Oh boy, a nice long rant! Looks like a poor man's Gish Gallop. I'll have a go:
A term which in itself is a paradox, because no such thing as an atheist. (To say there is no God you are claiming to know every little thing about the universe, so that you are claiming to be God)
If I claimed to know with absolute certainty that there are no gods, I would certainly be speaking nonsense. However, I do not; my position is that it is rational not to believe in something when there is no evidence either way.
It is though, the name given to a group of self-righteous, haughty, science-destroying, liberal, monkey-worshiping jackasses who claim there is no God.
What an interesting string of adjectives. The first two concern personality and simply don't make sense when applied to a large group. "Science-destroying" is obvious psychological projection. "Liberal" isn't even an insult. I don't know what to make of "monkey-worshiping," given that I personally don't like monkeys... I suppose this is just a bizarre misinterpretation of the recent common ancestry of primates.
They are religious nuts bent on forcing their RELIGION down everyone else's throats. (Don't tell me Atheism isn't a religion. You are putting your faith in a magical explosion which defies about every law of physics there is to occur. Also, a=no the=God ism=belief. The BELIEF or RELIGION that there is no God.)
Conflating atheism with belief in the Big Bang model just gives atheists the upper hand, considering it's very widely supported among the scientific community. You betray your anti-scientific bent here; there is no need for me to prove it any further.
The claim that the suffix "-ism" refers only to religions is laughable. The closest definition I could find to that is "belief system," but this includes political systems as well--republicanism clearly is not a religion (though Republicans may be religious!).
Furthermore, although some atheists may have faith, it is not a requirement of atheism--indeed there is no such thing as a "requirement" of atheism because it is not an organized system. It is the rejection of existing systems based on gods.
They typically like to think that their "science" makes them smarter than everyone else, when in actuality all of the "science" they have to offer is complete horse shit.
On the contrary. Without secular (not atheistic--there is a difference) science, you would not even have been able to make that claim. If some atheists are rude about this, then they're rude--not wrong.
They are trying to overtake the world, making them no better than the Communists or the Nazis.
I do not see any evidence for this claim whatsoever, neither in your post nor anywhere else.
They are also known as "liberals", "free-thinkers", "non-theists", and "flat-earthers". (The last name was coined to them because their set of beliefs is against science).
Liberals and atheists are two separate groups, and in the US, most liberals are Christian. It is true that most atheists are liberal, but since one is a philosophical position and the other a political one, there doesn't seem to be any point in conflating the two. "Free-thinkers" and "non-theists" are indeed labels atheists often use to describe themselves, mainly because the word "atheist" is somewhat stigmatized. "Flat-earther" is more psychological projection--it is neither true nor widely used in this context.
I'm not trying to prove my religion, which I am not sharing. I am trying to show the general public the light on these monsters. I know there are some that don't nark on religion all the time, I have friends like that and they are awesome, but it takes one drop of kerosene to ruin a whole bowl of cereal.
What an odd turnaround! Not to mention an odd metaphor. If your problem is simply with atheists who bash religion, why didn't you just write that from the start? Instead you've attacked the whole group for the actions of a group you yourself claim is a minority. That would be like me saying "All Christians are idiots because JWs won't accept blood transfusions."
Flat-Earther: Because I am an Atheist, I am far more intellectually developed than you. I will deny the laws of thermodynamics to the end, but I am still more scientific than you. Now bow to my religion or else you will be charged for a hate crime.
If you are referring to the idea that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution, this is based on a popular misunderstanding of thermodynamics which itself is based on a bad analogy. Talk.origins has a great explanation of why the two are not in conflict here. I know most fundies don't read these comments, but I have to try! :)
If you aren't talking about the second law and evolution, I simply don't know what you are talking about. And as for hate crimes, they are simply stronger versions of existing crimes; they do not make criminal anything which was not already so, including criticism of another group.
