day Atheist

Seems like a pretty reasonable reaction to your brand if insanity, PP.

Life is merely a meaningless accident, and there is no actual meaning or purpose to any living creatures, as Meaning only applies to conscious entities, when there are no concious beings (human) , there also is no such a thing as meaning; Atheist

I’m not sure what the ‘atheist’ quoted above was trying to say – perhaps something along the lines of ‘without consciousness to attribute “meaning” to events, existence is, essentially, meaningless’.

Isn’t that amazing? These cases are not isolated bursts of insanity like, you know, that crazy uncle that embarrasses you all the time. No. This is a doctrine that is woven through the faith structure of atheism. They’ve given in to the sensually known environment and given up on the other ninety percent of their brain. They are defeated. They are atheists.

What ‘faith structure’ of atheism? You’ve yet to make ANY cogent points that support your claims!


Let’s begin with how defines elitism.

1.The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Well, there you have it. The doctrine of elitism. Now, I don’t make this accusation without proof. I have received thousands of comments from the apologists of the religion of atheism who openly and proudly display the doctrine of elitism for all the world to see. Non-atheists who watch the show from the sidelines are amazed at the flaming arrogance and elitist thought structure that emerges immediately in the comments sections of my articles. Here are just a few examples. We will not reveal the identity of any person leaving the comments.

PP, I think you’ll find you get mocked because you’re a fucking moron, and it looks like the quoted ‘atheists’ agree….

If i found a moment where the degree of stupidity was limited, I would be obliged to respond.I may however, create a video response for the amusement of myself and everyone else. Atheist

How the hell do you have the nerve to question evolution when we have biological proof on top of over 300yrs of physical data collated from just about every single branch of science? Atheist

Did you even attend school???? Atheist

Rational thought requires evidence, your beliefs do not therefore somewhere along the way (if you ever had it to begin with) you lost the power of rational thought & now clearly no longer even know what it is! Atheist

I’m surprised you can even spell the word ‘intelligence’. Atheist

Ken Ham????? hahahaha are you serious???? Who’s next, Kent Hovind???? haha, oh come on! How about you find me a REAL scientist who’s actually submitted work for peer view? Atheist

No disrespect but i wouldn’t read any book written by a creationist as it would no doubt be full of lies. Atheist

I couldn’t possibly deny the irrefutable evidence for evolution like your sort shamefully do. Atheist

There’s no such thing as “creation scientists”, these men aren’t scientists, they’re shady, misleading, religious entrepreneurs Atheist

Instead of pointlessly TRYING to discredit evolution, how about you give us some evidence to warrant your underdeveloped, primitive beliefs? Now that would be a novel idea hey! Atheist

Writing moronic books & making retarded video’s doesn’t count as being “busy”. Atheist

Yes i have a son which is more than you will ever have. Just because your colossal ego can’t handle the fact that you are made of animal cells (although i’ve seriously encountered more intelligent plants) doesn’t make change a thing. Atheist

If you reject Evolution by Natural Selection, then don’t go to a modern Western hospital Atheist

You admit to having no scientific credentials, but you then defer to someone else (Hovind) who also has no scientific credentials (his “degrees” were from unaccredited degree mills). Atheist

In any case, Hovind has no scientific education either he got his “degrees” from an non-accredited degree mill and “taught” at an non-accredited private school. Atheist

You can’t even sperate from dirt and beeing, you must really be a good scientist why don’t you shut up and go back to your little world. Atheist

I don’t see any ‘elitism’ there, I see a group of people reacting to your stupidity by point it out, and laughing at you. Really, with the witless gloop you churn out, how can you expect anything else?

Isn’t that amazing? These comments represent ninety percent of the group-think that prevails in the religion of atheism and is indicative of the mainstream belief structure cemented within the religion. They’re smarter than everyone else. Only the indoctrination umm. education they received is worthy of any serious consideration. Only their word definitions are legitimate. And only their liberal lifestyle, no matter how destructive, is worth aspiring to. It is the existential paradigm of atheism and the doctrine of elitism provides the mental and social justification for taking God out of the paradigm and fortifying the delusion bubble that keeps reality from setting in. “We are wonderful. We are animals. It’s all about us. We are atheists”.

You are a fuckwith, PP.


I consider the people who come to my website, blogs, and youtube channel to argue in favor of the religion to be apologists. The brightest bulbs in the room if you will. And most of them really are quite intelligent.

You don’t seem to know what you think, part of the time you’re claiming atheists are mentally unstable, then you’re claiming they’re intelligent! No wonder people call you names!

By inviting comments and interacting with them they have done a great job of exposing the overwhelmingly agreed upon faith structure of the religion. We start the series with the most flamingly obvious doctrine Cannibalism.

