Talk:Essay: An atheist trying to stop Christianity

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search



This is the talk page for article Essay: An atheist trying to stop Christianity. It used to redirect to article Atheism. Keepscases 19:11, 7 March 2011 (EST)

So Christianity is a horrible fire that destroys everything in its path?

And atheism is the lone, heroic fireman trying to stop the death and destruction caused by the fire? I'm not sure this metaphor works. LloydR 18:26, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

Moses said, "My God is a consuming fire". The Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire. It works as an analogy of helplessness and impotence as far as someone futilely trying to stop something. If you don't like it, so be it. I am not going to spend time looking for another pic. Next, you don't know it was a horrible fire. Maybe the house had toxic gases in it that would have given them cancer and it was a blessing in disguise. :) Unless you are all knowing, you don't have enough information to claim what you did. :) conservative 06:04, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
I think the point being made is that fireman - even if the house is evil - is being portrayed in a negative light, something most heroic firemen would take exception to. Perhaps a better analogy would be of Canute trying to keep the tide out? Also, as you said people "don't have enough information" which is why, at first glance, it appears as if you are portraying Christianity as a destructive fire, and an atheist as the fireman trying to save the house. That might not have been your intention, but it's certainly the impression you are making. TracyS 09:51, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
I completely understand why you would want to use that picture, but I would argue that the metaphor and scriptural reference is not worth the confusion it will cause. It is, if anything, portraying the atheist as a heroic fireman, and Christianity as a destructive force that can do great damage, which is far from what your metaphor is trying to convey. The tide might be a bit more appropriate, as Tracy suggested. MichaelCthulhu 10:27, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
I decided to return as I wanted to expand my post that I made yesterday. With that being said, you still haven't shown that the fire wasn't a blessing in disguise that saved the people from being exposed to years of toxic gases. :) Second, with all due respect to heroic firemen, the fireman in that pic looks like a slothful and impotent fireman. Lastly, until you find me a better pic to convey helplessness/impotence, I am sticking with the present pic. :) conservative 18:51, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
I really doubt that any sane person would look at that picture and cheer the fire on, nor would they assume that the fire was a blessing in disguise, saving people from "toxic gasses". Are you a pyromaniac by any chance? Also, attacking firemen just to avoid admitting that the picture is unsuitable is really bordering on the pathetic. I know you think your replies are witty and clever, but really they aren't. Also - a far better analogy was given to you, which you chose to ignore - that of Canute (as the atheist trying to stop the tide coming in) There are plenty of picture options here. The choice is yours - keep believing in your mind that the fire is good and the fireman bad, or try and improve on an idea for once. TracyS 07:57, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

To the commentators above: How do you know that death was being prevented or that it was at a home or that the fireman was being heroic in this instance? The fireman doesn't appear to be scrambling to save lives. Is this yet another case of liberal prideful speculation failing? According to a Google search: "ruby avenue fire | Flickr - Photo Sharing! - Feb 14, 2005 – this fire broke out at an old mill at one was hurt but the flames lit the morning sky for hours...."[3] By the way, you still haven't shown the building didn't have unknown toxic gases so the fire ultimately may have saved lives. :) Unfortunately, I see that complex concepts such as the greater good is still hard for many liberals to grasp. Let me make it easier for you. Getting a flat tire may ultimately save someone's life if it prevents someone from getting an accident down the road which would have happened if they hadn't been fortunate enough to get a flat tire. I hope that helps. :) Conservatives are far more apt not to speculate on whether an event was ultimately bad as we do not pretend to have God like powers to see the greater good which may ultimately arise from events. Conservative 13:29, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Penn Jillette

The atheist Penn Jillette watching global atheism burn.[1] Paralyzed with fear, he is afraid to debate biblical Christianity which is exploding in its number of adherents worldwide.[2] Please see: Debate challenge for Penn Jillette. Also, please see the video HERE.

(Flickr photo, see license agreement)

Penn Jillette watching global atheism burn.[4] Paralyzed with fear, he is afraid to debate biblical Christianity which is exploding in adherents worldwide.[5] Also, please see the video HERE. Please see: Penn Jillette's refusal to accept Conservapedia's debate offer :) Conservative 00:06, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Much in the same way that you are paralysed with fear and refuse to debate those who challenge you? --CharlesDN 00:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Send an email to atheist Richard Dawkins. Oh, I forgot Richard Dawkins supposedly does not debate creationists despite debating people who fit his description of creationists. See: Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists Feel free to have a notable atheist provide me an attractive offer to debate and if he/she has an attractive offer I will consider it. Given the global decline of atheism and the utter weakness of atheism, I have little interest in debating obscure internet atheists after repeatedly addressing their inane comments on the talk page of Conservapedia's atheism article. Conservative 00:39, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Then what makes you think Penn Jillette has interest in debating obscure internet creationists? MaxFletcher 00:50, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
So you, an obscure internet creationist who edits anonymously, are suggesting that the reason you will not debate the people who have challenged you is that they are not prominent enough? Baby steps, Conservative. Maybe if you win a debate or two your fame will spread and Richard Dawkins himself will debate you. Problem is that by refusing to debate those who actually challenge you, it just looks like you are trying to avoid debating altogether in the full knowledge that any prominent atheist is not going to be bothered with you. It makes you look afraid. I suggest that you set aside some of your precious time and prove us all wrong. Debate someone. Then your assertions of cowardice against others would not look so hypocritical. --CharlesDN 01:23, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
In the intrest of understanding and sport I will debate "Conservative" pro or con on any subject of his choosing. Nate 01:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
CharlesDN, my material has been mentioned by the Chicago Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, the Los Angeles Times, New Jersey's largest newspaper, USA Today. PZ Myers, Penn Jillette, William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary, a leading Christian organization, Concerned Women of America, Patriot Update, Right Wing News, Ms. Magazine's website, Shockofgod and a leading British newspaper. Recently, I was telephone interviewed by an leading news organization whose website gets about 300,000 unique visitors a month. In addition, men with doctorates have cited my material favorably. My material gets hundreds of thousands of views a year. Your errant post is exactly why I am not keen to debate obscure internet atheists. :) Conservative 03:47, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Those are all positive reviews of your work are they? Do you have links to all of them? --MarshallF 18:48, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
I am interested too, I haven't seen any reviews of conservapedia yet. MaxFletcher 19:36, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Dead link

"Are you an atheist trying to stop the rapid rise of Christianity in the world? Please click HERE and HERE and HERE". The first link does not work. Please remove it.--JoeyJ 07:54, 2 October 2014 (EDT)

Personal tools