Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Are atheists an evolutionary dead end?

Mike Adams on the American Atheists' lawsuit against the Ground Zero Cross:
Every now and then there is a lawsuit that really defines the desperation of a failing social movement. The recent decision of one of America’s most intolerant religious organizations, American Atheists, provides a prime example. This group of anti-Christian zealots has filed a lawsuit they will surely lose. But they will suffer an even more resounding defeat in the court of public opinion. Put simply, the lawsuit will demonstrate that atheism is largely the result of emotional inferiority rather than intellectual superiority.
If you think my claims are over-stated, just read the following excerpt from their civil (actually it is quite un-civil) legal complaint:
“The plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross. Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack and the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non-Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center.”
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. The American Atheists are suing over the two giant World Trade Center beams that remained standing and formed a cross at Ground Zero on 911. The cross, which gave comfort to millions, is now in a taxpayer-funded museum. And the atheists are hoping to exploit it for millions.
The godless are suing to ban the cross because it... causes them to suffer (inter alia!) "dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded"... you know the drill.

Adams is sure the lawsuit will fail. I wish I shared his confidence in judicial rationality. But the amusing thing here is the evidence that the physiologically fragile atheists are showing for... impending evolutionary extinction.

Atheists weren't always so fragile. They invented the guillotine, the gulag, the killing fields. Snuffing a hundred million people competitors in a century is one hell of an evolutionary adaptation!

But now (sniff...sniff) the little godless brownshirts seem to have lost their élan. The sight of millions of Christians used to inspire them to genocide. Now the sight of a single cross gives them... indigestion and headaches, inter alia.

What a feeble sub-species. On their way to evolutionary extinction, I surmise. Heck, maybe evolution isn't all bad.

But then I have this recurring fear: atheists will be declared an Endangered Species, and we'll have to... have to... help them breed!


  1. "both physical and emotional"?
    I would love to hear just what PHYSICAL damage has been done to them by a metal beam in a museum. These guys better get laughed out of court.

  2. ...just what PHYSICAL damage...
    Maybe they bump their head on the beam when walking and looking at their navel!

  3. LOL Pépé
    I was also thinking, Mike...
    Helping them breed is probably a bad idea. Not only would it offend their beliefs, just think about what Darwin or Haekel would say on this subject: preserving such weak genes is a crime against future generations!
    Maybe they should be allowed to die out (on reserves?).
    If they are open to it, then perhaps they would choose a faster and more humane exit. They could choose to die, and maybe donate their organs to non futilist folks?

  4. Put simply, the lawsuit will demonstrate that atheism is largely the result of emotional inferiority rather than intellectual superiority.


    OUCH! that is not the first time I hear this. I have been really thinking about this assertion. Atheism, at least the Western Brand, seems much more of a I centric philosophy. Not egocentric, but a Person centric ideology. For instance take Materialistic Naturalism. It follows form logic that expecting any final result, or final consequence to anything that happen in the world, is a waste of time. So you can't really find reasons to create a code of honor for instance. But we very often see that atheists have Codes of honor and stuff like that. So I think that for most atheists is not something like this: Can I defend this even though what I defend is non-existent in my own world view?
    But something closer to:
    Can I defend it ?

    In a sense that one question tries to think about the ontology and the other is just personal.

    On a extra note hahaha. I had NO idea that people suffered from other people showing their beliefs in things these same people do not believe in ... Are they NUTZ ???? SHIT! if I had the same attitude these people have... GGG I would probably be in a nut house knowing myself hahahahah.

    Okay can anyone please explain why people get so close to death after seeing two steal beams shaped as a cross ????

    Or this is just Dishonesty to a whole new level XD ????

  5. I think you'll find that most atheists oppose this decision of the American Atheists. Here is the best response I've heard.

  6. I’m sure Christians would have absolutely no problem if debris in the form giant red crescent, giving comfort to millions, where left standing at the WTC site.

  7. well the cross was just ... a intersection XD, it would hardly form a Red Crescent.

    Second, as far I am aware atheism is not a religion. At least as far as I know. Why should atheists bother about some cross to the point where they have to claim they are about to die from the sight of it ???

    Tell me where what logic we should use to conclude that a cross, or other religious symbol should bother atheists if atheism is "in theory" not a religion, just a social movement that defends the existance of NO God or gods?

    The only connection I see is that atheists want to secularize their peers as much as they can. I don't see any other logicc beyond that. Just a deep desire that others become like them, that the world see atheism as truth.

    Why then to invent stuff like headaches, or physical attacks because of a cross huh??? Activism Atheism is just an extremist idea. Just like most activism thoughout History...

  8. As much as I disagree with the idea of taking a court action against the WTC 'Cross', to bring legal action a plaintiff has to demonstrate damage, even obviously made-up ones. From the pictures of the 'Cross' I've seen, I'd have preferred something more substantial, something like the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedachtnis Kirche in Berlin which was largely destroyed in the Allied bombing in 1943, with the new church being added to much of what was left of the old, including the clock which had stopped at the time of the bombing. A memorial can mean many things to different people. Even just replacing the pedestal with a plinth would have been an improvement in appearance, giving a more uniform appearance.


    I wouldn't say that atheists are doing badly. Even in America, they've gone from virtually nil in the 19th century to at least (even on the believers' figures) 4% with a considerable percentage just not interested in religion. And America is very much an outlier worldwide, including having its current dysfunctional political system.

    And again, the death tolls of dictators wasn't done for religious reasons. Kaiser Wilhelm II, Emperor Franz Josef and Emperor Hirohito weren't nominally to blame for their countries' crimes for their religious beliefs. Hitler was just mad. Stalin and Mao did their crimes for political reasons.

  9. I think doctor Egnor is wrong, Mark seems to be full of élan right now hahaha.

  10. I dunno ... I think Mark just wanted to see if more atheists visit his site n_n. I mean, it is a .net domain! It needs some attention and love.

  11. Mike wrote:
    "Mr. Egnor. You are evil scum."

    EVIL? Evil scum? Very strange comment from a materialist. Why not just call him Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny? Evil? The glorious leader would NOT approve, Comrade citizen.

    Edward wrote:
    "I think doctor Egnor is wrong, Mark seems to be full of élan right now hahaha."
    He's full of something Edward, élan is not the word I use for it. Sufficed to say, he should FLUSH it out.

  12. Interesting how you all make so many assumptions. As if, to oppose bad actions is to necessarily be from the “out group”. Why Mark, don't you know, that you cannot criticize people with whom you are agree ideologically!?
    Egnor can call atheists brown-shirts but you all act with indignation when I simply call him scum.

    You're all quite horrible people.