Tweetstorm that should be my final “Not All Atheists Are Like That” disclaimer.

Could even Shallow Atheist Twat Bill Maher disagree with any of this?
Could even Shallow Atheist Twat Bill Maher disagree with any of this?


Catholics can say “Fuck.” Deal with it.

I call what I do Cultural Criticism and Street Apologism. I’m also quite secular about it–because I defend all serious theists from Atheism, and I criticize the effects of Atheism on Secular society.

Also, retarded Atheist dumbfuckery annoys me.

In case you didn’t know, “Secular society” was invented by the religious so they could set aside their differences. But now a weird hate cult calling itself “Atheism” with all sorts of identifiable beliefs but claiming it’s just “lack of belief” has infested every part of our popular, academic, and institutional society. Worse, these self-described “Atheists” seem to think they own Secularism.

In fact, not only do Atheists seem to think they own Secularism, they think they get to tell all the rest of us how Secular society should run.

This is what "Gay Rights" increasingly looks like to a lot of people. Are you good with that, Christian-haters, or will you double-down on the Christian bashing?
This is what “Secular Civil Rights” increasingly looks like to a lot of people. Are you good with that, Christian-haters, or will you double-down on the Christian bashing?

They have no such right. But they claim it for themselves anyway. Fearlessly and unapologetically: to them, “Secular” means Atheism is in charge. And they’re just the Atheists who want to be in charge.

We’re not obligated to let them be in charge, of the government or the culture. Or anything else. Not if we don’t want to.

Also guess what? Atheism is an ideological position, and an intellectual movement, every bit as open to robust criticism as any religion or political movement.

For example, the overwhelming majority of Atheists, save maybe a few buddhists, are dogmatic materialists:

The outcome of materialist thinking always goes in predictable directions. For example, if they go Left, they turn Marxist. If they go Right, they turn Objectivist or some other form of Libertarian. Some get into religion-friendly Atheist philosophies (there are some), but most just become cheesy sloppy low-IQ advocates of Scientism.

Noted Atheist advocate Christopher Hitchens, in response to charges of Atheists being offensive.
Noted Atheist advocate Christopher Hitchens. Should Christians try to avoid offending people who are fans of this man? I don’t think so.

Furthermore, Atheists don’t have to like the fact that I put them under the microscope and examine their bullshit. All I do is subject Athists to what they’ve been doing to the religious for years through their media celebrities and Social Media accounts. It may make them squirm, but why should I give a damn if Atheists squirm? Not All Atheists Are Like That, but most of them seem to be these days.

As for any Christians squirming? Grow a spine.

I think if we look at the trashy effects of Atheism on the culture, we can now see why multiple religious traditions, and even non-religious people, can’t stand Atheism. Historically the great non-religious Pagan philosophers, like Cicero, hated Atheism.

Furthermore, I truly am ecumenical, and secular. I criticize all sorts of sloppy Atheist bullshit.

I also speak up on behalf of other religions, including Judaism, Zoroastrianism, even Morminism, Hinduism, NeoPaganism, and non-religious Theist philosophers.

Yes I think you should all be orthodox catholic Christians. But if you aren’t, please be anything other than another narrowminded, obnoxious, dogmatic materialist Atheist.

By the way, I am also a Cultural Critic in the early 21st Century. That means I swear.

Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker asshole. If you don’t like it, don’t read me or listen to me.

This Posh Pompous Toffeenosed Upperclass Lapsed Anglican bigot doesn't care who gets offended. Neither do I. What are you, you pussy atheist, can't take the shit you dish out?
This Posh Pompous Toffeenosed Upperclass Lapsed Anglican bigot and Atheist, known as Stephen Fry, doesn’t care who gets offended. Neither do I. What are you, a pussy Atheist who can’t take the shit you dish out?

Some Protestants say the Bible says “don’t swear.” But they’re Protestant, I’m Catholic, and they’re reading it wrong. 

Catholics, as it happens, are free to swear, so long as they do not blaspheme.

Atheists and others can of course blaspheme in front of Catholics. We generally don’t much blink: it makes you look shallow and obnoxious, but it’s between you and God.

In any case, Catholics can say “fuck.” Sorry, but we can.

