Talk:Atheism/archive7

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

"Atheism Quotes"

I propose the "Atheism Quotes" header be changed to "Anti-Atheism Quotes." I think my reasoning is evident. (DLaGrange, Apr. 03, 2008) I call that and raise you shilling.

"Adherents to atheism"

This term is false, how do you adhere to a disbelief. This is a weasel word implying atheism is a religion (Dirian 15:26, 21 March 2008 (EDT))

reference url

reference #160's URL can be reduced to:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cs4eAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA383

The other junk in the current URL is just what the user searched to find that book. -_- Nate 23:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)


The following URL is broken: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265412.ece?token=null&offset=12 (or maybe my browser is just being dumb again) +_+ Nate 21:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Found replacement link. Conservative 20:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The Richard Dawkins video is completely irrelevant to atheism

The Richard Dawkins video is completely irrelevant to atheism, there is nothing in the article which specifically addresses Richard Dawkins and evolution, and even if there was he is just one out of hundreds of thousands of atheists, his views cannot be held as representative. TheGySom 19:14, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Koukl: Greatest murders? - Video Clip Link is Wrong

It goes to The New Atheism and the Christian Response - Part 2 of 2. The actual link should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQAYXlSDvlY. Please correct this, or unlock the article so that others can do it. TheGySom 20:47, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Atheist population...

This is almost exactly like the Atheist Population, except in the Population article, there is one line added to the front saying that there were many studies done. This is a bit redundant. Redundancy is not needed (ha ha).--Phillipps 11:38, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Several Questions

Why doesn't the Christianity page have "arguments against Christianity and for atheism"

You also have a wonderful section on "Atheism and Mass Murder", and I'd love to see a "Christianity and Mass Murder" section in the Christianity article detailing the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, given that Hitler was a Roman Catholic.

Also, you make it seem as though Stalin killed people because of Atheism. This is, um, not true.

user:armstrongandmiller says:

i didnt realise that was the atheist symbol, i have certainly never seen it in my life, and i doubt the majority of atheist have. do you think we sit at home praying to it?

New atheism article

I was going to advertise a possible alternative page (a re-format of this one), but it has been deleted. Anyway, what I had (hopefully in the correct order) was this:

  • Definition of atheism (the one currently in the front of this article)
  • Types of Atheism (the one that is in this article, except I didn't put in "Manifestations," which made Atheism sound like a disease)
  • Atheist Organizations (which had Internet Infidels, Brights Movement, and a space to put American Atheists in)
  • Other well-known proponents (the current one)
  • Atheism as a percentage of various countries' populations (also the current one)
  • Views on Atheism (the current one)
  • Atheism Quotes (which had "Against Atheism" (with the current quotes) and a space to put "For Atheism" quotes)

That was it I think. I have also added on various talk pages around Conservapedia that I had left out the criticisms because they were frequently duplicated in this article, in a poor order and to sort through it all of it would take a very long time. The current criticisms could be added to the bottom or on a new page (in a better order). Thanks for the 40 (I think) page views.--Phillipps 18:37, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Also, I would like to add (to the user "Conservative" especially, as you were the one who deleted it) that I just wanted to show what my alternative ideas would look like with an actual page. I also wanted to demonstrate that two articles ("Atheism" and "Criticisms of Atheism") could stand alone, and that both would be a very good length. Clearly this isn't allowed.--Phillipps 18:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
This sounds like a great idea, actually having an encyclopedic article on atheism rather than an assortment of quotes from a few select individuals. Sadly I don't think some people will like it. Have you retained a copy of the now deleted article, if not you should ask for it to be restored and moved to your user space where you can finalise your draft. TheGySom 19:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I could not get to it in time, and there is no edit history. The user space idea sounds good.--Phillipps 19:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

New Atheism Article 2.0

O.K. As I have been saying, I created an alternative article on this website, which was deleted. I am now moving the second version of the alternative article here, because I would like to work on a "Criticisms of Atheism" page on my talk page, to be the second page on this topic (as the current one is massive). This criticisms page is prominently displayed at the front, and also in the "see also" section. Please note that all of the references are the same, except for the "For Atheism" quotes. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the current Atheism article: quite a bit of the wording below is that of others

[draft deleted from here]
I've moved your draft to user:Phillipps\Atheism2. When Conservative said to discuss it here, I doubt that he meant to put the complete draft here. Even if he did, I disagree, as this is a talk page, not an article-draft page. Philip J. Rayment 22:27, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I had two edit conflicts in trying to post that! Conservative beat me to delete it, and as a result of the edit conflict I've deleted Phillipps' message asking where it went. Sorry, but I doubt it matters now. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for clarifying Philip.--Phillipps 22:29, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Reasons for Atheism

Would it be possible to add the possibility that perhaps after looking at all the evidence, the person in question may have simply decided that atheism was the most obvious choice?

Also " Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence" implies that Atheists know there is a god, but choose to ignore him. If we knew there was a god, why wouldn't we believe in him? Zoda 10:38, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

If you know there is a God, you believe in him by definition, and therefore cannot be an atheist. There is a logical problem with the claim in the article. TheGySom 23:44, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Exactly, but it's never going to be changed, because it makes Atheists seem ignorant, which is exactly what this article is here to do. I don't understand how you can call this "the trustworthy encyclopedia."

Zoda 10:47, 29 March 2008 (EDT)


Reality has shown a clear liberal bias.

