From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Congratulations Conservapedia!

Truly in my life have I ever read such an unfounded, biased article. Well done. I love the subtle hints about the ties between communism and atheism, very unbiased! Of course, countries like Australia and Germany have high atheist populations and are completely democratic, but of course that doesn't tie in with your own ideas and therefore is omitted. Just so you know, communist regimes like Stalin's repress religion as a means to suppress any ideas that differ from the state. And now that you mention regimes, wasn't Adolf Hitler a Roman Catholic? You know, the guy that started a war that caused over 50 million deaths? The guy that started a religious genocide? Yeah, thats the guy, I'm sure of it! Oh but wait, he had a bad relationship with his father, so of course he must have atheist! It all makes so much sense now.

Another thing, I love the fact that the arguments you have put forward as atheists arguments are actually what you think atheist arguments are, and no doubt the weaker arguments at that are the ones that are included. Not that you know, science actually explains to us what lightning and thunder is, as opposed to the theist argument: "Oh no, gods angry!!!" Nah, thats a strong argument, can't include that can we!

"Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies". Sorry but that just made me sick to the stomach. Do you, in all honestly, seriously think that if there was no Christianity, no religion, that everybody would go around murdering, raping, pillaging? Do you really? If so, then sorry, but you're a clot. All that train of thought shows is your brains inability to comprehend situations other than the ones you have been spoon-fed since a child. I'm an atheist, have I killed anyone? Have I taken drugs, or committed racial crimes? Of course not! I'll have you know I donate regularly to charity, and am a blood and organ donor. And don't rebut with that argument that high moral standards and charity within atheism has a low occurrence, because you are just plain, undeniably wrong. If you think about it actually, religion is, intentionally or unintentionally, a scapegoat to remove ones own responsibilities: rather than take responsibility for race-related murder, a Christian could merely say 'but my religion taught me so!' Ah yes, such a peaceful lot you are.

"As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.[108][109] Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many debates have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States." And an example of said won debate is? I really do love it, Conservapedia, how you unashamedly provide examples of Christian superiority in an argument vs atheism, but don't bother to back it up. Seems to be a recurring thing really; "And so Moses split the great sea" 'How do you know?' "Shut up! I'm right and you're wrong!" Ah yes, masters of debate they are, the Christian faith.

Oh and just returning to the moral thing: I think atheists have higher morals and ethics than Christians. You know why? We are able to figure out for ourselves, using our brains, that it's bad to steal or to hurt. Christians on the other hand, need a BOOK to tell them how to think and how to act. Can you see now, why I think Christians are a dim-witted community?

Oh and, haha! I love the bit about different faiths position on marrying into the family. Such great scientific evidence, asking questions that benefit Christianity in a predominantly Christian country. Phwoar, you really showed us dumb atheists didn't ya!

Once again, thank you Conservapedia, for dumbing down the general population, spreading bias through the universe, and ensuring your children aren't allowed to make up their own minds.

Peace (to the censors!).

Atheism Quotes

All the quotes are just atheist-bashing. What purpose does that section serve?

An argument against the existence of God

Why doesn't God heal amputees? --Moderatedemocrat

You just took that from the name of a semi-popular site, correct? -_- Fuzzy 14:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
It is a widely-asked question (on many popular or semi-popular sites as well as outside of the internet community) that deserves a decent answer. So, I ask you: Why doesn't the Almighty heal amputees? Surely you have an answer.


Here is a summary of your argument:

  1. If God existed, He would heal amputees.
  2. God does not heal amputees.
  3. Therefore, God does not exist.

This is a valid argument; i.e., the conclusion follows from the premises. But in order for this to be a sound argument, both the premises would have to be true. I disagree with the first premise entirely, and I also question the second one a bit. --Ed Poor Talk 14:21, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I am not knowledgeable enough in my faith to answer that question. I'm still a "child of faith" (like a Padowan learner).. almost a "teen of faith" (on fire for God). I do not have liberty to speak for God. (sorry). Not all Christians are uber close to God; I know very few my age (18-21) who are.

And Ed, I think MD is more trying to disprove God's power or saying God is biased against amputees. [1] -_- Fuzzy 14:24, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Could be. Theology is a vast subject. What are the limits of God's power? If there are any limits, are they intrinsic limits like He can't make 2+2=5? Or might these be self-imposed limits (see free will)?
I wonder how much of atheism derives from the belief that God has "biases" against various persons. "I won't believe in God, because I enjoy gay sex and He refuses to give his approval." --Ed Poor Talk 14:41, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

"Reasons for Atheism"

I sort of resent the fact that this article implies that there needs to be a reason for someone to be an atheist. I don't think a Christian would like an article that says one of the reasons they are a theist is because they had a poor relationship with his/her father.

Can we maybe remove that section or add "Belief that there is not a God"?

I agree with this. Perhaps we should ask why one is not an Athiest. Monkey998 23:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The entry omits one possible reason for atheism: God does not exist.

Definition of Atheism

The definition of atheism in the article seemed a bit odd. So I contacted the author of the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia. The correspondence is given below. If you have any doubts about the genuineness of this, please contact the Professor yourself.

Dear Prof. Smart,

I read with interest your thorough and detailed review of atheism and agnosticism ( I am curious about the definition you have provided at the beginning of the article which reads " denial of existence of god". Does it not imply that atheists are in a state of denial of some thing that really exists? I have always believed atheism is a lack of belief in a god.

Please let me know.


Dear XXXXX, You are quite right. I should have said 'denial of the proposition that God exists' But a sympathetic reader would understand it this way. Best wishes Jack Smart

So can we change that accordingly ? --JBuscombe 17:58, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Picking Nits

Great article, a seriously nice piece of work, but the following errors jumped out at me (and I, of course, cannot change these myself):

  • Something's missing in the second sentence of the article ("There different types of atheism...").
  • "A.D." comes before the date, not after.
  • "b.c." should be capitalized.

