I'm a Fundamentalist Atheist

The fool has said in his heart, there is a God.

I'm an atheist. I'm a zealous, dogmatic, fundamentalist atheist.

I know there is no God, which is why I am an atheist. While I claim to know there is no God, at the same time I'm also pretending there is no God. Why? Because I have an agenda to accomplish; I have a laundry list of dirty acts that I want to accomplish. I want to lie, cheat, rape, murder, and steal without the fear of being punished after I die. I know there is a God, but if I claim there isn't, it removes the fear so that I can commit all the immoral actions that my heart desires. Sure, I know I will be sent to Hell, but as long as I claim I won't, it doesn't bother me.

Praise be to Charles Darwin, the holy prophet. While I know there is no God, claim to know there is no God, know there is a God, and pretend that there is no God -- all at the same time -- I also worship Charles Darwin. I consult his writings as a religious text by which to live my life. And he said unto His people:

Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods.

Behold, Linnaeus, the great taxonomist, and Cuvier, the great paleontologist, shalt be held as the two gods of this world. So it was written, so it shall be done. Just as other religious texts have contradictions, so does the atheist's:

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument from design in Nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. But I have discussed this subject at the end of my book on the 'Variation of Domesticated Animals and Plants,' and the argument there given has never, as far as I can see, been answered.

You may think it is difficult to reconcile such contradictory passages from the man whom I worship, but alas, being an atheist requires an enormous amount of faith. I needn't reconcile these two passages, I will merely assert that it is a logical fallacy to argue that they are contradictory and be comfortable yet again in my faith.

When presented with such bulletproof arguments such as a banana, I have nightmares. What are the contents of said nightmares? The horrors of such nightmares are too unspeakable to visit them upon the mind of another. I will simply say that it involves a banana, an orangutan, and Kirk Cameron, and leave it at that. The fact that the banana used in the argument was specifically bred by humans to be like that gives me no comfort. When I think of the absurdity of Coke fizzing to the surface and evolving into a Coke can, my nightmares evolve into night terrors.

While tormented with nightmares of bananas, I am steadfast in my atheism, though, as my faith as an atheist is strong. I have faith there is no God, know there is no God, claim to know there is no God, pretend there is no God, know there is a God, and worship Charles Darwin as God. It may not make any sense to a rational theist such as yourself, but I am, by the virtue of being an atheist, irrational. I am also a fundamentalist atheist. While it may appear I have nothing to take as fundamental (you forget Darwin's texts), I am a fundamentalist atheist. Anything which doesn't mesh with my worldview gets tossed out as, anything which proves there is a God must be wrong. I have faith in my atheism.

While Charles Darwin is God, the New Atheists are sort of my New Testament. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are my apostles. I take what they say unquestioningly.

I have declared a War on Christianity. I have simply been making noise to have Christian symbols removed from government property. You would think, though, if I truly wanted to wage a War on Christianity so as to establish atheism as the state religion, why do I simply demand that Christian symbols be removed? Wouldn't it be much easier establishing atheism as the state religion if I had them replaced with atheist symbols? Shouldn't I demand "under God" removed from the Pledge and replaced with "under no God"?

You fool! You forget yourself: I am an irrational, illogical atheist. But that aside, anywhere void of religious symbols is a de facto monument to atheism. Therefore, having the symbols removed and leaving only secular content in government places is a monument to atheism.

Why do I need all this space that I gain from my War on Christianity? To make place for the new converts to prostrate Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I am also arrogant and egotistical, and such a vast space of atheist monuments is pleasing, and reassures me in my godlessness. This is why I viciously attack and commit hate crimes against Ray Comfort by commenting on his blog. This is because the Internet should be another atheist monument. I hate religion and am intolerant of it. When they claim they are merely exercising their right to free speech, I also claim to be exercising my right to free speech by speaking out against them. Of course, only one side can have the right to free speech, so clearly I cannot also have the right. But again, you forget yourself; I am an irrational, illogical, zealous, dogmatic, hateful, arrogant, fundamentalist, militant atheist.



Oh wait. I'm a caricature of an atheist.