Atheists Are Nitwits

 

Atheists are nitwits.

Some atheists are nice people.

Some atheists are generous, kind, and sincere.

And all atheists are nitwits.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Everyone is a nitwit from time to time.

I mean, who hasn’t “Pushed” on a door labeled “Pull”?

Jews, Muslims, Christians…we’ve all pushed instead of pulled.

Religious folks admit the mistake.

Atheists just push harder.

Recently, a particularly stubborn atheist acquaintance, we’ll call him “Windbag”, posed this question:

The most effective way to test the sincerity of a questioner is…

…ask them their own question.

So I did.

Why didn’t the Windbag answer his own question?

Because he’s an atheist…

…and atheists are nitwits.

Windbag is the worst kind of nitwit.

The “Arrogant Nitwit”.

He doesn’t think anyone notices his stupidity.

I had to ask the question a bunch of times before Windbag reluctantly answered…

…then IMMEDIATELY demanded I answer the question.

Which I did.

My question is the sign on the door that says, “Pull”.

This question would make non-nitwits quit pushing.

So Windbag keeps pushing.

Eventually, the Windbag admits he believes in God.

(Really. Check the link.)

He doesn’t ADMIT that he believes in God.

He thinks he can avoid the consequences of logic by ignoring them.

He was doomed to fail with his first question.

Too many words like “unguided” and “unintended”.

Those are not science words.

Those are religious words.

And atheists are not religious.

That’s what they claim, anyway.

They refuse to admit they’re wrong about that.

Because atheists are nitwits.

5 thoughts on “Atheists Are Nitwits

    • John Branyan says:

      This is correct…almost.
      The atheist will say “I don’t know” because it seems humble and open-minded. Atheists say things like, “Provide evidence and I’ll believe.”
      Then they reject everything the theist says because theists are “bias”.
      And write books about how “science” is answering all questions.

  1. Dylan Black says:

    I find it is somewhat difficult to follow conversations between Branyan and Zande sometimes (Johnversations? I like portmanteaus ^_^)

    I think it typically begins when Branyan asks a direct question, which Zande almost answers, but does so with a question. At this point, Branyan repeats the question. Then Zande continues to repeat his almost answer/question or introduces a brand new question. The Johnversation screeches to a halt, as both Johns repeat themselves a few times. Is that basically the pattern as seen by others?

    To hopefully be more direct. Were you trying to move the conversation toward something like this – since the process of evolution is guided by something (such as survivability), that Zande must identify the something as a greater power/God? OR that the rules for survivability could also not be randomly generated and must have intelligence behind it? Thanks!

    • John Branyan says:

      “Johnversations” just might be the title of my next project…

      I was trying to get him to admit that evolution isn’t “random” or “unguided”. His reluctance to answer his own question indicates that even he knows his question was outrageous.

      There is no chance of getting the Windbag to concede that evolution is driven by intelligence.

      The atheists always ask questions. They never answer questions. Zande knows that we ask questions here. That’s the reason he doesn’t show up very often anymore.

      • Dylan Black says:

        I’m just on fire with linguistics points this week ^_^. You can have that word for free!

        It is frustrating when “enlightened” folk don’t answer direction questions directly. You can’t be wrong if you don’t take a clear stance, but you can’t be right either.

        Thanks for the clarification!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *