Updated: Added links for more information, July 30, 2008

To many secularists/Atheists religion is a threat to “Society”. For the past hundreds of years religion has been blamed for every fault and every evil under the sun. So thats not new and no surprises there. However it is time to find out what the alternative is and what it has got to offer to the society. Let’s work this out based on facts, history, research from leading authority on secularim/Atheism etc. 

I think a “referendum” is the way to go.

I have come up with14 questions for the referendum. You see people have to exercise their will – democracy. Let’s start:

Turkish authorities have detained at least 21 hardline nationalists, including two prominent retired generals, in a widening police investigation into a suspected coup plot.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the detentions were linked to the investigation into Ergenekon, a shadowy hardline secularist group suspected of planning bombings and assassinations calculated to trigger an army takeover.

“It is not the AK party they cannot tolerate – what they can’t tolerate is democracy, the national will, the people’s feelings and thoughts,” Mr Erdogan said

Ref: Turkey rounds up secularists over coup claim, The Australian

Question #1 Do you agree secularists can’t tolerate democracy? Yes or No

Is “secularism” a threat to democracy? If it means intolerance of religion, perhaps it is. 

Ref: Tony Abbott, Australian Federal Politician, Daily Telegraph, live blog, 25 July 08

Question #2. Do you agree secular intolerance of religion is a threat to democracy? Yes or No

Yet it (World Youth Day – WYD) is resisted by many who seek a radical change in the status quo. They represent an aggressive “new secularism”, a philosophy much discussed by Benedict, that aspires to deny religion by shrinking it to a strictly private affair. In terms of governance, such advocates want not a traditional secular state to enshrine religious freedom, but the creation of atheism as the de facto established religion to drive real religion from the public domain.

This constitutes one of the most radical and intolerant projects in Australian political history.

Ref: Test of Spirit, The Australian

Question #3. Do you agree “secularists/Atheists” are the most intolerant people in society? Yes or No


Question #4. Do you favour the separation of Atheism* and State? Yes or No

* Update July, 30, 2008 – link to Atheist Beliefs.

Democracy – political system in which the people rule through any form of government in which the law must reflect the will of the people not rule of any God which is a private matter.

Ref: Comment: Rick of Sydney, Monsters deserving justice, Piers Akerman, Daily Telegraph, Australia, Wednesday, July 23, 2008


However the will of the people is informed by God. If democracy is the will of the people then how can this be a private matter? The whole idea of democracy is self defeating and self destructive. This is not freedom. This is Atheistic tyranny.

Question #5. Do you agree with this premise? Yes or No

In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler (Was Hitler a Christian?), Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people. (Zac’s research says it’s more than 300 million). Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It’s time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

Ref: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history, Dinesh D’Souza (update – linked July 30, 2008)

Question #6. Do you agree Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history? Yes or No

Finnish Atheist Auvinen killed two girls, five boys for Atheism  *

In the rambling text posted on the site, Auvinen said that he is

“a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist.

“I am prepared to fight and die for my cause,” he wrote. “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.”

Ref: CNN International – Europe, * update – linked July 30, 2008

Question #7. Do you agree Social Darwinism/Darwinism (the very foundation of Atheism)* – secular religion, is a threat to society and even Atheists can be “suicide bombers” for their religion – secularism/Atheism? Yes or No

“As an Atheist I find many fellow Atheists very bigoted. Although I don’t believe in God, I don’t use that as an excuse to bash Christians for their beleifs as many do. I have never heard a Christian say ban Atheism unlike many Atheists wanting to ban religion. Learn to accept differing opinions.”

Comment Posted by: Another Atheist of Brissy 06:33pm Thursday 26th June

Ref: Gold Coast boy charged for wearing obscene t-shirt, * (update – linked July 30, 2008)

Question #8. Are you in favour of teaching the Atheist/secular bigots mandatory lessons on “tolerance” – of the religious? Yes or No

Instead the logic he lays out—that Islam itself is our enemy—invites the reader to feel comfort at the deaths of its believers. He writes: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

Ref: (Atheist and scientist) – “Sam Harris’s Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture”

Question #9. Are you in favour of locking up for life Mad Atheist/secular Mullahs like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (he made simillar calls to Harris) etc who call for the mass murder of one billion Muslims? Yes or No

Atheist Peter Singer argues in favor of infanticide. Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject from his books “Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life”

On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: “My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”

On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: “Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation.”

