Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Does an atheist conservative have any place here?)
m (Reverted edits by Poolboyq (talk) to last revision by Conservative)
 
(240 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
<!-- =============DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS TEXT WHEN ARCHIVING=================== -->
 
<!-- =============DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS TEXT WHEN ARCHIVING=================== -->
  
== 13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism ==
+
== New Book ==
  
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/13-grim-events-for-darwinism-that.html 13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism]
+
The editors of this page may be interested in a new book entitled ''The Triumph of Faith'' by Rodney Stark. The book relies on the Gallup (the real Gallup, not Gallup International) World Polls as well as other resources to show that the world is more religious now than ever. I know this page is specific to atheism but I thought more people might see this post if I put it here. Anyway, here's a link about the book: http://www.baylorisr.org/2015/10/19/baptist-standard-book-review-isrs-starkthe-triumph-of-faith/
<br /><br />
+
[[File:Death.png|right|100px]]
+
{{clear}}
+
  
== Reddit atheism ==
+
The article says that the book will be published November 16th, but Amazon says you can digitally download the book on the 3rd.
/r/atheism
+
  
/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.
+
Great article, keep it up! <small>(''unsigned contribution by [[User:TBarnes|TBarnes]]'')</small>.
 +
:Thanks for the book recommendation TBarnes. Stark does quality work and I did not hear about this latest book of his. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:16, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
 +
::TBarnes, I found a summary of Stark's book http://www.movements.net/2015/11/03/rodney-starks-next-book-the-global-religious-awakening.html plus I found this at Google Books: [https://books.google.com/books?id=owS6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT268&lpg=PT268&dq=The+triumph+of+faith+:+why+the+world+is+more+religious+than+ever+review&source=bl&ots=zOgdEARIVh&sig=ACoPvERZbNxDowOymfyWcMu6je8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIx5zy5ZKJyQIVReYmCh0oSga2#v=onepage&q=The%20triumph%20of%20faith%20%3A%20why%20the%20world%20is%20more%20religious%20than%20ever%20review&f=false  The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark - Google Books]
  
:create a [[Reddit atheism]] article if you want. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
+
::Thanks again for telling me about this book. I plan on reading it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (EST)
  
== Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored? ==
+
:::You're welcome <small>(''unsigned contribution by [[User:TBarnes|TBarnes]]'')</small>.
  
There have been atheist right-wingers like [[Ayn Rand]] who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
== Thought this was funny... ==
::Is she being ignored? See [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Other_well_known_proponents_of_atheism this section] of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
+
  
== Biggest blow to hit world [[atheism]] ==
+
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US#q=atheist%2C%20ear%20wax&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4
  
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/worlds-biggest-atheist-population-about.html World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline]
+
:Thanks for that little chuckle.  It happens that I've been ribbing Cons over all his atheism articles, suggesting "atheism and maple syrup" and "atheism and rocking chairs" as topics that he hasn't yet written about.  Well, Cons is quite a wit, and he actually came back with some observations on these topics.  See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#to:_RobS.2C_do_you_wish_to_edit_CP_again.3F] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#Re:_your_article_idea].  But he hasn't yet written articles on those topics.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:04, 4 December 2015 (EST)
 +
::SamHB, Conservapedia does have a lot of articles relating to atheism.
  
[[File:China location.png|200px|right]]
+
::And as far as "Atheism and rocking chairs", I realize you were jesting, but nevertheless you are not far off when it comes to [[Global atheism]]. Please see: [[Global atheism and aging populations]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
{{clear}}
+
:::Re: "Atheism and maple syrup": See: [[Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food]].  Maple syrup is not bland! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:09, 8 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::SamHB, as far as some of the "atheism and ...." articles, I created a number of informative articles which deal with matters that people are interested in.  The articles have empirical evidence/social science studies regarding these topics. For example, I created the [[Atheism and morality]] article which has received over 87,000 page views;  the [[Atheism and women]] article which has received over 70,000 page views and the [[Atheism and anger]] article which has received over 26,000 page views.
  
