Posts Tagged ‘why atheism is wrong’

Why Atheism and Atheists Are Destructive To Civilization

Besides the obvious examples of mass murderers Stalin and Mao and the atheist-magic-believing anti-Christian, Hitler, who had indirectly murdered way, waaaay more people than even Catholics (unless perhaps if you count abortions, but Russian and Chinese communist-atheists may still be ahead there, especially if counting atheistic Buddhists), here’s super obvious reasons why and why atheists always remain a minority:

1. God-denial or divinity denialism to coin a new phrase is apparently born of bittnerness at life. An extreme bitterness, so extreme that it severely stunts an atheist’s ability to think rationally and without making the mistakes that make them qualify as hypocrites. That bitterness causes them to, out of bitterness (a kind of bottled up rage I suppose it could be called) deny the obvious or delude themselves into not believing it, and it takes up so much of their mental energy and causes their moral boundries (if they ever had any substantial ones) to disolve, so that being self-centered is no problem to them, like dwelling on mainly their needs, opinions, feelings and pain non-stop) that they, end up, just stupid. They end up ranting or having little anything or nothing useful to say regarding anything, scientific or not. In short, their anger and desire for revenge, like some stereotypical incel constantly distracts them and prevents them from doing much of anything useful, and progressing in knowledge and understanding. It works out the same way for anyone who isn’t an atheist and dwells on “how horrible God is for denying me that beautiful female, or sex with kids, or torturing kids and dogs for fun, or not being allowed to rape the weak, or sex with my sister, or slaving someone, or being made king of the world,” or how horrible God is for, “killing my sister when young, or embarassing me for letting me do something stupid in public and mocked over it,” or “for killing my sister who was a good person” and on and on. Atheism = “God is evil for making me feel bad, I don’t deserve to be mistreated by God, therefore I will deny his existence and deny I do anything bad to avoid further feeling bad”. Or can be defined as, “a belief or alleged belief in the non-existence of any being with superior intelligence and morality to themselves out of arrogant delusion and/or a revulsion of being made to feel unhappy about themselves.”

2. That bitterness and arrogant attitude (or narcissism) sets in motion the potential for any crime: child abuse, mass murder, ANYTHING.

3. Atheism necessarily denies any universal objective good or truth. Why? Morals are a set of information, laws, and unless there’s some reason to believe in universal morals (as in morals that are permanent and not subject to change, like the wrongness of lying and hownit should be totally avoided), such morals don’t originate with humans, as humans themselves deny morality has it source in them and can show it with proofs. Though some atheists claim it was humans who invented morallity, they have no proof and by making such a claim are claiming that “to not lie and to only tell the truth” is merely a human invention and not something necessarily true or to be obeyed as 1) there’s no permanent Hell for a liar to face 2) there’s no reason one should never lie and always be truthful as morality is relative to the human who comes up with or has morals. But suppose some atheist says, “No, there is definite evil, like “mindlessly obeying Jesus (whatever that would mean – as if Jesus ever said, “kill everyone who denies communism is best” or “lie, steal and murder” or the atheist says, “it’s wrong to lie, steal and murder because it just is, there’s no explaining why, no need for God or threats of Hell, it’s just bad”. So them, whether that even makes half sense or not, does the atheist then admit that when reasonably possible all lying, theft and murder should be punished? NO, because no atheist holds to a Biblical standard of “it’s simply not ‘good'” or “as defined by God”, and makes exceptions for “acceptable lying, theft and murder/killing”, even Sam Harris said so in one his books, that some people should be killed based alone on what they believe, and saying the type of belief qualifying a killing would be a “dangerous belief”. He obviously doesn’t consider the denial of absolute right from wrong or redefining theft, lying and murder or the belief that somd people deserve (such as himself) whatever they want, as “dangerous”. And dangerous to what or whom anyways, and in a world wherd there’s no Hell or Heaven and life could end in a blink why would any atheist’s beliefs about right from wrong matter than anyone elses? The Bible itself says that if death is the end then live how you want, as you may die the next day, and it’s just before the next day for you, it’s sure true.