Nbody 3:13, 22 May 2008 (EST)

New Atheism Article (one more time)

Hello everyone. Would any of you like to see my possible Atheism article here and its complimentary criticisms article here? I know they are a little rough, and I couldn't come up with an intro to it, but I would welcome feedback.--Phillipps 17:42, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

is conservapedia google bombing this article

just wondering, seeing as how the main page is constantly going on about this article and its place. Pielover87

I don't know what Google bombing is and I have been the most involved in this article. Conservative 20:13, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Google bombing is creating massive amounts of links to a page using a certain term so that page will come up first in a Google search. My personal favorite is "french military victories." Type it into Google, without the quotes or period, and click "I'm Feeling Lucky." The site that comes up should be funny. The only other one I know of off the top of my head was getting "miserable failure" to return a biography of GWB; that one doesn't work anymore, though. -CSGuy 22:38, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
is conservapedia google bombing this article? <--(CSG's edit summary.) Are you kidding me? Conservative, in his shout-outs to the "Gentlemen at another website" and in his bit on raising "public awareness" of the atheism article and on his talk page has made it blatantly clear that that's what he's doing, to the point of locking the page so that it's optimized for the purpose, even if he doesn't know what its called. AliceBG 22:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Alice, the gentleman at the other website are rather obscure. Once in a while, I do send messages to them because I feel sorry for them as their obscurity must be rather frustrating for them. :) Secondly, I see nothing wrong with people being encouraged to invite people to look at material at Conservapedia (email, etc.). Conservative 03:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

A small problem

The page is very good overall, but I don't think it makes atheists look evil enough. Perhaps if you were to edit devil horns onto some of the pictures of renowned atheists it would make the point adequately clear. Upsilon 06:26, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

The heart is deceitfully wicked about all things. Who can understand it? - the prophet Jeremiah ... because you say you can see this means that you are still guilty - Jesus Conservative 18:20, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Now the lord is the spirit, and where the spirit is, there is freedom. - Saint Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians ; Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. - Jesus. I must insist on devil horns. Upsilon 19:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

A proposal

I know the page is locked. Its a great page but it can be better if I may add a section on how atheism was one of the root causes of social darwinism that led to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Briefly, in the late 19th century, a group of European atheists wanted to update morality based on Science. Names like Ploetz, Haeckl, Stocker, Chamberlain, Carneri, Gabineau are no longer familiar with us. But they were the leading proponents of Social Darwinism and the eugenicist movement.

They reasoned that since there was no God, then morality cannot be based on the Bible or any revealed religion. Man is simply another animal without a soul. Thus we are subject to the laws of nature.

Christian morality, they argued is anti-nature. They turned the teaching, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth", on its head. It is not the meek but the strong who shall inherit the earth.

Thus Christian compassion for the weak is misplaced at best and destructive to the human race. The highest morality is to follow the dictates of nature and nature calls for the less fit to die in order to make room for the fitter.

Thus those born with low intelligence or unhealthy or with defects should be allowed to die as they would be in the jungle. They are the inferior humans who are allowed to live because of Christian compassion. Only the superior humans have the right to inherit the earth.

Once they start classifying people based as superior and inferior humans, the next step - race - is a short one. To the 19th century European, it appeared that they were the superior races.

Thus genocide of inferior races was moral because it is in line with what nature intended. After all, didn't homo sapiens wiped out neanderthal man? Hitler imbibed in all this and put this into practice. He considered the German and Nordic races to be the most superior of all. It was his duty to wipe out the inferior ones to create lebensraum (living room) for his race. The rest is history.

The information was taken from the book, "From Darwin to Hitler', by Richard Wiekart.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cassowary (talk)

Please create the material you proposed here: User:Cassowary/atheismeugenics. I can add it to the atheism article when you tell me it is finished. Conservative 00:07, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yuck. Please don't. The holocaust was caused by deep seated racism and Hitler being a crazy megalomaniacal irrational douchbeag. To argue anything else borders on holocaust denial.Many of the bloggers who recently got angry at eXpelled wrote some excellent articles.read up. there are much better arguments against atheism.Paone

Suggestion

I would suggest removing this sentence from the introduction: "In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered."

The reason is that this is not only redundant with the table of contents viewable from the top of the page, but also announcing the POV of the page in the introduction will give the reader the impression that the article is very biased. DanH 18:25, 7 May 2008 (EDT)


Would it be unfair to say ...

That "atheism" is the result of a profound misunderstand of the definition and meaning of God?

God is all things, all times and everywhere. It is ludicrous to postulate that God (thusly defined) does not exist. The question is not whether God exists or not, but rather whether God has a meaning or not. Thus, the atheistic position is a position of extreme ignorance, posing as enlightenment.

The idea of atheism is silly. It's more tenable to acknowledge that all things (i.e. God) exists, but religion is a bad thing. Thus, an irreligious or areligious person does not believe that God (or life) has a meaning.

The reason this point is salient is because many of the most ignorant atheists think that those who believe in God believe in a childish concept of God. That is to say, it's easy for a skeptic to scoff at the idea of a magical bearded man sitting on a cloud judging humanity. While this allusion is helpful for some children to begin to understand the nature of God, this allusion is not representative of most adults' understanding of God.

Is there a reason that it benefits us to continue to couch this argument within the liberal framework? The atheist argument poses as a "logical" argument. I say the logical argument should be countered with logic, not with faith-based arguments. Everwill 07:45, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see how it's logical to define god as everything that exists, and thus conclude that god exists. It's not a logical argument, it's semantics. -BMoore 09:57, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
A "god" is a supernatural being. God (big G) is everything. This is not an argument, this is an important explanation of facts to atheists. This distinction is important because atheists waste a lot of time arguing against a straw men.
Atheists see no evidence of the supernatural and thus no god. Myself and Einstein agree that there is no evidence for gods. Rather, we find that God is much more miraculous, exciting and interesting than supernatural inventions.
Once atheists understand the definition of God, they can begin to understand the importance of philosophical questions about God. Once atheists understand that the concept of God is not a child's story, but something much more profound and problematic, then they can at least understand why thinking men down through history have concluded that there is indeed a sentience or plan governing God's Creation.
The problem with atheists isn't that they don't know. The problem is that they don't know what they don't know. Everwill 10:51, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
That "God" is "everything" is not a statement of fact, but an opinion, and one contrary to the understanding of Christians. God is the supernatural creator of the natural. As atheists see the natural, they do see evidence of the supernatural. They simply refuse to recognise it as such. Philip J. Rayment 00:09, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Can't edit, clowns will eat me

Regarding this recent edit:

It's been a while since I've had my writing classes, but if I recall correctly, the comma belongs inside the quotation marks (or it should be removed completely because it normally wouldn't be needed in the sentence), and the usual and accepted method of highlighting words that were not there in the present form of the quote is by means of [this] instead of (this).

In other words, I would revert that edit (except for the typo correction) because it deteriorates the article instead of improving it. However, the article is protected, so I can't edit it at all. Also, clowns. =O --JBrown 20:16, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

I've reverted one instance of replacing square brackets with round brackets, and removed one instance of a comma. I've thought before that some people seem to think that square brackets were invented for Wiki markup and have no other purpose. Philip J. Rayment 00:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
"My keyboard was designed by Ward Cunningham and Jimmy Wales! See, it has square brackets!" :P Thanks for fixing this! :) --JBrown 06:58, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Need original citation for Plato's quote

The article says: Plato wrote that "Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to the acknowledgment of a divine power." The reference provided is [1]. However, this site actually expresses concern that the author cannot find the original source of the quote:

By the way, the following frequently offered quotations bear some similarities to these 20th-century forms, but I'm having trouble finding where Plato and More are supposed to have made these comments. Can anyone help? "Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to the acknowledgement of a divine power." -- Plato (428-348 BC) "In agony or danger, no nature is atheist. The mind that knows not what to fly to, flies to God." -- Henry More (1614-1687) (Hazlitt's 1842 translation of the complete works of Montaigne includes the following, "And what Plato says, [footnote] 'That there are few men so obstinate in their atheism whom a pressing danger will not reduce to an acknowledgment of the divine power,' ... " [p. 203] The footnote points to Plato's _Laws_, Book X, but I haven't been able to locate the line there.) -- Bonnie

A quick Yahoo search did not turn up any sources for me - perhaps someone else can verify that Plato did, indeed, say this, by finding an original source. It would be nice to have a context to which to refer our readers, especially as Plato would not be referring to atheism vis-a-vis the Christian God (or any monotheistic god). (I would have liked to edit the footnote in the article to at least reflect the concern about the original source, but it's locked.) --Hsmom 08:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Gave up after a Google search, too. All I can find are quote sites and people going all "QUOTES ABOUT ATHEISTS AND LIBERALS!" (yes, the capslock was pretty consistent when it came to that headline somehow). Original source would be appreciated. --JBrown 14:46, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
Bonnie, are there different versions of Plato's Laws? In other words, textual variants.Conservative 19:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm assuming there are various translations of Plato - he didn't write in English, and his work has been around a long time. Here is one translation of Book 10 of his Laws: [2]. Looking through it briefly, I couldn't find any mention of atheism or obstinance. If someone wants to wade through it more carefully, there or at another site, that would be nice - perhaps the basic idea is there somewhere and it can be quoted and cited properly. Until then, however, I suggest we remove the quote from our article. Again, I'd do it if I could but it's locked.--Hsmom 22:08, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Removed Plato quote and replaced with H. More quote until the Plato quote can be confirmed. Conservative 20:21, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

This Plato quote sounds like a loose translation of Xenophon's Apologia, which was supposedly his eyewitness account of the trial of Socrates. My curiosity is piqued, so I am looking further into it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I looked through Xenophon, but that's not it. I also checked Plato's Phaedrus, Crito, Apology, and the Republic. I can't find that quote or anything similar to it, searching for Συγγενικά and χειραγωγείται. Doesn't appear to be accurate, unless it's from one of the lesser works. I have to admit, it does sound like something Socrates-by-way-of-Plato would say. Socrates spent a great deal of time discussing how he wasn't an atheist during the couple of trial defenses we allegedly have, since one of the accusations against him was that he was. But I don't think it can be sourced, so it should stay gone.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:20, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Seperation of church and state

the follwoing phrase:

"State churches: Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death."

... is simply seperation of church and state propoganda and anti Jesus stuff. They want you to believe that having supported churches makes religion worse, which is the opposite of what the founders said and the reality. Some dumb liberal/communism added that. Its liberal bias and does not belong in an honest artcile and is unpleasant. Schalafly, please remove it and dont not let anyone add it back they dont have the right.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuantumDot (talk)

It seems fairly fair to me. Philip J. Rayment 23:21, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservative Atheists?????