--PeteVan 22:55, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

What sections of the article do they occur. I don't know as I did not put those in. Conservative 22:57, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Here, here and here. Feebasfactor 23:00, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I did put the A.D. one in but I just found out that either convention is acceptable. However, I just fixed the b.c. problem thanks to your input. Conservative 23:02, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
So another 300 edits later.....MattM 22:18, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Madalyn Murray O'Hair Murder

Madalyn Murray O'Hair Murder plus son claims the organization American Atheists lied over and over again: see:

Lots of people lie. You lie. I lie. Your father, your mom, your sister lie. The mailman lies. The football announcer lies. The priest lies. Albiet a little more than the others. Hell, even the president lies.

And you were removed for lying, by your own admition. Karajou 08:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

supposed tax returns of American Atheist

supposed tax returns of American Atheist plus WHO SPEAKS FOR ATHEISM? The Problem of American Atheists, Inc. - see N.J Atheist website at:

WHO SPEAKS FOR ATHEISM? The Problem of American Atheists, Inc. at:

Supposed 2002 tax return of American Atheist at:

Supposed 2003 tax return of American Atheist at:

Disappearance Madalyn Murray O'Hair

NY Times, December 22, 1996 by SAM HOWE VERHOVEK - Months After Disappearance of Leading Atheist, Group says $600,000 Is Missing, Too at:

American Atheists and Frank Zindler/William Lane Craig debate

From "Frank Zindler - A leading light in the American Atheists. Isn’t it amazing how so many atheists love evolution and appear to be threatened by the massive scientific evidence for creation? Zindler took the atheism side in an Atheism v. Christianity debate in front of 7,500 people at Willow Creek Community Church, USA. His opponent, Dr William Lane Craig, tore his ignorant arguments to shreds so effectively that many atheists in the audience realised that Zindler had lost the debate. It was presumably to this debate that John Snowden was alluding when he wrote that a representative of the American Atheists, whom he used to support, lost a public debate to a “fundamentalist” (Skeptic 18(3), 1998)."[2] Conservative 05:54, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Atheism in America is poorly defined...

The book Saints and Sinners by Lawrence Wright published by Vintage Books in 1993 states on page 114 cites a number of 2,400 members for the organization American Atheists.[3] The book Atheist Cult by Fred Woodworth in the 1997 edition on page 11 stated a membership of 2,000 members and dropping for the organization American Atheists.[4] Madalyn Murray O'Hair disappeared in late August of 1995.[5]

"Atheism in America is poorly defined with little organization" said a editor of the Texas Atheist Newsletter.[6] Freedom From Religion Foundation claims to have over 10,000 members and also claims to be the largest group of atheists and agnostics in America [7] and its web traffic is about the same as the organization American Atheists according to Alexa.

The son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, William J. Murray, first released his letter in 1999 in which he claimed the American Atheists repeatedly lied about a matter plus he stated the following regarding his mother:"My mother delighted in hiring unrepentant criminals to work in her atheist office. She particularly enjoyed hiring convicted murderers who had served their time but were unrepentant about what they had done. She got a sense of power out of having men in her employ who had taken human life. It was love of power over people that finally caused not only her death, but the deaths of my brother and my daughter....No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company. I could go on but I won’t. All the money my mother made in this manner stayed behind. It did not go with her....During Easter, what is left of my mother’s American Atheist organization held a convention in New Jersey. My ministry placed an advertisement in the newspaper there to tell them about Jesus. The new atheist leader, Ellen Johnson, ranted and raved against me, against Christ and against the Holy Spirit. Johnson told the media that the whole idea of my mother being murdered was a fabrication. She told the newspapers that I had "manufactured" the story using my connections to Congress to trick the FBI into getting involved. Why does this woman protest so much? Why does she not even shed a tear for her departed leader?"[8]

Supposed 2002 tax return of American Atheist at:

Supposed 2003 tax return of American Atheist at:

Does anyone if the recent tax records of Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists are a matter of public record rather than rely on those two web links above in regards to the organization American Atheists? Conservative 08:18, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I have 3 questions for people. 1) How many members do you think the Freedom From Religion Foundation has? 2)How many members do you think the organization American Atheists has? 3)Why do you think the web traffic as given by Alexa is about the same for Freedom From Religion Foundation as it is for the organization American Atheists? Conservative 21:08, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


I'm new here and not quite sure what to make of this. Maybe this has been brought up, but there seems to be just to much to go through to check. My concern is that this article ought to be something else. It doesn't exacly read like an Atheism article. It's more like "Reasons not to be an Atheist" or something. I came to look at this article because, while I might be very conservative on fiscal, immigration, national security, etc. issues, I'm by no mean a religious person. I'm not an atheist, I'm just not very religious. SigmaHtaIotaTau is on me 11:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

In the see also section, there is a History of Atheism article that needs to be created and it might be a good idea to merge this article into the present atheism article. Conservative 21:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, that'll really sort out the problem that has been noted above for the umpteenth time. *slaps forehead* -- Ferret Nice old chat 06:48, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

