Talk:Atheism/archive18

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Removing the Obesity section

Clearly this section is nothing more than personal attacks. It removes any trace of credibility from this article and should be removed.

Obesity shortens lifespans, and is no laughing matter. Its causes and correlations should be fully examined without excessive censorship.--Andy Schlafly 00:21, 2 February 2011 (EST)
You're trying to prove causation between two things that aren't linked, and that is with less than a dozen examples. There are skinny atheists and fat Christians as well. Making an argument that "besity shortens lifespans, and is no laughing matter" gets you nowhere. Duh, that's true. That's not the point... out of curiosity, what do you mean by "excessive censorship"?
I would call "excessive censorship" the banning of prayer in the classroom, the forced removal of the Bible from schools, the removal of Christian monuments such as the Mojave Desert cross and Ten Commandments displays from public sight; the annual wars against Nativity displays during Christmas; the continuing court cases to get the removal of "In God We Trust" from our currency and our Pledge of Allegiance; the hostility against public figures who mention God or Jesus Christ; and on and on and on. This is all done by atheists, and it is all based on their own personal hatred. That is censorship of a very excessive kind. So RiMake912, don't come here and try to remove the speck from our eyes when you refuse to correct the beam that is in yours. Karajou 11:00, 2 February 2011 (EST)
Removing "Conservative's" namecalling isn't censorship at all. I've said several times I want to see if there is a connection between obesity and atheism. It turns out there probably isn't, but you won't see "Conservative" admitting his Gallop poll doesn't support all this namecalling and nastiness toward people he doesn't like. It's just flat out true that "Conservative's" essays are childish and inappropriate and there's nothing wrong with saying it. I've tried engaging him over his failure to provide a real link between atheism and obesity, though he said he was going to ignore me probably because he was unable to respond to the scientific paper I asked him to look at and is continuing dragging his enemies through the mud by calling them fatties. I'm fat, btw. Lots of very religious men are. Nate 11:41, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Karajou, I'm not here to discuss those other issues with you. They are irrelevant but obviously that doesn't matter on this site. And thanks Nate, at least ONE person on this site has proven themselves to be reasonable.

Yes they are relevant. They are part of what we have been exposing about atheists for a while now. We have been exposing their sheer hatred for us, for God, for the Bible, for anything even remotely-religious in the foundations of this country. You are an atheist here to whine about user Conservative's satire - SATIRE - yet you choose to ignore the damage done to this country by atheists such as you, as if it's an irrelevant non-issue. Karajou 11:58, 2 February 2011 (EST)
Just for the record, I'm not an atheist :) I think everyone knows that already I just didn't want to get lumped in. I'll just respectfully disagree that it ever makes sense to call someone a fatty because you disagree with him and attempt to support it on what I will charitably call flawed analysis. The research doesn't support any link between atheism and obesity, but only that atheists have less healthy life habits and that the religious tend to be fat. Like me. Fat. Nate 12:08, 2 February 2011 (EST)
This is also for the record. Before June 17, 1963, the absolute worst events occurring in our public schools were chewing bubble gum in class and running in the hallways. What have they changed to since then? Cursing teachers, fights, the passing of drugs, threats to kill people, and killings actually carried out by kids who have also professed a hatred of God. We got that because on June 17, 1963 a loud mouthed atheist succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to toss God out of school. When you have no God, you have no standards set by God. That includes plain, old-fashioned, decent morality. Karajou 12:16, 2 February 2011 (EST)
Try reading this:[1] The warning here is not so much "weight-related" even though it is a small issue here; the warning is what you will receive if you don't repent and ask Jesus to be your savior. Karajou 12:27, 2 February 2011 (EST)

I'm no athiest, I'm here to try to make a change that I think is valid. As for your argument about schools before 1963, there are are very many factors that played into that. I guess you ignore teachers hitting students with meter-sticks. I'm saying that this site's article has no credibility when it makes attacks on false grounds. If you really want to argue THAT, though, question: Obviously you want to have Christianity in schools. How about other religions?