I may be opening up a huge can of worms here, but it seems to me that this article does a good job of isolating atheists who also happen to be atheists. If we are truly going to be conservatives, why shouldn't we encourage free thought? This is a merketplace of ideas, is it not? So why don't we drop the negativity around atheism and give a balanced article? After all, doing it this way is isolating more conservative atheists than it is winning over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gingrich2008 (talk)

"atheists who also happen to be atheists"? Conservapedia is not neutral to the facts or to right and wrong, so why treat atheism as anything but foolish? Philip J. Rayment 03:09, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Of course, that quote assumes that believing an old man with a beard who lives in the clouds, who will smite those who don't believe (but is somehow merciful and kind), is somehow less foolish than believing in, say... Santa Claus, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbody (talk)

That just shows how little you know about religion. Your materialistic and immature depiction of God does nothing to persuade anyone but the foolish to become atheists. Lyra Belaqua talk 15:17, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
I have found there are two different types of atheists. There are those who simply have not felt God's presence and simply have not had a reason to believe. They are happy for their theist friends since they will report happier lives and live longer on average, but that doesn't create belief. I can respect these people. There are others who when the read the above will pop a blood vessel. They are, more literally, anti-God and are more seeded with active bitterness and a need to seek out and ridicule whenever possible, including the 'flying spaghetti monster', Santa Claus, pink unicorns, etc. Obviously, I have less respect for the second group. Learn together 15:53, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster had the attributes of God, then that would start to become belief in God; only the packaging would be different. It's when someone tries to equate anything made up equals God, that the analogy becomes silly and a lack of understanding in God is evident. Learn together 15:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Learn together, thanks for your insight about "two different types of atheists." That is enlightening. One reason for the distinction, I think, is that some atheists are in love with Christians, or are children to Christians, and do not hate what their loved ones believe. Atheists who lack that context are easy prey for anti-God hatred to creep in.--Aschlafly 10:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Why The Bias Against Atheism?

Why is this article filled with details about arguments against Atheism, which are all from a seemingly Christian perspective and NOT likewise included in the Christian section, arguments about Atheism as the cause of murder, which are not correspondingly included in the Christian section, and other various Atheism bashing? I notice that the Christian page is edited pretty rapidly to remove ANYTHING that even resembles the kind of rhetoric discussed on this page, because it's obviously biased. Why the double standard?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbody (talk)

Perhaps the same arguments are not in the Christian article because they don't apply to Christians? Apart from that, perhaps you could be more specific. Philip J. Rayment 09:49, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I think what he means is - Why does this article contain so much (inane, stupid, laughably pathetic)criticism of Atheism in contrast to the articles on, say, Christianity? For some reason, accusations like the inquisitions, witch hunts, etc, are kept quite seperate from the article on Christianity. That's a double standard, and it shows this whole website's clear bias. Of course one can deduce such a fact by just looking at the articles, but nothing showcases just how pathetic this charade is like this article.EikCorell 20:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

That's about what I thought, which is why I answered accordingly. The Inquisitions and witch hunts had little to do with Christianity per se, so there's little reason for them being in that article. Philip J. Rayment 03:48, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Right, just like trying to connect Atheism to Communism, Nazism, and generally war and death is. And the "Reasonable Explanations of Atheism" is just so stupid that anyone with half a brain could disprove it. Just look at it. The entire section is based on Christian boneheadedness. The bottom line is as I stated: For some reason, all this stupid, pejorative, subjective bullcrap is apparently directly related to Atheism. You seem to be quite a hypocrite if you can't see the double standard. Also, the "Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism" is easily disputed, but Lord, yes, Lord knows that you'd be too stubborn to remove or change it. I'm sorry if I'm being mean, but this is the most stupid article I've ever seen.EikCorell 10:08, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Your "answer" is merely rhetoric and insult. You've done nothing to show that communism, etc. are unrelated to atheism, offered no refutation of "reasonable explanations" nor "arguments against atheism", despite claiming that they would be easy to refute. Instead, all you've done is insult. In summary, your objection is nothing more than an "argument from outrage". Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Atleast cite some sources. This website really needs some restructuring. If we're constructing an encyclopedia, it should be fit to use in Schools. My teacher said she would mark me down if I ever cite this website as a source, (as I did once for a paper).


Pet Peeve

Materialism and naturalism are not explicitly atheist ideas. naturalism is a really important part of science (and it was likely invented by christians), the best summary of why went something like "It may be true that diseases are caused by sin and/or God being angry, but we get much more interesting results by assuming that they come from germs". Its an idea that has brought life expectancy form the mid thirties to the mid seventies. mayhaps the article should demonize it a little less.

Also, In the Atheism & mass murder article it mentions Stalin as an atheist mass murderer. Atheists are often quick to point out that Stalin did his purges because he was a paranoid freak ("it is the religious who wind up flying planes into buildings in the name of god, not the atheists"), he probably would have carried them out were he the ruler of a Christian (or otherwise theocratic) nation. This kind of rings true, thoughts? Paone

atheism and suicide

Here is something I found at the NY Times regarding a potential link between atheism and suicide and it might be worth researching Dr. MacArthur's conclusion in light of any current evidence that is available:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF&oref=slogin

The above material was published in the NY Times on September 17, 1894

It would be interesting to look at the rates of atheism in various countries and to also look at their rates of suicide.