"Reasonable Explanations of Atheism" and everything else

I've been both an atheist and conservative for quite a few years, and I can attest that I am not rebelling against God, a lover of moral depravity, and I even happen to have an excellent relationship with my father. Simply put, this article is embarrassing. It appears to be a composite of anti-atheist rants rather than a reasoned description of a position that quite a few conservatives hold. In short, this mess needs to be cleaned up. --Diagoras 10:06, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I'm rather interested this; Conservative, how would you explain Diagoras' atheism? Which category would of "reasonable explanation" would he fall into? I'm aware that the article is indisputable, but I'd like to know what you personally think on this matter. Feebasfactor 16:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
Diagoras, you said you an atheist and you are not rebelling against God. It is nice to see an atheist recognize there is a God. Conservative 23:51, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
That's a contradiction in terms, I am not rebelling against God because none exists. But that is irrelevant, the blatant bigotry and stereotypes in the article are the issue. Many atheists are kind, moral, conservative individuals and this article does not do justice to us. --Diagoras 00:12, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Diagoras, please cite some studies or some substantial historical support regarding your position. Conservative 20:41, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Evidence that there are kind atheist in the world? Well, up to 14% of Americans are secular, 5% atheist, many of whom lead productive, peaceful lives. - Atheist are a minority of the prison population proportionally. - Being an atheist is reason enough to not be president. - Jefferson, anti-federalist, states rights activist, founder of many of the precepts of modern conservatism, was an atheist.
This is just off the top of my head, let me know if there is a specific field you want me to provide data for.
--Diagoras 10:09, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
Diagoras, the gruel you dished off the top of your head was so exceedingly thin that even Oliver Twist would not ask for more. For example, your own footnote states that Thomas Jefferson was a deist. Conservative 22:55, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, emotionalisms are childish and the mark of the enraged liberal (ie. You're a racist!), please refrain from them. Deist, atheist, and agnostics are generally grouped into "freethinkers." This is the word I meant to use, thank you for pointing out my error. Anyway, please explain how the caricature of atheist in this article is accurate and how my evidence fails to show how some atheist are moral. --Diagoras 13:54, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
"Many atheists are kind, moral, conservative individuals and this article does not do justice to us." I'm confused, Conservative. Do you mean to say that without "some studies or some substantial historical support", you do not find this claim to be at all believable? (Note he did not say "most", just "many".) Feebasfactor 23:12, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Feesbasfactor, the irony is delicious. It appears as if I am more of a skeptic than the so called "freethinkers" who often call themselves skeptics. In short, offer some real evidence or quit complaining. Conservative 14:10, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
Ah, then. So you do not find the claim that "Many atheists are kind, moral, conservative individuals" to be at all believable. That is many, not "most" (as I pointed out). By definition, then, your opposing position must be that very few or no atheists are kind, moral, conservative individuals. Correct? I might be skeptical of such a position, particularly as it has been applied to this article - but then again I don't have the sort of real evidence you demand for skepticism. However, I do find your position very interesting; not wishing to run too far off on a tangent here, perhaps I'll just ask you about it later and elsewhere. Feebasfactor 22:52, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually the burden of proof exists on you to prove that atheists are worse then everyone else. Fortunately I have an ace up my sleave... The Department of Corrections. Turns out theists commit more of the crimes or that atheists are smart enough not to be caught. The other possibility is that atheists are better educated and thus less likely to commit crimes. Interestingly this holds true for countries to, with the most faithful having the most crime. It is because the are poor that they are faithful or are they faithful and so become poor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDSkinner (talk)

Bible regarding Athiesm

Isn't this section by nature completely bias against the subject of the article? Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the opinion of a Christian on whether or whether not God exists be completely irrelevant to an Athiest? It is like a Vegan criticizing someone who happens to be alergic to vegetables, over the fact that they do not eat vegetables. I'm supprised at the amount of bias and bigotry and zealousy steaming from this place. It really sickens me that some people think the Bible belongs everywhere, and that everything must be "approved" biblcy, like it is a mandate from God that you should outlaw Gay-marriage, outlaw love, outlaw athiests from holding office, outlaw athiests from testifying in a court of law, essentially taking away their rights because they do not believe in fairy tales and myths. If you delete this, you are a traitor and a bigot and a zealot and a conservative power hungry monster, keeping the human race from progression towards peace and acceptence and are supporting unadulterated stupidity in worship of something we don't even know exists, and obviously doesn't even care about us enough to keep us from killing eachother in his name. Don't you love freedom of speech? I sure do. --Niffed 23:52, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Such harsh words from someone trying to say that *we* are the evil ones. If you've come to find a neutral encyclopedia you have come to the wrong place. If you want an encyclopedia that doesn't use the Bible as an answer, kindly go somewhere else. (You might like to look up the definition of faith before you go; not everything is what you can see, feel, hear, taste, touch, and smell.) If you have only come here to argue you will be blocked. HelpJazz 00:05, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Harsh words? Conservapedia's "Purpose" statement claims to "strive to be accurate and fair and allow other points of view". Like many, this article fails miserably in terms of fairness or allowance of other points of view. Are you defending that failure? As an educational resource, such articles are a disinformative embarrasment and these shortcomings do a serious injustice to any would-be students that rely on them for educational benefit. Conservapedia has done some growing-up since its earliest days of unintentionally-hilarious articles about tree-octopuses and giant, virile koala bears migrating to Australia in the pouches of kangaroos, but it's got a very long way to go if this promise of 'striv(ing) to be accurate and fair and allow(ing) other points of view' has any sincerity to it. --DougM 16:16, 25 October (EDT)
Should we at Conservapedia allow other points of view that are destructive to this website? Other points of view that are destructive to Judeo/Christianity? Other points of view that are destructive to traditional family values? The answer is NO. Karajou 16:30, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, that's the idea behind freedom of speech. You do not suppress your opponents, you welcome their criticism for it makes your ideas stronger. --Diagoras 13:50, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
Exactly! If everyone was forced to think alike, worship (or not worship) the same religion, join the same political party and all ignore the works of Nietzche (joke, everyone, a joke), we'd have something similar to a communist state. Thomas Jefferson, a deist, once said "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." If the opposition is suppressed, than the your very own ideas you try to protect become corrupted. Probus1 16:55, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

"Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests."

"If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism." -- Ann Coulter --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:43, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Political Correctness isn't facism; it is simply the rufusal to take off blinders... Much like what you are doing. On another note truth is resistant to everything and if you have to protect this site from "destructive" and "contrary" source then it ain't true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDSkinner (talk)

Perhaps that shoud be denouncing political correctness. I'm sure most campus would love you if you denounced fascism. Monkey998 23:02, 9 December 2007 (EST)

At first I thought Karajou's statement was a joke, but then I realized what he is: A guy who uses this definition of Liberal (someone who wants to love the terrorists, give Iran a bomb, kill us with taxes, kill all of our babies, and make us get gay-married). Sounds like he is the average, poorly educated, bible-beater...