It was yard sticks, and it was also called corporal punishment. The whacks were very few, hardly a bruise but it kept the bad students in line; it made them respect authority, which is something that's not happening now. And the Christianity, the Judaism, and the Bible being in the schools was no problem at all back then except for atheists only, which just so happens to be the only religious belief being pushed in the schools right now. Karajou 16:20, 2 February 2011 (EST)
My Mother decided to homeschool me so I do not know what it is like in public school, though I have heard some things. I watched this movie last year and it certainly looks as if there was some bad stuff going on 56 years ago, (unless the movie was pure fiction, not at all mirroring a trend in real life), so I can imagine how much worse it is now'!
My Gramma is fat but she has conjestive heart failure and she swells up because her heart isn't strong enough to push the the blood and fluids around so they can be expelled.
Is it the writer's intention to suggest that ALL fat people are fat because they do not believe in God? I ask because my Gramma is fat, like I said, but she loves Jesus more and better than anyone else I know. DevonJ 17:11, 2 February 2011 (EST)
On that point I will agree wholeheartedly. Anyone can be an atheist, and anyone can be a Christian. I'd rather everyone be Christian rather than end up in the other place. Karajou 17:59, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Ok. Child abuse it is for Karajou. -.-' as for devon, the article (and andy) imply that there is a causation between weight and religious beliefs. It's a cruel subjection, make of their implications as you will. I think it's lies but clearly this site is fine with it. I don't know what was going through the writer's mind, other than ad hominems. That's why it should be taken out, in my opinion. Additionally, karajou, you say that only atheists had problems with it, when it was also Jews (to an extent), Muslims, Wiccans, Pastafarians, and pretty much any religion that wasn't Christian.

RiMake, for every unruly little kid who didn't get a spanking when they should have, I'll show you an ungrateful, whiny liberal as an adult. You don't ever refer to a spanking as child abuse here. Karajou 19:33, 2 February 2011 (EST)

I'm a churchgoing Christian. I support school prayer and oppose all forms of atheistic censorship of Christianity. But I feel like these attacks on physical appearance are un-Christian and I think we are better than this. God made us all in His image. Atheists may be willing to use personal attacks to defame Christianity, but the Bible calls us to be better than that. The logic of Christianity prevails over atheism in any debate so we don't need to make these kinds of attacks. I hope you will pray about this and make the right decision. In Christ. JimFullerton 22:13, 2 February 2011 (EST)

"Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.'" - The Apostle Paul. "Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria, you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy and say to your husbands, 'Bring us some drinks!'" - Amos 4:1. God and his representatives in the past didn't have problems with mentioning that certain groups had issues with gluttony and/or obesity. Why shouldn't Conservapedia cite solid Gallup research about the very religious and also point out facts about the New Atheism leaders and obesity, the American Atheist board of directors and obesity, and various prominent atheists/evolutionists and obesity? Are we to avoid giving accurate descriptions of atheist sub-groups and various members of the atheist community in an atheism article? That doesn't make sense. I suppose now we should not label the Marquis de Sade "perverse" in the Conservapedia atheism article using this "logic"? conservative 06:29, 3 February 2011 (EST)
"Why shouldn't Conservapedia cite solid Gallup research about the very religious and also point out facts about the New Atheism leaders and obesity, the American Atheist board of directors and obesity, and various prominent atheists/evolutionists and obesity? Are we to avoid giving accurate descriptions of atheist sub-groups and various members of the atheist community in an atheism article?" Because as you've been told several times, your "solid Gallop research" is an opinion poll on healthy lifestyle habits. It doesn't support the conclusions you're drawing about obesity and atheism. Your own essay admits it doesn't even define atheism for purposes of the survey in a helpful way. I've shown you a paper you've ignored that goes over research showing that religious people have an obesity problem in the United States. Are you going to respond to that? As for identifying individual obese people, you already addressed this when another user brought up being a skinny atheist. The problem is sample size. So far that's the single thing you've gotten right in all this. We all know anyone one of us could come up with a list of fat people in any group. Your essays need to be a little more open about the facts. Nate 12:16, 3 February 2011 (EST)

You're right, Conservative, the Bible does mention the gluttony of certain groups. But you've dedicated nearly 30 sections to it! The Bible is telling a story, it must set the scene and describe the characters to an audience God KNEW would be reading out of context. This fixation is a petty, logical fallacy. It has no influence on the power of either sides arguments. JimFullerton 13:11, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Jim, I don't think you're fully aware of the terrible effects on health caused by obesity. Other media outlets are happy to censor the link between atheism and obesity, that's why it's doubly important that it is not censored here. If atheists begin to realize the health risks associated with their lifestyles, it might just be the kick they need to turn their lives around. KennethC 13:17, 3 February 2011 (EST)
No, I AM aware of the health effects of obesity. The issue here is that Conservative has yet to show an actual link between obesity and atheism and has written essays and articles taunting the obese. If there is a link between the two, I 100% agree that the issue should be discussed in the atheism article. But a laundry list of fat atheists is not appropriate and these "humorous" essays poke fun of people with a life threatening illness that afflicts atheists and Christians alike. JimFullerton 13:26, 3 February 2011 (EST)
Did you not read the Gallup study cited by Conservative? It's all in there - and the link is pretty clear, if fact it couldn't be clearer: atheists are less likely to exercise, less likely to have a healthy diet, and less likely to look after themselves than Christians. The facts don't lie, as uncomfortable as they me be for you! KennethC 13:56, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Pardon the pun, but the weight of evidence is piling up concerning the issue of atheism and obesity. :) Please see: Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism. You can try to liposuction away the evidence and arguments relating to atheism and obesity, but Conservapedia will not swallow your atheistic irrationality! :) conservative 18:44, 3 February 2011 (EST)

This is extremely childish. I don't understand how someone could dedicate this much time to such immature jokes. Obesity is a serious medical problem that is physically and emotionally damaging. I pray you see how you may be harming obese, Christian readers. JimFullerton 23:25, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Expanding the atheism and obesity section

There are plenty of lists of famous atheists on the internet and with Google, Yahoo, and Bing image search, it is easy to see which ones are overweight and/or obese. Please feel free to post any additional prominent overweight and/or obese atheists on this talk page so they can be added to the article. Please make sure they are bona fide overweight atheists. Also, make sure the person is really an atheist and not merely someone who is merely claimed to be an atheist according to a faulty list of famous atheists. conservative 07:21, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Overweight atheists

  • Youtube atheist "HappyCabbie" is morbidly obese, but I'm not sure if he's noteworthy enough to be added to the article.

KennethC 14:40, 4 February 2011 (EST)

He seems to be promoting balloon animals and not atheism. I will pass on this one. Although atheists are clowns and clowns probably use balloon animals as props, the link seems rather tenuous to pursue. :) conservative 00:08, 5 February 2011 (EST)

"Actually. Most of the atheists I know are fat." - Nathan Campbell

"Actually. Most of the atheists I know are fat." - Nathan Campbell[2] Preach it, brother Campbell! Amen, brother Campbell! :) conservative 08:38, 3 February 2011 (EST)

The weight of evidence is piling up concerning the issue of atheism and obesity

Pardon the pun, but the weight of evidence is piling up concerning the issue of atheism and obesity. :) Please see: Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism. conservative 18:41, 3 February 2011 (EST)

External Links

Hello, I am suggesting the addition of an external link God: new evidence which has been constructed by the following Christian scientists, all of whom are very well respected in mainstream academia: Rev Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS (Cambridge University), Rev Dr David Wilkinson FRAS (Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society), Rev Dr Rodney Holder (Oxford University), Peter Williams MA MPhil (Gimlekollen), and Dr Graham Swinerd (University of Southampton). This website has extremely valuable information about modern scientific evidence that leads one to the conclusion of God. I would personally recommend giving this website a prominent place in your external links section. Another website by Oxford Professor, John Lennox, is also extremely valuable since he is a scholar respected in the secular world as well: John Lennox: Science & Ethics. The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion has also put together a good compilation for evidence for God at this website: Test of FAITH (Faraday Institute for Science and Religion). In addition, a final website by Dr. William Lane Craig discusses the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I would suggest adding these four websites under a new section of External links. The format should appear as follows:

Modern Scientific Evidence for God:

Please also add this section here, here, and under the External Links heading here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 15:25, 12 February 2011 (EST)

Atheist doctors more likely to pull the plug...

[3]

Twice as likely, in fact. The article's a few months old, but does it merit inclusion? --Benp 20:49, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Thanks, I will read your article in February, and probably include it.conservative 07:19, 20 January 2011 (EST)
I read your article. I will include it in February. conservative 00:21, 30 January 2011 (EST)
I included your article in the atheism and atheism and morality articles. conservative 04:52, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Addition of Information on Charity and External Links Request

I have written this paragraph and recommend its incorporation in the article as well as this article. I have also added this information to Wikipedia as well:

A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[1][2] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[1][2] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[1][2]

I am also suggesting the addition of an external link God: new evidence which has been constructed by the following Christian scientists, all of whom are very well respected in mainstream academia: Rev Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS (Cambridge University), Rev Dr David Wilkinson FRAS (Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society), Rev Dr Rodney Holder (Oxford University), Peter Williams MA MPhil (Gimlekollen), and Dr Graham Swinerd (University of Southampton). This website has extremely valuable information about modern scientific evidence that leads one to the conclusion of God. I would personally recommend giving this website a prominent place in your external links section. Another website by Oxford Professor, John Lennox, is also extremely valuable since he is a scholar respected in the secular world as well: John Lennox: Science & Ethics. The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion has also put together a good compilation for evidence for God at this website: Test of FAITH (Faraday Institute for Science and Religion). In addition, a final website by Dr. William Lane Craig discusses the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I would suggest adding these four websites under a new section of External links. The format should appear as follows:

Modern Scientific Evidence for God:

Please also add this section here, here, and under the External Links heading here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 15:25, 12 February 2011 (EST)

It appears as if I will add your Harvard material in May. I just need to review it. Sorry for the time frame. conservative 04:26, 1 March 2011 (EST)

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Religious people make better citizens, study says. Pew Research Center. Retrieved on 2007–10–18. “The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.”
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Religious people are 'better neighbors'. USA Today. Retrieved on 2007–10–18. “However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.”