Yes, some orthodox Christian voices would say harsh words are spiritually bad for you. If you feel my use of vulgar language is harmful to your spirituality, please avoid me. Retarded Atheist dumbfuckery annoys me, what can I say? For I swear freely, and I intend to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.

As for setting examples, I’ll tell you the story of my first encounter, as a Protestant-raised boy who was put into a Catholic High School.

The Catholic School I went to–sadly, I only got to attend one year–was run 80% or so by monks. My homeroom teacher, also my Ancient History teacher, was Father [Redacted], an Augustinian monk, and a Priest, who was also running double duty as Principal of the school. He had a PhD in Ancient History, which he had gotten studying many years in Greece.

Father [Redacted] was brilliant. He could easily outshine most of today’s college professors. But he chose instead a life of poverty as a monk, teaching boys at a working class school on the South Side of Chicago.

I was 13 and on the first day, Father [Redacted] introduced himself, asked us to introduce ourselves one at a time, and then… I don’t remember exactly what he said but the word “bullshit” came out of his mouth, and a couple of “fucks” and within minutes the entire class of all boys was eating out of his hand:

An adult talking like that? In public? A priest?!? It was scandalously weird in 1980, but normal for working-class Catholic families in that area.

The monks were also known to do things like pitch an eraser at your head if they caught you napping. I remember one monk in particular yelling things like “Did you not hear me? Get the shit out of your ears, Esmay!”

Catholic-haters probably look at that and call it abuse. No, it was roughtumble language for rough young men in a rough part of town. Father [Redacted] was one of us–he swore too–and he explained to us, just like every other Priest I’ve asked since, that no, coarse or vulgar language is not a sin. It’s how and why you use it that matters.

But once again, if you don’t like my rough language? Well close the window and walk away from me. Problem solved!

Thanks for reading and uh, by the way: please support me on Patreon!

Richard Dawkins is a Proven Pseudoscientist and Cult Leader

This man is a Zoologist, whose Selfish Gene, Memetic, and God As Delusion hypotheses are all pseudoscience.
This man is a Zoologist, whose Selfish Gene, Memetic, and God As Delusion hypotheses are all pseudoscience.
Richard Dawkins has managed to go through his life bamboozling scientists into thinking he’s a great philosopher, and everybody else into thinking he’s a great scientist. In reality, he is neither.

On Saturday night last week I was on one of my rare indulgences (margeritas) and got annoyed when I saw Sargon of Akkad, aka Carl Benjamin, send a fawning tweet to the fading pseudoscientist and cult leader. I got more irritated than I should have (which I apologize for). But as someone who was long bamboozled by Dawkins–back when I was an Atheist, I really thought he was at least a reputable scientist–I am sickened when I see a man who uses his science credentials to promote pseudoscience, and double irked when I see otherwise intelligent people still lionizing the sad old fraud.

To my delight, however, my being irked at Carl wound up giving me opportunity to help publicly educate people on one of the most thoroughly noxious pseudoscientists, pseudohistorians, and pseudophilosophers on Planet Earth. When I noted that Memetic Theory is clearly pseudoscience, I was presented by one of his followers with this hilarious paper:

Journal of Bioeconomics (2009): An empirical investigation of organizational memeticvariation. 11:135–164. DOI 10.1007/s10818-009-9061-1

“Peer reviewed papers” are so respected by Scientism fanatics they obviously don’t bother to read them. I, on the other hand, make a point of reading such papers before I trust them–after all, it’s an open secret these days that you can’t trust the peer review system anymore.

Anyway, I read it. The paper is 30 pages or so of handwaving and smoke-blowing that attempts–and admittedly fails–to provide some sort of empirical framework for Memetics. This is fascinating on multiple levels. Read it yourself if you don’t believe me.

But first, notice the publisher: Journal of Bioeconomics. That journal is an obscure publication that “Encourages creative dialogue between biologists and economists.” Change that to “biologists and feminist academics” and tell me how it would read to you.

Second, I happen to know that the only peer reviewed journal that ever tried to make the case for Memetics as a real science, known simply as “Journal of Memetics,” ceased publication in 2005 due to lack of interest or much in the way of results. These researchers had been working on trying to make something real of Memetics since 1976–that’s right, 1976. They eventually gave up having produced almost nothing coherent to back up the incoherent Memetic Theory.