Conservative 11:56, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Here is another resource about atheism and suicide: http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html I am going to do more research. Conservative 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
here is another resource: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303 Conservative 14:50, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

chuck norris

is not an authority on atheism or anything but Jeet Kune Do as far as I know NRupert 22:25, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Total bias and hate

As an atheist conservative, I find this article highly offensive. It states many unprovable facts (that do not use any real historical research whatsoever) as well as many rude stereotypes that are not fact. I understand that most conservatives are christians, yet I thought that conservapedia was an encyclopedia of fairness among ALL conservatives, religious or not. I am extremely offended.

Here are some highlights to why I found this article as - This article claimed that Atheism was a form of insanity, or disease - It claims that Atheists have a higher suicide rate - It claims that Atheists reject the so called "reality" of Gods existance - It claims that ALL Atheists think that "All religion is evil" - It called Atheists who were active on the net "internet infidels" - It claimed that all dictators and communist world leaders were atheist (Mao Zedong was actually a taoist, Mussolini was a Roman Catholic) - It never listed any Atheists with a good reputation (Freud, Lance Armstrong, Bill Gates, Gorbechev just to name a few)

On the whole, I think that this article is unfair and extremely rude. I suggest someone makes a fair version of this article to support the views of ALL conservatives, and not just conservative christians. Otherwise, this wiki should be changed to "Christian-pedia", so people such as I do not become confused in the future.

re bias complaint: http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Secondly, I didn't see you demonstrate your complaints and contentions above and/or show them to be important. Conservative 00:03, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh. . . then what if I went to the christian page, and posted a bunch of facts like "Christians have a very high divorce rate" and "Christian children are more prone to depression" and "Christians encouraged racism in america throughout the early 20th century"? Would that not be important in deciding the bias factor?

Just another note - Internet Infidels is the name of a website . . . group . . . thing . . .
I don't really know anything about it beside that it's not really an insult. I agree with the rest of your points, though. -CSGuy 00:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
By the way, the article is going to be updated to have more info on Internet Infidels. In addition, the organization American Atheists will be briefly featured. Conservative 00:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

The foundation of atheism

The foundation of atheism is: that which cannot be measured or experienced with the senses does not exist. This is a foolish premise. Everwill 10:03, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

"Denial of the Existence of Atheists"?

I'm sorry, but I have to say: no matter how wrong Atheism is, the claim that it is impossible to not believe in god is so flawed that I have to say something about it.

Now, this article section claims that all atheists DO know of the existence of God, and actively deny it. This requires all atheists to have at least heard of the Abrahamic Religions.

What about Buddhists? They don't believe in the God of the Abrahamic faiths, they believe in their own gods and goddesses.

In fact, since they're all in ASIA, its plausible that one Buddhist could, given the proper conditions, live their whole life never even KNOWING about Christianity.

What if this hypothetical recluse Buddhist somehow were to decide that he didn't believe in Buddhism anymore? Is the theory of the inexistence of Atheists suggesting that this newly-deconverted would suddenly be simultaneously filled with both the KNOWLEDGE of God's existence and the URGE to continue to deny it?

Somebody PLEASE tell me that i'm missing something, because right now this seems totally absurd. --JackSmith 13:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm new to this discussion, but atheism could be described as a modern, anti-Christian movement, which does not really exist independent of the faith it opposes. If it did exist independently, then it would have a better and more independent history to it than it does.--Aschlafly 14:00, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Interesting point. However, as I pointed out above, Atheists aren't the only ones who don't believe in God. If Atheists don't exist, that would have to mean that no non-Abrahamic religion on earth exists, that is if the article truly says that it's impossible to not believe in God. --JackSmith 14:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
How exactly do we define "modern"? Psalms 14:1 predates Christianity, doesn't it? Wandering 14:35, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I imagine I'm completely out of my depth here, but I've always wondered about atheism - no atheist (or anyone else, for that matter) will ever be able to propone (let alone prove) the non-existence of something, so atheism, as it is generally defined, just doesn't quite work. The closest tenable position, surely, is agnosticism? PeteSC 14:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Can we add a "Notable instances of Theists becoming Atheists" Section?

It's not like nobody famous has gone from religious to atheist.

and who knows? An unintentionally scarce list could further our goal! --JackSmith 16:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Atheist Symbol

In regards to the "atheist symbol," perhaps the caption could be modified to reflect the fact that--as the footnote indicates--this a symbol used in one specific context (US military cemetery headstones) and not necessarily a symbol that atheists themselves use. The US government, much less the US military, is not the final authority on how atheists choose to symbolically represent their worldview, if they see the need to do so at all.AliceBG 22:21, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Atheism and Mass Murder

The comparisson of killing in events involving theism vs killing by states that advocate atheism is not consistent. To be consistent the comparrison could be between states that advocate theism and states that advocate atheism and include ALL killings, or between events involving theism and events involving atheism. One would also have to ask whether there are enough states advocating atheism to be statistically significant.

American Atheists

I am going to be adding some material on the organization American Atheists. So far I found the following: American Atheists If anyone has any more material, please let me know on this talk page. Conservative 21:15, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I think I'm trying to help...

... but obviously that's for you to decide in the end. Anyway, your quote from Phil Zuckerman is a dangerous one. After all, it begins "this is the one indicator of societal health", which an astute reader will realize means that he sees however-many-other indicators as being unfavorable to theism. Such a reader might do a little investigation and find a site like this one and discover that, in fact, Zuckerman makes extensive arguments that societal health and atheism go hand in hand. Since that is not the intent, in any form, of this article, your best bet would be to find a different way to make your case.