External link suggestion

I have also found another external link called "Pull the Plug on Atheism," which is a ministry by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that may be worth adding to the "external links" section of the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:30, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Thanks for letting me know about it. I think Ray's blog "atheist central" is popular, I may add that instead. I have made some off wiki commitments recently and I need to attend to them in March, April and May. I should have attended to them earlier even though I can still meet the commitments albeit on a tighter schedule. I will look at Ray's blog in June and look at "pulling the plug on atheism" as well at that time. I may attend to it sooner as one project may be finished early. So feel free to offer other suggestions as I expect I will be making "cameo appearances" :) reporting on any big events relating to subjects I have done a lot of editing on at this wiki (creation vs. evolution, economy, atheism, etc. I don't expect to do any reporting on homosexuality because unlike liberals I am not obsessed with this topic.  :) I don't expect Obama to do much politically on this area as he is probably going to try to appear more moderate leading up to the 2012 presidential election. conservative 04:48, 1 March 2011 (EST)
Hello User:Conservative, thanks for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to look at my information. How about the external links section above titled "Modern Scientific Evidence for God"? I feel that those websites are extremely helpful and the Christians who made them are also very well respected in the academic community. I have suggested their addition in three different places. I would appreciate if you could add those in as well. Regarding the "Pull the Plug on Atheism" website, it seems that it is one of Comfort's special ministries, considering the fact that it has its own Facebook page and billboards. Please let me know what you think. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:10, 1 March 2011 (EST)
I have a lot of respect a lot of the work of William Lane Craig and others and certainly believe that the first and second laws of thermodynamics points to the universe having a beginning.[4][5][6] However, I don't believe Bible exegesis and the scientific evidence warrant adherence to the Big Bang theory. Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound.[7][8][9][10] Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that Bible exegesis warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.[11] [12][13] conservative 05:52, 5 March 2011 (EST)
Hello Conservative, I wish to get in touch with you but am not sure how to intitiate Conservapedia email contact with you. Could you please email me? Thanks, AnupamTalk 06:07, 5 March 2011 (EST)
I will enable my Conservapedia email to be used. Lastly, I think Ray Comfort is a very nice man and I do think it takes a certain degree of courage to do street witnessing. I also appreciate that he apologized for the "banana" incident. In order to include the link for "pull the plug on atheism" I think I should first read this book by Ray: http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/book_think.shtml conservative 06:16, 5 March 2011 (EST)

video of Michael Nugent

The Irish atheist activist Michael Nugent said that for technical reasons the video of him I cited made him looker fatter than he actually is so I have used instead the slimmer pictures of the overweight atheist Michael Nugent instead. conservative 17:14, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Source 469

Is it possible that we could remove/change this source? It is stretching the page quite substantially. JimAB 21:40, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Evidence for Atheism

Is it possible to stop asking Atheists for evidence that their disbelief is "accurate and correct"? It's a nonsensical and non-applicable question. --Bobv2 12:17, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

