Atheist Logic Fail


Richard Dawkins is a psychopath.



The first time I read the God Delusion, I knew it was wrong on a number of points, but recently Richard Dawkins said some things that mad me interested in the book again and I bought a copy and started rereading it.  I didn’t realize the first time what a truly manipulative and strategic communicator he really was.  The reason this is important to me is that some of you know that I am a psycholinguist that looks for psychopathic patterns in communication and psychopaths are manipulative, strategic communicators.

One of Richards favorite tactics is to quote somebody else and agree with them instead of saying something himself, or he will invite somebody to make a logical fallacy that he himself doesn’t actually assert, or he will ask a question instead of making an assertion that could be falsified, he edits his consideration set to prove himself correct and he doesn’t include information that weakens his arguments.  I will point out a couple of examples of these behaviors in his rants.

When the police are interrogating someone they look for the story to change, this is very important, how the story changes and what the story changes to because it can reveal intent to conceal or mislead.  Every time the story changes it is important.  When I first read the book Richard quotes a female friend of his as saying that she was sexually molested and it was “icky” but it did no long term damage and he agreed with her, then recently he said:


In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

So we see that he was concealing his real narrative.  This is a strategy that he uses repeatedly to avoid taking responsibility for what he is saying.  Here is another instance where he is quoting Douglas Adams:

If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it.  But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’ you say, ‘I respect that’.

Who hear is expressing contempt for Orthodox Judaism?  Is it Richard or Douglas?  Who do I falsify?  Does Richard agree with Douglas?  If not why does he include the quote?  In the next paragraph he he attacks Quakers, who started in England by rebelling against the Atheistic sexual debauchery and had to leave the country to get away from them.  Now I don’t know about you, but I have never had an Chassidic Jew tell me that I wasn’t allowed to move a light switch on Saturday.  Who is arguing for the authority to force Orthodox Jews to use the lights on Saturday?  Not only are they mocking one of the first revolutions in civil rights, the original Holy Day, the first weekend that guaranteed that you were not allowed to work your slaves to death, and that you wouldn’t have to compete against people working 7 days a week and you had one day to yourself in which to relax and roger your wife, but it is also a post modernist movement for people that are tired of the rigors, deuchery, and psychopathic hypocrisy of modern life.

Oh, yeah, I will just leave this here….

“the right to be Christian seems in this case to mean the right to poke your nose into other people’s private lives’.”



“confuse” or enlighten?  “deism is watered down theism“.  Now what is so telling is that one moment he is saying that Deism is Theism and then he says he is not trying to debate Einstein’s god, but Einstein was a deist…  Not only that, he doesn’t explain Einstein’s god because if he did some people would say, “Well, that is actually pretty interesting, I think I might be a deist too”  and then they wouldn’t be as easily hypnotized by his propaganda that they must from now on harass and bully religious people.  Richard Dawkins is not an authority on deism and he defines it falsely.  I should know, I am a deist, Einstein and myself have the same god.




This is truly bizarre, he quotes Adolf Hitler verbatim but he doesn’t give credit to Hitler for the quote.


Now why is it that knowledge has to be fought?  That is what is so strange about this quote, not only does it tell me he is most likely quoting Hitler, it tells me that he is manipulating people.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, unfortunately most Americans are not smart enough to detect what is for me the powerful stench of horse shit.  He can easily befuddle the minds of people with a little bit of knowledge and turn them against the people of faith, just like somebody else I know, hmmm….


One of his communication strategies is to borrow authority from other cool people to make his ideas seem more hip.  He uses the Beatles song to support his claim that without religion there would be no violence because there would be no clicks or groups of people that disagree with one another and fight each other.  Not only is this assertion unproven, that a world without religion would be a peaceful world, but he ignores the fact that state enforced atheism has always failed, and has always been associated with violence and human rights atrocities.  Furthermore, he ignores the fact of the first two primary influences of the Beatles music.  Not to mention he is smart enough to know that children are not born as blank slates, that is why Noam Chomsky is famous, he falsified the Behaviorists who thought that children were blank slates.  On top of that, if lets say we got rid of Islam would the thought tools, Abeed, Harem, and Taqiyya disappear?  Would people no longer think in those terms?  Or should we eradicate their language as well, like the Catholics who indoctrinated people into their own language?