4. Some atheists imply they hold life more dear than a Christian believing in permanent Hell as they’ll say, “You only live ones (so have as much fun as you can”), but a Christian would treasure life even more for the obvious reason: “if you don’t obtain God’s love you will suffer (possibly alone or among those you hate), forever”. Note: most false Christians don’t associate God’s love with protection/and salvation from Hell, but the true ones do. Some atheists hope in time travellers to rescue them I’d bet, or reincarnation, so even less so would they care about life.

5. Atheists, the more ignorant and hateful ones lump all religions and religious theists together as all the same and equally harmful and with no regard for their accomplishments or the age of the adherents (as in calling an eight-year old Christian ‘deluded, stupid, destructive and evil’) as if endless eight-year old Christians demonstrated that, when there are clear distinctions. Atheists themselves hate to be classified and “labelled” and “judged” as all being alike, so then why they do so to Christians, Judaics, Mulims or even Buddhists? Literal Christian law rejects all idols and worship of anything less than Supreme and murder, so how is it comparable with idol-ridden sexist Hinduism and idol-ridden Catholicism with it’s plague of gay priests, child aborting hetros and mass murderers (of about 50 million in Europe and Israel)? Islam and so on is not Reformed Southern Baptist, at all, and Reformed Southern Baptist is very disimilar from a Christian religion that refuses to identify as Reformed or Calvinistic but only as “fundamentalist” which at one time may have sufficed but now maybe a cover for a militant religion that seeks the death of anyone who isn’t Christian and holding “free will” to be “sacred and intrinsic and above God’s will) and doesn’t want to see gays, blacks and Muslims all hanging from whatever. But atheists in ignorance don’t know these distinctions, nor care even knowing them, as they are swimming in bitterness and wrong self-assuredness and abhor feeling wrong, so refuse to admit being wrong. If they here some truth that doesn’t fit their truth, they forget it or claim it’s merely a lie or think up some irrational argument against it and not caring about any errors in their argument or going with it anyways in futility as they’re sure, or hope they right anyways about their one central belief that God simply doesn’t exist, or even if so, doesn’t care about what he made.

Now, who would you trust to care for you or your disabled paralyzed kid or kid in chronic pain or with severe autism: someone who describes themselves as, “I don’t believe it’s always wrong to steal, lie or murder as most of the world has believed for thousands of years or those delusional awful hypocrite Christians and their terrible sex-hating boring Jesus who probably didn’t even exist or was just a magician, I believe in doing what makes me feel good so long as I think I’ll get away with it till I’m so old I’ll probably die soon before someone harms me for it”, or, “I believe in ‘as you would have done to you so do to others’ and practice this because by doing so everyone in general who follows that comes closer to what they want without offending others and causing fights, and because I have a loving God who showed me by example it’s the best way to live, and is working within me to adhere to that way of life”?

Again, who would you trust, “I do and think as I please no matter how extreme” or, “I obey the ten commandments well and the golden rule because I love to and God will permanently reward me for good deeds”? It’s super SUPER obvious who is more trustworthy or likely to be. If one has witnesses or documentation to back up being a moral person, why would you choose an atheist, who thinks or to annoy, says spending $500 million to build a telescope is just as useful as giving every poor person in America an equal share of that money, and billions more? What the is a bigger or more powerful scope going to do for America or anyone? But atheists in extreme spite and for the love of grant money and friendship with other useless God-haters love spending money on useless things.

31 Reasons Atheism and ”Patience” Are Wrong: My Reply to An Atheist

August 20, 2010 6 comments

In response to the 29-year-old female atheist named Patience, who in front of my friends and neighbors said, “People who talk about religion are brainless”, twice, after asking me, “Do you have an opinion on religion” and “are you a hardcore Christian?” and saying at that time, “There is no God”, “Are you afraid of the Devil?” me saying that I wasn’t, and you making mock-scary sounds as if that is simply what Satan does, or as if that is what evil merely is, as if evil didn’t matter, and, “There is no Devil”, and saying and doing all that, despite me obviously not wanting to volunteer the information about what it was that, I am and do, when you asked.

You may have been drunk when you said and did all this, but if you didn’t have that in your heart, it would not have come out. You said that “people who talk about religion are brainless” and you said it twice.

Why you were wrong to judge people as having no intelligence for that reason:

1) To say a person is brainless, when they have a brain and use it well enough to survive, besides being an insult, makes no sense, and can be said to be a brainless comment itself because of that.

