Islamofascists Besiege Westminster

I wonder what would happen if a group of Christians and or Jews surrounded a mosque this way the next time one of their highly visible haters ranted about wiping Israel off the map, or talked about their desire to bring death to the infidels? Though it probably isn't hard to predict.

We'd be hearing from the so-called moderate Islamofascists about how intolerant and oppressive we are. They go right from hater to victim with no trouble, or self-examination at all.

Whether the current crisis dissipates or not is really not the most important issue here. Even if it does, the world is increasingly populated by a group of wretched, hate-filled animals, and while it will obviously trouble some to view it as a religious war, by their own choice, ultimately it is.

And it doesn't matter if you are an atheist, so the Lefties that are can forget that dodge. This is an evil movement with a significant foothold throughout large portions of the world. And the battle is coming, whether we want it, or not.

The feckless West better wake up and do something about it before it's too late. Are we supposed to allow a bunch of violent barbarians marching in the street to dictate the mores of the entire world? Because if we continue to cave to this BS, that is precisely the outcome we will get.

More images and story here.

Comments

[Carol Herman]

You need an answer? When the war comes they don't win.

These people are savages. Perhaps, what's throwing you off is that it is coming from the mantle of religion? And, it's been quite some time since the West had this crap flowing out into the streets, set to run riot over religious stories. (But, yes. Progroms were there. Ghettos were there, too.)

However, on the sane side, most people aren't looking to encourage their own deaths. Where, exactly, does Islam come up with an advantage?

Because they took 4 commercial airliners and used them as flying bombs? We didn't expect it. NOW WE DO.

Perhaps, in the USA, the first time the American indians decided they could terrorize a group of white settlers they got away with it. But that wouldn't tell you much about what else happened, now would it?

Are there fault lines? Yes. This stuff gets reported without pointing out the obvious. IT'S NOT FLYING! In other words, the media has lost its ability to really report stuff, because if they could report stuff, you'd be reading about the naked emperor. (did they think Bubba gave them a pass on that story?)

Yes, the Islamo-fascists have taken advantage of the West. Because they are here. And, they're proving they have no need to asymilate. And, even less need to apologize for any horrors done in their name. All that's missing on those village totem poles. Made up of scalped heads. Which at one time were quite common among America's savages.

What will war look like when it breaks out?

Perhaps it will look like what Napoleon did when he fought the Turks, in Egypt? The Turks controlled the Mideast back then. They'd been there for hundreds of years. And, they were feared. Men on horseback. Good with swords and knives. But killed just the same by Napoleon's men. Who had been trained to shoot straight.

Even though Napoleon's men were in winter woolens. In the middle of July. In Egypt's desert. That's just the way it was.

Right now? On these exhibitions that follow ritualistically after Friday's services, a real road to war? How so? On the weeks these freaks go home, the men beat the living daylights out of their goats. No love. No brains. No education. Just wholesale "acceptance" of behaviors that really don't prepare you for civilization.

Will war tear away the facade of propaganda?

Dunno. Ain't got no chrystal ball. And, even if I heard from Apollo, while sitting at Delphi, I still think the news for the savages comes out bad. At the end. Just as it did long ago. When the Persians were defeated. And, for some strange reason the old Greeks called this piece of turf "asia." Confuses the hell, today, out of a lot of school kids who think everything ansian must sit on the pacific rim. But that's the way it was.

[Jason Coleman]

Whoa Dan, watch out with those atheist slams. Not all atheists are lefties, in fact, of all the true atheists I know, most are not left leaning AT ALL. While it's true there are a lot of professed atheists who indeed lean to the left, if you really try to nail one of them down on how they arrived at this point or why, you'll find that these are in large part "reactionary atheists"; they've come to this position from one of two paths, either through identification with a political system which disavows religon (the opiate of the masses Communist variety) or they are reacting to what they perceive as the domination of the right by Christians, so they reject religion as part of their rejection of right ideology.

