Changes

Atheism, as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>Multiple references:

Atheism, as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>Multiple references:

*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism "Atheism and agnosticism"]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved July 17, 2014.

*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism "Atheism and agnosticism"]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved July 17, 2014.

*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. (23 June 2007). [http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational "Atheism is more rational?"]. Retrieved July 17, 2014.  See [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Jonathan Sarfati]].

*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. (23 June 2007). [https://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational "Atheism is more rational?"]. Retrieved July 17, 2014.  See [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Jonathan Sarfati]].

*Day, Donn R. (2007). [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism — etymology"].  Retrieved July 15, 2014.</ref> See also: [[Definition of atheism]] and [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic|Definitions of atheist and agnostic]] and [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

*Day, Donn R. (2007). [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm "Atheism — etymology"].  Retrieved July 15, 2014.</ref> See also: [[Definition of atheism]] and [[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic|Definitions of atheist and agnostic]] and [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

*[http://vimeo.com/103277405 Scientific Naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 2]

*[http://vimeo.com/103277405 Scientific Naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 2]

*[http://vimeo.com/103865278 Scientific Naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 3]

*[http://vimeo.com/103865278 Scientific Naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 3]

*[http://vimeo.com/105068126 Scientific Naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 4]</ref><ref name="creation.com">http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

*[http://vimeo.com/105068126 Scientific Naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 4]</ref><ref name="creation.com">https://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

Professor [[Richard Lewontin]], a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is one of the world’s leaders in [[evolution]]ary biology. He wrote a very revealing comment. It demonstrates the implicit philosophical bias against [[Genesis]] [[creation]] — regardless of whether or not the facts support it.<ref name="Amazing admission">[http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote Amazing admission]</ref>

Professor [[Richard Lewontin]], a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is one of the world’s leaders in [[evolution]]ary biology. He wrote a very revealing comment. It demonstrates the implicit philosophical bias against [[Genesis]] [[creation]] — regardless of whether or not the facts support it.<ref name="Amazing admission">[https://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote Amazing admission]</ref>

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|left|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref name="creation.com"/> ]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|left|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref name="creation.com"/> ]]

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.<ref name="Amazing admission">[http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote Amazing admission]</ref>}}

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.<ref name="Amazing admission">[https://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote Amazing admission]</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref name="creation.com"/>

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref name="creation.com"/>

== Atheists and the strawman fallacy ==

== Atheists and the strawman fallacy ==

[[Strawman fallacy]]&nbsp;— Many atheists/[[evolution]]ist commonly use the strawman fallacy.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/understanding-the-new-atheism A New Breed of Atheism]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/excellent-summary-of-so-many-strawman-arguments-used-by-anti-creationists ‘Excellent summary of so many strawman arguments used by anti-creationists’]</ref>

[[Strawman fallacy]]&nbsp;— Many atheists/[[evolution]]ist commonly use the strawman fallacy.<ref>[http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/understanding-the-new-atheism A New Breed of Atheism]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/excellent-summary-of-so-many-strawman-arguments-used-by-anti-creationists ‘Excellent summary of so many strawman arguments used by anti-creationists’]</ref>

A straw man fallacy (or straw man argument) is a [[logical fallacy|fallacy]] which occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. It is a caricature of an opponent's [[argument]], a [[distortion]] which can easily be "knocked down", ''i.e.'', refuted, like a flimsy pile of straw.

A straw man fallacy (or straw man argument) is a [[logical fallacy|fallacy]] which occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. It is a caricature of an opponent's [[argument]], a [[distortion]] which can easily be "knocked down", ''i.e.'', refuted, like a flimsy pile of straw.

The method of the forerunners of Charlie Hebdo—unrelenting and vicious satire of religion and clergy — proved so effective that France became a fully secular state, to such an extent that certain of its practices, laicité, would be regarded as unsettlingly alien and intolerant by most Americans.<ref>[Charlie Hebdo and France’s Irreligious Tradition Kenneth R. Weinstein]</ref>}}

The method of the forerunners of Charlie Hebdo—unrelenting and vicious satire of religion and clergy — proved so effective that France became a fully secular state, to such an extent that certain of its practices, laicité, would be regarded as unsettlingly alien and intolerant by most Americans.<ref>[Charlie Hebdo and France’s Irreligious Tradition Kenneth R. Weinstein]</ref>}}

The tactic of employing the ridicule instead of reason has been ineffective in stopping the rapid growth of [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Christianity]] in modern France.<ref name="csmonitor.com">[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0712/In-a-France-suspicious-of-religion-evangelicalism-s-message-strikes-a-chord In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord]</ref>

The tactic of employing the ridicule instead of reason has been ineffective in stopping the rapid growth of [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Christianity]] in modern France.<ref name="csmonitor.com">[https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0712/In-a-France-suspicious-of-religion-evangelicalism-s-message-strikes-a-chord In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord]</ref>

On July 12, 2012, the ''Christian Science Monitor'' reported:

On July 12, 2012, the ''Christian Science Monitor'' reported:

{{cquote|French scholars say, evangelicalism is likely the fastest-growing religion in [[France]] – defying all stereotypes about Europe’s most secular nation...

{{cquote|French scholars say, evangelicalism is likely the fastest-growing religion in [[France]] – defying all stereotypes about Europe’s most secular nation...

Daniel Liechti, vice-president of the French National Evangelical Council, found that since 1970, a new evangelical church has opened in France every 10 days. The number of churches increased from 769 to 2,068 last year.<ref name="csmonitor.com">[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0712/In-a-France-suspicious-of-religion-evangelicalism-s-message-strikes-a-chord In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord]</ref>}}

Daniel Liechti, vice-president of the French National Evangelical Council, found that since 1970, a new evangelical church has opened in France every 10 days. The number of churches increased from 769 to 2,068 last year.<ref name="csmonitor.com">[https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0712/In-a-France-suspicious-of-religion-evangelicalism-s-message-strikes-a-chord In a France suspicious of religion, evangelicalism's message strikes a chord]</ref>}}

Ridicule has been an ineffective tactic in modern France against the growth of Islam in France. The ''Washington Post'' declared in 2015: "One widely cited study by Pew from 2010 showed estimated that France had 4.7 million Muslims.<ref name="France’s growing Muslim population">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/map-frances-growing-muslim-population/ France’s growing Muslim population], Washington Post, January 9, 2015</ref> At 7.5 percent of the population, this meant France had the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.  A 2010 estimate projects the Muslim population to be 10 percent of France's population by 2030.<ref name="France’s growing Muslim population"/>

Ridicule has been an ineffective tactic in modern France against the growth of Islam in France. The ''Washington Post'' declared in 2015: "One widely cited study by Pew from 2010 showed estimated that France had 4.7 million Muslims.<ref name="France’s growing Muslim population">[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/map-frances-growing-muslim-population/ France’s growing Muslim population], Washington Post, January 9, 2015</ref> At 7.5 percent of the population, this meant France had the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.  A 2010 estimate projects the Muslim population to be 10 percent of France's population by 2030.<ref name="France’s growing Muslim population"/>

=== Atheism, evolution and the equivocation fallacy ===

=== Atheism, evolution and the equivocation fallacy ===

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|left|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]

[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|left|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref name="A Who’s Who of evolutionists">* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref name="A Who’s Who of evolutionists">* Dr. Don Batten, [https://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref>

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref>

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]

</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}

{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}

Throughout his book ''Why Evolution is True'', the atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] abuses the term evolution, defining it in multiple ways and [[equivocation|equivocating]] it.<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3543 Jerry Coyne and the “Fact” of Evolution] by Kyle Butt, Apologetics Press</ref>  In addition, he shows a poor understanding of the [[creationism|creationist]]/[[creation science]] position.<ref>[http://creation.com/review-coyne-why-evolution-is-true Why evolution need not be true]: A review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne Viking Penguin, New York, 2009, reviewed by John Woodmorappe</ref>

Throughout his book ''Why Evolution is True'', the atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] abuses the term evolution, defining it in multiple ways and [[equivocation|equivocating]] it.<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3543 Jerry Coyne and the “Fact” of Evolution] by Kyle Butt, Apologetics Press</ref>  In addition, he shows a poor understanding of the [[creationism|creationist]]/[[creation science]] position.<ref>[https://creation.com/review-coyne-why-evolution-is-true Why evolution need not be true]: A review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne Viking Penguin, New York, 2009, reviewed by John Woodmorappe</ref>

== Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy ==

== Atheism and the no true Scotsman fallacy ==

=== Atheists attempting to deny/minimize the roles of atheism/atheists in atheist atrocities ===

=== Atheists attempting to deny/minimize the roles of atheism/atheists in atheist atrocities ===

Atheist apologists commonly try to minimize or deny the role of atheism/atheists as far as atheist atrocites.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk Atheists Dodge Their History of Atrocities]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]</ref><ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/04/mailvox-no-true-atheist-defense.html Mailvox: the "No True Atheist" defense]</ref>  It is as if no true atheist could be responsible for mass murder (see also: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/>

Atheist apologists commonly try to minimize or deny the role of atheism/atheists as far as atheist atrocites.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk Atheists Dodge Their History of Atrocities]</ref><ref>[https://creation.com/atheism Atheism]</ref><ref name="voxday.blogspot.com">[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/04/mailvox-no-true-atheist-defense.html Mailvox: the "No True Atheist" defense]</ref>  It is as if no true atheist could be responsible for mass murder (see also: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]]).<ref name="voxday.blogspot.com"/>

Atheism was an integral tenet of Maxist-Lennism/[[Maoism|Maoist]]/[[Stalinism]] [[communism]] (see: [[Atheism and communism]]).

Atheism was an integral tenet of Maxist-Lennism/[[Maoism|Maoist]]/[[Stalinism]] [[communism]] (see: [[Atheism and communism]]).