Oh, for FUCKSAKE! What’s this obsession with this particular strawman??

Now this doctrine was revealed to me in the process of researching my fourth book, “The Great Debate”. I touched on it briefly in the book but I wasn’t sure if it was random, isolated cases of disgusting social dysfunction or across the board commonality among all atheists. Over the intervening months I have discovered, or rather it was revealed to me by the atheists, that cannibalism has been accepted into mainstream atheism as a matter of fact. 

Read that last sentence again – “cannibalism has been accepted into mainstream atheism as a matter of fact” – is any other evidence needed that PP is either very very simple, insane, or deluded to the point of mania?

Allow me to read just a couple of the comments left by atheists concerning the act of eating people

Here we go, this is going to be interesting….

As for eating my friend. If he was dead then yes I would. He is an animal, just like I am and just like you are. I would expect him to do the same if placed in that situation. Atheist

And in my own mind I would like to think I would be able to eat a fellow man who was dead or had no chance to survive to keep myself alive Atheist

TWO QUOTES?? Is that it? Is that ALL the evidence you have to support your insane accusation?

Isn’t that amazing? I wouldn’t dare reveal the identities of these people but those were actual quotes from people on my blog and youtube channel. 

It’s more than amazing! It’s hysterically funny!

Here’s how defines cannibalism

1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
4. the act of pecking flesh from a live fowl by a member of the same flock.
5. the removal of parts, equipment, assets, or employees from one product, item, or business in order to use them in another.
6. the acquisition and absorption of smaller companies by a large corporation or conglomerate.

Thanks for that.

There you go. Cannibalism. I bet you can guess where this doctrine comes from. It comes from the teaching that people are nothing more than animals. This is another doctrine of atheism that we will discuss in this series. The creation story of atheism. The doctrine of evolution.

No it fucking doesn’t! You’ve been trolled, you cretin! You’ve been played like a violin, and you lack the wits to even realise it! PP, the way you write, with the constant repetition, multiple redundancy, and endless non sequiturs, combined with naked assertion after naked assertion, gives the impression that you’re insane.

What would I do if I was faced with the choice of starvation or cannibalism? That choice will never be a part of my life. In my existential paradigm, there is always the God option. I would pray. I would expect one of three or more or a combination of things to happen. Either God would rescue me out of the predicament or He would provide me with food to eat or probably a combination of both. A third option would be a supernatural sustaining of the body until help arrives.

Or you would die, which you seem to address in the next paragraph. Why don’t you try not eating? See if your god helps you.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Death for the Christian is a sweet release. It is entry into the heavenly. The Bible says that to die is “gain”. For the Christian to resort to desecrating a corpse is to throw ones faith into reverse. For the atheist, however, it is a testimony to the barbaric nature of the religion and the need to expose it before it destroys society beyond repair.

PP, you’re probably the most insane theist I’ve ever encountered.

Single Post Navigation

24 thoughts on “There You Go. Fuckwittery.

  1. I notice he didn't define religion. has it thus:1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.Note the requirement for a shared "set of beliefs". It's pretty hard to get a significant number of atheists to agree on anything other than a lack of belief in a god or gods, so atheism clearly can't be a religion."Death for the Christian is a sweet release. It is entry into the heavenly. The Bible says that to die is "gain"."If he's so keen on it, why doesn't he go now?

  2. Well, for some reason, I posted on that site. What I said, just in case my comment gets deleted over there:Actually, for poisoning the well you've got all that here, by the poster. And by PS's little article: "Does atheism cause brain damage". Yep, no ad-homs there!Cannibalism? Wow…I want names, a lot of them please, since you're claiming that cannibalism …has been accepted into mainstream atheism as a matter of fact. A "couple" of anonymous posters on one website does NOT cut it! For all we know, you've been 'poe'd or maybe you've just made that up.You go on to justify that claim by saying this:It comes from the teaching that people are nothing more than animals. This is another doctrine of atheism that we will discuss in this series. The creation story of atheism. The doctrine of evolution.Guess what? Cows are animals too. They don't eat meat, period! So I guess maybe it's "vegetarianism" that is a doctrine of atheism.Or maybe both are! Or, in reality, neither are?As for Piltdown: all he's complaining about really, is freedom of speech. Xians have a right to speak, and atheists have the right to point out where and when they're wrong if they are. What people like him want is not a fair chance, but rather to have no opposition to their views.Pilt really only gets told to shut up when people have had enough of him repeating the same bull over and over. Just go over here ( and type in "Stormbringer" into the search engine. Yes, both are the same person.

