Talk:Atheism/archive23

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

global atheism is shrinking - newest data

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. Conservative 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

Politics

Cons, why is it that we only have an "Atheism and communism" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? Ryancsh 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)

Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that communism is a subset of politics.
And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[2] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the religion of atheism.[3][4]
Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the fallacy of exclusion. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: Atheism and deception. Conservative 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. Ryancsh 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)

Ryancsh, first, do you hold to social conservatism? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on homosexuality? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the New Atheism, the User: Conservative account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, global atheism is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the atheist religion somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the Fall of man. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate VivaYehshua) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of John Updike who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the Atheist hypocrisy article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if Shockofgod is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although Mariano Grinbank, the author of this extensive online article on atheism featured at Creation Ministries International, still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other Christian apologetics topics he writes about it. See: Worldview and science Examiner. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the New Atheism (interest in the New Atheism and Richard Dawkins is a shadow of its former self).[5]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the secular right. Conservative 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the Abortion and adoption article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.
Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.
Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. Ryancsh 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists.
Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of User: Conservative account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the atheism article! Conservative 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the User: Conservative account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that User: Conservative account editing was merely the work of one person. Conservative 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? Ryancsh 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired this section. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?
Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: Causes of atheism Conservative 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. Conservative 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.
Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.
Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. Ryancsh 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at Bible exegesis. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[6]
Second, none of those causes of atheism apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: Good person test. Conservative 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.Ryancsh 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: Good person test. Conservative 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. Ryancsh 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Even in atheistic Japan, researchers found that Japanese children see the world as designed.[1]
Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge its merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. Conservative 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. Ryancsh 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic Japan, researchers found that Japanese children see the world as designed.[7] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - Jeremiah 17:9 Conservative 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.Ryancsh 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[8] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. Conservative 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)Ryancsh 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --RonaldV 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
Gentlemen, you picked a poor place to try to start the first atheist revival. Try wearing white shirts and knocking on people's doors and telling them about atheism/agnosticism. I think it would be more effective. But before you knock on people's doors, please prepare some proof and evidence why atheism is true. That should not take long to do. Conservative 17:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
I'm not atheist at all: I'm Catholic! And a conservative, too. It's you who are a liability to the cause of Christianity and conservatism because evidently you can't debate and rely on communist, liberal, weak inefficient tactics! Face what Ryansch told and answer with pertinent arguments, instead of fearingly backing like a bunny in its hole! --RonaldV 17:43, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Ergo to prove it to be true you must prove there is a lack of believe in a god. Ask me if I believe in God and we shall have proof.Ryancsh 22:48, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryansch said this, above: "See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them." Unfortunately, it is you, Ryan, and you, Ronald, who refuse to even look at our points or even consider them. Since 2007 others have tried to engage in the same tactics, up to an including threats and bullying; never-mind the answers that we have posted in response. This "debate" is over and done with. Karajou 17:51, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
All right, as you wish, but I'll note this as a win against Conservative, assuming now he'll learn some debating skills. Now I go back editing about Switzerland. See you! --RonaldV 17:55, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
Karajou, I have looked at every point given to me. Even when Markman called me a parodist I addressed the point even though it was false. Conservative has addressed few of my points and refuses to do so. I will Help User Conservative by showing him the points that he missed and looked over, (maybe he didn't mean to), But karajou, I want to know...what point has Conservative or anyone else said that I have not considered or discussed?

1."I do hold many values that would be socially conservative." I have made this point and Conservative refuses to even discuss it. 2."I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not" throughout our last debate, Conservative repeatedly labeled me a Darwinist and attempted to do so again. 3. The gumball Analogy which defined my position, which Conservative refuses to even acknowledge as a position. (actually, he effectively ignored the whole paragraph) 4. The idea that not all Atheists are on the left (I am living proof that they are not) 5. The accusation of sweeping generalization I have made. 6. What I am called, according to his own standard.

Karajou I have always held high respect for you in the past as you tend to actually answer any points raised to you. Of course we disagree on religious matters but surely you know that I have went down every irrelevant route he opened, even the link to the good person test. Tell me any point that I refuse to look at and consider and I will do so now, right here. If I did so, it was not my intention. You have treated me fairly in the past, especially when Markman attempted to ban me for my name, I ask that you do so again. To be honest, I would rather have this discussion with you. Then it would be an intellectual discussion and not the barrage of mud-slinging that this has descended to. Ryancsh 23:04, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Ryancsh, also,your gumball analogy failed. Scientific proof/arguments is not the only kind of evidence/arguments (for example, historical evidence/arguments, logical arguments, etc.). Biblical creation belief has sound historical evidence and arguments.
Second, you wrote: "The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true)." If you only made decisions based on conclusive proof, you wouldn't eat/drink at restaurants unless you had a food/drink taster lest the food/drinks were poisoned, etc. etc. Historical arguments are probabilistic. I know you don't live your life's decisions solely on conclusive proof. Your atheistic/agnostic argumentation is weak. I am glad I have the strong proofs and evidence of Christianity/creation and I am not reliant on weak argumentation.
Lastly, you are still dodging. You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Again, children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[9] Your argument still failed from the gitgo.Conservative 18:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
Karajou, it is now apparent that Conservative wants to keep debating! May we answer him. His arguments can be easily disproved and his communist-like, liberal and inefficient tactics rebuked. May I? --RonaldV 18:14, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
Karajou, I almost feel sorry for Ryancsh. He wants to be a true conservative but he needs to pass all three litmus tests: fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and religious conservatism. The secular religions of agnosticism and atheism clearly do not pass the third test.Conservative 18:55, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

Improving introduction

I have two suggestions for the introduction: 1) explain the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism; 2) add summaries about causal factors, historical events, and effects, instead of "will be addressed" and "will also be covered". Missionary 12:14, 22 February 2015 (EST)

There are many causal factors to atheism so I linked to this article in the introduction: Causes of atheism.
Second, I don't want to do too much in the introduction so keeping it the way it is. However, I did just add a link to the article definition of atheism fairly early in the article. Conservative 20:58, 21 April 2015 (EDT)
The effects and some of the historical events related to atheism is covered in the second paragraph of this atheism article. There is a sentence in the second paragraph which reads: "Atheism has been examined by many disciplines in terms of its effects on individuals and society and these effects will be covered shortly." When you click on the words "of its effects" in that sentence, the article will take you to the Atheism statistics article which covers some of the effects/history of atheism. Plus, the "Atheism statistics" article links to Conservapedia's History of atheism article and articles related to the history of atheism. Conservative 14:23, 20 July 2015 (EDT)
Missionary, I partly implemented your first suggestion today and did it in a concise way that keeps the flow of the article going. I linked to the Definition of atheism article within the second sentence which explains things further.
In addition, fairly soon in the article, resources on the agnosticism/atheism issue is now given. Conservative (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (EDT)

Wow

Conservapedia has 38 sections on this topic, Wikipedia only has 13 sections on religion. Talk about paranoia. It must be difficult to accept that atheism is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural things. You should let atheists define the word. Don't quote the definition from a few select sources, include secular sources and see what the most used definition is. (unsigned comment by Paul Matcalfe, Dec. 18, 2015)

LOL, that definition didn't originate until the 1970s. It's not Conservapedia's job to cater to the changes in the meaning of words that atheists, through each periodic and regular "atheism makeover", want to produce. VargasMilan (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2015 (EST)

Really, this article ought to use the true definition of atheism: a religion whose core belief is that there is no God (or gods or supernatural things). Lack of belief in anything is simply agnosticism. It is important to make this distinction because atheism is now the second most oppressive religion in the world. For example, in the United States there are people (such as the infamous FFRF) who are trying to violate the First Amendment by making atheism the official state religion. IGnatius T Foobar (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2016 (EDT)