From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why Atheism is not really that bad

We don't need to pretend that this 'article' is anything other than an attack on Atheism from a Christian perspective, so I hope you'll excuse me addressing the actual issue rather than its presentation here. Here's what Atheism really is: Certain people, myself included, simply don't believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify worshiping a creator figure for a variety of reasons. It's not that we rabidly hate anyone with religious faith, because religion has been a beautiful and inspiring thing for many individuals over the course of our history as humans. If there really was a Jesus who really was the son of God and also God, I would really like to know about it and I would definitely worship Him, but I am simply unconvinced by Christianity or any other religion. We're not trying to destroy your religion or whatever, we really just want to be left alone. I know Christianity is all about being persecuted, but nobody's throwing you to the lions any more. Really. Christianity is the big dog, so it's time to start with some of that compassion. So come on, can we do a little better with this article? There's way too much hate in the world, especially here. Devonshire 14:53, 02 June 2009 (EST)

Is this a balanced view of Atheism?

If we want to provide the true unbiased, shouldn't this synopsis include a section titled pro Atheism blogs? This synopsis on presents one side of the argument, and therefore is just as biased as Wikipedia

I am sorry the article didn't have the "proper" mixture of truth and error so it would be more pleasing to your palate and be more "balanced". conservative 00:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I would have to agree. While I certainly don't expect gushing approval, this so strongly biased that it loses any credibility and usefulness to theists and atheists alike. It's like reading someone's online ranting that quickly betrays a desire to convince rather than educate and undermines the goal of creating "A Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Imagine reading a lesson on Israel from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. --Glorious 06:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)
The article on atheism is nothing short of sensationalist. The authors have obviously neglected to mention the attrocities committed in the name of religion. Sure Stalin's atheist reigeme killed millions of people but the atheism is not the fundemental reason for this crime against humanity rather it is the maintenance of political power. We need to consider Hitler's Christian reigeme that was responsible for the death of a comparable number of people, the atrocities carried out under the name of Allah or even the Crusades. Whilst I'm not an atheist I believe that it is irresponsible and unjust of the "trustworthy encyclopedia" to spread these half truths.
And, as an Atheist, I can assert that this biased view certainly does not impress. However, it is indeed very laughable. In fact, I have been touring this wiki because I simply love seeing the bias everywhere. It helps remind me of the blinding ignorance of religious people that is the reason that I became an atheist. Really, this should not be, "Is this a balanced view of Atheism?", it should be, "Does this Wiki manage to even moderately hide its resentment towards atheism, or its lack of general knowledge, or its lack of statistically supported arguments, or its lack of educated theories". But, for all this, this paragraph is likely going to be removed post-haste by the conservative fascists in control of this wiki. And I have no doubt, that I will soon be banned from this wiki for this paragraph. Heroguy 18:06, 12 February 2009 (EST)
Given that Conservapedia purports to be "trustworthy", and that it can be edited by anyone (given compliance with the guidelines), I move that we make it more trustworthy by correcting and improving this entry's faults. To begin with, I move that we change the introductory sentence. Legitimate dictionaries hold true to the etymology of "atheism", and list the primary definition as "lacking a belief in a god or gods". It's nonsensical to rely on philosophical encyclopedias for a definition of a common term like "atheism". After all, one could just as readily find encyclopedias to "define" theism as "superstitious belief in folkloric deities" or some such. We can use any major English language dictionary that's agreeable. I'll leave this up for a week for discussion before changing the entry. JeffersonPaine 16:49, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Can someone please explain to me why there are no quotes in support of atheism in the 'atheism quotes' section? Surely this is mandatory for a balanced article.

Does Lysenko belong here?

Yes he was an atheist, and yes his stupidity lead to the deaths of millions and possibly the collapse of the soviet union, but I think that all of that has far more to do with the inherent weakness of communism do to its inevitable totalitarian nature. Lamarckian evolution assumes that there is some mechanism (I read this to be some form of intelligence) that assessed the benefit or detriment of an acquired trait, since this mechanism would not be in place to manufacture its self Lamarckian evolution assumes a creator, something which is typically viewed as inconsistent with atheism. I thought that was a well written segment though, and think it should be moved rather than deleted.This article is longer than what most people will read anyways, it could stand to be more concise, and have more of the information spread to other articles. --Brendanw 07:58, 14 November 2008 (EST)