Yukteswar Giri (also written yuktesvaraSri Yukteswar) (Bengaliশ্রী যুক্তেশ্বর গিরী) (10 May 1855 – 9 March 1936) is the monastic name of Priya Nath Karar (Bengaliপ্রিয়নাথ কাঁড়ার), the guru of Satyananda Giri and Paramahansa Yogananda. Yukteswar was an educator, astronomer, a Jyotisha (Vedic astrologer), a yogi, and a scholar of the Bhagavad Gitaand the Bible. He was a disciple of Lahiri Mahasaya of Varanasi and a member of the Giri branch of the swami order. Yogananda considered Yukteswar as Jnanavatar, or “Incarnation of Wisdom”.[1]

Aleister Crowley (/ˈkrli/; born Edward Alexander Crowley; 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an Englishoccultistceremonial magicianpoet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer. He was responsible for founding the religion and philosophy of Thelema, in which role he identified himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into theAeon of Horus in the early 20th century.

And then Richard contradicts himself again by creating another clique or group of people that is adversarial with everybody else…

“Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to ‘come out,’ thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can’t be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

Now what I find so interesting about the behavior of Atheists is that Atheism was not an organization, it was the absence of the presence of the belief in god, as such their behavior was not informed by Atheism and not organized.  Now it is becoming organized and informed.  But Atheists while attacking other groups ignore the bad stuff that their people say and do, just like a religion, while insisting that their bad behavior doesn’t characterize Atheism, at the same time atheists cannot be falsified by any praxis of Atheism, since they are still insisting that it is not an organization when in fact it is.  Atheism is becoming a religion.  What they are forgetting is that the highest form of their good is the absence of the presence of a form of good…  If you want to talk about Delusional…



He just won’t give up on defending pedophilia.  Notice the change in narrative, the first time he spoke it happened to a woman, then it happened to him, and it was “putting hands in my shorts” and then he mentioned it again and this time it was, “putting hands in clothes” he is using vague tautologies in order to make the whole matter look more harmless, and he is using an exaggerated comparison set in order to herd people towards the answer he wants in order to make it look more reasonable than it is.

I have spent a lot of time studying how psychopaths like Hitler rise to power, how they communicate harmlessness, and how they pass your threat filter, and then they get behind you and get you doing their dirty work.  In the book click!, they say the fastest way to get a group of people to have a sense of unity is by instilling in them a shared sense of suffering, they need to feel victimized, persecuted.  And then he uses his scientific authority to get them to attack his enemies, while he stays at home and “mildly” Frotteurises your children, but as my stand up comedy alter ego says:


Author: Joxua Luxor

Known by his online handle Shivah Solomon, he paints as Joxua Mourningstar, he teaches Martial Tai Chi as Master Ten Ton Tiger, writing on occult mysteries he is known as Rabbi Ba'al Shiva, he writes philosophical fiction as Shivastus Solomonicus, and he does comedy as Adam Wolfe.

51 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins is a psychopath.

  1. The Hitler quote is fake; 4Chan was trolling Reddit ( The tweets are also fake, which should be obvious when you notice one of them is the Fourteen Words ( and actually look at the comments of the article you pulled them from, although you can also feel free to check his Twitter account if you’re not convinced.

    As far as this goes:

    “Who hear is expressing contempt for Orthodox Judaism? Is it Richard or Douglas? Who do I falsify? Does Richard agree with Douglas? If not why does he include the quote?”

    Both. Both. Both. Yes. He included it because he agrees with it.

    Finally, the Sgt. Pepper cover is a little more complicated than you think, and figures were chosen for their celebrity as much as anything else; remember they were going to include Hitler originally (


    • yes, ty, I appreciate your info on the Hitler quote being fake, I didn’t know that. As far as the tweets, I know they are fake, but my curiosity now is as to why they were faked and not removed, I am pretty sure whoever faked them had come to the same conclusions that I have on Dawkins.

      As far as the Sri yukteshwar inclusion, he wrote the holy science. He is rather an obscure choice since his student, paramahansa yogananda is much more obvious a choice. it is doubtful he would have been included if something wasn’t known about him. Also George harrison studied the sitar under ravi shankar so it is obvious to me that Indian philosophy was a real influence.

      furthermore, you can see a positive reference to the mother mary in the lyrics here.

      Lastly, you only falsified the things that you falsified, and ignored the stuff in this piece that is still meaningful, therefore you are not self falsifying and you are operating on a dynamic tautology of argument from fallacy.