2) Another problem with your statement about people who talk about religion being brainless, are that an endless amount of many atheists can be found talking about religion all the time, even among themselves, mainly to mock those who are religious and to show why religion is destructive or illogical, and so you’re calling them brainless too. You can find them doing this especially in question and answer sites like Yahoo Answers, Answerbag, Fluther, and in atheist-controlled forums, or in the encyclopedia “Wikipedia”, especially in their discussion sections on their subject articles. And though they don’t do it all the time, like you, they make a statement about it now and then, but so then you’re calling yourself brainless just for having talked about it yourself. It’s also brainless comment to simply brush off all theists as absolutely useless like you did when atheists are among the least groups in existence, and not suprisingly then, make some of the fewest helpful contributions in the world. In China, where atheists control the majority of the population (which is hardly all atheist), they are known for copying the technology of other (theist-filled) countries. In other words, they are copiers, not innovators. Though sometimes they make improvements, these improvements are made at a severe cost of quality in life of the masses of people they utilize. For example in China, their low-wage workers are so overworked, they can be seen sleeping at the assembly line of their work places, or sleeping in odd places in odd positions, or falling asleep often on the job, or commiting suicide, or people killing others with them before they commit suicide, or get police officers to kill them. The same happens in Japan, and Japan has been having great trouble with illegal Chinese immigrants.

3) Obviously there are facts on religion, not just opinions: but in keeping with your lack of knowledge on the subject of religion, which isn’t suprising if you think merely to mention it is “brainless”, spoke and acted as if there were no such things as having a factual belief about anything having to do with religion, but that speaks against youself since you claim to know they are all illogical and that God doesn’t exist. You implied this when you asked if I had an opinion, as if all there are concerning knowledge on religion is merely opinions. But obviously you can know facts, like that religions exists, that they have certain names and other characterisists, and their history including history of influence on the world, including atheists.

4) How could you ever correct a person if all religion and belief in God or gods was wrong, if you don’t say why? Simply making an insult or saying they are illogical or wrong doesn’t make you right, and if you believe that, then you believe in magic, or that you are God or don’t understand what truth, evidence or reality is, and are contradicting yourself again, because if you believe that your mere word or feelings make you right, then why would that only apply to you and not theists? Why wouldn’t theists be right by what they say and feel? You’ve placed yourself as God above theists for no logical reason and without even realizing it.

5) It’s also obviously wrong, but not obvious to you unless you’ve been living a very self-centered life and not ignoring the every day common things going on around you, or things you could easily learn on your own.

Here are some quick facts you could easily learn from yourself, by going into any common chain bookstore especially, libraries and so on:

6) The Bible originated science. To save you time, you can find it in the book of Judges, and it’s referred to as Gideon’s test. That’s my term for it at least.

7) Being that the Bible originated science, and that Christianity is the world’s most popular religion, is it any surprise that the first group to commit to this method were Christians, and that the first modern scientists were Christians, and that Jews often win prizes for scientific discoveries? A Jewish woman even had come close to discovering the structure of DNA, but some sexist anglo males stole credit from her and she back a footnote in history till recently, but is still mostly obscure. There’s even a book on her.

8) The first modern biologist was a Calvinist Christian named Antony van Leeuwenhoek.

9) Even Darwin had been raised in a Christian environment, and even after he became a doubter or atheist, he implied, intentionally or not, or because of fear of the alternative, that there was a universal good and evil, as opposed to good and evil being whatever an individual wanted it to be. And of course, if there is a universal law, that implies that someone made this law and has let us know what it is, and intends to enforce it (else the Law is pointless to make known as we would go with our will (as we even do partially now, some much more often than others) rather than what we know to be good).