  3. Cannibalism? This from a guy who probably wants to eat the flesh of his undead man-god?He also missed #3 – eating for ceremonial or religious rituals? How is this atheistic, or naturalistic? I can see what the one atheist said about eating human flesh – if we were trapped in the mountains and would die without food, and I died, I'd sure hope that someone would eat me to gain whatever tiny bit of nutrition that might save someone else's life.

  4. Alex:     Unfortunately, some of your actions will make him seem reasonable by contrast. The swearing does not help. It feeds his accusation that you are the madman. Also the special definition of "atheism" as only lacking belief will look dishonest to anyone sitting on the fence. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. There is some dispute over whether that belief constitutes a religion, and you may reasonably argue against it. But the "only lacking belief" is not a reasonable definition.

  5. hah? I though that lacking belief was the ONLY definition.

  6.      No, Reynold. It has always meant someone who believes that no gods exist. The problem is that, for a long time, "I don't believe X" has been a shorthand for "I believe X is not true." Some people with an agenda decided to insist that that only means "lack belief." But I do not believe any of them really subscribe to the definition they claim. They just want to make it more difficult for christians to make statements about atheists.     Another tactic that I have seen used (often by the same people, usually not at the same time) is to tell a christian that he is already atheistic about all gods except one (i.e. that he believes that they do not exist) and that, as there is no evidence for the one in which he does believe, he should complete the atheism.     So let's get it straight the ONLY definition is the belief that gods do not exist. If someone is undecided on whether gods exist or not, he is not an atheist.

  7. Lacking belief to me means "one doesn't believe", not "one is unsure whether to believe". Maybe I should have said that atheism is when one who does not believe in any gods?

  8. Pvbs, I disagree about your insistence that there is only the single definition of 'atheist'. I lack belief in gods or the supernatural, what should I call myself? Certainly I'm not 'believing' something, so there's no active position being taken. You may wish for the definition to stay static, but the vast majority of atheists would say they lack belief, rather than actively believing.

  9. paul/robby/trinity doesn't seem to get that I'm out of patience with his trolling, and am now deleting all his posts. In the latest 'paul' suggested i look him up on facebook, despite previously claiming that he wasn't using his real name.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  11. So that's why you were enjoying it in one of your previous comments. Your being an ass and a troll is why you're getting deleted, HA.

  12. Alex:     You have stated on previous occasions that you specificly believe there is no god and nothing supernatural. It is on that stance that you are an atheist.     And there is an active position that you are taking. Your blog shows it. Not only do you believe that there is no god, you believe that it is crazy to hold the belief that there is one (any god, not just the specific christian god.)     The vast majority of the people that you want to lump into the category of "atheist" are too young to agree to any definition. They simply have no concept of the term. However, my personal experience suggests that most atheists still agree with the old term. It is only the most vocal atheists that want to change the definition to block access to the useful category. Why would anyone want an overbroad category to include undecideds except to block access to a useful category that does not?     It is not so much that I am demanding that the term stay static. I recognize this as a specificly dishonest change, done for an agenda. And more specificly, I sometimes speak about atheists, and have no desire to consume 500 words to specify the proper category.     By the way, your assertion that you don't believe there is only one definition of atheist is torpedoed by your main post. However else Simmons may have expressed insanity, he was using the term "atheists" to refer to people who specificly believe there is no god. And you basicly insisted that he not be allowed to use the term that way. You even went into all-caps mode. If you want me to accept your definition as genuine and not merely an attempt to block usage of the term in the more common sense, you will have to accept when people are using the term in the narrower sense.

  13. more insane ranting, name calling, baseless accusations and selective quoting by 'paul' deleted

  14. Pvbs, please tell me what the difference in meaning between the following two sentences is – 'I don't believe that I am in London''I believe that I am not in London'You see, I don't think there's any difference at all between the two, they merely use different wording to express exactly the same idea – that the speaker considers themself not to be in London. It's the same with the 'I don't believe in gods' vs 'I believe there are no gods' definitions of atheism. Both say exactly the same thing, expressing the same idea, only using slightly different wording.Personally I prefer the 'I don't believe' version for two reasons – firstly I think it is far more concise that its competitor, and secondly it prevents me having to deal with idiot theist crowing 'Oh, so you DO believe in something!' and trying to make a claim that I've made a positive belief statement.I'm not trying to redefine the word atheist at all, because I genuinely see no difference in the meaning intended by the two different wordings. I don't understand why you repeatedly get hung up on this, IMO, non-issue.

