Abrahamic Faiths: The Worst Species That Evolved From An Atheist Genus.

Introduction

It may seem strange, but theists are atheists. Theists are actually the worst kind of atheists. The following themes are criticised by the three Abrahamic faiths against atheists: (1) godlessness, (2) confusion and feeling ‘lost’, (3) lack of direction, (4) discrimination and segregation of the innocent, and (5) violence. Upon analysis, this essay will demonstrate how theism shares all of these characteristics that it condemns under its own guise of ‘religion’. On the first level, theists and atheists agree that ‘other’ religions are based on an illusion. On a second level, theists and atheists agree that those ‘other’ religions share negative traits that are damaging to humanity. Where they split is when the theist then embraces aspects of what he condemns as his absolute truth, whereas the atheist sticks with his initial logic without change. The theist and atheist are quite identical until this third level. This is why theism and atheism share the same genus, but they just evolve into a different species. Scholars rightly point out that atheism and theism are two different species, but I will argue that this is a misleading dichotomy and we should look further back to the common genus of the two species. The species comparison and genus comparisons are both logical, even though they lead to completely different answers. But if we’re trying to understand a higher truth of the theist and atheist mind, an analysis of the genus would be more helpful and lead to fewer distortions.

 Genus and Species Theory

These are biological terms applied by anthropologists. I have applied this theory to memes, or ideas, to show a similar map of development.

Evolution works by starting with a common ancestor. We may call this seeing things as they really are, which would be atheism by default. When each ‘thing’ reproduces, it will never be a clone. Small changes here and there occur, which as generations continue can branch off into new ideas. When one idea is no longer compatible with another idea from the same ancestor, they become a different species. For too long, scholars have compared the differences in species of ideas. But just as chimpanzees share almost 100% of the same DNA as humans, so too does theism and atheism. Although humans are homo sapiens, they biologically remain within the single genus of the ape family, of which there are roughly 200 separate species. Similarly while there may be 200 versions of theism, atheism and agnosticism, they all remain within the same genus. As atheism was and remains the original idea, it remains the original genus. Biologically it’s impossible to re-produce clones for eternity, but as atheism is ‘nothingness’, it remains possible for atheism to remain unchanged. This is why unlike in biology, the atheist species remains identical to the idea genus, while the theist species has evolved to have that 2% difference from its origin; but its ‘DNA’ retains 98% of the atheist gene it evolved from.

The Atheist Genus & Atheist Species 

 

Proof That The Theist Species Retains Atheist DNA

 

Why Speciesisation Is A Misleading Comparison

 

The difference is that the atheist is able to change; change is difficult if not imposible for the theist, because he follows ‘divine’ and ‘holy’ words that can’t change, because they’re perfect. While atheists have no problem admittting past atheists were wrong in believing the earth was flat, the theist bends over backwards to interpret his flat-earth scriptures to mean the opposite. 

 

Even in all the theist’s criticism, he/she still cannot even raise the most horrid theme that’s inherent to theism- the psychological trauma of the threat of hell.

 

 

. (1) Its lakkana (characteristic) is feroristy; (2) its function is to burn up other people’s pillars and supports; (3) its manifestation is argument and persecution; (4) its padathana (proximate cause) is seeing people enjoying another religion.

The truth of this statement is quite easily seen when reading the theists own holy books and statements of renowned theists throughout history. When the theist essentially asks me “why don’t you believe me?”, essentially I do believe in what he says, but only in a back-fired way that blows away his own theory while joining his atheist approach to my response is that I do believe what he says; I just happen to also believe what those other religions say about his.

I do not bow to statues or images as the Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists do, because the muslim told me it’s wrong;
I do not do prescriptive prayer as the Muslims and Jews do, because the Christian told me its wrong;
I do not worship a man as the Christians, Mahayana Buddhists and Hindus do, because the Jew told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe animals should be killed as the Jews and Muslims do, because the Jain told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in asceticism as the Jains, Orthodox and Buddhists do, because the Muslim told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in celebacy as the Buddhists, Jains, Sadhus or Catholics do, because the Muslim told me it’s wrong;
I do not bow to rocks as the Muslims and Hindus do, because the Protestant told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in facing Makkah as the Muslims do, because round-earth scientists told me it’s wrong;
I do not believe in treating people unequally as the Jews, Muslims and Hindus do, because the Christians told me it’s wrong.
I do not believe in having to donate money to the religious authorities as the [all religions] do, because the followers of other religions told me it’s wrong.

So I really do agree with theists. They’re as passionate about their atheism as many self-declared atheists are. We’re all atheists to some degree, and I thank theists for pointing out the errors of those other religions, just as those other religions have pointed out the errors of theirs.