10) Darwin didn’t come up with the theory of evolution on his own, a prominent though now dead Darwinist evolutionist, Loren Eisely, showed evidence that Darwin had stolen credit from (a scientist who was a creationist, and probably a Christian of some sort then, because he was born in Darwin’s era) named Edward Blyth. The only difference is that Darwin removed God from the equation and added that “simple” things (the microscope that Antony invented was still little used during Darwin’s time and Darwin and others who bought into his theory ASSUMED… they assumed everything was governed by simple laws and that there were no ultra small things or highly complex laws that governed the universe) and so made it a “naturalistic” theeory, and not just naturalistic, but as evolution is plagued with today, the problem of oversimplicity. A example of this oversimplicity plague can be found in comments like ones I’ve heard, such as, “There are bones in museums” in other words “Bones that have been found in the ground are proof we evolved from little animals” and is a statement, like so many others evolutionists make, without any evidence. One museum curator who was used for a comment on a show on mystery big cats in Britain, part of a mystery series of shows, was used to make a comment, and he said that when two such cats become isolated on an island, that that is evolution – THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION, and he literally made that simplistic a claim. Evolution involves animals changing over time by mating with ones who survive their environment and the ones surviving more likely because they had more advantageous traits. AND IRONICALLY, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory teaches that INTELLIGENCE IS A FACTOR THAT HIS THEORY WORKS AGAINST! So when you made the brainless comment, you were contradicting the main alternative theory to creationism, which is that brainless is better! But clearly, you even know that brainless is worse! It’s also nonsensical since every animal nearly, has a brain, or some sort of nerve center, and even those that don’t have an intenal programming or clear design (not just a random jumble that is born out of no where or other random jumbles) that helps it to survive and replicate. Eveyone has programming. I once read a book from evolutionists, that said some what that “DNA” was a “program” or rather “programmed”, something like that. I think I know which book the statement is in and wrote it down somewhere on a note. It’s not a rare comment however as evolutionists often say that such and such has a “design” or that DNA is “programmed”. Even Dawkins speculated that there is a “selfish gene”, in other words a part of DNA that instructs creatures to do self-centered things that are hurtful to others, a thing which commands us to compete to come out above another living thing in other words, and more than is needed (to ensure survival, in the same way that many sperm is produced to ensure the survival of at least one which is what evolutionists claim).

11) D.’s Evolutionary Theory can’t explain the human brain’s massive intelligence, not only that, as I’ve written about: animals and even insects have massive intelligence, so great that the best known modern super computers can hardly imitate the speed and complexity of an insect brain.

12) Not even simple living things are simple, like bacteria. If viruses are alive, they would be simplist living things, but even they, until modern times, are hard to replicate, and only certain one are replicated. I mean scientists are just replicating whatever virus they feel like from scratch. Only recently has a bacterium of some sort been replicated, but whether it is “alive” or not, I don’t know. And imagine how hard it must be to replicate a bacterium froms scratch if it is hard to do so with the most simple virus.

13) No one has ever seen life created randomly, as I said in fact 7, and as you can find out for yourself, it takes millions of dollars to try and make some simple living thing at the molecula level (or trillions if you take into account what it took to get to the level of technology and manpower needed to even be able to try to do so at the molecular level) and when two scientists tried, who are famous for having tried, who supposedly replicated the conditions of Earth at the time when life didn’t exist – when they tried, they failed miserably and without intending to do so, showed that besides extremely specific circumstances being needing to exist for life to be created, showed that “their” method was destructive to life. And it’s already been shown, intentionally and not intentionally, that not only would some extremely specific circumstances be needed for life on Earth to exist in it’s own environment, but that the entire universes laws had to be very specific, and the physical environment outside Earth. For example, as you may have heard, the Sun needs to be a specific distance for life to exist on Earth, if too far away, we would be frozen like many other bodies in space, and if too close, we’d be too hot, and as many bodies are, with molten rock everywhere. No or few scientists expect to find life in the solar system except maybe on Mars or Titan. Though I believe life may have been discovered in secret, the point is, all life needed to be created using some specific way and can only live in the natural world in a specific environment, or else they will die soon or right away.

14) There is no evidence for the Big Bang, only evidence against it. There’s no evidence for abiogenesis (the chance creation of life), only evidence against it, there is no evidence for evolution (molecules having the ability to assemble into men let alone any living thing by chance), only evidence against it, no evidence of “no God”, only evidence against that claim, and no evidence that right and wrong are just rules we invented on our own.