He only belongs here as a noted Atheist. --Cal05000 17:25, 3 December 2008 (EST)
The foolishness of many atheists creating and choosing communism is also noted in the article. There does seem to be a lot of foolishness in the atheism camp. It is not surprising that Scripture states, "The fool in his heart says there is no God." conservative 22:38, 18 December 2008 (EST)
When did Conservapedia become Christopedia? But since you've decided to trot out some quotes, here are a few for you: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." --Thomas Jefferson . . . "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." -- James Madison . . . "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." --Abraham Lincoln . . . "To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life." --Theodore Roosevelt / / / Clearly, some of the greatest American statesmen and conservatives say you are wrong. JeffersonPaine 17:32, 18 February 2009 (EST)
And you feel content in saying that the world is 6000 years old? Heroguy 18:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)
I love it when atheists quote Lincoln. If I am not mistaken, Lincoln converted to Christianity after making the quote above. Please see: conservative 17:42, 18 February 2009 (EST)
And I love it when apologists and historical revisionists try to claim that Lincoln "converted", taking the word of his laudanum-hallucinating, séance-believing widow over the words of Lincoln's closest friends -- his Private Secretary Col. John Nicolay, his lifelong friend and campaign manager Supreme Court Justice David Davis, and his bodyguard and biographer Colonel Ward Lamon -- all of whom were adamant that Lincoln remained a nonbeliever until his death. It's almost as funny as those who try to make Albert Einstein into a theist. Show me where Lincoln ever wrote that he believed in anything more than a vague sense of providence that he called "god" (the same way that George Washington did). And Gregg Easterbrook -- the author of that nonsense on ABC's "Beliefs" page -- is a devout Christian and an author of a book on his own faith. His claims in that article are unsourced and biased. JeffersonPaine 19:34, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Atheist definition

"The denial of the existence of God", to me, sounds like an assertation that there are no gods. In reality, atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Atheism does not assert anything. To deny it sounds more along the lines of anti-theism. And why is one of the sources a creationist web site (#2)?

You appear to be an atheist who just asserted that atheism does not assert anything. :)conservative 21:40, 14 December 2008 (EST)

>Atheism didn't assert anything. The person did. Stop trying to screw with their point.

On subject, this person is quite correct. There are many different types of atheism, and what is quoted is actually more anti-theism or strong atheism. On that note, the definition of weak atheism is incorrect. Weak atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods, which is different from stating "I believe these is NO god." And it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of proof of god provided by religious people, as stated in the article.

"The denial of the existence of God" should be changed to "a God", because the use of "God" makes it sound like Atheism only applies to monotheistic religions, when in fact it applies to all religions.

I think "a god" is most accurate as atheists lack belief in all gods of all religions. Also, god should be written with a small g because it is not a name but a general term used to refer to a powerful (imaginary or not) supernatural entity. Also, the best definiton for atheism is "a lack of belief in god(s)". For example, "denying the existence of god" could mean that all children are born religious, which they obviously aren't. Chidar - Tuomas Eero 17:58, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
Even in Finland, Chidar, all children are born innocent, with God's Grace. It is liberals and Euro-Socialists, embedded with relativism by a deceitful State, that cause the children, as you demonstrate by your post, to be corrupted. Bye. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:28, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
I am sorry to have to ask, but does that have anything at all to do with the original question? At all? Hobohodo 12:54, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

Atheism and Hell

I propose changing the atheism definition to a deny that God ahd Hell exist.--Andy Schlafly 09:01, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I see the denial of Hell as being implied by the denial of a god (uncapitalized as I take atheism to refer to denial of any god, not solely the Judeo-Christian God), so that definition seems to be a bit redundant. Mentioning in the article that denial of Hell typically follows from denial of any gods seems fine, but making it part of the definition seems a little problematic to me, as many Buddhists who do not believe in any gods would not be considered atheists, as they typically do believe in a Hell (or rather, the Buddhist equivalent). If you can find a source that proposes this, I guess it's okay, though. I just don't think encyclopedias should be in the business of redefining words. KevinS 09:36, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Limiting the denial of Hell to atheism would also be misleading, since many people believe (or claim to believe) in God but still deny the existence of Hell. Perhaps a new term needs to be coined to describe the denial of Hell?--CPalmer 09:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)
All atheists that do not believe in God will also disbelieve in Hell. There are non-atheists who do not believe in Hell, however. Within Judaism, however, there are many different interpretations of the afterlife; the closest to Hell that is widely believed is more like the concept of Purgatory. So if you mean atheists disbelieve in Hell, I would agree, but if you mean those that disbelieve in Hell are atheists, I disagree. Sulli 09:52, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I think he's suggesting more that those who disbelieve in Hell and God are atheists. KevinS 09:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)
While I think the definition of atheism given by the leading philosophical encycyclopedia's is sufficient, I do want to bring up the issue of atheism and hell in the article via a scholarly source. I also want to bring in the material from this article but have it be from a more scholarly source which has a more scholarly tone: Atheism: Intellectual revolt or pelvic rebellion: I also want to expand the causes of atheism section and just cited some sources I want to look up. conservative 23:51, 18 January 2009 (EST)

It's possible to believe in Hell but not God, so I think this might be jumping the gun a little. User:AmmaAm

Psychology of atheism

Biet-Hallahmi, author of “Atheism, A Psychological Profile”, in “The Cambridge Companion to Atheism”, wrote, “…what these individuals [the most elite] had, in addition to their creativity and high intelligence, was a strong wish to create distance between themselves and their parents.” - Caplovitz and Sherrow 1977; Quoted in “Cambridge Companion to Atheism”: “Atheists: a Psychological Profile”, Cambridge University Press, p307. conservative 23:30, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers (Paperback)[1] conservative 23:37, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Dawkins and debate

Today, someone (user Conservative?) added a photo of Richard Dawkins to the upper-right corner of the entry, with the caption "Atheist Richard Dawkins lost a public debate to a rabbi and then claimed that the debate never took place." First, the only time that Rabbi Boteach claims that he debated Richard Dawkins was once, in 1996. Since then, Rabbi Boteach has sat as an arbitrator on four of the hundreds of debates in which Dawkins has been a participant. As Dawkins explains on his website, he had simply forgotten about that single debate, 12 years ago. Second, there is no impartial judge cited to demonstrate that Dawkins "lost" the debate. Third, the two "citations" point to BeliefNet -- hardly an impartial source -- and WorldNet Daily, a self-described Christian website. This clearly violates PoV. Unless the user can provide a citation to an unbiased source that says that impartial judges declared Dawkins' debate rivals the winner, and corrects the addition to reflect Dawkins' recollection, this claim should be removed, in the interest of maintaining Conservapedia's reputation as a "trustworthy encyclopedia". I'll give the user 48 hours to rectify this before I do so myself. JeffersonPaine 19:12, 18 February 2009 (EST)

JeffersonPaine, Dinesh D'Souza appears to find the recent behavior of Richard Dawkins relative to public debates rather bizarre. D'Souza wrote: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away." [2] D'Souza further writes concerning you: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."[3] Lastly, D'Souza appears to indicate that Dawkins is a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him." [4]

Conservapedia wishes to examine the above claims of Dinesh D'Souza. Could you please provide Conservapedia with a list of Christian or Jewish scholars that Richard Dawkins has publicly debated in the last 10 years? Conservapedia would be indebted to you if you could provide a list for our examination.

By the way, when is Richard Dawkins going to accept Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's offer to a debate rematch (As you may recall, Dawkins debated Rabbi Boteach in 1996 and appeared to not fare very well)?[5][6] Conservapedians would truly love to see Rabbi Boteach pummel you a second time in a public debate! [7][8] conservative

No, you won't. Please read Conservapedia:Guidelines, which you are clearly unfamiliar with, before you attempt to publicly rebuke a user.--IDuan 19:33, 18 February 2009 (EST)
I presume, then, that you are the source of said addition. I direct your attention back to Conservapedia:Guidelines. Your addition lacks proper attribution (claiming that Dawkins "lost" is only the most glaring fault), and it lacks unbiased sources. I am perfectly within my rights as a member here to correct misinformation where it may be found, and your addition clearly is just that. I will not hesitate to seek arbitration from a different administrator if you are unwilling to abide by Conservapedia's rules. Furthermore, Conservapedia:Guidelines clearly requires civility. By defaming all non-Yahwehists as "fools" in your quote above, you have broken that rule. JeffersonPaine 19:43, 18 February 2009 (EST)
You haven't even checked who added the claim? (And no, it was not me). Also, please know that quotation marks are usually used for quotes - I did not say the word "fools". There is no NPOV policy on Conservapedia.--IDuan 19:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)
Why hasn't Dawkins taken up the rabbi's debate offer? There will be more material added to the atheism article and the Richard Dawkins article regarding Dawkins and the subject of debate. I think this will provide additional and relevant context. I also do not believe that Dawkins fans will be pleased about the additional context that is going to be added. conservative 19:55, 25 February 2009 (EST)