Crime Rates in USA compared with UK, France & Germany

Shouldn't it be noted that the murder, rape and drug offense rates in the USA is much higher than in the less religious countries of the UK France and Germany where church attendance is much lower. whitenoise

  • Your supposition is not correct. When one uses deceit to make the statement you did, everything the user says is suspect. Differences in how those statistics are gathered and calculated make appple to apple comparisons next to impossible. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 23:14, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Next up- how words are not comparable because people use then differently. In the above passage we see someone say I am an idiot using 38 words to say I am an idiot. That is a waste of 34 words. The correct question would be is the methodology used by the religious countries, which appear to have higher crime rates, different from those used by secular ones? (The answer for murders at least is no. Come on it isn't to hard to figure out the method for that is consistant worldwide; you count corpses... unless all the European murders are smart and use Lye, acid and fire). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDSkinner (talk)

Atheism and (Im)moral views

In the article, gambling and homosexuality are implied to be immoral. I don't understand how they are. --Blinkadyblink 23:12, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Because the stance can only be defended on religious grounds. Since atheists aren't religious they can't critize those activities and are thus considered immoral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDSkinner (talk)

Which stance do you refer to when you say "can only be defended on religious grounds"?, your ambiguity unfortunately undermines your argument. Also, you are implying that morals can only be found through religions - this is a point of debate and as such should not be used as evidence for a 'concrete' argument. You should at least consider the alternate viewpoint. --Vincentvincent 06:56, 4 March 2008 (EST)

When you say "religious grounds", which religions do you mean? Judaism? Islam? Ancient Greek? Ancient Egyptian? Mayan? Hindu? If Christianity, which testament? and, furthermore, which branch? Mormanism? Baptist? Lutheran? --Democritus 20:27, 23 March 2008 (EDT)


So, from this article, I'm getting "Athiest = evil and embarrassing". Why are there no notations of positive and productive athiests?

Being athiest is a lot like being homosexual. There may be more around you than they might think. They just don't go around screaming "I'M AN ATHIEST!!!!"

There's no need for documented evidence to know that not all athiests are drug-abusing, lying, thieving, philandering scoundrels.

Unfortantely since you are all so close-minded in your ideal Conservative world where everyone should believe what you believe, the fact that some athiests might actually be, *gasp*, good, eludes your mind. Ugyuer 10:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

First of all, just to let you know: it's spelled atheist. E before i. Secondly, as stated in the 10 commandments this is a site with a Christian perspective, and therefore the site's position on atheism is quite undebatable - so why you choose to argue is beyond me. However, beyond that, your posting is one that is not meant to convince us that we are wrong - it is merely a series of low-key insults - and I'm not sure what reward you expect from that. Perhaps if you spent a little less time trolling, and a little more time reading - you would be able to spell atheist right. (Oh and thirdly, it's spelled unfortunately)--IDuan 00:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Great spelling Iduan. That really proved the point. Those silly atheists just can't spell. No wonder they're evil. --Horace23 00:21, 11 November 2007 (EST)
I'm glad that you can really pick up on my primary point there Horace - great comprehension.--IDuan 00:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Hey, nice move Iduan. First you block me THEN you post the come-back. Guess you wanted the last word. Brave.
I would have thought that I was entitled to comment on any aspect of your post. Silly me.
Let me address your main assertion now:
The proposition that because Conservapedia is a Christian site it’s position on atheism is not up for debate is patently muddleheaded. The atheism page is a disgrace that would embarrass most intelligent Christians. Why would they not be permitted to point out the page’s myriad failings?

Fools! That is because atheism is kryptonite to all Christian! They can't stand the sight of happy, sinful, decent people... it sears their soul! How dare they question and think critically with their science and reason! Plus as atheists we have cookies. And pie. You should add that it under positives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDSkinner (talk)

Major logical problem

In the which god or gods section, there's a sentence that reads: " can be considered an atheist with respect to one god, but a theist with respect to another, and it is important to understand first in what God the atheist denies."

If one follows this through, everyone is an atheist - I believe in capital-G God, but I don't "believe in" say, Baal, or Ra, or Zeus, or Tiki gods or the Great Cosmic Muffin. By this article's definition, that makes me an atheist, and a theist.

Is there a better way to work around this? Dewey 17:41, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Seems to me that an atheist denies the existence of any God.--Aschlafly 17:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Dewey and Aschafly, I read your comments and made two changes based on your comments. Conservative 19:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks, Conservative - looks better! Dewey 19:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts ---LouisSaint 20:06, 3 December 2007 (EST)

If there is a major logical problem with not believing in a guy in the sky, than how can you believe in that guy without a shred of evidence? Moderate 17:53, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Quotes Regarding Atheism

It doesn't seem fair to only include negative quotes in the Quotes Regarding Atheism section, so I think the section should include at least one positive one. I suggest Francis Bacon's quote, "Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue"[9].--Blinkadyblink 18:57, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Isn't Plato the man who thought Epic poety is immoral and the first person to publically endorse a Stalinist Police State aka the Republic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SDSkinner (talk)


"Homosexuality and Immoral Activites"

I think there's a problem with this list - drug use, for instance is not "immoral" in the same way that abortion may be - consider the fact that it can be considered a victimless crime, and that most of the societal costs (crime, etc) are associated to illegality driving drugs underground more than the drugs themselves. Furthermore, the slippery nature of the law means that, for example, alcohol was an "illegal drug" - and by this article's logic immoral - during Prohibition, but is now not. What about dry counties? Alcohol is illegal and immoral there, but not in the county next door. Am I behaving "immorally" if I consume marijuana in the US, but not if I consume it in the Netherlands? Also, is excessive drinking really "immoral?" It's not a good thing, I'll admit - but immoral in and of itself? Why not excessive eating in that case? Gambling - again, a vice whose social costs are amplified by its legal status - never mind the fact that the state lotto and church bingo are clearly sanctioned and arguably "moral" forms of what this article's author sees as an "immoral activity." PaulH 16:28, 29 November 2007 (EST)

In relation to morals and religion, or lack of, we need to take into account what is a moral based on an indivdual religion. If something is only immoral because of a religious belief then is it truley immoral? For example the sex before marrage part. If someone can show why this is immoral outside a religious context then I can accept that inclusion.
However there are some religions that have worse morals than athiests. Saitanists for one. Also I would suggest that pagans do more on this list than the average athiest. There are some religions where taking of some drugs is mandatory. If the religion wasn't reconised then that would be an iligal drug use. However as it is reconised it is fine. Monkey998 22:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Whoops forgot a bit. Also homosexuallity is only immoral in regards to some religions. Once again show me that it is immorral outside a religious context. Monkey998 22:52, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Atheist Symbol

Please do not take this the wrong way but I was wondering where the atheist symbol came from. I was an atheist for many years until I realized that it required as much faith as any other religion (I now consider myself an agnostic) and I had no idea there was an official symbol, in fact I had no idea they were organized enough to have an official anything. As I said just curious here and have no object to the symbol just wondering where it came from. Pibu 20:57, 29 November 2007 (EST)

You're right, there is no symbol for Atheism. For goodness sake, Atheism is NOT a religion or a cult. Ichiro 11:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I do know the govt uses them on gravestones. I have seen them elsewhere as well. See here for some of the places they are used: Conservative 13:15, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Here is another place: Conservative 13:19, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Where does it say that the government uses them on gravestones? I remember there was a huge battle as to whether or not the government would put Wiccan symbols on gravestones. I hardly think they'd allow atheist signs on gravestones lightly, as a result.-MexMax 11:20, 3 December 2007 (EST)

That symbol is not a universal symbol for atheists but is in fact the logo of the civil liberties group "American Atheists" The "A" in the center actually stands for "America". This is not a "universal" symbol for atheists as a cross my be for Christians. Indeed many atheists do not symbols and those that do use anything from the atom to the invisible pink unicorn. --Rainedaye 14:11, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with Rainedaye. The symbol used is a logo of an internet site, not a recognized image that would define an atheist in the same way a cross would define a christian. Implicating that there is a universal symbol for use would implicate that we are a united group with a united cause. We are simply people who see no evidence of a diety and choose to to believe in one. A symbol for an atheist "religion" would be the same a flag for an anarchist "government"; it is a contradiction by the very definition of the term to suggest there is a symbol that represents people who only share a like-minded ideology. --Atheist89 15:36, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Here is the United States Government using the atheist symbol that is located in the beginning of the article in respect to gravestones: Conservative 21:42, 11 December 2007 (EST)
The link you have provided does indeed show the symbol being used as definition for an atheist but you may also notice that the page gives a different symbol for humanists, who are also atheist. I think the point of contention here is that although the American Atheist symbol is indeed used as a symbol for members of that particular organisation it is not representative of all atheists. As such the symbol should either be removed or clarification should be added to the caption to inform people which organisation it represents. --Vincentvincent 07:02, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Here is the United States Government using the atheist symbol that is located in the beginning of the article in respect to gravestones: Conservative 04:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


This article is excessively bias and hostile. Do you guys hate atheists? OK I'll admit it. I'm an atheist. Yg 11:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)

We do not hate atheists, but we do not like the pushing of atheism on us or the rest of society. Karajou 11:44, 3 December 2007 (EST)
so its ok for you to push christianity on to everyone else? o_0 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegovernator (talk)
Yes it is for several reasons. First, it is protected by the First Amendment; we can preach the Gospel any time and anywhere by any means. Second, preaching the Gospel also serves as a warning to those who choose to do wrong. Yes, it is their choice to do wrong, but we liken it to someone driving over a bridge when we're warning them that the bridge is out. It's up to them whether or not to listen. Third, you came in to this site freely, but since this is not your site you have to abide by the rules of the site...and if that means your removal if you try to tell us we cannot preach the Gospel, so be it. It is your choice to accept Christ or reject Christ; it is not your choice to stop us from speaking of Christ. Karajou 08:24, 21 December 2007 (EST)
I am not trying to break any rules here, I just was wondering what you meant by that staement. Because I do agree that anyone of any faith can preach thier values, with the exeption of it scalling the wall of seperation of church and state. (but that is an enite different subject) What I meant by "push" is someone using force to make someone believe the same thing they do. But I am not trying to stop you from speaking about your faith. I am sorry if you took my statement the wrong way Karajou. thegovernator

Who is pushing Atheism on you? As your own article states, Theists are in the clear majority in this country. Are you so utterly insecure in your own belief system that you will allow yourself to be threatened by a mere 5% of the population (at best)? Your article, on Atheism, is an abomination and insulting to anyone who may be unfortunate enough to read it. If you are indeed billing your organization as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," then you should actually make an effort to gain our trust. You can start by completely reworking this article into something balanced - and for 'God's' sake, run it through spell-check before you post it. LouisSaint 20:06, 3 December 2007 (EST)

You are pushing atheism on us. It is you who are afraid of us, our beliefs, and God; it is you and your kind that forced your own religious beliefs on this society, as in no prayer in schools, the removal of symbols from publi land, the curtailment of the preaching of the gospel in public, and lately there's a push by an atheist to remove "In God We Trust" from the money he himself enjoys in his own pocket. Here's what's going to happen on this website: we are going to promote Judeo/Christian values and we are going to continue to tell the world exactly what is wrong with atheism. Have a nice day! Karajou 16:01, 5 December 2007 (EST)
This is not evidence of us "pushing" our religion on you, this is an example of us trying to uphold the constitution which states there is to be a separation of church and state. These symbols and comments on public land and currency show a predilection towards one religion. This goes against what this country was founded on, so what we are moving for in this aspect is not only legal, its the American way, unless you would like to implicate that the American Constitution is an affront to God? As for preaching in public, are you implying that christians have never done this, or are you merely upset because there has never been another voice in conflict to your own?Atheist89 15:50, 7 December 2007 (EST)
It is evidence of atheists pushing their religious beliefs on the rest of society. According to John Adams, this country and our constitution were made for a moral and religious people. Are you implying that you and your kind are better than one of the founders of this country? Show me in the Constitution where there is to be a separation of church and state. I want to see the exact words. Karajou 16:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)
From the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Probus1

