From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is atheism protected by the First Amendment?

I think this issue needs to be researched and clarified in the page. Thank you. JoeSmithson117 18:53, 4 December 2011 (EST)

I am not a lawyer who specializes in U.S. Constitutional law. Setting the issue of the law aside, I can tell you that there will be no protecting atheism from the Question evolution! campaign which will rip it to shreds.
The 15 razor sharp teeth of the Question evolution! campaign, are going to publicly rip evolutionary pseudoscience and atheism to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in open water conditions (please see: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.)
Ooh, what a scary shark. Too bad in a real debate, big pictures with unfunny captions don't convince anybody. Of course, if all you care about is getting attention from your intellectual superiors, keep on doing what you're doing, you might not get Dawkins to mention you in his next book, but maybe some Atheist on YouTube looking for an easy target might take 5 minutes to inform his viewers what a unique personality you are. News Flash: Creation scientists do not "win" debates, they lose miserably and declare victory anyway, if they don't block the release of the debate video, of course. RachelW 11:59, 20 February 2012 (EST)
Has Richard Dawkins debated William Lane Craig yet? (see: Atheism and cowardice). Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the Question evolution! campaign will further demonstrate the man is a clown. Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach). In addition, Dawkins claimed Rabbi Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: Atheism and deception). Conservative 18:10, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Atheism shrinking is accelerating; the religious shall inherit the earth

Atheist researcher of demographics of atheism says that the shrinking of atheism is expected to accelerate: Religious shall inherit the earth Conservative 22:54, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Agnostic Dawkins

Other articles now say that Dawkins is an agnostic, not an atheist. Should this one be amended accordingly?--CPalmer 10:25, 28 February 2012 (EST)

I made some changes to the article. Second, it occurred to me recently that effectively in the Anglosphere atheism is dead in terms of having prominent adherents on the public stage. Who is a prominent proponent of strong atheism? Conservative 11:26, 7 March 2012 (EST)
You do seem to have got most of them. I think there's one reference remaining to "atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins" though.--CPalmer 11:33, 7 March 2012 (EST)
Let me know what section it is in. Conservative 11:34, 7 March 2012 (EST)
It is in section 12.2, "The claim that atheists tend to be quarrelsome and socially challenged men".--CPalmer 11:36, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Investigate the issue of atheism and infanticide in light of recent events

Investigate the issue of atheism and infanticide in light of recent events: and

Create this article: Atheism and infanticide Conservative 23:33, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

Misrepresentation and Misspelling of Ninian Smart

"Religion scholar Ninian Smartt identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion."

The first sentence is talking about Ninian Smart, religious scholar. As written, it is easy to see the second sentence as a misspelling suggesting that Ninian Smart intended his scheme to be used as criteria, but as you can see here on page 2, he meant for his scheme to be descriptive; these are seven things to look at when defining any worldview, secular or religious, and not a means of determining if something is or isn't a religion. The second sentence is talking about Daniel Smartt (two ts), pastor, who is interpreting (and misinterpreting, I believe) Ninian Smart's scheme, mistaking them for criteria. Read the reference and let me know if you agree. - User: Williagz

Within a couple of weeks or so, I will take a look at it, but I will fix the spelling now.Conservative 14:44, 6 May 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for the input and at first glance you seem to have a legitimate point. I helped someone with a project until late in the night (partly due to the deadline being moved up) and then I went to church this morning. I will address this issue when I am more well rested. For now, I think I will take a well deserved nap. :) Conservative 14:54, 6 May 2012 (EDT)
I put the suggestions of yours in the article. Thanks. Conservative 04:56, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

SPPS Survey

Apparently the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science has a new survey that shows that atheists are more compassionate and generous than highly religious people. Does anyone have access to this? Here's the story on the UC Berkley news page - Interesting. Darkmind1970 12:27, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists. See: Atheism and uncharitableness
I am not impressed by how people spend "lab dollars". $1.50 USD and 100 trillion "lab dollars" will get you a cup of coffee. Plus, we know that atheists have a reputation for being liars and their worldview has extensively used lies to promote itself (see: Atheism and deception) so how they supposedly would spend "lab dollars" is not exactly impressive (see: Atheism and uncharitableness). Also, the worldview of atheism is based on a lie since God most certainly does exist (see: Atheism and Evidence that God exist). In addition, Conservapedians and the people on the internet at large have seen how atheists operate and frankly we are not impressed. According to Wired magazine atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: Atheism and women).
Darkmind, by the way, do you have any proof that atheism is true? The reason I ask is that Christianity has plenty of evidence that it is true.

Darkmind, to clarify my main objection is that I care less what happens in artificial experiments in which "lab dollars" are used and care more about what happens in the real world. In the real world, we know that atheists tend to have a greater tendency to be tight fisted cheapskates (see: Atheism and uncharitableness). It is commonly said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Many times liberals (and atheists tend to be more liberal) talk a good game, but in actuality tend to be less charitable (see: Liberals and uncharitableness and Liberal politicians and uncharitableness and Barack Obama and uncharitableness). We know that Christian conservatives tend to give more to charity that the secular left (see: Atheism and uncharitableness and Liberals and uncharitableness).

Here is a parable of Jesus to illustrate my point about mere talk vs. taking action in doing good:

"A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matthew 21: 28-32). Conservative 19:36, 7 May 2012 (EDT)