  15. There are actual differences in the two statements, Alex, but I fall in your camp that one is merely trading semantics by not exchanging the second phrase for "agnostic".BoB

  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  17. Alex:     I agree that "I don't believe I am in London" and "I believe I am not in London" are equivalent statements. However the term "lack belief" is used to include people who have drawn no conclusion. If you said "atheists don't believe in gods," wou would not get a dispute as that would be taken to exclude those who haven't come to a conclusion. The term "lack belief" explicity includes those people

  18. Those who haven't drawn a conclusion are agnostic, Pvbs – they have their own name.

  19. pvbs, i feel that 'lack belief' is an even clearer expression of unbelief, and as such explicitely excludes agnostics. In now way am i trying to draw those who haven't drawn a conclusion into atheism.

  20. more raging lunacy from 'paul davis' deleted, this time ranting on about an email i'm meant to have received….sorry, nut bar, nothing's turned up.

  21. Actually, Paul's message was SO hatstand, I'm going to post it here and go through it point for point – "I rant insanely do I Alex? I think you are a figment of your own imagination. If you fall in the forest no one will hear that's for sure. Deadwood is always silent."Yes, Paul, you do. You've turned up in the comments here ranting incoherently about no-one being a 'true' atheist who posts, despite seemingly lacking even a basic understanding of what it means to lack belief in the supernatural. Your words speak volumes about just how demented you are."Have you read your own words at all? Try it, from a different point of view and then decide who's ranting insanely."I often read my own words, usually just before I post the article. But I'll humour you. *goes away, reads own words*. OK, I've done that, and I still think it is you who's ranting insanely. "You've gotta be a masochist as you actively pursue this crap so you can read it. Un fucking believable."I'm just sharing my thoughts, you don't have to read them. "I note you haven't mentioned Robby's email to you about his shrinks views on yourself. Also that you have produced nothing since. Nothing. Maybe the truth hit home, at last."Two things here: 1. What email? You state one has been sent to me, yet there is no sign of it in either my inbox or my spam filters. I've searched all through every message since the 1st of January, and there has been nothing. 2. Really? A professional psychiatrist has not only diagnosed someone based on a blog but has also happily given his patient feedback to pass on? Yeah, RIGHT! I don't know what the law is like where you are, but in the UK there would be an almighty shit storm if someone tried to pull that off! I think the truth is that you've made the whole thing up, which doesn't surprise me given how delusional and aggressive you seem to be. "And the fuckwits still argue on about what they are. None of them are atheists as they cannot agree on even the definition. If you look back a topic or two you will find Alex also using the word Belief in relation to atheism. Which identifies him as an agnostic, at best."Hilarious! Tell me, 'Paul', if I say 'I believe I am not in Coventry', am I expressing a positive belief that I AM in Coventry? Am I expressing even doubt as to whether I'm in Coventry or not? I'll pick this up in a moment.

  22. "Again, all in chrous. An atheist KNOWS there is no God. No belief required as atheists usually dicover it through hard work and a need to be sure."If that is what you think, then you are either hopelessly clueless, or lack any understanding of how non-belief works. The ONLY way to know for certain that there are no gods would require one be omnipotent, in short you'd have to become a god to disprove with absolute certainty your own existence. I lack belief in gods because there is no evidence that they exist – if new evidence became available I would reassess my position, as would any skeptic who is honest. That doesn't make me agnostic, as I do not believe that it is logically possible for gods to exist. Still, the Universe is a big, strange place, so only a fool would say they know for certain that gods do not exist. However, I will say that I know for certain that the Abrahamic god does not exist – for such a being to be real it would need to be supernatural, as the universe encompasses everything that is, there is no such thing as 'supernatural', so I can confidently say that YHWH is imaginary. (Even if this were not the case, I know enough of the history of the development of Jewish monotheism to be aware that YHWH is a provably human invention. "This lot have assumed postures and don't know what they are talking about."I think you're projecting."How about publishing Robby's email Alex? Reveal all. He was nice enough to keep it private but I'm not. If you don't publish it here and soon, then guess who will. Me. Robby does have to sleep unlike yourself (hint, hint)."Go right ahead, as I've told you, I've not received it. Perhaps you can post the 'evidence' that 'proves' that I'm Keith Roberts at the same time? Yeah, definitely do that, I could do with a laugh.

  23. So Paul presumes that just because there are so many varying "beliefs" about what the word 'atheism' actually means, that implies that it isn't even real? As in, none of us could be because none of us can agree on it?I think I could give him that, because he has just told us the same thing about religion in general, and Christianity in particular! Catholics, protestants, baptists, new age, and on, and on, ad nauseum, none can agree on what it "really means" to be a Christian, so obviously it's not real.Thanks Paul, for clearing that up! Now, why is it we all keep fighting over nothing?!BoB

  24. Well, it seems that PPSimmons has gotten the attention of some people who would gladly recommend that he be put away.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: