The Best Godless Testimonial of the Year

It’s okay to laugh at the way a person is dressed.

Because clothes are not people.

And people are not defined by their wardrobe.

High-water pants are hilarious.

So goofy!

If religion is a pair of pants then Humanism is the high-water style.

Sorry, Atheists/Humanists, but I can’t take it anymore.

People are laughing at you behind your back.

It’s time somebody told you the truth.

You look silly when you wear that theology.

This article was written by one of your nerdy own.

The poor guy is very confused:

Why, oh why isn’t anyone signing up for the Atheist Conference?

Because…atheism doesn’t need a conference.

The one trait you atheists share is “unpleasantness”.

You’re miserable, angry, disagreeable people.

You don’t want to attend a conference full of people like yourself.

One early problem was that they didn’t seem to have a good purpose, claiming that they’re about uniting “the atheist community on our common goals by repairing recent divisions”, which is not a great premise since many of us are not interested in surrendering a commitment to social justice to make nicey-nice with regressive assholes…

This is the silliness of your high-water religion on full display.

How do you miss this?

“…not interested in surrendering a commitment to social justice to make nicey-nice with regressive assholes…”

How.

Do.

You.

Miss.

This?

Atheism is just hate.

Hate doesn’t need a conference.

You don’t need a keynote to perfect your wretchedness.

I’m telling you for your own good.

Your religion makes you look stupid.

(Don’t start screaming about how you ‘don’t have a religion’…that’s the stupid talking.)

When you wear high-water pants you’re inviting ridicule.

If you don’t want to be mocked, change pants.

Change your pants.

There will be hundreds of well-attended Christian conferences in 2018.

Take that however you want.

44 thoughts on “The Best Godless Testimonial of the Year

    • John Branyan says:

      PZ is behaving in typical atheist fashion. He should have written this blog post, not me! His criticisms are exactly right yet he never goes far enough to say, “This religion is a joke”.

  1. I never understood the facade of atheist gatherings. I’m sure you know a lot of them are pretending that atheism is merely an absence of faith in God’s existence. I don’t watch “my little pony,” but I would never attend a conference specifically for people who don’t watch “my little pony.” But even with atheist conferences and magazines they pretend atheism is not a religion. I don’t think it’s just the pants. I think the whole atheism outfit is looking stupid.

    • Yeah you’re right, they don’t wear pants because they don’t believe in the existence of pants. Everyone looks at them like they’re crazy because they’re not wearing anything.

    • Ron says:

      The difference is that the “my little pony” cult doesn’t lobby government to enshrine its values into law. But if it did, an aMLPest movement would probably arise.

      And atheism can’t be called a religion because religion is defined as “the belief in and worship of God or gods.”

      • mrsmcmommy says:

        Way to only use the definition that suits your purpose! 😉
        That’s exactly what I would do, if I weren’t REALLY interested in discussion…

        • Ron says:

          It’s the only definition that matters in this particular context. Atheists have only one thing in common: they don’t believe in or worship gods.

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            “…there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.” –Atheist Sam Harris, noticing exactly what ALL honest people have noticed about Atheists. 🙂 (Thanks, Sam, for your willingness to recognize that “religion” doesn’t HAVE to refer to God/gods. That would be “Theism.” which is a more specific category of religion. I suspect Ron knows this but chooses to play dumb.)

      • mrsmcmommy says:

        (Side note: unlike the “My Little Pony” cult, Atheist-Humanist groups lobby the government to enshrine their values into law all the time. Maybe that’s why Atheists who are more honest than you have admitted that Atheism is NOT devoid of content and very often functions exactly like all other religions.)

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            All laws are based on values, darling.
            Anyone trying to get any law passed at any time is appealing to their religious values to do it.

            But I’m really not interested in going down this rabbit trail with you, if you’re going to play dumb about what “religion” means.

          • Ron says:

            First off, Sam Harris is not the official spokesman for all non-believers.

            Nonetheless, he was criticizing those who want to turn their lack of god beliefs into a political cult. Here is the full quote — in context:

            My point, with respect to the term “atheist” (or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause. There are many people in this country who do not believe in God and who understand that there is conflict between science and religion, but who do not feel the slightest inclination to join an atheist group or to label themselves in opposition to religion. These people are “atheists” by any measure, but you will never meet them at one of our conventions. They have read the writings of the “new atheists,” sent us letters and emails of support, are quite fond of criticizing religion whenever the opportunity arises, but they have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics. And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.

          • John Branyan says:

            “First off, Sam Harris isn’t the official spokesman…now here’s the rest of Sam’s quote…”
            Brilliant! Discrediting Harris right before quoting him is a stroke of genius!

            My favorite line “…the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause.”
            Atheism isn’t religion, but they have a cause!

            If the word “religion” makes you sad, then pick another one. It doesn’t matter because “stupid” will always precede it.

            Stupid religion.
            Stupid belief.
            Stupid worldview.
            Stupid cause.
            Stupid cult.
            Stupid point of view.
            Stupid opinion.
            Stupid philosophy.
            Stupid relationship with reality.
            …etc.