I think that if they're that sure God doesn't exist, then they can prove it. They get in our faces every day about it, so why not. Karajou 12:25, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
Notice he/she didn't say why it is a nonsensical question. Nor did he/she cite any encyclopedia's of philosophy. Very telling. :) Just another post and run atheist. They are a dime a dozen. conservative 07:07, 7 May 2011 (EDT)
The reason it is a nonsensical question is because it asserts that the default position should be that of theism, and that the atheist must somehow be expected to prove a negative, which is for all practical purposes an impossible and irrational task. The burden of proof lies with those who assert a positive belief in something, not a lack there-of. Additionally, I can't see how this request or any reasonable response to it hinges upon philosophical interpretation or the need for encyclopedic reference, but the following link may provide a more detailed explanation than I have given here. [14] Ash243x 01:17, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
I suggest going to encyclopedias of philosophy for a definition of atheism like Conservapedia did. I also suggest watching the debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Hitchens which covered among other things what a meaningful definition of atheism is. As far as you not being able to provide evidence and proof for atheism, the 800 pound gorilla is still on your back. Your wimpy definition of atheism doesn't cut the philosophical mustard. conservative 04:39, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
I don't at all mean to be rude, but I do believe you have missed my point. I did not come here to prove or disprove anything, nor provide a new definition of atheism (there are perfectly good ones on the atheist page here on conservapedia); I was simply responding to the aforementioned points with an answer to why it is a "nonsensical" question. Many atheists try very hard to "prove" their position or provide evidence, but it is an impossible task, as I stated, to disprove all unknowns simultaneously about all other religions. The type of proof you seek is nonexistent, not because atheists are inherently wrong, but because it is not clear what kind of proof is being asked of them. Maybe it would be more productive to articulate what exactly an atheist could do to prove his position, rather than leaving the topic so open-ended and completely at the mercy of qualitative interpretation. --Ash243x 11:25, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
You are not being honest. You wanted to prove it was a nonsensical question. You failed. conservative 12:36, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
Can you please elaborate? I have been completely forthright in my assessment and reaction to the situation, and furthermore your own allegations of my supposed failure are unjustified and not supported by the context. As far as "proving" it is a nonsensical question, it is so self evident that I do not know how one could otherwise prove it to be, than to explain as I did it's requirement to prove a lack of existence, or in other words, the very state of being without evidence. Nothingness cannot leave evidence of itself because it is nothingness.--Ash243x 13:33, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
And for the record, I am not preaching or attempting to state that Atheism is correct or the true religion. I am simply trying to point out that Atheism is by it's very definition an unprovable state, without evidence, regardless of it being correct or incorrect, and so thus the question is irrelevant because it is unanswerable in any meaningful way.--Ash243x 13:39, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
I still suggest going to encyclopedias of philosophy for a definition of atheism like Conservapedia did. At this point, please feel free to engage in verbose last wordism. conservative 13:41, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
While I appreciate your suggestion to visit encyclopedias of philosophy for a definition of atheism, it only highlights a continued misunderstanding of what I was trying to accomplish here. As I said, I was not attempting to define atheism and also had acknowledged already the work that had been done so on the atheist page you are yourself citing as a complete reference. As far as "last-wordism" goes I can equally accuse you of such, as you appear to be disregarding my statements and add nothing substantive in response. I will admit at this point there is nothing further I can add and I am confident that you will disregard this as well, but I invite anyone else to contribute here to do a better job explaining my point or offering a valid counterargument. If I have the last word then so be it, but that is not in of itself a qualifier of last-wordism.--Ash243x 16:15, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

Specification of "Proof"

A simple question to the community:
What kind of evidence or proof might you consider to be a valid affirmation of atheism?
Or, if it helps, what would anyone (even other religions) have to do to convince you, personally?

This is a completely genuine question which is not meant to deceive anyone or convert anybody to anything. I honestly would like to know what other people think of when they picture 'proof', when it comes to this issue. Would the atheist have to disprove all other religions somehow? or would some specific act or experiment satisfy this request? --Ash243x 16:39, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

The Bible shows proof God exists. Where is atheist proof that God does not exist? FredM 16:45, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
so by that logic, are you then taking the position that atheists cannot do anything to prove their point short of categorically disproving every belief and opinion held by every person in history? --Ash243x 16:49, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
I do not understand what you are asking. This site is just looking for proof. I am new here. FredM 16:56, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
Firstly, welcome to the site! :) Second, the page does not specify what kind of proof it is looking for, so I was just asking anyone in the community to make the question more clear or specific. To clarify on my own question to you, it seemed that you feel that the only way an atheist could convince you he was right is if he proved that you were wrong. I think that's a legitimate requirement, I just wanted to make sure that's what you thought or if you had any other ideas to add to it. --Ash243x 17:24, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

Ireland

It's a very sad time for Ireland - my ancestral country is becoming more Godless by the day. I read this article today and it's not encouraging - there has been a huge increase in Ateisitic thinking there. God Bless those that still believe. SeamusOD 15:30, 4 June 2011 (EDT)

The Irish atheist activist Michael Nugent mentioned in the article is also mentioned in Conservapedia's atheism and obesity article. In terms of publicity, Catholicism has recently been hit with many self-inflicted wounds and has lost numbers in the Western World and in Latin America. It is not surprising that atheism has grown in Ireland. Being a Protestant, I hope Protestantism grows in Ireland. I like the Irish and they do have some positive attributes as a culture, but like America they need to reform their society and get their financial house in order. conservative 15:38, 4 June 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools