Talk:Atheism/archive17

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Why can't i edit this page? The edit tab isn't there - Ian r.

Consider trying to answer "the question" and then going to this resource. conservative 22:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Contents

Atheism is not a Religion

Contrary to what many of you may believe, it is possible to be a functioning, empathetic, moral, well-put-together person yet not have religion. I would like to believe that I am one of those people. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding among many religious people (who I respect dearly as many of my friends are religious) who think that Atheism is a set of beliefs or a rejection of a specific set of beliefs. It is not. By being an atheist I am not rejecting any beliefs. I remain open to the possibility of a higher power and would believe in it--whatever that means, I really don't know since I was raised without religion--if I felt that there was evidence that it existed. In summary, being an atheist is (for me) not a rejection of the Christian God, it is rather a lack of belief in that God. It is the same as your lack of belief in Hindu gods; you do not reject the existence of those-in fact you probably have never even considered the possibility of their existence. But is Shiva the destroyer arrived on Earth, you would probably change your opinion. It is the same for me and the Christian God, as well as any other God or higher being. Moderate 01:06, 18 November 2010 (PST)

Which Christian apologetic works have you read by Christian authors and why specifically do you reject their assertions? Also, which notable atheist lawyer has been willing to stick his neck out and make a refutation of a major Christian legal apologetic work via a scholarly book of his own? If you do not answer both of these questions in a meritorious manner, we will assume you cannot defend your atheist religion and that you can safely be ignored. conservative 05:18, 19 November 2010 (EST)
What do you call people who don't follow a religion? If not an atheist then what? I am one of those people, not what you define to be an atheist. As for works by "apologetic" Christian authors, I must confess that I don't even know what that term means in this context. As I said above, I do not reject or refute (or as Sarah Palin once said, refudiate) the assertions of Christian theists, I simply do not hold those assertions in my personal set of beliefs. As for the confusion over the literary definition of the term "atheism", "theism" is a belief in a higher being and the prefix "a" is normally used with the meaning "not, without", therefore "atheism" is a lack of belief in a higher being. It is not a direct repudiation of a specific system of beliefs. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinions and am a conservative myself, I just don't want to my personal beliefs to be misunderstood and subsequently maligned.
Also, the "question" is based on an age-old argumentative fallacy. Being unable to prove that something does not exist does not prove that it does exist. Moderate 16:59, 19 November 2010 (PST)

"Atheism is a clown and did not know it."

There's a verb-tense disagreement there: should read either "is/does not..." or "was/did not..." MartinC 22:27, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

I suggest taking that up with shockofgod. conservative 22:03, 20 August 2010 (EDT)
Um, one question (seemed to me that this was the best place to post it (hey, it's my first day :p)), but why do the Shockofgod talkpage link to http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_A_YouTube_atheist_trying_to_pwn_Christian_shockofgod (slightly confused about how the linking system works, I promise to look into it right after this), which talkpage in turn link to this page. SaWi 20:03, 12 January 2011 (EST)

Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian

I just made an article on the Confessions by Saint Augustine and wondered if it would be a useful resource - there are free online translations available from the original Latin. I think that that book is an excellent account of an intelligent and self-aware man's journey from a life of youthful sin to become a Christian. But I don't know if people will find it outdated or not as a resource, it's not as flashy as a lot of modern evangelical presentations are. I do find some of the more media-friendly modern resources about Christianity a little "shallow" compared to Augustine, so perhaps he's best for deep-thinking folk. Also the way he ruthlessly shows up the arguments of the Neoplatonists, Manichaeans and astrologers might seem less relevant (or just harder to understand for people who don't really know what Manichaeans believed, though at the time they were certainly vying with Christianity to become the main religion in the Mediterranean) but his youthful passions and sin and sense of meaninglessness without the Lord is something that is easier for anyone to grasp, and he certainly pulls no punches! JReynolds 20:29, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

I appreciate the thought, however, I don't recall Augustine being an atheists plus as you said, it is rather dated although theology admittedly is timeless in character if done well. conservative 22:06, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Really informative article.... I also greatly enjoyed the various comedy articles you have about atheism. Did you notice how that Paul-Henri Thiery guy looks like a clown - like all satire, the idea that "atheism is a clown" has a bit of truth to it! --TeacherEd 23:19, 23 August 2010 (EDT)

What atheists don't believe in

Speaking without prejudice to the issue, and with a deep sense of empathy toward my atheist brethren ...

I daresay that the "God" in Whom atheists do not believe is a caricature (or satire) that I don't believe in, either. Robert Heinlein made God a character in one or two of his novels, portraying Him as a petulant little kid demanding worship and recognition and throwing the most malicious (but also silly!) temper tantrums when He didn't get what he wanted.

Well, I don't want to worship a petty tyrant either. That's why I won't emigrate from the US and try to join some Communist country like North Korea or Cuba, where they have revived human worship. I can't respect, let alone worship, anyone (or Anyone) who cares so much more about himself (or Himself) than about others, that he (or He) would strike them dead with thunderbolts, or send 52 bears to rend them into bits, or damn then to an eternity of unremitting torture.

So, you see, atheists and I have a lot in common, in terms of the sort of pernicious nonsense we refuse to believe in.

But there's another side to God, or perhaps an aspect that has been disregarded, and it might be the key to His true nature. It might even open a door to belief for those who have rejected traditional beliefs.

  • "The Higher Power we seek is loving and supportive. ... we have faith in the goodness of our Higher Power's will for us ..." (from a Twelve Step program)

If you can't believe in a good God, that's fine. But please don't let your inability to believe in a malicious god or God stop you from being open to faith in a good God. Okay? --Ed Poor Talk 17:06, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Atheists have still not come to grips with the evidence for the resurrection. Where are the distinguished atheist lawyers who have written cogently against the arguments contained in Christian legal apologetics? You cannot name one lawyer, can you? Furthermore, when you actually have a cogent argument against God not punishing those who commit evil, please get back to us. Lastly, atheists have no moral leg to stand on for two reasons: They have yet to articulate a basis for morality apart from God (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_the_Existence_of_Evil and atheism and morality ) plus there is the issue of atheism and mass murder. conservative 20:12, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
  • As for the issue of atheism and mass murder, I have another rebuttal :). Throughout history, people of all religions have gone on to become mass murderers, whether it be Hitler or the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition. For the sake of argument, we can say that Hitler and Stalin were both atheists. There is no evidence that the atheism of these two (rather than inherent mental illness and overall insanity) caused their mass murder. I'm sorry, but to say that atheism is the cause of mass murder is ridiculous. Millions of people have been and continue to be killed in the name of God, whether it be the Christian God of the Crusaders or the Muslim God of the Terrorists--or the manufactured Gods of the communist party, for that matter. Don't be swayed by shallow arguements. Moderate 01:20, 18 November 2010 (PST)
Thanks for the input. As a result of your input, I added pertinent Vox Day material concerning atheism and mass murder to the Conservapedia's main atheism article. Also, if you wish to make claims concerning statistical matters that are given credence, you are going to have to cite relevant and authoritative data/statistics. conservative 05:09, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Exposing a false argument

This would be a good rebuttal to something I saw on YouTube: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Sir Martin Rees (astronomer)

Hope this helps. --Ed Poor Talk 09:03, 14 November 2010 (EST)

--> I have a rebuttal for your rebuttal. I agree with Sir Martin Rees--this is common sense--but I also must note that if there is an absence of evidence then there is no reason to believe in the thing that there is no evidence for, in this case the existence of God. You are completely free to believe whatever you want, as it is none of my business to attack your beliefs on personal grounds, but I want to ask my fellow conservatives to stop attacking atheists in general. Believe it or not, 99.9999% of atheists are not liberal numskulls like Richard Dawkins. I do not condone attacking people for their beliefs, or imposing your lack of belief on someone else, no matter how you feel about those beliefs. Everyone has a reason to believe what they believe. I hope you guys can extend the same respect to atheists. -- Moderate01:14, 18 November 2010 (PST)

"Fellow conservatives". Very amusing. conservative 04:58, 19 November 2010 (EST)
I am a conservative, just not a religious conservative. While it may be impossible to support the entirety of the (American) conservative social agenda without the background context of Christianity, I am as close to it as you can get and am the pure definition of an economic conservative. Moderate</sup>17:56, 19 November 2010 (PST)
Personal tools