So now fancy this: four years after the only journal to ever really take Memetics Theory seriously threw in the towel, some obscure Memetics advocates manage to get a tentative paper published in 2009. A paper where they admit clearly that Memetics is “empirically under-developed” and finally, after 30 pages of tergiversations and maths applied to nothing concrete, conclude with this devastating line:

Ours is a tentative first empirical move in organizational research toward the micro/macro resolution we see in biology.

That’s right kids. More than 40 years after Richard Dawkins first proposed Memetic Theory, two researchers published a “tentative first empirical move.” They don’t even claim they showed anything empirical, just that they may be close to having something that might be empirical someday. There’s no followup that I can find.

Memetic Theory is busted. So, by the way, is Selfish Gene Theory.

If you doubt Selfish Gene is busted, you should see the way Dawkins’s fellow Atheist and far more accomplished Evolutionary Biologist, Lynn Margulis, demolished him at Oxford University just a few years ago: Margulis-Dawkins Debate, 2012.

Margulis, an Atheist, an accomplished Evolutionary Biologist, and a member of both the American AND Russian Academy of Sciences (a rare honor and distinction) showed that most life on Earth doesn’t even use nuclear DNA and freely swaps what genetic material it has with other organisms–and the human body has more such organisms in it than it has cells. This leads to the obvious question of what cells and organisms really use DNA for, and what the limits of DNA might be. While admitting to “liking” Selfish Gene as a crude way to describe large animals, Margulis utterly demolished the NeoDarwinist paradigm that Selfish Gene is based on for an audience of some of the world’s foremost Evolutionary Biologists and other scholars.

This was a long time coming. Many biologists, especially young ones, knew it would happen because Margulis and quite a few others had been showing for decades already that NeoDarwinism (the basis of Selfish Gene) was bunk.

Even now, while there are some old grayhairs holding out for it, almost no one who studies evolution or genetics believes there’s anything to Selfish Gene or NeoDarwinism. As scientists say of incoherent gibberish, Selfish Gene is so bad it’s not even wrong. Only the dying remnants of Dawkins’s Celebrity Scientist cult still really hold out for it.

And by the way, Memetic Theory was specifically Dawkins’s effort to mesh Ideas and mental processes to Selfish Gene theory. In other words, Selfish Gene is the debunked “science” that Memetic Theory is based on.

You can’t get more pseudosciencey than one debunked theory on top of another debunked theory. Except maybe with “Feminist Theory” or “Social Justice Theory.”

Finally, the notion of God as a delusion, which Dawkins is fond of asserting, has no empirical basis in psychological or psychiatric research, either. God As Delusion is unscientific poppycock. See my Proof from Evolutionary Psychology for references on that.

What does all this mean? It means all the big things Richard Dawkins is known for–Selfish Gene, Memetic Theory, and the God Delusion–are all either pseudoscience, or not science at all. But it’s worse than that: They all run up against demonstrable science that proves them wrong.

Sorry Richard Dawkins fans, but there’s no more substance to Dawkins and his work than the average famous Astrologer.

In reality, Mr. Dawkins just doesn’t like God as an idea, even though countless perfectly sane non-delusional people know God is, at minimum, a perfectly rational and coherent concept based on evidence. (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a rational analysis of the idea.)

In closing, below is the tweet exchange which inspired me to get this all out. I couldn’t have had a better conversation with those caught up in The Dawkins Delusion if I’d wanted to. Dawkins is exposed as what he is: a cult leader and a pseudoscientist who has actively made people dumber on subjects such as evolution, religion, psychology, and sociology.

I continue to double, triple dare Sargon of Akkad and his followers to read The Last Superstition by the way. And I hope he and his circle one day have the guts to finally start talking to theists who are at least as smart as they are.

*Update*: A check on the principle author of the 2009 paper that attempted–and failed–to find a scientific basis for Meme theory was a Jill Shepherd, an obscure researcher with mostly a business management background, with a secondary author Bill McKelvey, whose background is also primarily business management.

That’s a real cutting-edge research team right there. And neither seems to have published anything since 2009 on this or other major topics besides business management. No surprise. There’s no “there” there when it comes to “Memetic theory.” Memetic Theory isn’t science and never has been.

*Update 2*: A former Dawkinsite flees the cult.