This artical is obviously biased unlessed I missed the section "Christans and mass-murder"on other pages. Monkey998 23:04, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, its really not suprising; look what happened to the "Christian Terrorism" page Then compare that to the Terrorism page. --Democritus 20:35, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

funny article

This article is really funny. It is so bias, that it is funny. I have told most of my friends to read it because it is so funny. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Balloga 11:12, 5 December 2007 (EST)

This article is beyond bias, I think we should put forward a motion to make it more even, post here if you agree --Athiest101 15:44, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Presenting two sides to any arguement does help to make something at least seem like it has less bias. I wouldn't mind seeing a good word for us on a christian site. --Athiest89 15:36, 7 December 2007 (EST)

You too are an athiest

Even the most devout christian is still an atheist, in relation to Mithras, Thor, The flying spagetti monster, and almost every other god ever created by the imagination of man. We only go one god further.

Also, by the way your point on intellegent designers is misguided. In most debates, you only think you have won becuase u see and hear only what u want to hear.--Athiest101 15:41, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Is your argument that since man can devise phony gods, that therefore there is no god? Is that truly what you are trying to use as logic? Learn together 15:33, 5 December 2007 (EST)
No my arguement is simply that you define atheists as mainly evil, yet in many ways you are an atheist, and what makes you think that their gods are 'phoney'. Dont they regard your God as the same? --Athiest101 15:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)
To answer you above, in many cases the answer is no. There are many forms of theism that are not exclusive to a single diety. For polytheism this should be obvious, but even within Christianity, Judaism would be seen in a positive light even though they are separate relgions. From the perspective of Christianity an adherent of Zoraster may be wrong, but he is not an atheist. An atheist is one who believes there is no God -- period. Trying to muddle it with anyone who does not believe in the same God you do is an atheist, is a line of reasoning that does not work in theism by definition. Learn together 02:59, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Atheist Quotes

Seems a little light, maybe it should be turned into a separate section? That and more quotes need to be added showing a larger selection. For instance:

  • "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." - Isaac Asimov

Is a quite famous quote and would round out the section a bit. --Rainedaye 14:17, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I agree, also I think these two quotes capture the spirit of atheism better than the current selection:
"I believe in God, only I spell it N-a-t-u-r-e." — Frank Lloyd Wright
"I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life." — Andrew Carnegie. GodWarrior 18:34, 8 December 2007 (EST)
The Frank Lloyd Wright quote misses the mark. That's paganism. Monkey998 22:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Pantheism. Order 01:48, 10 December 2007 (EST)

"If God is neither willing nor able, then why call him God?" -Democritus, Greek philosopher. Order, a-theist is without-god. If F.L.W. believes in nature rather than a deity, then he would have an atheistic belief system. Furthermore, atheism is not a cult or religion; for example, buddhists are atheistic, yet follow a set of philosophical guidelines. As this article hints towards(albeit poorly), there is no one atheist group that sets down rules of living an "atheist lifestyle". I myself ground my reality in evidence and facts, rather than faith alone. When I have a question, I don't leave it to faith or assume that it is not meant to be known. I ask the question. If one does not ask questions, then how can they be confident in their beliefs? Time alone does not suggest something's validity. Having survived challenges over time does. --Democritus 21:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Darwin didn't start off as an Athiest

Under the section "Tenuousness of Atheists" it says that Darwin was a type of Atheist. He started off as a protestant and his earlier works were more like intelligent design. He actually refused to publish his work till his child died and he renounced God. Before that he refused to go against the church.

My point it that you should include his path to Atheism as that is far more relevant in an article about Atheists.

Ironically he married his cousin and his kids ended up with genetic disorders but that’s a story for another page. Monkey998 23:10, 9 December 2007 (EST)


I must say, this is a extremely useful and long article. I have not seen an article as long as this one in years! --Mssb57 17:02, 14 December 2007 (EST)

"extremely useful"? Are you joking? It may express Christian views on atheism, but it takes a fool to think it's not completely biased. This article teaches nothing about atheism. It only explains Christians' position on atheism. As someone else in this page said, it is literally being used as a joke. It's simply ridiculous. CappyR 22:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Mussolini was an Atheist

Benito Mussolini--mass murderer, founder of Fascism, and Nazi collaborator--was a militant atheist. He definitely needs to be included in the article. Here's documentation from Denis Mack Smith, Oxford University historian and author, and one of the world's leading authorities on the life of Mussolini:

"From his father he [Mussolini] had learnt to be a thoroughgoing anti-clerical. He proclaimed himself to be an atheist and several times tried to shock an audience by calling on God to strike him dead. He forcibly denounced those socialists who thought religion a matter for individual conscience or had their children baptised. [In Mussolini's opinion] Science had proved that God did not exist and the Jesus of history was an ignorant Jew whose family thought him mad, and who was a pigmy compared to the Buddha. Religion, he said, was a disease of the psyche, an epidemic to be cured by psychiatrists, and Christianity in particular was vitiated by preaching the senseless virtues of resignation and cowardice, whereas the new socialist morality should celebrate violence and rebellion."

"Mussolini", by Denis Mack Smith, Vintage Books, 1983, page 8.

CC 22:07, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Are you also going to mention his fruitful cooperation with the Catholic Church, that Mussolini defined Italy as a throughly Catholic country, in which catechism should be taught to kids, that the pope in return said that Mussolini was sent by providence, and that Mussolini was baptized in 1927? Order 08:19, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Your knowledge and understanding of Mussolini is remarkably poor. Mussolini's alleged "cooperation" and supposed "baptism" were merely acts of sheer political opportunism, as world renown Mussolini scholar Denis Mack Smith explains in his book that I previously cited:

"But he [Mussolini] was quickly learning about the deviousness that a policy of opportunism required. One of the valuable lessons he had learnt as a journalist was that the public was easily deceived and an editor could change his views without most readers worrying or even noticing. For example, a few months earlier he had condemned Christianity as 'detestable' and called on the Pope to leave Rome for good, but at once changed when he realized that there would be advantages in an alliance with the [Catholic] Church. He began to advocate that the government should subsidise churches and religious schools, hoping that in return the Vatican -- which had already condemned liberalism and socialism -- would take a further step of discountenancing the Catholic popolari as being too far to the left. This would weaken his opponents and assist him by further undermining the free operation of the government."