Or not. Regards, Aziraphale 16:31, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Correlation does not equal causation. I think the correlation is due to education levels. And it just so happens that academics are pushing atheism. As far as homicide rates, I think you should look at the Welsh revival and its effects on crime and the criminal justice system. Please click this link and then click on "effects of revival": http://www.welshrevival.com/ and http://www.peniel-argentina.org/rhema%20english/rhema%2057/articulo6.htm I don't think you can show me that atheism has ever had such a dramatic effect on a society in terms of crime. Also, certainly there was a lot of corruption in the Soviet Union. Conservative 18:38, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to be up-front with you, I'm neither going to check your links, nor try to show you that atheism has any effect whatsoever on anything; it was not and is not my point. I have demonstrated, to my own satisfaction, that you may inadvertently be undermining the purpose of this article by using the quote that I've described above. If you disagree, by all means leave it in. It's your article. Regards, Aziraphale 19:07, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I think you are both right, and I don't think it will hurt the article to present "evidence" (or arguments, anyway) from both sides about whether atheism is more helpful or harmful. As a religious person, I am confident that the principles I espouse are hardy enough to survive scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas. Here at Conservapedia we need not be as harsh and exclusionary as the liberal academics skewered by Ben Stein in "Expelled". --Ed Poor Talk 19:13, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Aziraphale, I do believe that the Zuckerman material I cited is further supported by the Mayo Clinic, Duke University, and American Journal of Psychiatry material I cited. Lastly, I have no intention of wrangling with you as my previous communication with you has lead me to believe that you are quite unreasonable. Conservative 19:29, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
You know what? Either I'm horribly mis-speaking or I'm being horribly mis-understood, and frankly I know which way I think it's going. I am not arguing in favor of ANYTHING. I am trying to explain why the quote you've chosen to use is not good for your argument. I'm being very specific to one quote, in one section of the article. You cite evidence that further supports your suicide point; great!! Use those instead. I'm not advocating for counter-arguments to be included, and if you say otherwise I expect to see scans of the sentence diagrams where you clearly map how this is so.
The fact, Conservative, that you even think that I'm "wrangling" with you over this just shows why you shouldn't be passing up free advice touching on reading comprehension. Yes, I'm cheesed. I break my friggin' vow of silence to actually offer you some useful advice, NOT ADVOCATE IN FAVOR OF ATHEISM FOR PITY'S SAKE, and this is the thanks I get. Regards, Aziraphale 19:44, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Aziraphale, I stand by my comment regarding your unreasonableness. I still have no interest in attempting dialogue with you which would just result in you senselessly wrangling. If you want to go back to your vow of silence, I would not be opposed. Conservative 19:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
Hello Conservative. I am not wrangling. You are not "listening." I am not disputing you. I defend nothing. I make no argument. I read the quote. I followed the link. I googled the author. I read the article. The article is bad. The article likes atheism. I return to Conservapedia. I post here. "The quote is dangerous. Use a safer quote."
Atheism bad. You agree. I agree. Ed Poor agrees. PJR agrees. ASchlafly agrees. All agree. Use better quote. Tree good, fire bad. Aziraphale 01:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
PS You would not be opposed to my vow of silence? Receive bending.

"Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations." Yep, it seems pretty clear Zuckerman means that in every other way secular nations do better. Aziraphale is right. Are you sure this is the impression you want to create in your article on the evils of atheism? Humblpi 06:26, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with you, Conservative. Leave it in.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Aziraphale, please see what the logical fallacy of the composition fallacy is. Just because I agree with one thing that Zuckerman states doesn't necessarily mean I must agree with everything he states. If you could be more logical in the future it would be appreciated. However, I certainly do not expect you to be more logical given your past unreasonableness. Conservative 21:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
Conservative, you are a big fan of challenging others to debate on the merits. You pick any 3 sysops on this site to be judges, you pick the format of debate (strict text limits, free-form, prepared list of questions... whatever) and, so long as the rules specify that we each work under the same constraints, I will gladly discuss with you any subject under the sun and be content with the decision of the panel you come up with.
As for the logical fallacy you link to, let me remind you that I explained earlier how I would not follow any links you provide. I am not in opposition to any argument that you have posited on its merits, and the fact that you cannot even grap that basic premise is daunting. My one and only comment is that, as a tool of persuasion, the quote from Zuckerman that you have chosen is not good. You've said that you have other evidence that backs it up. I believe you, and encourage you to use that evidence in place of the quote you currently use.
You pick the time, the place, the rules, the arbiters, and the subject; we can discuss the Zuckerman quote or whatever past subject you're convinced that I've been unreasonable about. Can't make it any fairer than that, right? Certainly it's a better deal than you offer to those you've challenged in the past. Ball's in your court, Conservative, but think what you've said of those who have failed to meet your challenges.
With litle regard, Aziraphale 00:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Aziraphale, it does not surprise me that you are unwilling to look at a few links. People who are unreasonable are typically close minded. Second, I know you were quite fond of the Ungtss version of the atheism article. That version was inferior and polluted with liberal sentiments. No websites run by men with doctorates linked to that version of the article nor did an award winning author. The version you favored was a sleepy failure on the internet that did not have much public interest. It is not surprising to me that you favored Ungtss version of the atheism article. Next, it does not surprise me that you continue in your unreasonableness in regards to Zuckerman given your past unreasonableness and close mindedness. In regards to your debate offer, I will inform you that in the short term I have a contract to fulfill plus two other likely contracts to fulfill soon. Now if atheism's most impressive debater to date Doug Jesseph wished to debate me at Infidels.org (according to Mr. Lowder he is the most impressive atheist debater to date) I would gladly do so once my contracts were completed, but given your obscurity your offer is not very enticing. I also would not mind debating Frank Zindler at Infidels.org Here is a short passage regarding Mr. Zindler: "A leading light in the American Atheists. Isn’t it amazing how so many atheists love evolution and appear to be threatened by the massive scientific evidence for creation? Zindler took the atheism side in an Atheism v. Christianity debate in front of 7,500 people at Willow Creek Community Church, USA. His opponent, Dr William Lane Craig, tore his ignorant arguments to shreds so effectively that many atheists in the audience realised that Zindler had lost the debate. It was presumably to this debate that John Snowden was alluding when he wrote that a representative of the American Atheists, whom he used to support, lost a public debate to a “fundamentalist” (Skeptic 18(3), 1998)."[3] Conservative 01:44, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I don't think anyone of any importance would want to debate you Ken, simply because you have no credentials off this site and only ever repeat what others say (using enormous block quotes) without offering any original thought. Perhaps for this reason you should accept Aziraphale's offer, it may be the only one you get. StatsMsn 01:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