15) The evidence that we were created, is that we can see from observation that it’s not possible to create a living thing except through the natural way we already know of. We can’t do it in any other way, like taking some molecules and sticking them together some how, and adding more and more until without hands we’ve assembled a bacterium or baby from the same parts we know they are made of today. The bacterium that was created a few months ago by the way, was not made from the usual things bacterium are made with. Besides that, even if we did replicate a bacterium from scratch from the usual substances that they are made of, does that show that we know how all the programming in its DNA works, why it was assembled in such a way to begin with? No: we’re copying what we already saw in existence. So, how did this information, within DNA, appear? And even if you didn’t know about DNA, you can ask yourself: How did living things that have certain behaviors common to them all come into existence with these behaviors being BORN WITH THEM? For example, did you notice that ducks defend their eggs or babies, but when the babies become adults, they hardly as much will defend another duck? It’s been shown in many experiments, that animals are born with certain behaviors and language. And language is information.

16) Many atheists deny that spiritual things exist, like God, because, “I can see God or spirits”. But that is very ignorant thinking, because there many things which atheist and evolutionist scientists (and creationist ones) have shown exist using INDIRECT evidence, meaning with evidence we can’t directly sense. And that is something you could figure out even without their help, since we all know then when you hit an object, it keeps moving by some unseen force. Today we call that “kinetic energy”. We can even watch other things being hit by other others things and moving, or watching the wind blow against things, and yet we usually can’t see the wind unless its with some other visible gas or filled with dust. And even the wind is moved by kinetic energy, so when we feel wind occuring, but don’t see it, it’s like indirectly observing with our skin or ears, two invisible things happening at once. Another invisible thing, which is definitely spiritual, are laws, moral and natural ones. No one can see the law of conservation of energy directly or the moral law “Don’t lie”. Both are instructions, just neither can be seen except through material representations like these words or energetically represented with sounds, like if someone spoke these words and told you about such laws. So clearly, invisible things do exist.

17) Another thing that many atheists forget or brush off in pride, is that there are many atheists who decided that God does exist after having seen overwhelming indirect evidence. One famous one who was famous for fighting against theism and theistic religions, was Anthony Flew, but to my disgust, even after he realized he was badly wrong, still could not acknowledge that God himself had feelings, in other words, cared about anything. That’s absurd because obviously if God, who is an all knowing being who created a super complex beautiful and ordered universe, created us to have feelings, then surely he knew of them and has them. If he didn’t know about feelings, or saw it was better to not have them, why would he have made them? And especially why program us to desire revenge on people we FEEL have wronged us? Surely there’s a message behind him programming us to have that reaction when we feel someone has broken a moral law against us, like stealing from us, especially something we worked hard for or needed to survive or to keep strong physical pain away. Further, many former theists become atheists because they perceived that God or some god or gods they were worshiping were cruel, and so after that made the illogical action of deluding themselves into believing they don’t exist. It’s illogical because they abandoned their belief for reasons of injustice, not because of a perceived evidence of non-existence of who they were worshiping (and such an illogical action by masses of atheists is one evidence among many, as I’ve shown, that an atheistic mindset is not superior to belief in a superior spiritual being with superior power of control over others.)

18) Religion basically means “a binding to a way of life in which you follow the lead of someone you believe to have a superior quality or fully superior to yourself or superior in all ways”. More basically, or you could say another definition is, “a binding to a way of life.” Do you live your life a certain way and close your mind to other ways of living? Will you only eat vegetables and not things you see can feel pain? Do you repeat the beliefs of atheists whom you believe are wiser than you? For example, do you repeat that, “there is no God” because you heard that a so called scientist whom you consider to be superior to you in math and physics, said that?

19) Many atheists think that if a person is good at a soft science like math or some hard science like biology or physics, that they must then be qualified as experts in religion. But why? What does the religious-spiritual have to do with the physical, or math? At best you can make some analogies, like that 2+2=4 and so it is also simple that God exists, which ironically as you can see isn’t used as evidence that God doesn’t exist. Some mistakenly think that a physicist would know if God existed or not, because they said that God wasn’t needed and that the Big Bang was sufficient. But atheists forget that they have no evidence for their statement. The non-phsycisist atheists merely believe this because they assume a phsycisist by his ability to do something more complicated that they can’t, which they assume is sufficient to know how the universe came into being, is superior to them in knowing then if God was needed. In other words they assume physics knowledge is sufficient for knowing if God exists AND gives them knowledge in all other fields of knowledge, including other sciences. But all they need to do is give more thought with sufficient time to see that such an assumption is wrong: does being an expert in physics make you an expert in ALL AREAS OF PHYSICS? For example, if someone is scooled in basic physics, learns SOMEe higher physics, like spends three years learning about the Big Bang and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, is that going to make them an expert in archaeology or a sub-field of archeology like Biblical archeology? Or will it give them expertise in an even more specific field of B. Archeology like Israeli-Roman archeology or Egytpian or Babylonian archeology? It would only give you knowledge as far as the physics-related things with archeology go. But that even doesn’t ensure that your knowledge in the physics-related part of archeology will ensure that you are, HONEST about it, because as you have been told about theists, especially Christians, bias is a problem, basically, PRIDE and as is lesser thought about with theists but which can be a twisted form of pride, which is the same with atheists, and that is a desire for revenge at those who’ve hurt your pride.

20) Pride: Pride gets in the way of everyone. It affects police officers, judges, physicists, atheists, theists, everyone. Just having the title “police officer” doesn’t make you God, a god, or anything close to perfectly moral. The same with any title or personal name or a sentence for a name, like “I’m a Perfect Person”. Everyone has their judgment affected by pride. So though some think that an atheist physicist, a “scientist” as some would simply call such a person, would be perfectly moral because, “hey, they’re a scientist, and seek the truth”, they are clearly wrong, clear because it’s often observed that scientists do immoral things, including lie, and commit fraud, out of both pride, and, for:

21) money. Some would say that greed or trying to get money using cheating, or lying or as some would simply call it, “fraud” is also a part of the pride problem, because the person who cheats does so because they think they deserve it or should be satisfied with the money, shouldn’t have to feel pain, like hunger or being left with some inferior chair to sit on at home, but should have a more comfortable chair, and so have the natural or moral right to steal to live better.

22) Another problem with atheism is that, as I mentioned in a way earlier, the problem of morality. Just what is wrong or right, both morally and logically, if there is no universal Truth or Enforcer of Truth? In other words, if there is no God? I say in other words, because one of the definitions of God, is “Truth”, at least so Jesus said, and which the entire Bible implies. If there is no Universal Judge, a Judge above all us judges of right from wrong, then right and wrong is whatever anyone wants it to be. But really, nothing would exist if there was no God, no truth, because without truth, there is no “this exists” or “this doesn’t exist”, there’s no instructions, no statements, no information that ist true or false (a disortion of truth). Truths wouldn’t exist and lies wouldn’t exist, because lies depend on the truth to exist and with God, there would be no universal truth, no univeral laws of nature or morality, and no matter or energy, because all matter and energy are information based, they have informational value, and matter and energy in this universe had a beginning, as even atheists who believe in a single Big Bang believe. If morality doesn’t really exist, or is just whatever a person believes it to be for themselves, then rape and child abuse could be good for that person. In fact some evolutionists, as is recorded on, believe that rape is apart of the evolutionary process, in other words is an advantage of survival, as if to say, “it’s good for survival”. And is surviving wrong for atheists? If rape is used to perpetuate atheism, is that good or bad? For an atheist they would surely use it to villify any theist who rapes, but would they do so for an atheist, or as often? Clearly not, as atheists are not known for preaching morality, but rather against morality, especially that of the Bible, even the clearly good “ten commandments” so called.

23) Those who believe that there were simply endless Big Bangs in the past and will always occur (because the universe is something like a closed bubble to them and is what they want others to believe), they have no evidence for ones that occured in the past, it is just wishful thinking that matter and energy have always existed and just go through cycles. Some would like to believe in alternate universes or that others exist and are somehow connected to ours in such a way that we can get to them one day, or can be connected. Another problem with an endless universes theory and other universes that can be connected to them, is that if beings like ourselves existed (and they should have if there were infinite universes in the past), then there would be ones (as we can see from our ability to make great technological progression) who could connect other universes, or even if they couldn’t, who would become virtual gods or like God and have the desire to procreate to no end. But where are these gods or God-like being? And if you may say that my question is evidence that there are no gods or God-like being, you’re missing the logic then, because I mean where are these gods or God-like being or both who have their origin from a Big Bang? The God of the Bible says he always existed and that no other Gods and not even gods (lesser beings similar to him) exist, and there is no evidence that he is a liar or used any of the “prophets” who wrote the books or letters of the Bible as people to tell lies for him. Also, the universe should be filled with gods if there were infinite universes in the past. We should be seeing beings struggling for power all the time or beings in harmony helping us or a mix of both. But instead, at best, people see strange beings acting demonic, or angelic-looking beings like Jospeh Smith, the founder of Mormonism allegedly did, that produce corrupt religion like he did, or demonic-acting beings that produce corrupt religion, or demonic beings that produce corrupt actions in general, or some see angelic-like beings that are helpful or just noticed, and others supposedly see aliens, and many of which if true, act corrupt, like taking people against their will. But none of these beings act like gods, that is, limited beings with very great and near perfect or perfect intelligence greater than most humans (like Tesla, Einstein or king Solomon) and the power to defeat the will of any other gods at times, and who special supernatural abilities, like the ability to give someone fetility or make crops grow or grow well, or attack people with lightning or water, and so on. The Bible only once or twice makes demons out to be like gods, and once calls Satan a god, but in context, it’s only figurative speech, since Satan it always teaches, is under God’s will, in other words can only do whatever God decides to allow. There is no evidence of any pagan gods or some pagan God like the God of the Bible.

24) Many atheists and evolutionists claim that science lets us know any truth from false, but that is a false statement since science is not alive as some seem to think it is, and whenever it’s been pointed out that this tool “Science” has come up with mistakes, the people who endorse science like God correctly say, “we’re still learning” or “people make mistakes but science corrects them soon”, so at first they act like it is perfect and self-aware and able to act on its own, but then admit their error and correctly point out that it relies on flawed people to work. But it’s not just a matter of a logical fallacy like that, but the fallacy that science only improves. But there is no evidence that just science in general gets better and that regardless of man’s flaws, that it does. The evidence is this: atheists, when they admit that there are Christian scientists, or theist scientists, will imply that such people hinder science and perpetuate a false science (though once one atheist simply said that Christians were hypocrites, and didn’t deny they get better at science). So that is in example atheists unintentionally give of science not (magically) making a person better, or of scientists not seeking the truth. Opposite, Christians and some other types of theists point out that atheists perpetuate the corrupt or non-science of the Big Bang, Life-from-Chance (abiogenesis) and Darwinian evolution or other types of molecules-to-man evolution theories, and it is evidence that all three of these fields of science or so called sciences, don’t get better but are perpetuated without evidence, but false evidence. I say false evidence not without my own evidence for saying that, but which you can see for yourself in the endless articles from atheist and evolutionist controlled magazines and websites which are always putting up false titles about such those theories as being facts, and not showing any evidence for it, or using false titles, similar to, “Link between bird and dinosaur fossil found” or “Star formation seen in distant galaxy” or some title implying some evidence has been found of “no God needed”. But when you read such articles, you’ll see it actually says, “more research needed till a definite conclusion is needed” or there is simply no evidence matching the title’s claim, like in the case of claims of stars being seen in the process of forming, you’ll never see two photos showing a star coming together from gas and or dust, as atheists and evolutionists claim is how they are made, let alone see a galaxy forming. It’s simply false titles and statements of “evidence” and or “proof”. In a few cases outright lies have been admitted, and these examples are not surprisingly, hidden or rarely mentioned by atheists and evolutionsits.

25) If atheism is the best way of life, how can you explain why it is atheists, not merely “communists” as some atheists claim in the bias – how can you explain why atheists are the most violent group in existence? Isn’t it a strange irony that the people who are the greatest supporters of evolution, which they imply or also call “progress” have killed more people then any group that ever existed and in the shortest amount of time? Catholics for example killed an estimated 50,000,000, incluing oppositional Christians, over 1000 years, but the communist-atheist lead groups of the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, China and Turkey, killed 150,000,000 in 100 years, and in the past 100 years. That’s not including the millions of abortions they endorse for depopulation, saving the dirt we walk on, to punish rapists (which I think is a twisted and evil, arbitrary, fake reason that only helps rapists, because rapists rarely rape to make a baby but as an act of violence and to make the other person submit to them (which many atheists will say when wanting to appear good and moral), and rapists would rather it be killed so they can keep on raping without having to pay for any baby they leave behind, and to prevent “poor babies who will have a bad life” from existing (as if atheists are prophets of the future and that poor are worthless – and if worthless why then don’t the atheist-ruled governments of the world kill all their poor people?), and so that the one who gave birth can live a more fun and happier life (if that’s not an immoral reason what is?).