"Mussolini", by Denis Mack Smith, Vintage Books, 1983, pages 44-45.

CC 10:05, 26 December 2007 (EST)

It is always best to start an argument with an ad-hominem attack, blaming someone of of ignorance, and then hide behind the back of a book to in an attempt to have a slice of the authority of the author. The book by Denis Mack Smith has apparently between 429 and 512 pages depending on the edition, and I see that you already got up to page 13. Anyway, I assume that you do not want to mention his baptism, and his cooperation with the Vatican, and the cooperation of the Vatican with him. Why do you think that this isn't worth mentioning? All you offer is interpretation, but shouldn't you mention the facts first. Order 18:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I clearly mentioned his "alleged "cooperation" and supposed "baptism"" in the second sentence of my previous response, which you obviously failed to comprehend. I then documented the ulterior motives of his "cooperation" and "baptism", which were done for sheer political expediency. So your points have already been addressed and refuted. You're also the pot calling the kettle black, since you are merely giving us your own deeply biased personal interpretation of Mussolini's actions, whereas I am directly quoting a recognized authority on the life of Mussolini.

CC 23:31, 26 December 2007 (EST)

"Another continuing constituent of his [Mussolini] creed was manifested in his vitriolic attacks against the Church, which he accompanied with provocative and blasphemous remarks about the consecrated host and about a love affair between Christ and Mary Magdalen. According to him, priests were 'black microbes', servants of capitalism, persecutors of Jews, and poisoners of young minds. Socialists who believed in Christianity or accepted religious marriage should be expelled from the party. The Church was reproached for its authoritarianism and refusal to allow freedom of thought"

"Mussolini", by Denis Mack Smith, Vintage Books, 1983, page 15.

CC 23:45, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Good, that you are at page 15 of the book already. As you read on you might find out that the Vatican and the fascists had a close but complicated relation. Regardless of how you interpret the facts, we still got the facts by themselves. And rather than guessing what Mussolini might have thought, and what his motives might have been, we can look at what he (and the Vatican) did in practice. And there are many events that show that the Church and Mussolini could get along quite well. One such fact is that Mussolini baptized his kids in 1923, and got batized himself a few years later. What do you hope to gain by not mentioning any of this? Order 01:00, 27 December 2007 (EST)

That means that every evil Christian needs to be brought to light in the Christianity article. Hitler (who was by far a worse man than Mussolini), Vlad Dracula the impaler, Pope Urban II, Jerry Falwell (a bad representative of good Christians everywhere), the list goes on. Attacking a belief system based on who was part of the system is unscrupulous and disgusting. It shows the immaturity and fear that any religious group fears towards any other group. I don't get how most religions preach (at a very basic level) the same message, yet hate and attack each other. Some atheists are moral and good people, while some are like Mussolini. Some Muslims are good people, and some terrorize the world. Some Christians are generous people, while others persecute and wreak havoc and destruction upon non-believers, just like any other main religion. We need to remember that no race of man is the sole children of God; we are all humans and we should love each other. We should not attack someone else's beliefs if it makes the other person a happy person without harming other people. Just because someone has found love with a person of the same sex or someone does not want to worship the same god does not mean they are less of a person or immoral. Hating that person will simply make you worse than the person you hate. This article illustrates all that is wrong with this world and this country, these problems need to stop. We are humans, and we must strive to be good. How does not matter - it's the "why" that counts. Probus1

Thanks, I am just about to include Benito Mussolini. Conservative

Please remove category

Please remove category:religion, as it is a supercategory of category:atheism. TheEvilSpartan 12:57, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Two "Atheism and the Bible" sections

As more and more bias was simply posted without a thought on to the bottom of the page, no one has noticed that that there are now two "Atheism and the Bible" sections. Can we at least have one clean, concise pile of insults instead of a hodgepodge? Paragon12321 23:39, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Two for the price of one. What's the harm?--Aschlafly 23:51, 11 January 2008 (EST)
It's not the harm that's the problem (that's for a whole other argument). However, this is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia and should be at least formatted well. Paragon12321 00:01, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Are you saying there is repetition within the atheism entry in this respect, or that the atheism entry is repetitive with another entry, atheism and the Bible?--Aschlafly 00:06, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I just think that having "Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism" and "Atheism and the Bible" is a little redundant. Paragon12321 00:12, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Have I gone past everyone's attention span, or is everyone just refusing to listen? Paragon12321 20:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism

Proving a negative is impossible, though... Barikada 19:46, 15 January 2008 (EST)

New Format for Article?

I know this has been said many, many times (and can be applied to all sorts of other articles in Conservapedia) but this article is incredibly massive and it is mostly filled with criticisms. Things could be done to remedy this, such as splitting this article up into multiple articles. One could be atheism and possibly history (with views and definitions, maybe the odd quote from prominent atheists, living and dead, like Dawkins, Nietzche, d'Holbach, etc.), with links to a newly created page "Criticism of Atheism." The criticism page would certainly have enough material (ha, ha). One wouldn't even need to do this much work. The page could be split so that the introduction and Section 1 (Types of Atheism) would become the new Atheism article and everything else could make up the new "Criticisms" page. I would just like to put that idea out there and not change anything (although I don't actually know how to do this; the creating of the pages, etc.) without some type of consensus. Once again, I know that this has been said many times, but every time that it has there is the odd post in favour, and then the idea shrivels and dies a sad little death. --Phillipps 23:12, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I agree that this article needs a major revision. Also, I think a lot of the "sources" need to be gone over and checked for validity. For instance the statistics in "Atheists and Immoral Views" (reference 52) leads to a site that not only does not give any detailed information on how they obtained the statistics, but also only referenced only a little over 1000 people! This is honestly not a large enough sample to allow anyone to make the claim that atheists tend to be more immoral on average. Also, the site is a Christian based business which makes me question the bias of those collecting the statistics. Remember hearing "There are three types of lies: lies, d*** lies, and statistics", or that "correlation does not equal causation"? I believe the section should be removed until a better source is found, preferably from independent researchers who have statistic experience and who not only publish all their results but how the data was obtained as well.