  2. Your premise is false: I wasn’t interested in your conclusions; I only wanted to correct your obvious errors. Wouldn’t it be best to put up a note or remove them? My understanding is that it’s common for people to not read comments on blogs. I would hate for you to deceive readers who stumbled on you through Google.

    I also wasn’t suggesting that the cover didn’t include admirable figures, only that they were chosen for a variety of reasons (Crowley the Anti-Christ being another good example, now that I think of it) and that their presence should not be considered a blanket endorsement of all of their beliefs. Philosophical study should also not be conflated with an enthusiastic embrace of all views, considering Sam Harris’ deep sympathy toward Buddhist thinking.

    Come to think of it, I’m also somewhat unclear as to how influence would necessarily demonstrate that the Beatles are religious: presumably there are plenty of atheists who have been influenced by religion. Cormac McCarthy is quite explicit in his atheism, but evidence of the Bible’s influence is replete in all of his books.

    I am a simple person with no training in debate, so I’m afraid I don’t know what a “dynamic tautology” is, and the fact that I am not “self-falsifying” would appear to someone like myself to be a virtue. But I am sure you know what you’re talking about, so please accept my apologies there.

    Could you clear up where Dawkins admitted that his “female friend” was made up? Couldn’t he have a female friend and also be the victim of molestation? I was very confused by this.



    • My premise is not false, Richard Dawkins is a psychopath. You are making the argument from fallacy fallacy. Furthermore, your comments have been acknowledged, I will correct my mistakes when Richard Dawkins corrects his mistakes, as long as he refuses to observe the praxis of the rational I will too.

      This piece is also a historical document showing a teleology as I strive to understand Dawkins and get Atheists into rational debates, for that reason the document will remain unaltered.

      As far as the bible goes, I am not a christian I am a Jnana guru and a shaktipat guru. I am also a kabbalist who practices exegesis on the scriptures, I understand the bible and how it is to be interpreted, it is no literal, it is a mythological allegory and one can not falsify it by misunderstanding and misinterpeting it. So when Atheists stop trying to shut me up and realize that i am correct or falsify me in rational discussion, I will cease my current approach, but until that time turn about is fair play, what is gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander, Jus ad bellum.

      Nassim Nicholas Taleb said that if a person really thinks their philosophy is valid instead of bias mining to prove it correct they should attempt to falsify it. So as you see it is not a rational virtue it is an irrational vice.

      A “dynamic Tautology” is a neologism I created to point out when a person is acting on a logical fallacy. It has to do with my psychological models, as a person speaks, so they think, so they act. that is praxis. If all 3 are not congruent or are wrong they are irrational. Which is psychotic. Which is psychopathic. Rational is as rational does.

      In the “God delusion” he first mentions that child molestation is not as bad as emotional abuse, but instead of saying that he was molested, he manipulates the feminine bias of his readers by mentioning a female as saying it, so while it is coming from him he wasn’t sure it would be as well received or agreed upon coming from himself, and since he has an agenda and a plan of attack he behaved strategically and communicated manipulatively.

    • Thank you, and you are welcome.

    • “Self-falsifying” lol you hit the nail on the head there. He must be a doctor of psychology! I mean, he’s invented his own terminologies. It’s pretty brilliant to say the least! 😉

  3. Pingback: Richard Dawkins – psykopati | Börje Peratt utforskare

  4. So Dawkins think no lasting harm was done to him? I beg to differ. The guy is clearly deranged and something caused it.

  5. I think you’re the one who’s the delusional psychopath with a heavy sprinkling of irrational paranoia. Where are your credentials to say indeed that Richard Dawkins is a psychopath looking to manipulate the minds of people? Is this a reflection of YOUR agenda? How about other well known (and well educated) Atheists? Ex: Steven Hawking, Michio Kaku, Christopher Hitchens, etc., who publicly state their sensible, scientific opinions about religion? Are they also manipulative psychopaths with a Hitler/Stalin agenda because they’re bringing consciousness to the thinking mind and evolving it away from the ancient mentality just as Dawkings? Can you answer that “doctor professor”? And let me ask, why are there pictures of your face cropped to Jesus on the cross when I Google search your images? I also see you have a blog that states “How to debate Atheists every time and win”….hmmm? Are you afraid to accept there isn’t a God? If God created the universe, then who created God? We came from nothing. What other explanation do you have that can trump that? I think that ends any debate right there alone because there isn’t anything that can answer that question, and it’s extremely ignorant to believe in a book that tells you there is a God. He plays head games and never shows himself, lol. Besides, it’s not about winning, it’s about finding the truth, and that’s the exact thing Dawkings and other Atheists (myself included) want to figure out. Has it ever dawned on you that these brilliant men get people to challenge an ancient mindset so that their minds can evolve and we can progress and start finally breeding more intelligent minds? Maybe you’ve been exposed to an occult? You look pretty deranged yourself. I suppose that I should assume and believe all these things about you by what I’ve seen and read? It’s pretty ignorant posting false information as if you’re certain about what you’re saying, without really investigating to be sure you’re in fact correct. Other people, just as yourself, want to make Richard Dawkings look bad, so I’m not surprised out of their own fear that they want to post things that are fabricated. Everything you posted has minimal to no credibility at all. It’s mostly just coming from your “off” opinions about Dawkins to feel superior over him. I have no respect for ignorance…