StatsMsn, considering you do not know what my credentials are I find your remark puzzling. And in regards to credentials, an astute grammar school student could beat an atheists in debate. For example, considering Doug Jesseph's enormous flub in his debate with Dr. Craig, "important atheists" are summed up quite nicely here: "Men of low degree are only vanity and men of rank are a lie; In the balances they go up; They are together lighter than breath. - Psalm 62:9" Statsman, don't you find it embarrassing that Lowder's most impressive debater to date was Doug Jesseph? Conservative 02:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


  • Above - you won't debate me because of my obscurity.
  • Below - StatsMsn is puzzling because he doesn't know your credentials.
  • Conclusion - you'll say whatever you need to say in an argument, regardless of any philosophical underpinnings.
  • An astute grammar school student could win an atheism-related debate.
  • An astute grammar school student could also reconcile "an" and "atheists".
  • Conclusion - You'll go for cheap shots when you can't afford them.
  • You accept no excuse other than "they are afraid to debate because they cannot win" when offering up your challenges to others.
  • You offer several excuses, including my lack of notability and you're too busy to post (shall we monitor your site usage, just for funsies?).
  • Conclusion - You lack the courage of your convictions, otherwise you would acknowledge no excuse other than "I am afraid to debate because I cannot win" for why you won't just settle this and any other matter before an esteemed panel of your colleagues here.
Come on, Conservative, I'm letting you pack the bench, I'm letting you pick the topic, I'm letting you pick the format. You're time constrained? Allow for three days per response - your posting habits here indicate you can handle that. I'm giving you all the control in the world and you won't engage? You'll baselessly accuse me of being unreasonable in post after post, but I offer to give you a forum in which you can prove conclusively that I'm unreasonable and you won't take it? Just imagine having an archive, for all time, of you nailing my coffin shut with all of my past unreasonable quotes laid bare, and my pitiful attempts to justify them deemed officially flawed by a blue-ribbon panel of Conservapedia administrators (imagine! Philip Rayment, Ed Poor, and DeanS (for examples) condemning me as illogical in a debate with you!) - you're a quoting machine, this is right up your alley!
If some atheist blogger denied you a debate on those terms, the entire site knows how you'd respond.
Actually, I do have to add one small caveat about the rules; normally it wouldn't need saying but you've proven that you aren't normal. I won't take an opposing view to yours just to argue. For example, if you expect me to argue a "pro" atheist position just because you take the "con" position, you can pound sand. You need to pick a position that we actually disagree on.
I've got bad news, Conservative. You can choose not to have this debate, but if you think anyone, and I mean anyone, buys your jedi hand-wave "this is not the debate I'm looking for" nonsense, and that that's the reason you aren't going to do it, you're delusional.
Not a figment,
Aziraphale 10:52, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Let's put this challenge up on the frontpage.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
This isn't a forum. This is an encyclopedia. Lets work on writing, not arguing. HenryS 13:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Aziraphale, I think the reason why you are obscure is that you cannot put forth cogent and relevant material. If I were to ask you what material the public found truly relevant and interesting that you put in the public square I am betting you could not. Now I realize that not all that is in the public square that is popular has true relevance. Also, there are certainly historical precedents where relevant material was ignored by the public. However, I don't believe your words fall under this category. I have no real interest in what you have to put forth on the internet and I don't think I am alone. I still have no interest in debating you. I leave you in your unreasonableness and obscurity. Perhaps someday you will learn what a composition fallacy is but I can see you are not willing to learn it from any source I provide and would prefer to remain illogical. Conservative 14:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

(My apologies to the posts below for inserting myself above them - I'm not sure what the appropriate behavior is when a post is later but more directly a response to the above. If I'm out of order, feel free to cut-paste my text elsewhere)

Conservative,

  • You lose your bet.
  • You thinking I don't know what a composition fallacy is because I didn't follow any link you gave and didn't respond to your attempt to change the subject probably has a fancy term of art but I could care less. Let's just call you lazy.
  • Your concept of my obscurity is similar to others' concept of your credentials, at least as you see it. My work is cited in several circuits of federal court, particularly in regards to Daubert challenges but also touching on contingent valuation in the service of class actions. I welcome your equivalent notoriety. If you think this article qualifies, bully for you.
  • Your lack of interest in debating is unsurprising, but I'm curious how you think that meshes with your belief that atheists who won't debate you are fearful rather than dismissive. I will admit that it at least gives me empathy for you - you certainly look cowardly from here.

