Notice how I avoided using the word “Retarded?” I’ve seen that many conservatives have developed a sudden hyper-sensitivity for the disabled this week, so I’ve opted to tread lightly.

The truth is that atheism is literally a “retarded” philosophy in the sense that it is very “late to the table” in its thinking. Atheists will tell you that religion impedes the progress of man. To that I say “Poppycock!”, and that atheism has no place in a civilized society. Think I’m wrong? Let me know, amigos.



…Yes, I used the word “poppycock,” and no I don’t wear a monocle.

The biggest problem with atheism is that it’s a philosophy which, at its very core, diminishes the value of life. If we were simply spawned from a puddle of gook, human life has no intrinsic value. Human worth is ultimately left up to societal circumstances, and that’s never a good thing… Especially if said society is Hollywood.

Ah, Hollywood. It is a silly place. It’s also the largest gathering of practicing atheists around. Whether these folks claim to believe in “God” or not, their religion is hedonism with their ultimate nirvana being self-pleasure. They hold themselves accountable to no one. Not to their spouses (as displayed by the divorce rate), not to themselves (as displayed by the constant substance abuse and self-destructive behavior) and certainly not to God.

I don’t care how many times you thank “the spirit in the sky” at an awards ceremony; if you’re living your life answerable to nobody, you’re an atheist.

Hollywood also follows lockstep with atheism in being an elitist group that believes it holds “all the answers.” To be an atheist, is to say that there is nothing that can’t be explained by current science. “We MUST know that God is an impossibility… Because we know everything.” Is it illogical? Of course. There are holes in the religion of atheism more cavernous than Julia Roberts cakehole, folks. But who really cares? Since when has Hollywood given a damn about logic? Just like atheists, as far as Hollywood is concerned; “As long as your worldview doesn’t affect my ability to do what I want, when I want, regardless of cause and effect… We’re good, compadre!”

Atheism of course works well with Hollywood liberalism from a social standpoint. Morally speaking, when human life is deemed to serve no greater purpose, topics such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research become non-issues. These outlooks always sit well with the Hollywood folk who would love nothing more than to live their lives consequence free, with the absence of any finger-pointing judgment.

Atheists out there, am I wrong? I can’t say that I fully grasp your thought process, so feel free to slap me around here.

I’m not saying that there aren’t some decent atheists out there, so don’t get me wrong. I am saying however, that when you employ a philosophy which forces you to become a product of your environment, you better be damn sure that it’s the right environment… And if you look around to find that Sean Penn is an integral part of your surroundings, you can bet that you’re on the wrong track.

by Steven Crowder.

Interesting article.

Link.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/scrowd...tally-handicap/

This has been stated numerous times for decades, and it makes perfect sense...which is probably why so many folks persist on ignoring it. The one question I keep asking disbelievers is, "If there is no God, then where do right and wrong ultimately come from?" The stock answer is usually the "I'm my own God" mentality, but the moment it's flipped around on them, they say, "You can't do that!" Why not?

I suppose it like C.S. Lewis once said (and I'm paraphrasing): "Every thinking person is inherently aware of an inner morality that could never have arisen from humanity alone."


I think the more appropriate word to end that sentence would be "fool", more than anything else. Everyone is accountable to someone, and in the end we'll all be held accountable before God; saying "I don't believe that" doesn't automatically negate it. My sister saw a bumper sticker once, with an interesting message. It read: "God doesn't believe in atheists."


Amen.


This could easily be the mantra for the ACLU...y'know, "Anti-Christian Lawyers United".

Sadly, you are not wrong Crux. The left would LOVE to live their lives "consequence free" but the existence of religious Americans threatens the left's "consequence free" dream.

Atheism is as old as man. And it has proved completely unsuccessful at maintaining a civil society. History will attest to this fact without exception.

Religion is a VITAL component of civilized society.

Anybody who "needs" religion to keep them in check quite frankly has no morals. I don't need the promise of reward and the fear of punishment to stop me doing wrong. And I don't need a contradictory book of Bronze Age fairy tales to tell me what is right and wrong.

So if anybody is "retarded" it is those who worship such a book and the nonsense within it.

For somebody who is quick to parade how much a lover of history he is, you seem to have fairly limited knowledge boggie (I'm not really that surprised).

Of course it does and it always has and always will. The Catholic Church was against the printing press because they realised that if people could read books for themselves that they might start to drift away from the church. Pope Benedict XVI thinks it was morally correct to have charged Galileo with heresy. Why? Because he challenged church authority, nothing more, nothing less. We have religious pressure groups trying to get creationism taught in a science class. They have no evidence for their asserion beyond their Bronze Age book of fairytales.


No, we value life because we have only one. What value is there in life if you just sit waiting to die so you can go to another one? That isnt living, it is barely existing! We want to create heaven on this earth because there isn't one afterward.


SSDD...

Typical response from matt75.

I think Steven Crowder the author is using parody to make a point.

Look up his videos on Youtube if you have the time. I think you will know what I am saying here.

The problem with atheism is that has never been praised by a significant group of people. There is no leader to look upon. All religions have a leader or leaders (like Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, etc). Leaders are essential in all societies.

But atheism is not retarded. If anything atheists are at least open minded. Unlike many religious people that are pretty much brainwashed by books written centuries ago. Atheists at least try to figure out how things really work and how things really came about. But so do semi-religious people.

This guy's argument (though I hesitate to call it that - a rant, perhaps) has two fundamental flaws:

i) It is an argument from ignorance that basically equates to "because my limited understanding of evolutionary theory only goes so far as imagining a 'puddle of gook' (which I am personally disturbed or confused by), I therefore assume this is the position of everyone else and base all my judgements about 'atheism' upon this assumption."

ii) It makes the same tired old mistake of assuming atheism is some kind of coherent philosophy - an 'ism', indeed, - that any atheists have anything in common with one another. 'The religion of atheism'? Oxymoron, much? IMHO it is a mistake to even use the word atheist. Non-religious is far better. The only thing one 'atheist' has in common with another, by definition, is that neither believes in supernatural entities who created and possibly intervene in the world. Atheism needs no leader or holy book or creed, etc.

To be honest I get the feeling the guy knocked this hateful little piece out in about 10 minutes to make up some new content for his blog, so it's hardly worth a rebuttal.

I'm not sure what the Hollywood thing was supposed to achieve either, other than bypass actual debate. Sounds like the guy has a chip the size of Glenn Beck's ego on his shoulder.



A well-deserved pat on the back for you, Sir. Welcome to 1970.

Atheism isn't the problem, I don't think. Atheists are. It's the same way with religion. For the most part, religion is innocuous and just a philosophy to live by, but the people who believe in it turn it foul.

For all the talk of open-mindedness and free thinking, a good many atheists just aren't either of those things. Science (which is the Leader, as it were) isn't static and changes as evidence dictates, but some people forget that and take every new theory and study as irrefutable fact.

I don't think Theists or Atheists have a mental handicap. I think it's just human nature to try to discredit opposing views because of insecurity.

^^^

I personally disagree. The 'militant' Atheists who purposely go out and attack religion are few. I don't fully support that because

a) I recognise the good religion is capable of achieving, and the social/political stability it provides in certain parts of the world.
b) To force a viewpoint upon someone seems no better than, say, Charles Martel and his merry men 'converting' Europe to Christianity in the 8th century.
c) Militant atheism often leads to the mistaken espousal of atheism as some kind of replacement faith with Darwin as its demigod and Origins as its book.

However, I support the intention to go out and respond to religious propaganda with opposing evidence, at least so that others who come to the issue will be able to see the entire field of debate and make their own opinions. And there is a lot to be said for the way in which moderate religion shelters extremism and fosters an environment in which it can develop.

You must remember that the true decline of religion will not be measured in how many of Darwin's Rottweilers dare to face the religious onslaught. It will rather be seen in the gradual disappearance of supernatural belief from people's lives; a process that is ongoing and in many places virtually complete.