I can't sleep so I figured i'd share my thoughts with you regarding the Atheist movement of recent years. First Of All, Dawkins- In the beginning of "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins points out that arguing about whether Albert Einstein and Adolf Hitler were religious or atheist is pointless. Then he goes on to dedicate the entire first chapter of the book to try and prove that Einstein was, in fact, an atheist (and again later that Hitler was religious). So it is only fitting that when discussing this topic, even though I agree that the opinion of one individual is meaningless, I still want to treat this individual with this same kind of hypocrisy he is guilty of just to inform you of one simple thing- Richard Dawkins is a lier. You see, in his chapter about Albert Einstein he mentions that he had collected information for this chapter from a number of sources, but mostly from the book "Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology" by Max Jammer. Coincidentally I happened to finish reading said book only two days before starting to read that of Dawkins, and I can tell you first hand that what Dawking says in that first chapter is an absolute lie. Firstly, he says that Albert Einstein was an atheist even though he expressly stated that he is not. Secondly he answers the question of whether Einstein's religion was Spinozism with: "No" even though the book clearly states that when asked what god he believes in Einstein replied: "My god is spinoza's god". The biggest irony is that (if I remember correctly) the vary first quote that features prominently all over an entire page as an intro in which Einstein wonders at the beauty of the universe, according to Jammer's book, is a part of a larger quote that continues on to attack atheists (I am not 100% on this one). Some of you may wonder: "Why is this even important? So what if he intentionally warped the truth to serve his goals? We are talking about the opinions of one man". But it is important. First of all because he is considered the for-runner of this limp wristed revolution. But also because if he is capable of this he is capable of anything. I only cross-referenced one of his sources out of probably over a hundred. So how many more of these "mistakes" are in the book? How many arguments that he refuted did he knowingly misinterpret so that he wouldn't have to stand against some other claim that he knew he could not refute? And make no mistake about it, this was no accident. I refuse to believe that a man who is renowned for his deductive reasoning somehow misunderstood something so plain and simple. In short- Don't trust Dawkins. The evolvement of the Atheist movement and profile of it's members. But, like I said, Dawkins is just one man. The issue is those whom believe that he represents them (and he does not because a lot of them took his words to extrems he did not intend). The main problem is that Atheism became popular. And once something starts being popular it stops being good. The modern militant atheist views himself as an intellectual superior to his opposers, and herein lays the problem. Because, even though this might have been true at some point (arguably), it ceased to be true right around this vary decade... Like I said- Once something starts being popular it stops being good. And this is true for political beliefs as well. Back when atheism was an overwhelmingly minority opinion it took some level of intellect to believe in it. I mean, let's be honest, to believe something that absolutely everyone thinks is not true you have to be either smart or insane. So regardless of atheism being correct or not, let us assume that in the past atheist were, at least to some degree, smart. So how about today? Not so much. Dawkins, Hitchens and co. did not invent atheism. They only popularized it, and some (me) would say whored it out to make a quick buck. And as atheism becomes more commonplace, more and more are beginning to join it for a variety of wrong reasons. But among the nerds who are using it to heal their bruised egos by convincing themselves they are smarter than the socially functioning people around them, and among the homosexuals who find it convenient because it also coincides with their political agenda, there is a far more dangerous group joining the atheists ranks- people who are just atheists because they are. Some areas of the united states are now densely populated with atheists (California I am told is a good example). Atheists often go on about how people are indoctrinated into religion by their environment, and how people growing up in religious areas will probably end up being religious because they simply want to fit in/are brain-washed. Those same atheists cannot fathom that the same could be true for themselves or that anyone could follow atheism for any other reason excluding making a logical choice. But there are now those who grew up without religion around them and became atheists by default. You can try to claim that this is not true because no one indoctrinated them into it, but it is enough to grow up in such an environment and subtly pick-up on the attitude of those who surround you to adapt their beliefs without them expressly stating them to you. After all, the mighty oak grows the way the young sprouts are bent. The result of this is that atheism is no longer an exclusive club for the intellectually superior. And