On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: “The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness.”

On why infants aren’t normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: “Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness…make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings.”

Ref: Atheism and Child Murder,* Dinesh D’Souza, * update – linked July 30, 2008

Question #10. Do you agree “Atheism” is a threat to the very existence of our children and a child abusing/killer ideology? Yes or No

“A foreign publisher of my first book confessed the he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message.  Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings.  A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless.  He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism.”

Ref: Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, (London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 1998), p. ix.

Question #11. Do you agree Atheism can cause mental/pyschological torture? Yes or No

“I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives.  There is no logical connection between what is and what ought. . . .”

Ref: Dawkins, Frank Miele, ‘Darwin’s Dangerous disciple – An Interview with Richard Dawkins’, The Skeptic vol. 3, no. 4, 1995.

Question #12. Do you agree Darwinism (foundation of Atheism)* is sexist, discriminatory, justifies cheating and an unhealthy and dangerous ideology? Yes or No

“If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose. . . I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds.  . . I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious.  I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can’t get away with it” and call the police.”

Ref: Dawkins, ‘Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins’, Thirdway, April 1995, vol 18, no 3, * Update – linked July 30, 2008

Question #13. Do you agree in an “Atheist world” Darwinian “law of the jungle” rules? Yes or No


Question #14. Do you agree this explains why 300 million men, women and children were killed in Atheist Communist countries? Yes or No


Locations of visitors to this page


  1. #1 Actually, secularism and democracy is contradictory. Which is why we don’t live in a democrcy- we live in a Republic. Unless you are in China, Russia or other autocratic states.

    For those who aren’t aware, a Republic has certain rules in place to thwart the will of the people. Rights, such as secularism, are an example.

    Turkey has such problems because the country faces the real threat of extremists seizing power. This is a similar situation to how the Nazi party is banned in Germany. Except religion is given more respect, as always.

    This would be the… fifth coup by the military?

    #2 This isn’t radical secularism- the idea has been in place for a while. You know- how people didn’t talk about religion in public during the fifties?

    #3 No- the position obviously belongs to racists.

    #4 Seperation of atheism and state? WTF? The correct question would be “Do you want to end secularism”. The answer is no. Unless you want the government to start decreing what counts as a real religion and what doesn’t AND have people being threatened with excommunication for voting for… wait. We have that NOW. Do you want more of that?

    “I’m sorry- Sunday is for worshipping. The police are in church right now. Call back at a later time.” Maybe we can get blue laws again! Or prohibition or…

    #5 Hitler wasn’t an atheist. He may not have been your kind of Christian, but he recognized Jesus as the Son of God. All you need. Course, he was nuts and believed he was Aryan… I knew the bastardization they do for the stain glass would come back to haunt them.

    As for Stalin and Mao… yeah, they were atheists.

    You know why they had such a big butchers bill? They had more people around this time! And unlike the Axis they had more time.

    As for what they killed for… large amount was due to the blatant incompetance of the communist system when it came to agriculture. The rest was from eliminating dissidents. Please tell me how either of these are due to atheism and not communism.

    Some people might go so far to say communism was a religion. May or may not be true- it had its preists, creed, holy writ, music, judgment and the like. You don’t need to believe in a God to have a religion.

    #6 He said:
    “a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist.

    Given that these are contradictory words they eventually boil down to noise and not any statement. It is also interesting to note he didn’t kill for atheism- he killed for social darwinism. In case you aren’t aware they are two seperate ideas.

    #7 Social Darwinism/Darwinism… has jack shit to do with atheism. Theodore Rosevelt? Devout man AND Social Darwinist.

    Social Darwinism is a bastardized version of evolutionary theory. For starters, in evolution, fitness isn’t defined in terms of “better” or “superior”- it is who has more kids who survive. Social Darwinism has NO basis in Darwin and Wallaces theory but was created by the Progressives as a method to control the lower classes and cut back on social services.

    It is in NO WAY required for atheism- atheists have excisted as for back as 2500 years ago (epicureans) and have NOT expressed such beliefs.

    #8 I would kill Nazis without question. After all, they want me in a gas chamber. What do you favor?

    Seriously, when a person’s beliefs require you to die, how can you tolerate them?

    #9 So Singer is nuts. And this is related to atheism… how? In case you want to even try to rebut him, he isn’t operating off Social Darwinism- he is operating of the idea that value is based on capacity to suffer.

    As for Harris, the man is a pseudoscientific nut. He doesn’t understand the idea of rule based utilitarianism or the function of taboos either. The man needs so philosophy and sociology courses.

    As for Hitchens… he is paranoid, but, so far he has only advocated “total war”. His idea is moot cause the US is currently putting his ideas into practice.

    Not surprisiningly, he has come to realize it was a bad idea.

    #10 It is called maturity. Some have it an some don’t. Why, kids cry after seeing Bambi’s mom shot. But you know what? They grow up. The fact that some people hasn’t grown up isn’t an indictment against atheism.

    Apparently these people can’t live without a belief that someone has given them a purpose and there is an afterlife. And this is related to truth how?

    #11 Being true and being pleasent have no connection. The statement is about reproductive advantage- maximizing the number of kids.

    What? It is like saying that lying helps you do better in politics. Heck, read economics- it is founded on the idea people are selfish. You want to toss that? Are you a communist? Well, are ya?

    #12 Darwinism isn’t the foundation of atheism. The Epicureans were atheists and not Darwinians. They believed life came about by chance.

    As for Social Darwinism, please actually understand it. Unadulterated selfishness is NOT a required characteristi of atheism.

    #13 Obviously no. The Soviet Union was atheist and REJECTED Darwinism. No, really, they embraced Lamark.

    They also had a huge amount of social services and didn’t purge the weak (just the smart and questioning).

    #14 No- the whole ssay is a strawman made by someone who has no clue what the word atheism means.

    Comment by Samuel Skinner — July 29, 2008 @ 6:12 am

  2. Samuel,

    Thanks for your comments. Here is a quick response (pl also visit new links in the main post).

    1. Darwinism is the very foundation of Atheism. I would suggest you to watch the video “The Trouble with Atheism” and the links below. for more info.

    2. Atheism is the force that was (and still is) behind Communism. Atheist gulags (like the ones in China and North Korea) are the machinery used for brain wash the religious. Check out “Communism: Atheism ’Я Us” for more on this…

    3. Atheism – is not just lack of beliefs. It is a belief system and a religion in Australia and U.S. “Atheist Beliefs” will explain this in depth.

    Comment by zacedwards — July 30, 2008 @ 3:35 am

  3. 1 Darwinism originated in 1859. The Origin of Species and the Darwin and Wallace paper was published.

    Prior to that there were atheists as well- Thomas Paine is one of the more famous. Given the fact he existed before the theory was published evolution CANNOT be the foundation of atheism. He died in 1809, 50 years before publication.

    The Epicureans built an entire materialistic philosophy that included atheism without any referance to evolution.

    2 Nope. Communism only took hold in countries that had strong religious belief. China and Russia where both run by “the mandate of heaven” before their revolutions. Atheism was not the justification for communism in general. The justification was class conflict.

    3 Only two are held by all atheists.
    -1 Atheism
    -2 Materialism
    -3 Logic
    -4 Atheism
    -5 Materialism and empericalism
    -6 Materialism
    -7 Science
    -8 Relativism
    So, no it isn’t a belief. You are confusing the cause with the result. As for the last one, I know few atheists who will hold it.

    For example, Marxist communists don’t hold beliefs 7 or 8. That is right- evolution is borguis science!

    Comment by Samuel Skinner — July 30, 2008 @ 7:37 am

About author

This blog looks at exposing Atheism and Atheist for what it is.... I'll be concentrating more on Atheistic beliefs and Atheistic violence. Let me start off with a quote from Finnish killer and Atheist.... he said quote I am ...... "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and GOD-like ATHEIST. "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," he wrote. "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." Pekka Eric Auvinen - Finnish killer of seven students and Atheist.







%d bloggers like this: