5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: − Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]]. + − Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]]. − </blockquote> Line 26:
Line 24: − − − {| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;" − __TOC__ − <br /> − <!-- =============DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS TEXT WHEN ARCHIVING=================== --> − ='Attention atheists' message= − There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable". − Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark. − Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :) − I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page. − Best regards, − --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT) − :::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] − − == Atheism vs. Ponies page (should I post talk here?)== − − The talk page for the essay on Ponies vs. Atheism appears to be this talk page for the article on Atheism. I was going to add my two cents to the former talk page, but I guess it is intended that all talk for that essay is to be posted on this talk page for the article on Atheism. So, here's my two cents: − − In psychological/social terms, atheism is defined as the negation of the most basic good sentiments that it is logically possible to have: good sentiments toward a good, overseeing Creator God. So, life is not about atheism. Which means atheism (especially strong atheism) is not an actual quality of good character, but, at best, a lack of certain good character. The fact that many theists are arrogant does not mean that theism is arrogance, but that theists tend to be fallen humans. Theism does not preclude arrogance on the part of the theist in terms of theism, but, neither does atheism preclude arrogance on the part of the atheist in terms of atheism.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 19:54, 3 July 2011 (EDT) − − == "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. == − − I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it: − :Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic. − :Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet. − :Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism. − What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT) − :::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT) − :::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT) − ::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
no edit summary
==Attention atheists ==
==Attention atheists ==
Empirical evidence supporting Christianity is not apparent and the theologies of Christians are ridiculous and oppressive. Convert into a Christian by disregarding the extensive amount of evidence accumulated over time about the mechanisms of evolution, the origins of our universe, etc.
[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]