Talk Animals OnlineNiche Article Directory all about Animals

This is a repost from Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes

Insignificant barf-belch and former White House policy analyst Dinesh D’Sousa continues to rail against my people. No, not the Polish—the atheists. He’s promoting a shitty book that I won’t name here. Nothing I have read about it suggests that it raises a single new issue, but somehow the conservative blogosphere thinks it is some sort of marvelous work of staggering genius. Of course, conservatives don’t score points by being original, but for repeating tired beliefs with fidelity and arrogance. This one is called “Are Atheists the New Gays?” and I found it festering in the diaper that we call townhall.com.

Richard Dawkins has a bright idea: Atheists are the new gays. Is he joking? Not at all. The bestselling author of The God Delusion has been suggesting for two years now that atheists can follow the example of gays.

Well, actually, four years, but, hey, it’s Dinesh–he can do whatever he likes, as long as the not-bestselling author acknowledges the fact that his BELIEF that it is 2 years does not mean that it is true or stands up to scientific scrutiny. Heehee. Tit.

This would put the atheists last in the line of liberation groups: first the civil rights movement, then the feminist movement, then the gay liberation movement, and now the cause of atheist liberation.

Not exactly the intent, but whatever. I think that there is a pride issue going on. People like you, you sucking dirtbag, routinely use atheists as a whipping boy. I think that it is time that atheists met fire with fire. No reasonably bright (heheh) atheist needs to take your self-important condescending shit, you self-important condescending shit.

What makes Dawkins want atheists to be like gays? Dawkins explains that gays used to be called homosexual, but then they decided to pick a positive-sounding name like “gay.” Suddenly the meaning of the term “gay” was entirely appropriated by homosexuals. Gays went from being defined by their enemies to defining themselves in a favorable way.

Are you my enemy, Dinesh? Do you see me as yours because I think that you waste a good deal of your otherwise (still) useless life devoted to rituals you believe will get you into heaven? Hardly. You’re unpleasant, that’s for sure. But so are lots of people, none of whom are enemies in any meaningful sense of the word.

Also, wasn’t there a “whole love your enemies” spiel in the Bible? That hippy fag Jesus probably said it.

Dawkins cited this example in advocating that atheists call themselves “brights.” After all, atheist is a somewhat negative term because it defines itself by what it is opposed to. “Bright” sounds so much happier and, more important, smarter. “Bright” kind of reflects the high opinion that atheists have of their own intellectual abilities. Even the stupidest village atheist gets to pat himself on the back and place himself in the tradition of science and philosophy by calling himself a “bright.”

Whereas the smartest theist on the planet still worships the Easter Bunny and is proud of it. Sounds fair to me. Just like every miserable, maligned and faggot rejected by his family still gets to align himself with happy people. At least the fact that you are an especially…deficient theist saves you from the self-awareness that leads to things like embarrassment.

Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennett have both written articles promoting the use of the term “bright.” Not all atheists have warmed to the term, but Dawkins and Dennett clearly envision themselves as far-looking strategists of the atheist cause. But how bright, really, are they?

Try reading them. I’ll even send you copies of their books, if you think it will help.

Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don’t want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support “outing” atheists.

You’re just getting silly.

But can an atheist “rights” group be far behind?

Don’t you think that atheists should have rights?

Hate crimes laws to protect atheists?

Why, do you think we should be worried?

Affirmative action for unbelievers?

We don’t have affirmative action for believers, so no.

An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats?

Well, you have big religious parades at least twice a year. Have you seen Holy Week in Spain? Now that’s some fun religious parading!

Atheist History Month?

Almost everyone is an atheist. When it comes to, say, Allah, Odin, the Greek Gods, Zeus and Bhrama, you, Dinesh D’Souza are a big fucking atheist. (Atheists just go one god more.) Atheist history is already every month.

Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn’t seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America.

And this is the point, you transparently bigoted piece of baboon leavings. Once you realize that there are atheists around you, that they are pretty normal and unremarkable people, maybe then they won’t seem to be an exotic form of hell-bound punching bag. At a social level, that is where this is going.

If Dawkins’ public relations skills seem lacking in this area, they are positively abysmal when they come to building support for science.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!! Heeehee! You bag o’ douche. Heehee.

[…] Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy. Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can’t have both.

“Because good science is best determined by what you believe and how you feel about it, not by what the world tells you.” And I’m going to put your dichotomy into perspective. Either everything on the planet was placed here pretty much as it is now by some god 6000 years ago or it wasn’t. There is no half way. Either all life that we know of came about by infinitesimal steps, and natural selection acting over billions of years or it didn’t. Yes. Science forces some things upon you. Just because you don’t like their implications does not lessen their verity.

[…] Having debated Christopher Hitchens, I’d like the opportunity to debate Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that “upon reflection” he decided against it. He didn’t give a reason, and there is no reason. […]

The reason is, asshole, that unlike you he has nothing to gain from such a debate. He’s one of the most respected minds in science. You are a gob of mucous. He’s smart enough not to promote your stupid fucking book, which he debunked before it was even published. He was done with you long before you wrote the fucker.

So, there we have it. Another edition of the ongoing self-imposed public shaming that is Dinesh D’Souza’s life. Join us next week, when I unfavorably compare Dinesh to a diseased rhinoceros scrotum. Until then!

HJ