    • My credentials are I am a psycholinguist that deconstructs narrative, I generate predictions which are very accurate and have been coming true since 2012, here is a link to my profile on Dawkins.

      Furthermore you are obviously a Dawkinite. I created the neologism Dawkinite. I call it a neologism because that’s what it is, just as Richard Dawkins rebranded another concept with the name Neologism, it is just another word for the same thing. Which is yet another Psychopathic pattern.

      Rene’ Girard said that humans are Acquisitively Mimetic (mime/to copy) which is where the word meme comes from. And aristotle said that people are acquisitive, which is essentially what Dawkins is saying in other words and yet not giving credit. Also the actual origin of his meme neologism is the pollock joke from Nazi Germany used as psychological warfare against the Polish.

    • Conflation of Dawkins with other scientists and Atheists, logical fallacy. Comparison to stalin, leading question and red herring. Response to two questions, why when you google my name are there pictures of my face photoshopped onto Jesus? and am I afraid to admit that there might not be a god?

      Answer to both questions you would have to know what my perception of god is, you make the common Atheist logical error in thinking that you can read my mind and know what I think without asking that question, I don’t answer accusations, it is illogical. If you knew how I perceive god then you would understand my behavior. I Also don’t recognize your moral authority to get righteously indignant and to judge me.

    • You said, “He plays head games and never shows himself, lol.” You anthropomorphize a god you don’t believe exists. Irrational.

      You ignore the fact that Dawkins is a Pedophile apologist and that you are defending a person who defended pedophilia. Why are you doing that?

      Insane assertion that presupposed your own frame, you said ” it’s not about winning, it’s about finding the truth, and that’s the exact thing Dawkings and other Atheists (myself included) want to figure out.” Who said anything about winning, who is winning? How is winning different from finding the truth? Also, Dawkinites are not trying to find the truth because they have presupposed the truth and are not open to debate. You can falsify yourself very easily by researching the debate history between Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Dinesh d’souza and Richard dawkins. Not only has he lost debates he refuses to debate people that have beat him before or he knows will beat him.

    • If you think everything I have posted is false information you are delusional, you want to think it is false because you are emotionally invested in Dawkins and you are turning him into a religious figure or a god. You are protecting his reputation just as though he is some kind of corrupt religious figure. I am supporting “my opinions” with evidence and reason, your opinions are emotional appeals (a typical female tactic)
      and argument from authority, Dawkins is correct because he is an authority in your arrogant opinion.

      In response to your ignorant assertion that I have offered nothing but opinion, I remind you of Hitchens razor, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

      You might want to acquaint yourself with what constitutes evidence depending on the field. Not only are you demonstrably wrong, you are definitively wrong. It is obvious that you know nothing about debate of the Philosophy behind the western legal system.

      • You’re full of yourself, right when you said bill o’reilly I couldn’t help but listen to you 10 minute long story about Jesus.

  6. The way that this post is written, and so vehemently attacking reason with not only false examples but ridiculous interpretations … is more psychopathic than your pitiful attempt at ridiculing a perfectly logical man.

  7. you know there are other rational ways to say you are afraid of atheism…

    Richard Dawkins: “Ignored God”& “Atheists for Jesus” John 10:30.

    “… or he will invite somebody to make a logical fallacy that he himself doesn’t actually assert, or he will ask a question instead of making an assertion that could be falsified, he edits his consideration set to prove himself correct and he doesn’t include information that weakens his arguments. I will point out a couple of examples of these behaviors in his rants.”

  10. So you know the tweets and the Hitler quote are faked and wrong, but yet you keep them up there?
    What a nice, rational, mature person you are.

    • LOL, at Liberal butthurt when you use their tactics against them successfully. If I had deleted the post that would also incriminate me in the minds of you Atheist Opposite Landers. Go to Hell.

      • So you will not correct factual nor spelling errors? Yet you see no reason for people to doubt your credibility? Regardless, nobody should care if you’re a psycholinguist, if your assertions aren’t true, an argument from authority won’t convince people otherwise.

      • You are an anonymous troll and you don’t deserve to make demands because you are feckless coward who isn’t willing to risk his reputation on his own words. Get lost Jerk.

  11. “Everyone who disagrees with me is a troll lololololol”
    How would it affect my reputation if I put my real name? You don’t know me, I’m not exactly famous, it makes no difference what name I put. Besides, I’m not making demands, I’m telling you that the people who doubt your credibility are completely justified, which you didn’t refute or even deny. Anyway, for someone who so obviously dislikes liberals, you’re, ironically, very quick to dismiss people as trolls.
    Also, I’d just like to point out that you won’t fix factual or spelling errors because it would “incriminate me in the minds you Atheist Opposite Landers” in other words, it would hurt your reputation in the eyes of the people you’re arguing with. As if intentionally and maliciously spreading what you know is misinformation hasn’t done that already. You have no integrity, credibility, honesty, or humility. Your article does not deserve the time I have wasted typing this response, and I doubt you’ll address any point I made in this comment in any meaningful way, but I implore you to correct your errors and apologize for your mistakes. Have some pride.

  12. So you’ve admitted that you’re not a credible source, you won’t risk your reputation for the sake of honesty, you’re too cowardly to admit your mistakes, and that you think abusive ad hominem fallacies are valid arguments. If you weren’t trying to report accurately or honestly, and you aren’t prepared to defend or justify this. Why did you write this article? Did you know beforehand that your sources weren’t credible, and used them regardless to deceive readers? It seems you’re hoping that people who read the article and not the comments will still believe you, which sounds like something you might call “strategic communication” huh? Fortunately for “Dawkinites” Dawkins doesn’t employ such dishonest persuasion tactics.

  13. You have still not demonstrated that sharing my name would in any way affect what I am saying. Ideas stand and fall on their own, regardless of the person. You don’t seem to understand ad hominem fallacies and why they don’t work. Regardless, your article is garbage, your integrity is garbage, your logical reasoning skills are garbage, to call anyone a waste of your time is to lack any semblance of self-awareness.

    • You are an idiot and you are conflating Also ad Hominem with Only ad Hominem. You are stupidly trying to ignore the rest of my argument because I also ad hominem-ed. But your argument is invalid because you are not a hominem you are a cowardly troll sock, who’s reputation is so bad you hide in the shadows like the intellectual coward you are.

  14. I hope to come back tomorrow and still see you hiding behind your ad hominem fallacies, which is what this article is based upon I might add. You very obviously, and with blatant, shameless honesty, do not plan to address any arguments against you or your article. You think you can attack someone’s reputation to discredit their argument, a logical fallacy used by the most dishonest swine. This fact supports my decision to not disclose my name to you, wouldn’t make a difference how you addressed the argument, there would be nothing but ad hominem fallacies. If you can’t address what I’ve said, you’ve lost the argument. Though I know you won’t even try to address them, that’s too much to expect from a spineless liar.

    • Lol, you have no reputation idiot. If you had approached me Rationally instead of Strategically I would have treated you Rationally. You don’t get to change the teleology. Time doesn’t move backwards. First Causes are First Causes. And you will look like an idiot to anyone that reads this conversation that is sane.

  15. You must think very low of people to think they’d be convinced by your rows of ad hominem fallacies. If you can’t argue without fallacies, your argument is shit.

  16. >currently standing behind my opinions
    It makes no difference if my name is attached. If you were someone who knew me, or if I was famous, my name might be of consequence. However, since neither is true, it’s completely irrelevant. I don’t understand your fixation on my name, as if it had an impact on the argument. Regardless, if I did attach my name I’m willing to bet you’d call it a fake name and continue hiding from criticism. I think very low of intellectual cowards who refuse to defend their opinions. Funnily enough, you refuse to stand behind your opinions, one wonders why you’d be so afraid to directly address critcism.

  17. The bottom line is, you must either admit to, and fix your mistakes, or concede that you are being dishonest. Since not fixing your mistakes will confirm your dishonesty, these are the only two options. Pick one.

    • In order to dictate what is rational you must observe the praxis of the rational and you are nobody, a cowardly, anonymous sock, ashamed of your own dickless cowardice.

  18. So you admit your dishonesty. I expected as much.

  19. I’m not the one writing an article accusing someone of being a psychopath while being blatantly dishonest, and admittedly so. You’ve basically already admitted you can’t be trusted to tell the truth, attaching my identity to words holds nothing on whether or not they’re true.

  20. i also know most the tweet quotes are fake . I have listened to Dawkins long enough to know his thoughts on those subjects. I was curious on this page and found it really idiotic even reading a bit of it. I cant not finish reading all the nonsense on this page I have much better things to do.

  21. Really. You are nonsense, and an idiot-christian ‘nothing burger’.

  22. Your info is not true, probably grabbed off a crazy christian site. Please fact check it, and stop uploading on controversial topics and just plain rude and fake content. Breitbart is known for having fake news, and please use a database. Just go away. You’re not a professor that worked for Oxford. Just far from it.

  23. lol, when you are so delusional you start calling someone a psycho because you have no valid arguments to comeback with… #relatable.

    • Let’s talk about a concept of LOVE. Who would be the best to ask?

      Maybe I’ll ask a serial killers and all they said was I love to kill shit. Yep that helps.

      How about very wealthy individuals and all he said was I love money and power.

      Then I asked humanities humane and they said love is empathy, sympathy, humility and cooperation. Well that sounds to any with a thread of intelligence to be the right answer.

      So shoot the messenger maybe so, but the first step in our evolutionally progression was. Why don’t I just kill you, and in the frontal lobe of our primitive brain developed, you just might kill me instead.

      Co-operation and becoming as humane as the world has become is history.

      Allusion, illusion, or delusion take you preference.

      And what valid argument are we referring to? Is it that all atheist scientists are psychopaths or sociopaths or is it; Does an existences creator exist or are you referring to both at once?

      Well it must be both and guess what both are logical fallacies, so where do we go from here? How about Scientifically with wiring up all atheist scientists brains and seeing actual evidence.

      So does an existences creator exist? Scientifically can’t be proven, can’t be disprove. So we all would be off better leaving that one alone.

      Or is it that you don’t know the difference between an augment and a discussion? You see an augment is a heated discussion and we all know what happens when you let you emotions and bias opinions become involved in a discussion,

      Lets for the sake of religion or beliefs not ask somebody that has no scientific concept of love, because it will be only another bias opinion and everyone has an opinion just like everyone has an asshole and we should keep them both to our self.

  24. Richard Dakin’s the psychopath or the sociopath. The truth to atheists, like Richard Dakin have hidden agendas just like every one of us has or had.

    What atheist scientist want to see is a human mind that works just like a computer without so called limitations such as love, guilt, empathy, sympathy, fear and many more. You see psychopath or the sociopath believe that being humane is a hindrance.
    So a humane God is out of the question.

    Just like Albert E=MC2, love has no place in his understanding, with a fame that leans more so towards infamy for creating the fuck off Japan bomb yes hands on assistance. Knowing to well what the out come would be. Yep good old Albert.

    The biggest part of the predictable mind of an atheist scientist, To have very little or no concept of love, empathy, sympathy, humility and are obviously heartless. As it has no place or character in a atheist scientists mind set.

    What most people don’t consider is the fact that all of us have different coping methods/ strategies and the wiser you are to this the more you will understand that sociopath’s are raise, (more so dragged up by the hair of the head) and psychopaths are born.

    High functioning sociopaths are the leaders in this fiasco. Leading you down the garden path is what they do best.

    So Mr Dick Dork, do you or have you any concept of the damage and division that you and your dorky mates have created within the united nations?

    If you can not see it I will point it out for you. Mr Dorky Dick you and your dorky mates take a big load of your books and beliefs to the eastern nations and sell them on the streets and see how loved you and your dorky mates are. Make sure it’s a big load of them be sure of it as you and your dorky mates will most likely burn with them.

    One day robots will replace what sociopaths and psychopaths do and guess what your fucked up scientific tunnel vision existence will be obsolete. Because you tossed the baby out with the dish water years ago.

    We can save sociopaths and psychopaths from themselves all it takes is spot them as early in there lives as possible and show by example how to be humane and maybe then they may just not abuse a position of authority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s