Then there are the true atheists, those that found their path to atheism through examination of the paths available to them through traditional channels and found they could not follow down any of them, so they choose to examine the world for themselves and they see no evidence or support for a God-construct. When you find an atheist who has arrived at their atheism via this path, you'll find out that virtually all are significantly right leaning politically because of the right's tendency to empower the individual rather than empower the group (which fits closely with a true atheist's feeling of isolation from the larger group and their desire to make their own way in the world without the support of an organized religion or God-construct "on their side".)

Many on the left pick up the mantle of atheism because they feel it's an "in your face" move to the religious right (whatever the religious right is beyond media-myth I can't tell you). These are the Newdow's of the world who use professed atheism as a weapon agaisnt what they see as an enemy in the forces of religion.

A true atheist knows the inherent value of religion. Religion is a very necessary social construct which organized society before nation-states and even before organized tribes, religion is a faith in the unknown and when many things were unknown, religion offered comfort and protection from the night (metaphorically). A true atheist sees religion as a roadmap for society and a true atheist will follow many of the dictates of religion because they make sense, don't kill, don't steal, don't waste time with golden icons, etc, etc. These things make sense in a society and they don't have to be handed down through a God-construct for their truth and value to be recognized.

I'm sorry for the screed, but reading that above gave me pause and I had to interject.

All that being said, I'll tell you how you can find a true atheist from a reactionary one. A reactionary atheist will A) assert that he is right (when a true atheist understands there is a very real possibility he could be wrong, and he's chosen to accept the risk that he is wrong) and B) a reactionary atheist will use their "atheism" as an excuse or a defense (as in your example).

As to an atheists relationship with Islam, a true atheist knows that we are, in fact, the most in danger from Islam. Most true atheists have read most of the holy texts of the various religions, we do this as we search for answers before we find that there are none other than those we rationalize for ourselves. In reading the Koran, we find that we are reserved a special place in Islam, we don't rate anything other than total destruction. We cannot, as atheists, convert to Islam, because we have given the ultimate insult to Allah and his prophet, we reject Allah's very existance. Muslims believe that Christians and Jews are merely wrong in their interpretation of religous texts and prophet figures. Muslims believe that Allah and Yahweh and Jahova are the same person, but that Christianity and Judaism are perverted faiths which try to obscure the nature of Allah and confuse the masses with false teaching about the various prophets, hence the coming of Mohammed to correct the record and deliver the true holy text, the Koran.

However, while Christians and Jews can be converted, and they can even be "accepted" through dhimmitude, atheists cannot be accepted regardless of any conversion, we have denied the very existance of God, and for that we can never be forgiven, we must be destroyed.

All in all it was a good post, I'm sorry to drop in and take so much space, I just needed to point out that any "lefties" who try to play the atheist card against the threat of radical Islam or Islam in general are not really atheists, and if they are, they are seriously misinformed ones on the nature and teachings of Islam. We, the atheist, don't even rate dhimmitude, we must be put to the sword immediately lest we contaminate others with our lack of belief in God, any God.

--Jason

[rwilymz]

Almost all of the "atheists" I know and have heard of are not "anti-religion"; they are anti-christian. It's amazing how America's atheists, for example, will spend their hours rationalizing mythic cults, and bending to favor judaism -- yet another group tyrannized by christians -- and cheering islam. But christianity? The mother of all evil.

[Althor]

Crittenden does have a point about "poking a stick"!

Why is it alright for 10th century savages to belittle and insult my religion, provoking me at my place of worship, calling Jesus "a slave of Allah", and I should accept it in resignation, when a learned scholar, the Pope, cannot even quote an ancient passage without strring them into unwarranted violence and mayhem?!?! It's simply unequal, and unfair!!!

I am sick and tired of the "Politically Correct" mentality that calls invalids "mobility impaired" and the mentally retarded "intelligence impaired" and criminals "morally impaired", which insists now on calling these Muslim fanatical, suicide-bombing, murderers "Islamically Impaired" as if their belonging to a retrograde, barbaric, 10th century, tribal religion of bloodshed and hatred was an excuse for them to indulge in all their favorite past-time of hostility, violence, and bloodshed!!!

Christians have the right to worship without fearing for their lives, or enduring the insults of these savages! A bit of retaliation is indeed in order, and we should all go protest at their Mosques in turn and insult their son of a dog false Prophet for a change!!!