An aside to Henry - I agree that we should be contributing to the encyclopedia. If you will go back to the headwaters of this conversation, I actually was explaining how the article would be better. In any other circumstance I might have made the change myself but I know the futility of editing one of Conservative's articles. So, against my own advice I tried to offer my assistance up. You've seen the result. Perhaps you'd like to discuss making a change?

Due respect to all parties, Aziraphale 22:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, Conservative, you should look at how the Fallacy of Composition applies to you as well.
1. Theists win when debating even the best atheist debaters (your assertion, not mine)
2. You are a theist
3. Therefore, you will win when debating the best atheist debaters
Just because you are a theist does not mean you can beat the best atheist debaters in a debate. In fact, I think you should provide some evidence of you beating any atheists in a debate before the best debaters would want to spend the time debating you.
So, can you please provide a link to the debates you have had with atheists? --PatZ 14:45, 14 June 2008 (EDT)e

I am an atheist (which is no secret round here) and I am fairly sure I could thrash you in a debate Conservative. Not that I would debate you with the internet to hide behind, I mean face to face. AdenJ 16:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Hitler and Others

How come you don't mention him in the christianity section? He was born and raised Roman Catholic and murdered 11million people, Jews, gays, blacks, the handicapped.

What about the crusades?

See here for a likely answer to part 1. To part 2, roughly, "not nearly as bad as what atheists have done."
Now please, stop being a distraction. You may mean well, but you're reprising round 6 of an .... oh, 400 round fight. Regards, Aziraphale 12:52, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
The issue of the atrocities has already been raised in the article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527 Conservative 22:20, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Again the article you refer to doesn't compare like with like. It compares a few very specific killings related to christianity in christian countries to every killing in a few supposed atheist countries. I am assuming that of the 67million deaths in the soviet union, many were due to things like starvation and disease which could be described as criminal negligence (I find it hard to believe there were 67 million executions). Perhaps we could examine whether there have been similar occurances in countries that promote christianity (e.g. the Irish potato famine) that could also be described as criminally negligent. I'm not sure where this kind of comparisson would get us, but at least it would be consistent.

TO the above poster: Your comment reminds me of a few lines in a famous comedy series in the USA called "All in the Family": "Gloria: "65 percent of the people murdered in the last 10 years were killed by hand guns" Archie Bunker: "would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?" (see: http://www.moviewavs.com/TV_Shows/All_In_The_Family.html ). In terms of gun control, Archie had a novel approach to skyjackers as well. :) Conservative 09:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I think you didn't understand my point. What I'm asking for is a like for like comparisson. If the 67 million deaths attributed to the soviet union state are made up of executions and deaths from starvation and disease then lets include similar deaths on the christian side of the equation. So that would be all executions, regardless of whether there was a christian agenda or not, because that's the criteria you are using on the atheist side of the agenda. You should also use all deaths from starvation/disease resulting from christian state negligence/incompetence because that is the criteria you are using for atheist states.

What I think you'll find is that the soviet union is a particularly bad example but christian states (i.e. states that promote christianity by your definition) are by no means squeeky clean

When you put forth sufficient data and argumentation to support your contention please let me know. Conservative 14:35, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Really Ken? You know, whenever you find yourself agreeing with Archie Bunker, you should consider mental health care JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 16:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT) Block away homeboy


That's a rather odd position for you to take considering you own article. Anyway, you quote from another article that draws the conclusion 10's of millions of people have died as a direct result of the rejection of God. With regards to the soviet union the evidence provided is this.

"In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million."

So, (passing over the point about sufficient data and arguments) the author considers any death resulting from state repression and terrorism in the USSR to be directly linked to a rejection of God. Does the article consider state repression in christian states? It mentions a few examples with a specific link to christianity. Are there other examples of state repression in christian countries? I dare say the British Empire might be a rich mining ground for a start. All I am asking for is a like for like comparisson.


I think atheism is foolishness masquerading as wisdom. That said ... I think our resident alien has a point in his argument. Alexander Sozhenitsyn is not qualified to such a statement.
While it is true that Hitler was raised as a Christian, he was most definitely an atheist during and at the time of his rise to power. That said, I don't think it is fair to say that the world's evils are a result of atheism. Many would argue that evil in the world is a result of Satan's influence. In the end I don't think it benefits us to argue about things which cannot be known.
Like C.S. Lewis, I have no animosity toward atheists. As a former atheist, I perfectly understand their position of ignorance. I have faith that the wisest and best among their number will soon enough be part of our number, so I have no great desire to rankle them. I just want to be patient and let life and God work magic. Everwill 06:51, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
One minor point. I know it's been a big turf war around here in the last week or two to pin Hitler on Christianity, and I'm not trying to do that, but I don't think Hitler was an atheist at any point. He never renounced God that I know of. Certainly he went off the rails of any recognized dogma, and I attribute that to insanity, but that's different from being an atheist imo. Being bad at following God's will, in other words, doesn't mean you don't actually believe in Him.
In still other words, I'm a terrible bridge player - my mother has just about given up hope on me. However, when sitting across from her and next to two of her friends, you wouldn't look at the table and say "there's three bridge players and a soup spoon (or whatever)". I'd just be a terrible bridge player. Aziraphale 10:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Personal tools