although it's members no longer meet up to it's requirements they retain it's privileges like an unruly samurai's servant who gains the right to slay those who offend him with his master's sword. We are left with mediocre individuals with an undeserved feeling of superiority because an nonexistent higher IQ. Who, like most of us, decided their opinion on the matter first and then spend the rest of their lives defending it. I said these people are a danger, and I stand by that because... The Future Of Atheism As I Predict It- One generation follows another and trends tend to continue. Those who began to believe in atheism because their well meaning but misguided parents and community inadvertently nudged them in that direction will soon have children of their own. And, lacking that critical thinking that had originally aided their predecessors in choosing their beliefs, will treat their own children the way normal people treat their kids i.e - telling them what to believe. The current generation of atheists is vary invested in the idea that they must not coheres their offspring into following in their footsteps (not noticing that they are doing it anyway unintentionally) and letting them decide on their own what to believe. The next batch of atheists will lack that. The next wave of them will teach their kids to be atheists, who will in-turn indoctrinate their own children into this ideology. But why not solve this problem altogether? Why not just kill all the religious people? Some variation of this idea has crossed every atheist's mind. A thought they quickly push out and deny having because of the movement's commitment to a humanitarian disposition. Atheists today view religion and religious people as the source of all the world ills. It is inevitable that some of them will, at times, consider that the solution may be to ban religion, or maybe ban the religious from living. Everyone thinks it, but no one says it... Yet. Many times atheists confronted with the argument: "Well, Stalin was an atheist, Hitler was an Atheist, Pol Pot was an atheist and look what they did!" (the only time anyone remembers Pol Pot is when they need an example of a bad atheist... few know who he is or what he did). To which the atheists always reply: "It is true these people were atheists, but no one has ever killed IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM!". But the correct thing to say would be: "No one has ever killed in the name of atheism yet". As their numbers grow and as the quality of their human material declines, it is only a matter of time before someone puts thoughts into words and words into actions. Inevitably, somewhere, some time there will be some kind of atheists majority. I do not know what will happen or how it will happen, but I do know that it must happen. Because by that point the actual intelligent atheists voices will be diluted amongst a crowd of screaming imbeciles who believe in atheism because that is what they were taught to believe. And at that time someone will suggest the once unthinkable, and others will follow. but let us hold off this apocalyptic vision and look at this for a moment- Some of you may have already seen this video. It is only fitting that it would become popular as I am writing this because it serves my purpose perfectly. This. This man is the future of neo-atheism. At the moment he is a lone lunatic. Or more correctly, he is the only lunatic to be caught on film. But not for long. Many of the same example will pop-up like mushrooms after the rain. Soon atheists will find themselves having these sorts of people shoved in their face and will need to defend themselves with the age old "This is just a lone extreamist, most of us are not like that". A position many theists have found themselves in. So what will be different then? Why will it be okay when they do it but not when it is done to them? Well, if you ask an atheist his response will be: "Because we are right and they are wrong". And with that the transformation will be complete. The delicate larva will emerge from it's cocoon a hideous, deformed butterfly. There will no longer be a difference between the atheists and the theists. The rhetorics will be the same, the justifications will be the same, all that will differ is the idea in the name of which they are being recited. The farm animals will look through the window at the pigs, then at the men and then back at the pigs and the will not be able to tell them apart. The apple of modern atheism is already showing the bruises of smug, pompous, maladjusted individuals upon it's skin. But soon it will be rotten to it's core with the slowly spreading cancer of idiots, psychopaths, demagogues and the dumb masses that follow them. Those of you who adhere to this modern incarnation of it will yet live to see your movement poisoned from the inside-out. In a way I feel sorry for the so called four three horsemen. They will be like a modern day Thomas Paine, betrayed by those they have inspired into action for not being extrema enough. So will these men watch their teaching mutated into something scary and unrecognizable before their eyes. The future is bleak for the new atheist movement, not because they are somehow different than any other political group, but precisely because they are exactly the same. If you do not hate them yet, I suggest you start now, because they are about to get much, much worse.