Condoning their behavior just to avoid more violence on their part is simply tantamount to being held hostage to perpetual blackmail by Islam!!!

Indeed Crittenden has a point, and we shouldn't be "poking a stick"... but rather whacking them with it!!!

Althor

[Pangloss]

I tried to send a trackback to this discussion but couldn't. The comments sparked an article on Atheism that might be of interest to some of the readers.

An excerpt:
The difference between the two types of atheism is as stark as the difference between Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism. One is for the dedicated seeker who follows a rigorous, mystical, philosophical path. The other is scientism for the masses. The principled atheist will follow the same moral codes as churchgoers because he realizes it is the right thing to do. The populist atheist will have a Darwin bumper sticker on his car.

[Phoenix]

What about the atheist who has become an atheist *because* of religion?

There is no way to categorize atheists into little boxes.

[Jason Coleman]

Rwilymz,

If your comment was directed at me, I'd suggest that the reason you don't hear anything other than atheist's bashing Christians, is that we A) don't choose to prostylize atheism, and those that do are inherently not atheist, they are merely reactionary anti-Christian and B) That there's no "media meat" for putting a true atheist on a platform who will extoll the value of the things that the religions of the world stand for and have created, but merely disagree with the validity of the God-construct.

Of the atheists I know, almost zero have anything negative to say about Christianity beyond what Christians today have to say negatively about their religion, and ironically all of those negatives were addressed by the Reformation. We value what religion has accomplished as an organizing force because it led us to the free society we have today. We merely disagree with the existance of a God, not the common sense that religion uses a God-construct to impart on it's constitutents. We accept common sense laws because they are right and just. Do not kill, it's not good for society, do not steal, it's not good for society, do not worship idols it's not good for society, do not etc etc. We see religion as serving a legislative function before legislatures, we see religion as an educational institution before educational institutions.

I will certainly grant that there are those who take up atheism to merely bash Christians, and these idiots make me and other atheists sick, but unlike the advocates of a false "atheist religion" we are not organized to prostelyze our message nor do we seek to prostelyze our message, we merely want to live our lives where we find them and do what is best for ours and those around us. The Newdow's of the world can take a long walk off a short pier as far as most of us are concerned, as can the eco-religious spiritualists and every other group that wishes to change others. We have no desire to change others and thats why you don't hear us in the media, our message doesn't sell papers or win converts, and we don't care if it doesn't sell because it's a personal message that only each of us, as individuals can understand because it's bound into the unique and personal self-identity that we have and which doesn't translate to another.

The true atheist, not the populist one, not the "atheist religious" one, outnumbers these others, but you'd never know it because we have no desire, or reason for, anyone to know it. It's not that we're hiding it, we just don't feel a need to shout it's value from the rooftops because it's value is unique to the individual and cannot be transferred.

If your comment was not directed at mine, please accept my apologies for addressing you.

--Jason

[Phoenix]

Nice commentary, Jason.

[Dwayne]

The truth about atheism (my comments are labeled with *)

On Atheism
This essay was inspired by a discussion on Dan Riehl's excellent blog that veered into a discussion of atheism.

rwilymz wrote:

Almost all of the "atheists" I know and have heard of are not "anti-religion"; they are anti-christian. It's amazing how America's atheists, for example, will spend their hours rationalizing mythic cults, and bending to favor judaism -- yet another group tyrannized by christians -- and cheering islam. But christianity? The mother of all evil.

*Okay, already off the mark. Atheists by definition are lacking a belief in ALL gods. If someone is favoring Judaism or cheering Islam (which they definately should not) then 1) they are not atheists 2) obviously do not realize that the three are extremely similar and you could use the same reasons to oppose all three.

This comment and the one to which it responded describe the difference between principled atheists, whom I would term Nietzschean atheists, and populist (reactionary, socialist, scientistic, or hippy) atheists. The difference between the two types of atheism is as stark as the difference between Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism. One is for the dedicated seeker who follows a rigorous, mystical, philosophical path. The other is scientism for the masses. The principled atheist will follow the same moral codes as churchgoers because he realizes it is the right thing to do. The populist atheist will have a Darwin bumper sticker on his car.

*Will the populist atheist then NOT follow the same morals as churchgoers? I don't understand why that distinction is made for the "Nietzschean atheists." The generalizations in this paragraph are disapointing. It's not just a "populist atheist" that will have a bumper sticker, it's the atheist who wants to spread a message and those who take a philosophical approach should realize that they to should be "spreading the word."

For the rest of this essay I will focus on populist atheism. Principled atheism is rare, it is difficult, and each principled atheist is self-defined and unique. Principled atheists do not reproduce. They have populist atheist children. This is not the case with populist atheists. They reproduce true, or produce polytheists.

*Again, how can anyone make such a broad sweeping statement? This is retarded. And really you cannot divide atheists up into groups because there is only one requirement to being an atheist - lacking the belief in a god - so really all you have are atheists who fit two different personality types, not different brands of atheism. I would like to see some research data on this because I do know that atheists tend to reproduce less but I find it hard to believe that "populist atheists" produce more polytheists.

Populist Atheism, Scientism, or Atheism for short, is just as much a religious ideology as any other word that ends in "ism." In particular Atheism as it is followed in Europe and the Americas is an exclusive Polytheism. It borrows its exclusivity from Christianity, which it opposes. It borrows its Polytheism from teutonic, norse, greek, roman, and celtic Paganism, which Christianity opposed and overcame in Europe.

*Atheism is NOT religious ideology because like I said the only idea that defines atheism is the lack of belief in god therefore how can you define atehist ideology? dictionary.com defines religion as: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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." I want to highlight "...esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies..." Precisely what atheists lack therefore atheism is NOT a religion or any form of religion.

Exclusivity, in religion, is the belief that one knows the only Truth that is to be known, and that all others who believe their religion gives them the Truth are sadly deluded, or agents of perdition. This fits Atheism with respect to Christianity. But it does not fit the populist Atheist with respect to polytheistic and alien religions, because mainstream Atheists are polytheists. They are polytheists who will adopt any belief that will help them oppose Christianity.

*Again, I don't see how this is justifyable. Consider the definition of atheism and say again that atheists are polytheists. And it probably seems as though Christianity is the only target of atheism but that is most likely because most atheists live in Christian societies, therefore Christianity is the most immediate target. If an atheist adopts the beliefs of Thor because something about it will help destroy Christianity then they, by definition, are not atheists, they are Thor believers. It really is that simple, if you lack belief in any deity you are atheist, period.

Polytheism is the belief in lots of gods, each with their own sphere of control. The greeks had gods of lightning, the sea, horses, archery, the sun, cities, meadows, rivers, and mountains. Atheists have scientific and scientistic laws, for that is what they call their gods, that rule over physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, computation, and even pseudo-sciences such as economics, sociology, and psychology. These laws can provide mastery of domains of knowledge to those who worship and learn with sufficient fervor. The atheist's sacred laws are continually challenged by their children (real scientists call them hypotheses) until inevitably each law is overthrown by a hypothesis that becomes the new law.

*An atheist might jokingly refer to the laws of nature as thier gods but if they are serious then, by definition, they are not atheists. From dictionary.com: "Worship - reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred." "Sacred - devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated." No explaination needed, atheists worship nothing. And I don't even understand what the message is here "The atheist's sacred laws are continually challenged by their children (real scientists call them hypotheses) until inevitably each law is overthrown by a hypothesis that becomes the new law." I don't know many atheists who would say that the current laws of nature are set in stone. I think most of us realize that new information is gathered everyday and affects previous knowledge. And is this person seriously suggesting that there are no atheist scientists? If so let's just start with Stephen Hawking, a real scientist. I could name more but I'm not even sure that there is a point being made here.

Atheists are also led to polytheistic forms of belief by the examples of great scientist heroes, such as Oppenheimer, who famously quoted the Bhagavad-Gita, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." If Oppenheimer could so identify with Vishnu, then atheists, who idolize scientists like Oppenheimer, could follow him to explore the Hindu scriptures, transcendental meditation, various other yogis, and incorporate these and other polytheistic beliefs and practices in their atheistic religion. For another example of polytheistic influences on Atheism, see the Gaia hypothesis and its direct effect on global warming beliefs and even the Kyoto protocols.

*Again, if someone adopts a belief concerning a deity, they are no longer atheist AND they can still idolize scientists. I don't understand this point either. Are you trying to say that science and atheism go hand-in-hand? But I could swear you just made some comment about "real scientists" that sounded like you were saying real scientists are not atheists. Clarify this for me please.

All religions have a creation story to explain how the universe came to be, and another to explain the beginning of life, and human life. All religions have heroes who accomplish great things by means of their sacramental powers. All religions draw a distinction between things that are sacred, and those that are profane or mundane. All religions teach something about the structure and meaning of the natural world, and of man's place in it. And all religions have some explanation for what happens to people when they die.

*I'm not sure that this is true, I'm pretty sure there are some religions that are not very concerned with the afterlife - Taoism comes to mind - I'll have to refresh but I think it's safe to call this bluff.

Their creation story is the big bang, where a miracle occured to create the universe. Life happened as a result of chemical reactions guided by the laws of chemistry and physics. Humans descended from apes. Atheist heroes are scientists, with Darwin the mighty smiter of the Christian creation story, Einstein the enigmatic riddle-maker, and Galileo the martyr who founded their creed in the face of fierce opposition from the Catholic church. Atheists believe that learning is sacred and ignorance is profane. They believe the world exists to support life, and man's place is to be its caretaker. And finally, they believe that people die and their consciousness ceases to be, while their bodies decompose and become part of the world they live on. Materialism is the ultimate message of atheism.

*As soon as an atheist seriously entertains the idea of a "miracle" they are, by definition, not atheist. And the Big Bang is not a creation story, it simply theorizes what happened at that point in time, what happened before that point...who knows, only theists seem to make claims (with no evidence I might add) about that. The big Bang only describes the creation of the universe AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. Again, we have absolutely zero evidence of the nature of anything before that point. And how can atheists believe that the world exists to support life and man is the caretaker? That implies the world has a purpose which implies a deity or higher power. This is completely inconsistant with lacking a belief in a god. As far as what happens when we die, who knows but there is no evidence to support the idea that we have a soul that transcends physical existance, therefore I will refrain from belief in that as well until I see reason to do otherwise. I want to highlight the word REFRAIN, it does not mean deny.

Like Satanism, Atheism in Europe and the Americas is defined by its opposition to Christianity. Like Satanism, at bottom its message lacks hope. Satanists eventually realize they are serving the forces of disorder and chaos. Atheists eventually realize their belief system leads to nihilism. For if in the final tally each man is nothing more than compost, then what distinguishes a man from an animal, or from a sack of guts and bones?

*Atheism is not defined by opposition to Christianity, please refer to the definition of atheism again. Some atheists lack hope, sure, but so do some Christians. If anything, since I have become atheist I have found more hope than I ever had with the burden of Christianity. I have more hope for humanity because I know now that our morals are not defined by a book that commands murder, rape and genocide. I have more hope in my own personal life because I know that I am not actually Inferior and need saving like the Bible claims. Yes, since leaving religion I have more hope than I could have ever dreamt of with religion constraining my mind. And even though atheism understands that there is nihilism in life, I believe that to be a much more suitible end than possibly not being anhililated and spending eternity in a perfect god's torture chamber. That really is lacking of hope.

Once upon a time Christianity was the guiding creed for an empire. This empire opposed pagan polytheism and destroyed it or drove it into the deep forests and wild mountains. In Arabia, the empire of Islam destroyed its own polytheist competitors before it took on other religions. Christianity is no longer the sort of religion that will crush and persecute pagans, or even atheists and satanists who set themselves directly in opposition to Christian moral teaching. Islam still is such a religion. It is every bit as fierce as it was in the 7th century A.D, when it slaughtered, converted or enslaved millions and conquered half the Christian world.

*If atheists set themselves directly in opposition to Christian moral teachings, then why is it that atheists only make up about 1/10th of 1% of the prison population? If we directly oppose Christian morality then obviously Christian morality condones breaking the law. Islam may still be an aggressive religion but the potential for Christianity to be is definately still there. Compare Christian and Islamic scripture :
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home:an evil fate." - Koran 9:73
and "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous." - Koran 9:123
and let's not forget "The believers who stay at home - apart from those who suffer from a grave impediment are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and thier persons. God has given those who fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense for those who fight for him...He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and his apostle and is then overtaken by death, shal be rewarded by God...The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies." Koran 4;95-101
But let's not forget that the Bible is just as guilty...
-You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
-Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
-Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
-Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
-Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
-Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
-Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
-Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5
This is the main reason I fight religion, to reduce the chances that people of the future will use the Bible as justification of another Sept. 11th, 2001. Not only that but religion removes accountability. "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." Mark 3:28-29 So do whatever you want just accept god and you're all set for heaven, but if you deny him THEN the shit hits the fan! Whereas Christians can ask for forgiveness and recieve heaven despite any attrocity they commit towards another human, I on the other hand, am accountable to my family, friends, society and myself. Christians only have a god that rewards for killing non Christians.

Atheism has become the official belief system of the European intellectual and taste-making classes, and to a somewhat lesser degree their American counterparts. Certainly it is the belief system of the New York Times, Reuters, all Ivy League faculties, the UN, and other NGO's.

*It may be true I don't know, but why the negative intonation? Should They follow the Bible instead? How about the Koran? Obviously if people accept God and read thier holy books LESS killing and attrocities will occur, yes, less attrocities. If you didn't get the sarcasm, yes that was EXTREMELY sarcastic. And again, how can you make such a broad generalization? There was no basis for it whatsoever. Frankly, you are a fucktard.

I hope it does not happen. But it is possible (probable if not inevitable) that some day Islam will dominate the government of some European countries, or even of America. At that point, all atheists will be told they must accept Islam or die. When they are given a choice between death within a religion that tells them they are no better than a pile of compost, and life under a religion that tells them they are slaves of Allah, most will choose a life of slavery over death and compost.

*We only have one life, I wouldn't blame any atheist for doing that under that kind of oppression, but what does it have to do with anything?

They will turn to Islam and join the Jihad. Or they will pretend to believe in Islam and their children or grandchildren will be true believers who join the Jihad.

*I doubt it, people don't take to kindly to that kind of threat, many of us atheists will most likely stand next to Christians, Jews and everyone else who doesn't like it.

What does that do for the rest of us, the ones who actually believe in something? The ones who will not submit? The ones who will not become a slave, or allow their children to live in slavery to Allah or to his slaves? It's like a zombie movie, where the next door neighbor becomes another one of the monsters who wants to eat your brain.

*Wow, you are dumb.

And that is why we must oppose Atheism. Because it teaches believers that life has no meaning it is a weak belief system. If we build our society on a base of Atheism, our society will fall when the storm comes. And the storm doesn't even have to be Islam, though that is the storm we expect to face first.

*First of all atheism does not teach that life has no meaning, atheism is simply the LACK OF BELIEF, there is nothing to teach. If someone wants to come to that conclusion then that's their business, I on the otherhand believe that I can make life mean whatever I want it to mean. Now that is freedom! Will our society fall? Why has Sweden not fallen? Sweden, Vietnam, Denmak and Norway all have up to 85% non-believers - source: rationalresponders.com - but those countries are well intact.

* Basically when it comes down to it most people have no idea what atheism really is just like this jackass who doesn't know how to research his claims. You want to know about atheism? I'll tell you about atheism...it simply means lacking a belief in god, that is all. We live amongst you and are probably some of your closest friends and family but guess what? Many of them are scared to make themselves known because of the intolerance and hate religion spreads.

Here are some good atheist sources if information:
rationalresponders.com
freethoughtnetwork.com
atheistvolunteers.org
atheists.org
richarddawkins.net
freethinkingteens.com
the list goes on but I'm tired and can't think...that's funny I can't think but I just thought for this guy, ha!