26) If atheists are so moral as many want all theists to believe, if they are superior in morality, if they don’t need the threat of Hell, why do they risk, murder, of endless amounts of babies, let alone one baby? Just what is their evidence that babies aren’t human and don’t feel pain? Why don’t they even campaign for anesthatizing a baby before killing it? And how can atheist ones they be so cold, as to care more about saving the life of some tiny fish, or some little insect, some tiny fly, one that spreads disease, over a human baby? And who made them God over life, let alone human life, over who should be aborted/murdered or not? Who made them God over life period?

27) Another logic fallcy many atheists spread is that, “Christians are immoral because they need the threat of Hell to be moral”, which is a distotion of what both the Bible and Christians say. It’s also hypocritical:

28) If atheists don’t need the threat of Hell to do right, why do they need the threat of punishment of any kind to do right? Are atheist dominated countries like Russia and it’s former states, or Estonia, Vietnam or China, without laws? Do they simply have requests like, “Please don’t murder” or “Don’t murder” (but if you do we will just ask you not to do it again or let you be open-minded and free to do whatever you want)? Never. And any individuals like that are considered to be psychopaths and or narcissists, to mentally ill, or at least very ignorant and stunted in maturity with a childish mind.

29) Atheists often say that God could not exist because he allows evil, and more knowledgeable atheists say this because they Bible says that God is love, and that a loving person doesn’t allow evil. The problem with that statement is that there is no evidence for it. Even the Bible commands Christians to be loving yet not to interfere in some things and to allow certain evils to happen, including against themselves, and to instead giving a loving response back to whoever commits the evil against them. But is that hateful, to allow yourself to be insulted and to be loving back, or is that “love”? So atheists have it backwards again. It’s also hypocritical because:

30) Many atheists say that God is a “control-freak” who is always angry and treats us like children. But how is allowing us to do what we want, even to the extreme, being a “control-freak”? If a parent allowed their child to go around murdering people, raised them without any morals, would the parent be called a control-freak? Would the parent be spoken of as, “Trying to force their will on others” or as one false evil Christian radio show host says, a “cosmic rapist”? So again, atheist, and those who treat themselves as God, like their will is God, have it backwards and are blind to what is clearly not true. It’s also not true that God simply allows anything to be done, because if that were true, we would all be dead since there are many people, atheist and theist, who at times or all the time, would like to destroy the world in moments of rage. But only do we still exist, but so many, that many atheists and theists claim “too many people” exist on this planet.

31) Where did you learn that Satan is simply someone who makes sounds like a cute monster in a stereotypical children’s book? Does the Bible say that Satan simply made scary sounds to Eve, or that he goes around merely doing that? Did someone tell you that “evil” is merely making scary sounds? It’s no surprise that if that is all you think evil is, that that is why atheists show little concern for truth and true morality, but rather for doing as they feel like, which they falsely claim as morality. Morality, goodness, is not, “Whatever I feel it is”, it’s not whatever the majority of humans say it is, it’s what God says it is, and which is why there is fighting: because some choose to obey God, and some choose not to to the hurt of others, to the hurt of others who won’t stand for immorality that brings harm.

32) Christianity is not simply based on “faith”, a word which atheists also confuse with the phrase “blind faith” as if faith can’t be said without “blind”. I wouldn’t be surprised if some atheist listening to a sermon many years ago, took some pastor’s phrase: “blind faith”, out of context to mean that that is all Christians have and admitted to having. And though some so called Christians do merely go about by faith, the Bible does not teach anyone to merely have faith, but faith with evidence, and I’ve given you plenty irrefutable evidence in this letter, which if you deny, make it evident that you are deluded. If you want to read about more evidence for the Bible being true, and there is an overwhelming amount, go to, and scroll down to the section where websites are listed which give various types of evidence for the Bible, or as I pointed out the obvious: go to a bookstore, library or use the Internet to search for truth. You can ask if any person is willing to simply tell you, but it could be looked on as you being lazy and wasting time if nothing his hindering you from doing this, no big hindrance at least, since the information has already been written to save time.

Update: Two days ago, Patience claimed not to be an atheist, and on that day I noticed that when she gets drunk, she says things that are the opposite of when she is not drunk. She claimed to love Jesus completely. I’m not sure what she believes. I think she is very cute though, and I love her.