Strangler Fig - A Parasitic TreeWere you aware that atheism is a parasitic infection in humanity? No? I guess you’re just not up on the latest developments in religionism. There’s even a blog devoted to exposing this malady, called A Field Guide to Atheist Parasites, whose first entry explains this staggering revelation, a diagnosis delivered by Rabbi Daniel Lapin on the Glenn Beck show (WebCite cached article):

Here is a transcript of Rabbi Lapin’s words of divine wisdom:

“I do believe that atheists are parasites in the sense that they are benefiting from everything that religious culture has built in America, but they’re doing nothing to add energy into the system.”

Here’s video (courtesy of Media Matters) of Lapin jabbering on like a crazed, hyperreligious, sanctimonious moron:

How the Rabbi can claim that there are “benefits” to “the religious culture” is beyond me. “Religious culture” has given us a legacy of intolerance and hatred. Among the more obvious examples of this that I could cite — and which ought to be well-known to Rabbi Lapin — is anti-Semitism, which Christianity fostered and promoted for many centuries, and which is still common within Islam. Are these “benefits” for which atheists must express their thanks, by converting en masse!? Seriously, Rabbi?

Moreover, he claims atheists don’t “add energy to the system” … is he suggesting that atheists never donate to charity? Or volunteer in their communities? Or serve in potentially-dangerous capacities … for instance as police officers, firefighters, soldiers or sailors? Really? He may subscribe to the notion that there are no atheists in foxholes, but in fact, there are plenty of them, and he’d know it if only he bothered to look for them.

I’m a little astounded that the Rabbi would dare talk about how horrible atheists are, given his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. You see, in order to help ingratiate Abramoff among the Religious Right in Washington, Lapin and his group, Toward Tradition, gave Abramoff a phony award (cached). In return, Abramoff convinced some of his clients to swing a contract in excess of $1 million to a company Lapin ran (cached).

Wow. What a bastion of sound ethical behavior! Why, that only proves that religion makes people behave morally. Doesn’t it?

What, it doesn’t? … Woops!

Anyway, before Lapin goes around accusing atheists of being “parasites,” he’d best start owning up to his own parasitic ways (e.g. using his personal connection to the crooked Jack Abramoff to get business). What a fucking joke this guy is.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Photo credit: aacool.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Dnav

    You must understand there are three players here. Religion / Atheism / Truth and all are exclusive of the other.

    Atheism fights against religion, but so does truth. Religion has been the source of wars, bigotry, hatred, scientific stupidity, and such, but then God and Truth gets blamed for it. God has nothing to do with religion. Religions are the inventions of men. God gave truth and He wants man to understand the reality of life, the world, the universe, etc, but He never wanted to have a religious relationship with man, rather a spiritual one based on Truth.

    Atheism has to have religion to fight against. Without religion, there is no atheism. Atheism is "against God" and by the very nature of the word atheism proves it is a parasite that exists on denying others' beliefs. Atheism has never proactively propounded a set of beliefs of its own without having to bash Christianity and other religions that have God or a God.

    A true practitioner of truth (not religion) does not go around fighting against atheism, but rather testifying to the truth, other than a mutual discourse of explanation, such as this discussion.

    Scientifically, if you are honest and go by pure science, you have to have empirical evidence and data to prove or disprove something, anything.

    Therefore, scientifically it is as impossible for you to disprove God as it is for me to prove God. I cannot prove God to anyone, nor does the True God want to be proven to man. He simply asks that men that know Him testify of Him to others — that's all, that simple, and then it is free will whether you choose to believe or not.

    God only proves Himself to those who believe. That's the way He set it up. It is impossible to prove God and impossible to disprove God — so the best statistical assessment we can make is that there is a 50/50 chance scientifically whether God exists or not.

    So it is foolish for someone to say God does not exist when you cannot prove it. I can say that I know God exists because I have experienced Him and it is up to you to believe my testimony or deem it a lie, and you can say that you have no experience with God and therefore you do not believe God exists.

    I can respect a man that exercises his free will to say he does not believe in God or believe that God exists, but I cannot respect a man that thinks he has the authority to say definitively God does not exist as if he is, well, a God to say it!

    • Re: "Religion has been the source of wars, bigotry, hatred, scientific stupidity, and such, but then God and Truth gets blamed for it."

      Uh, no. We only know about God via religion. They're inextricably linked. You can't talk about one and not the other. Attempting to separate them as you do is a semantic and logical impossibility.

      Re: "Atheism is 'against God' and by the very nature of the word atheism proves it is a parasite that exists on denying others' beliefs."

      Uh, no. To refuse to believe what others believe is not "parasitism." It's merely a refusal to believe what others believe … no more, no less.

      Re: "Scientifically, if you are honest and go by pure science, you have to have empirical evidence and data to prove or disprove something, anything. Therefore, scientifically it is as impossible for you to disprove God as it is for me to prove God."

      If there's no empirical data supporting the contention that your God exists, then it's irrational of you to stomp around telling other people they must believe in him, and if they continue not to, condemn them as "parasites."

      Re: "God only proves Himself to those who believe."

      So you're saying, if I decide to believe in your God, I'll be convinced he exists? Huh? How is that remarkable? After all, if I make the decision to believe he exists, then I will already have convinced myself he exists, and God would have had nothing to do with it!

      Re: "So it is foolish for someone to say God does not exist when you cannot prove it."

      Yet, it is at least as foolish to insist something exists when you've already admitted you can't prove it. Which is what you've done here.

      Re: "I can say that I know God exists because I have experienced Him and it is up to you to believe my testimony or deem it a lie, and you can say that you have no experience with God and therefore you do not believe God exists."

      So, if I persist in not believing in your God even after your "testimony," you're going to construe it as a personal attack (i.e. I will have decided you're a "liar")? Wow. How mature of you … not! For the record, I can reject the conclusion that God exists for reasons other than that I think you've "lied." There are actually many other possibilities. Not all of them are insulting.

      Re: "I can respect a man that exercises his free will to say he does not believe in God or believe that God exists, but I cannot respect a man that thinks he has the authority to say definitively God does not exist as if he is, well, a God to say it!"

      So you admit you refuse to "respect" atheism, even as you demand that atheists "respect" religion. Is that it? Hypocritical much?