          • Ron says:

            “Anyone trying to get any law passed at any time is appealing to their religious values to do it.”

            Yes. We know that’s true of religious voters. But what about non-religious voters? What laws have they attempted to pass?

            As for myself, I’m anti-political. “Live and let live” is my motto.

          • Ron says:

            Groups like PETA, Greenpeace, Black Lives Matter and the KKK all have a cause. Do you consider those religions as well?

          • Ron says:

            You cast a very wide net. I doubt anyone would respond “Greenpeace” or “BLM” or “MADD” when asked to identify their religious beliefs.

            Perhaps a better question is: what causes don’t qualify as a religion under your definition?

          • John Branyan says:

            What is your reading comprehension level? Have you had it tested?

            “Cause” and “religion” can be used interchangeably here. We understand that atheists don’t believe in god, don’t go to church, don’t practice specific rituals and don’t believe a word of the Bible. That is a loose description of the RELIGION of atheism. Or, as Sam Harris put it, the atheist CAUSE.

            Your insistence on specific, narrow definitions make conversation tedious. My grandmother (before she passed, never after) used to say that my grandfather (while living, never after) “made Purdue football a religion”. We all understood what she meant. I’m sorry this concept is over your head. I guess we’ll have to talk about something else.

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            *bangs head on desk*

            You think Ron knows that nobody classified Greenpeace as an entire religion? Think he’s still playing dumb about the fact that the VALUES shared by the members of his example groups are RELIGIOUS values?

          • John Branyan says:

            Yes. He knows all that.
            He knows that atheists have “beliefs” and those beliefs could be described as “sacred” too.

            But, like all atheists, he must keep the conversation diverted away from the core tenants of his religion because they’re weak and silly. I know honest atheists exist but I don’t think I’ve met one personally.

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            I thought Ron was the one who agreed that everyone has religion and that he was recently ousted from an Atheist group for the same reasons Sam Harris was criticized? (Blasphemy.)
            What happened to that revelation?

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            These are people who want “the truth” right? Surely they’re not working this hard to AVOID certain obvious realities?

            It must be difficult not having the freedom to think through things, no matter what conclusions might be waiting! It seems they can’t pursue a topic for more than a second before getting very uncomfortable and flipping the burden of doing all the thinking back on the Christian.

          • John Branyan says:

            Yes. I would think it would be an unsettling place to live. He already knows the truth. He also knows that his attempt to divert didn’t work.

            It’s the intellectual equivalent to Adam hiding in the shrubs after eating from the tree. “Hey! I’m naked!”

      • John Branyan says:

        Religion is defined as “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance”.

        Wheeee! It’s fun to play fast and loose with definitions! But, like Amanda suggested, it doesn’t make for stimulating conversation.

        • Ron says:

          Great! In that case, everyone’s personal pursuits and interests now constitute a religious activity. Don’t like my loud parties in the wee hours of the morning? Well . . . Sorry about that mate, but I’m exercising my constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. 🙂

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            Gotta love when they think they’re being sarcastic and they accidentally get the point exactly right. LOL!

          • John Branyan says:

            Did you see below where he denied religious convictions and then proclaimed his “motto” to live and let live?
            Spectacular! I’m embarrassed that he’s making this so easy.

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            It’s not hard to understand that, conceptually, “religion” and “motto” and “system of belief” and “values” are all the same… (and we could use many other words there, too).

            But he probably needs to read my above paragraph word-for-word in a dictionary before he’ll concede that.

            (LOL again!)

          • John Branyan says:

            I’m willing to use whatever word he wants.

            Remember when we went through this with Tildeb and Allalt? As soon as we agreed to a term, they got squeamish and wanted to change it.

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            It’s weird how it has happened with ALL the Atheists I’ve ever encountered…
            Weird because they’re not supposed to have anything in common other than their “lacks-of-belief.”

            …Weird.

          • John Branyan says:

            Do you want to answer his stupid question about PETA and the KKK? I’m putting my outlines together…

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            Ugh…

            I told him I wasn’t going down the rabbit trail until he stopped playing dumb.

            Do you think he really doesn’t know the answer?

          • Ron says:

            If you want to define religion as an activity that encompasses every pursuit and interest, so be it. But then it becomes a meaningless term when it comes to theological discussions.

          • John Branyan says:

            No.
            It becomes meaningless when you stick the word “every” in front of pursuit.

            You’re being dumb, Ron.
            Feel free to keep doing that. I just didn’t want you to think you’re helping your cause.

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            Haha–if you want me to answer, then I will.

            But if you want to handle it, I’ll go back to eating pizza with the kids. 🙂
            No sense in BOTH of us saying the same thing at the same time.

          • John Branyan says:

            I thought you were shaming me…
            I’ll handle it.
            It doesn’t require much intellectual bandwidth.

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            I have faith in your ability to get your work done AND answer soft-ball questions at the same time. 🙂

            Carry on!

          • mrsmcmommy says:

            No, the term religion doesn’t become “meaningless.”

            It just stops being useful FOR YOU to discredit the beliefs you don’t like while still legitimizing your own (religious) beliefs. 🙂

            I understand why you’d rather keep defining it your own special way.

Leave a Reply

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