== First Amendment ==
+
::::In addition, many people are concerned about the welfare of animals and [[secular Europe]] has had to enact some laws to curb the carnal desires of some of the more perverse members of their irreligious societies.  The [[Atheism and bestiality]] remains a popular article at Conservapedia and has received over 60,000 page views. And Conservapedia's [[Bestiality and Britain]] article ranks #1 for this search at Google USA and #2 at Google UK.
 +
:::::60,000?  Another 1,990,000 and you will match [[counterexamples to relativity]].  And "Bestiality and Britain" strikes me as an incredibly obscure thing to search for, and thus easily manipulated by "clickbots" or whatever.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::I realize the empirical evidence showing that evolutionism degrades the moral fabric of societies is disheartening to you since you are an evolutionist (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]). Nevertheless, the [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] remains popular at Conservapedia also and it has racked up over 19,000 page views. Why is it that the countries with the highest belief in evolution have had the most significant problems curbing their populaces from engaging in perverse practices with animals?  I realize that many evolutionists consider men to be mere animals and that animals are the relatives of mankind, but evolutionists/atheists need to stop trying to make sheep, horses and poodles their kissing cousins![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:26, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::I'm not the least bit disheartened by evolution, other than the fact that there are still significant minorities that reject it.  Far from it; I take great delight in scientific truth, whether of the demonstrable-by-experiments-that-can-be-replicated "hard science" type or the not-subject-to-experiments-but-nevertheless-backed-by-extremely-compelling-evidence "soft science" type.  I am not aware of a demonstrable causal connection between evolution and moral degradation, or between evolution and bestiality.  In the latter case, I doubt that there is anyone else on the planet who comes anywhere near to your interest on the topic.  I'm proud to know the world's leading expert on this.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.
 +
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.
  
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.
+
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution]
  
It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.
+
I also suggest reading the article [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it.  There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E
+
:Nope, Hitler pic. Sorry.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
::Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
+
::I understand. History is often a sore subject with evolutionists. See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
+
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment?  Be specific.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
+
:::Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:04, 12 February 2013
+
::::Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)
+
:::::Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)
+
  
Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.
+
== Christian Growth in China ==
  
Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --[[User:MrSnowman|MrSnowman]] 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)
+
Here's a good article on Christianity's growth in supposedly atheist China...http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/
::Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html]  Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.[http://creation.com/15-questions]
+
TX Digger
:But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 19:57, 27 December 2012
+
::TZ Digger, thanks for sharing that exciting article. I thought this portion of the article was especially exciting: "One sign of the advancing state of Christianity in China is that it is reaching out to the larger world. Nine hundred Chinese pastors gathered in Hong Kong this fall for the Mission 2030 Conference. Their goal: To send out 20,000 missionaries from mainland China by 2030."[http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
  
::Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html]
+
== Many atheists are conservative and pro-capitalistic; Many theists are left wing and anti-capitalistic ==
 +
Many atheists, based on their values are conservative and pro-capitalistic. The characteristic which best determines whether or not, you are a conservative is the degree to which you support pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism.  The philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, and the economist, Milton Friedman, were both solid atheists. They were also solid supporter of a free and unregulated market. The atheists who follow the teachings of Rand and Friedman are solidly pro-capitalistic.
  
::By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm] [[User:RobTurkel|RobTurkel]] 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)
+
Many religious people on the other hand are left wing and anti-capitalistic.  For example, Roman Catholics tend to support socialism and government provided welfare.  Christ himself seems to have been a left winger because for one thing he said,  "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". He also said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, what clothes ye shall wear". Devout Christians follow these teachings and are thereby left wingers with an anti-capitalistic outlook on life. - User:RobertHBiggadike
  
::No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. [[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:10, 12 February 2013
+
:RobertHBiggadike, the article has a section for "Atheism and politics/history" which can be found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_politics.2Fhistory  and it offer resources on atheism/politics/history.  
  
==A problem with the definition of atheism stated==
+
:As a result of your feedback, I added a link to our [[Secular right]] article. Thank you for your feedback.
  
if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity.  So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
+
:Next, historically and presently, a majority of atheists have tended to lean towards the left/socialism/communism.  See: [[Atheism and politics]] and [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]]
::The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
+
::::So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
+
:::::I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
+
:::::::Onestone, fear? What is there to fear?  What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true?  Christianity has all the evidence. See: [[Christian apologetics]]In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
+
::::::::Shockofgod? Is that you? If you want "proof and evidence that proves that my assertion is accurate and correct" (did I get the question right?), how about the existence of an article called "atheism and cowardice"? "atheism and beastiality"?[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
+
  
That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect [[user:Conservative]]. This site links it to a host of different attacks:
+
:Next, please review our [[Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]] and [[Atheism and sloth]] articles.  
  
http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_suicide    http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_uncharitableness_and_depression http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity (there are other studies that suggest religious people are more prone to obesity, but of course you cherry pick your studies) http://conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism  http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_sadism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_rape http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_pederasty_and_NAMBLA http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_slavery http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_satanic_deception http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_moral_depravity http://conservapedia.com/Atheist_leaders_and_immoral_relationships t this is pretty much almost every article within Conservapedia about atheism attempts to show atheism in a negative light.
+
:Again, thank you for your feedback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (EST)
  
Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out,  the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
+
:::RobertHBiggadike, Milton Friedman was not a "solid atheist",  He was an agnostic. I cite: “I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected. I do not believe God has anything to do with economics. But values do.- Milton Friedman"[http://thedailyhatch.org/2012/07/24/milton-friedmans-religious-views/] 
  
== North Korea and Laos ==
+
:::Although Ayn Rand was pro-capitalism, she also thought selfishness was a virtue.[https://www.aynrand.org/novels/virtue-of-selfishness].  She wasn't a virtuous capitalist like the Christian capitalist William Colgate who was a great philanthropist. See: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]].  For this reason, I don't want to see the main atheism article have a Ayn Rand puff piece section.
  
Hello can you please refer to the articles: [[Religion and Atheism in North Korea]] and [[Religion and Atheism in Laos]] --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 15:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
+
:::Please do not edit any more atheism related articles given your sloppy research. I also don't care for your encyclopedia article writing. Encyclopedias don't use phrases like "solid atheist". And given the speciousness of atheism, the term "solid atheist" is inappropriate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (EST)
 +
:::::By the way, [http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1368 Adam Smith: Selfishness or Self-Interest?].  I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (EST)
  
== Suggested fixes ==
+
You accuse me of sloppy research but you have been so sloppy that you have failed to include pro-capitalistic atheists, scientific atheists, and pro evolution atheists in what you call a list of types of atheism.  And by the way, Milton Friedman was for all practical purposes an atheist despite your argument to the contrary.  [[User:RobertHBiggadike|RobertHBiggadike]] ([[User talk:RobertHBiggadike|talk]]) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (EST)
 +
::RobertHBiggadike, thank you for your input. If you read the articles [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]] and [[Protestant cultural legacies|Irreligious countries with Protestant cultural legacies]] and [[Atheism and sloth]], and if you are fair-minded, you will conclude that Protestantism has had a far greater positive effect on capitalism and economic productivity than atheism. At the same time, there are modern day libertarians of the atheistic persuasion do make some valid commentary about economics.
  
The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:
+
::And thank you for your input about atheism/science. Rather than touch upon various points within the article about atheism/science which the article did, I created a special section in the article with the heading "Atheism and science" at [[Atheism#Atheism and science|Atheism and science]]. In addition, I expanded the [[Atheism and science]] article. Conservapedia also has a [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] article which is linked to in the "Atheism and science" article. A subsection of the section "Atheism and science" in the main atheism article deals with [[Atheism#Atheism and questions of origins|Atheism and questions of origins]].
  
1) I think the author means that atheism is ''inversely'' proportional to eduction, not ''indirectly''.  
+
::As a whole, I don't think atheist ideology contributed much to science. For example, ancient Greek skepticism did not produce any great leaps in science. on the other hand, the [[scientific revolution]] occurred in Christianized Europe. Please read the article [[Christianity and science]] (Christian influence had a far more greater influence than atheism during the scientific revolution.  
  
2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.  
+
::Sociologist [[Rodney Stark]], an [[agnosticism|agnostic]],  investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:00, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
:He also didn't include atheists who are left-handed in the list of types...your accusations are vague and could mean anything.  But so long as you oppose that suits you fine.  If your arguments had any merit you wouldn't need to misquote scripture, for example; they would stand on their own.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (EST)
  
--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 12:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)
+
I have just read the chapter called, "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", by Ayn Rand.  I am so proud that I have lived my life in accordance with the moral philosophy of Objectivism and have become a multi-millionaire in so doing.  Regardless of whether you oppose or agree with Ayn Rand, Objectivism is an important type of atheism which should be inluded as a type of atheism in any document pretending to be an encyclopedia.  [[User:RobertHBiggadike|RobertHBiggadike]] ([[User talk:RobertHBiggadike|talk]]) 15:32, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 +
:Thanks. I added Ayn Rand in the prominent atheist section.
  
== Atheism and education ==
+
:Second, I think there was a spurt of interest in objectivism due to a movie based on one of Rand's books. However, interest in objectivism seems to have significantly waned [https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=objectivism according to Google trends] so I am against making objectivism any more prominent in the article. People can click on "Atheism and politics" "secular right" and now that can click on "Ayn Rand" also.
  
Regardless of our political persuasion, it's important to show both sides of the story. Despite the 4 citations referencing how atheism is inversely proportional to education, they all reference the smaller study by Nick Spengel. There is more research showing the inverse, actually, and it's important to mention that in the article regardless of your opinion of atheism, if you want to be taken seriously. Check out these contradictory links.
+
:But maybe I am wrong about declining interest. Given the choices of Hillary/Trump there is increased interest in the libertarian party which has a lot of secular right people associated with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/why-do-atheism-rates-correlate-with-education-levels/
+
::Yesterday I added Ayn Rand to the [[Atheism and women]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article
+
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/11/aetheists-research-scientists
+
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/22/does-higher-education-cause-at/
+
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
+
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans
+
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/atheism-religion-class-science
+
http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33
+
  
-antibias
+
==Re: Atheism and moral relativism==
 +
I've studied philosophical ethics a good deal in my free time, and the following is my litmus test for whether a branch of it is moral or not: can it justify rape and the Holocaust?  The answer is yes in both cases- if rape occurs in a country where it's a given risk to dating (I spoke to an Italian about this), it's okay there, but obviously wrong according to the Bible and common sense.  For the latter, if one were a member of the SS in Nazi Germany, the Holocaust would be moral given the social prevalence around.  For those reasons, I believe moral relativism is rubbish, and such examples ought to be expounded upon in the article.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
:I appreciate your feedback.
  
== Autism ==
+
:Second, could you please create an article entitled [[Atheism and moral relativism]].  The reason I ask this is that given the current length of the article, I don't want to expand it. I can tweak it and update it though.  Given the absurdity of atheism and its deleterious effects on societies/individuals (which the article extensively points out), the article is very popular. For example, the article has nearly has 6,000 Facebook likes and the [[PNN News and Ministry Network]] did a video on the article which praised the article (see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3paAT8AO2Gk Viral article deals major blow to atheism]).
  
Can somebody please make this page editable or add, under the mental health section, something about autistic kids all being atheists? See [[Autism#Autism_and_Atheism|autism and atheism]] [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
+
:Third, if you do create such an article, I can feature it on the main page.  In addition, some of my friends may wish to promote it elsewhere on the internet if they like your article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
:No, because your statement "autistic kids all being atheists" is false, not supported by the sources, and (to be frank, as a Catholic likely on the autism spectrum) very demeaning.  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 07:52, 24 April 2013 (EDT)
+
  
:Given the strong hatred for atheists that exists on this site, such an entry would be offensive to autistic children. Let's not use people with disabilities for any such agenda, ok?
+
::I can do that.  I'm about to call today off (after sleeping and taking care of my mother post-op), but I have a full day in front of me I've learned that non-Christian attempts at following morality are inevitably corrupt.  Moral relativism has an obvious liberal bias; as such, under what parameters can I cite Wikipedia as examples of such a bias?--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:20, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:11, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
+
:::Pious, would you like to contribute articles to the [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia Atheism Project]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 
+
::::Absolutely.  I'm particularly keen on the Faith and reason page. Having said that, one step at a time- I keep too busy praising my Jesus to die, but I also keep too busy with my job in order to pay tithes and my bills.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:42, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
== Does an atheist conservative have any place here? ==
+
OK. Thanks! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 
+
I'm an atheist, and a conservative. After being on this site for a while, I can't help but notice that there is a very strong anti-atheist bias, even though there are plenty of atheist conservatives, and atheism is in no way at odds with the conservative political view. I believe in the conservative cause and stand by America through and through. I support lower taxes, I support smaller government, I support states' rights, I support economic stimulus remaining in the private sector. I'm just as appalled as the next person by Obama's large government and out of control spending, but this site seems to think that atheists and evolution are more pressing issues.
+
 
+
I am a conservative. I had hoped to share some of my information, as my conservatism, is based on careful, reasoned analysis of the facts, lots of research, and strong skepticism for everything, including liberal ideas. But I'm sensing some very strong hostility towards atheists such as my self, and I wonder what place an atheist conservative has here. So I'm just wondering, is an atheist conservative welcome here?
+
 
+
Don't all we conservatives, atheist, Christian, and deist alike share a common enemy: the dark cloud of large government and economic collapse?
+
 
+
[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
+
 
+
:An "anti-atheist bias" on this site, Katie?  Do you ever read the news on a daily basis, in which there is an anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-Bible bias by atheists everywhere in the country? This website is going to broadcast every bit of that hated and those who perpetrate it.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
+
::I realize that there is, to some extent, a degree of intolerance to Christianity by atheists. But the site seems to go far beyond just reporting these events. In fact, I haven't stumbled across a single piece of text here that pointed out any of these instances. Most of it just seems to be demonizing atheists in every way possible. There are plenty of conservative atheists who have no intention to attack Christianity. I myself am entirely apathetic to Christianity and don't really care about it at all, I mostly am concerned about the well being of my country and her economy, and for the well-being of my fellow American. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:14, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
+
::Of course! Conservapedia welcomes conservatives of all stripes (and also non-conservatives as well). [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
+

Latest revision as of 18:12, 15 November 2017

List of Archives

New Book

The editors of this page may be interested in a new book entitled The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark. The book relies on the Gallup (the real Gallup, not Gallup International) World Polls as well as other resources to show that the world is more religious now than ever. I know this page is specific to atheism but I thought more people might see this post if I put it here. Anyway, here's a link about the book: http://www.baylorisr.org/2015/10/19/baptist-standard-book-review-isrs-starkthe-triumph-of-faith/

The article says that the book will be published November 16th, but Amazon says you can digitally download the book on the 3rd.

Great article, keep it up! (unsigned contribution by TBarnes).

Thanks for the book recommendation TBarnes. Stark does quality work and I did not hear about this latest book of his. Conservative (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
TBarnes, I found a summary of Stark's book http://www.movements.net/2015/11/03/rodney-starks-next-book-the-global-religious-awakening.html plus I found this at Google Books: The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark - Google Books
Thanks again for telling me about this book. I plan on reading it. Conservative (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (EST)
You're welcome (unsigned contribution by TBarnes).

Thought this was funny...

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US#q=atheist%2C%20ear%20wax&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Thanks for that little chuckle. It happens that I've been ribbing Cons over all his atheism articles, suggesting "atheism and maple syrup" and "atheism and rocking chairs" as topics that he hasn't yet written about. Well, Cons is quite a wit, and he actually came back with some observations on these topics. See [1] and [2]. But he hasn't yet written articles on those topics. SamHB (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2015 (EST)
SamHB, Conservapedia does have a lot of articles relating to atheism.
And as far as "Atheism and rocking chairs", I realize you were jesting, but nevertheless you are not far off when it comes to Global atheism. Please see: Global atheism and aging populations. Conservative (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
Re: "Atheism and maple syrup": See: Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food. Maple syrup is not bland! :) Conservative (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, as far as some of the "atheism and ...." articles, I created a number of informative articles which deal with matters that people are interested in. The articles have empirical evidence/social science studies regarding these topics. For example, I created the Atheism and morality article which has received over 87,000 page views; the Atheism and women article which has received over 70,000 page views and the Atheism and anger article which has received over 26,000 page views.
In addition, many people are concerned about the welfare of animals and secular Europe has had to enact some laws to curb the carnal desires of some of the more perverse members of their irreligious societies. The Atheism and bestiality remains a popular article at Conservapedia and has received over 60,000 page views. And Conservapedia's Bestiality and Britain article ranks #1 for this search at Google USA and #2 at Google UK.
60,000? Another 1,990,000 and you will match counterexamples to relativity. And "Bestiality and Britain" strikes me as an incredibly obscure thing to search for, and thus easily manipulated by "clickbots" or whatever. SamHB (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I realize the empirical evidence showing that evolutionism degrades the moral fabric of societies is disheartening to you since you are an evolutionist (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution). Nevertheless, the Evolutionary belief and bestiality remains popular at Conservapedia also and it has racked up over 19,000 page views. Why is it that the countries with the highest belief in evolution have had the most significant problems curbing their populaces from engaging in perverse practices with animals? I realize that many evolutionists consider men to be mere animals and that animals are the relatives of mankind, but evolutionists/atheists need to stop trying to make sheep, horses and poodles their kissing cousins!Conservative (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I'm not the least bit disheartened by evolution, other than the fact that there are still significant minorities that reject it. Far from it; I take great delight in scientific truth, whether of the demonstrable-by-experiments-that-can-be-replicated "hard science" type or the not-subject-to-experiments-but-nevertheless-backed-by-extremely-compelling-evidence "soft science" type. I am not aware of a demonstrable causal connection between evolution and moral degradation, or between evolution and bestiality. In the latter case, I doubt that there is anyone else on the planet who comes anywhere near to your interest on the topic. I'm proud to know the world's leading expert on this. SamHB (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community. The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[3]

I also suggest reading the article Social effects of the theory of evolution.Conservative (talk)

Nope, Hitler pic. Sorry. SamHB (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I understand. History is often a sore subject with evolutionists. See also: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation. Conservative (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

Christian Growth in China

Here's a good article on Christianity's growth in supposedly atheist China...http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/ TX Digger

TZ Digger, thanks for sharing that exciting article. I thought this portion of the article was especially exciting: "One sign of the advancing state of Christianity in China is that it is reaching out to the larger world. Nine hundred Chinese pastors gathered in Hong Kong this fall for the Mission 2030 Conference. Their goal: To send out 20,000 missionaries from mainland China by 2030."[4] Conservative (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Many atheists are conservative and pro-capitalistic; Many theists are left wing and anti-capitalistic

Many atheists, based on their values are conservative and pro-capitalistic. The characteristic which best determines whether or not, you are a conservative is the degree to which you support pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, and the economist, Milton Friedman, were both solid atheists. They were also solid supporter of a free and unregulated market. The atheists who follow the teachings of Rand and Friedman are solidly pro-capitalistic.

Many religious people on the other hand are left wing and anti-capitalistic. For example, Roman Catholics tend to support socialism and government provided welfare. Christ himself seems to have been a left winger because for one thing he said, "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". He also said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, what clothes ye shall wear". Devout Christians follow these teachings and are thereby left wingers with an anti-capitalistic outlook on life. - User:RobertHBiggadike

RobertHBiggadike, the article has a section for "Atheism and politics/history" which can be found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_politics.2Fhistory and it offer resources on atheism/politics/history.
As a result of your feedback, I added a link to our Secular right article. Thank you for your feedback.
Next, historically and presently, a majority of atheists have tended to lean towards the left/socialism/communism. See: Atheism and politics and History of atheism.
Next, please review our Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Atheism and sloth articles.
Again, thank you for your feedback. Conservative (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (EST)
RobertHBiggadike, Milton Friedman was not a "solid atheist", He was an agnostic. I cite: “I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected. I do not believe God has anything to do with economics. But values do.” - Milton Friedman"[5]
Although Ayn Rand was pro-capitalism, she also thought selfishness was a virtue.[6]. She wasn't a virtuous capitalist like the Christian capitalist William Colgate who was a great philanthropist. See: Atheism and uncharitableness. For this reason, I don't want to see the main atheism article have a Ayn Rand puff piece section.
Please do not edit any more atheism related articles given your sloppy research. I also don't care for your encyclopedia article writing. Encyclopedias don't use phrases like "solid atheist". And given the speciousness of atheism, the term "solid atheist" is inappropriate. Conservative (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (EST)
By the way, Adam Smith: Selfishness or Self-Interest?. I rest my case! Conservative (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (EST)

You accuse me of sloppy research but you have been so sloppy that you have failed to include pro-capitalistic atheists, scientific atheists, and pro evolution atheists in what you call a list of types of atheism. And by the way, Milton Friedman was for all practical purposes an atheist despite your argument to the contrary. RobertHBiggadike (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (EST)

RobertHBiggadike, thank you for your input. If you read the articles Atheism and politics and Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Irreligious countries with Protestant cultural legacies and Atheism and sloth, and if you are fair-minded, you will conclude that Protestantism has had a far greater positive effect on capitalism and economic productivity than atheism. At the same time, there are modern day libertarians of the atheistic persuasion do make some valid commentary about economics.
And thank you for your input about atheism/science. Rather than touch upon various points within the article about atheism/science which the article did, I created a special section in the article with the heading "Atheism and science" at Atheism and science. In addition, I expanded the Atheism and science article. Conservapedia also has a Atheism and the suppression of science article which is linked to in the "Atheism and science" article. A subsection of the section "Atheism and science" in the main atheism article deals with Atheism and questions of origins.
As a whole, I don't think atheist ideology contributed much to science. For example, ancient Greek skepticism did not produce any great leaps in science. on the other hand, the scientific revolution occurred in Christianized Europe. Please read the article Christianity and science (Christian influence had a far more greater influence than atheism during the scientific revolution.
Sociologist Rodney Stark, an agnostic, investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[7] Conservative (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
He also didn't include atheists who are left-handed in the list of types...your accusations are vague and could mean anything. But so long as you oppose that suits you fine. If your arguments had any merit you wouldn't need to misquote scripture, for example; they would stand on their own. VargasMilan (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I have just read the chapter called, "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", by Ayn Rand. I am so proud that I have lived my life in accordance with the moral philosophy of Objectivism and have become a multi-millionaire in so doing. Regardless of whether you oppose or agree with Ayn Rand, Objectivism is an important type of atheism which should be inluded as a type of atheism in any document pretending to be an encyclopedia. RobertHBiggadike (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks. I added Ayn Rand in the prominent atheist section.
Second, I think there was a spurt of interest in objectivism due to a movie based on one of Rand's books. However, interest in objectivism seems to have significantly waned according to Google trends so I am against making objectivism any more prominent in the article. People can click on "Atheism and politics" "secular right" and now that can click on "Ayn Rand" also.
But maybe I am wrong about declining interest. Given the choices of Hillary/Trump there is increased interest in the libertarian party which has a lot of secular right people associated with it. Conservative (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
Yesterday I added Ayn Rand to the Atheism and women article. Conservative (talk)

Re: Atheism and moral relativism

I've studied philosophical ethics a good deal in my free time, and the following is my litmus test for whether a branch of it is moral or not: can it justify rape and the Holocaust? The answer is yes in both cases- if rape occurs in a country where it's a given risk to dating (I spoke to an Italian about this), it's okay there, but obviously wrong according to the Bible and common sense. For the latter, if one were a member of the SS in Nazi Germany, the Holocaust would be moral given the social prevalence around. For those reasons, I believe moral relativism is rubbish, and such examples ought to be expounded upon in the article.--Pious (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

I appreciate your feedback.
Second, could you please create an article entitled Atheism and moral relativism. The reason I ask this is that given the current length of the article, I don't want to expand it. I can tweak it and update it though. Given the absurdity of atheism and its deleterious effects on societies/individuals (which the article extensively points out), the article is very popular. For example, the article has nearly has 6,000 Facebook likes and the PNN News and Ministry Network did a video on the article which praised the article (see: Viral article deals major blow to atheism).
Third, if you do create such an article, I can feature it on the main page. In addition, some of my friends may wish to promote it elsewhere on the internet if they like your article. Conservative (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
I can do that. I'm about to call today off (after sleeping and taking care of my mother post-op), but I have a full day in front of me I've learned that non-Christian attempts at following morality are inevitably corrupt. Moral relativism has an obvious liberal bias; as such, under what parameters can I cite Wikipedia as examples of such a bias?--Pious (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
Pious, would you like to contribute articles to the Conservapedia Atheism Project? Conservative (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
Absolutely. I'm particularly keen on the Faith and reason page. Having said that, one step at a time- I keep too busy praising my Jesus to die, but I also keep too busy with my job in order to pay tithes and my bills.--Pious (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

OK. Thanks! Conservative (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (EDT)