Rainedaye 13:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)

"Atheism symbol"

I can't say I've ever seen this symbol before, what atheist group associates themselves with it exactly? The only connection I see to atheism is the 'A' in the middle and that is rather vague to be honest.--Falcifer 17:10, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I've seen it once or twice, although it is by no means a universally adopted symbol.
Also, it's meant to look like a stylized atom with an A in the center. Barikada 19:15, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Because everyone knows that atoms are liberal commie atheists. I guess... Paragon12321 22:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)

See the "Atheist Symbol" section at the top of the page. As I stated earlier that symbol is from the American Atheists logo. They use the atom to symbolize science, they leave one orbital open to symbolize that knowledge is still incomplete, and the "A" stands for "American". This article mistakingly attributes this symbol to atheists in general, which of course is the same as saying a flag for one specific regiment represents the entire army... --Rainedaye 13:45, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Then shouldn't the caption be changed to "American Atheism Symbol" for the sake of avoiding confusion? keeping the same simile, a page on the US army with a flag for a certain regiment being captioned as "United States Army flag" would just be crazy. ~ Khan 22:23, 25 February 2008 (EST)

"Atheism and the Bible"

After reading the posting about redundancy in the Atheism article I read the link "Atheism and the Bible." After reading this I found that this is exactly the same as the "Atheism and the Bible" section in the main Atheism article. Can't we just delete the article? Why read another page that has the same content as a section that the viewer would presumably have already read? Also, no one (except for Rainedaye) has responded to my previous suggestions of re-formatting (although this redundancy problem does fit nicely into it).--Phillipps 15:37, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Also, the Atheism and the Bible article copies the main Atheism article's section: "Biblical statements regarding Atheism." I would also like to add that if there is any new information in the article "Atheism and the Bible" that I missed, it could be easily amalgamated into the main article.--Phillipps 15:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Was anyone listening to my discussion like three sections up??? Paragon12321 23:00, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry, I thought you were talking about duplications within the main article.--Phillipps 15:21, 18 January 2008 (EST)


Am I the only one who thinks this page should be waaaaaaaay shorter?

--Ben Talk 18:30, 17 January 2008 (EST)

It probably should be, but like many of the articles on Conservapedia it seems like an unorganised collection of arguments. --Vincentvincent 07:04, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Waaaay one-sided, like everything else on this site

So why are there 7 sections of criticism of atheism and only a couple sentences about the reasons for being an atheist when this is an article about atheism, not 'why we should all hate atheists'? According to this article there are only two reasons to be an atheist when I can think of many. Christianity has just as much evidence to support it as Islam or Hinduism or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so why should I believe in your God? This is the only life we can be certain of having, so why waste it waiting for an afterlife that we don't know will come? I barely understand a fraction of what's going on in this Universe, how can I presume to understand the afterlife? The list goes on and on... This is exactly the reason I hate debating with Christians, most of them know absolutely nothing about atheism because they only read Christian-approved definitions like this one and when I present them with reasonable arguments stick their fingers in their ears and sing 'falalala'. If anything, atheism is one of the most positive approaches to life: it promotes living this life to the fullest and a morality that doesn't rely on a reward/punishment system. My morality is based on what's right -- I know killing someone is wrong, I don't need my invisible friend to tell me that and I don't need the threat of eternity in a lake of fire to stop me from killing.

Conservapedia: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia, where one-sided bigotry trumps logic EVERY TIME!

The truth cannot be biased or "one-sided" as you put it. CPWebmaster 23:06, 29 January 2008 (EST)
How do you know it's the truth? Trogdorina 23:22, 29 January 2008 (EST) trogdorina
How do you know 2+2=4? CPWebmaster 23:26, 29 January 2008 (EST)
The article is absurd and was largely written by one of the worst editors to ever contribute to this site. It is offensive and indicative of the poor quality of the controversial articles on the site (most of which are either locked or closely guarded). Why don't you allow some editing by some educated people who have a clue? --ThomasGerbil 23:42, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Thank you Thomas Gerbil. I know 2+2=4 because if I take two rocks and add two more I get four rocks. That's math. Religion is a completely different concept altogether. The only thing telling you that God exists is a book, written by people. Just people. Saying that the Bible proves God's existence is like saying Harry Potter proves the existence of wizards. Please. Trogdorina 23:51, 29 January 2008 (EST)trogdorina
Maybe in 2000 years.... --Jiblet 12:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

There are different religious views about the afterlife and its relationship to earthly conduct. Not all religious beliefs posit a punishment of "eternal fire" for capital crimes. I think that is largely a fundamentalist belief. Many atheists are unaware of the variety of theological opinion about how God responds to human conduct. --Ed Poor Talk 09:37, 16 February 2008 (EST)

"Many atheists are unaware of the variety of theological opinion about how God responds to human conduct." -EdPoor 02/16/08
Your sources for that statement? Or should it be "I think that many atheists are unaware of the variety of theological opinion about how God responds to human conduct."
--Rainedaye 10:31, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Well, he does have a partially valid point. of course, he should have noticed the "Conserv-" prefix on the name of the bloody site... it says "Conservative point of view" all over it. ~ Khan 22:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)

in response to the title of this comment: Its called "Conservapedia" and their reasoning for making the site is that they don't think encylopedias can be unbiased. --Democritus 20:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Clarity of definition

We still need to clarify the definition of the word "atheism". This is important because:

  • Atheism takes two main forms:
    1. The general lack of belief in God (or gods)
    2. The active denial that God exists
  • One of the main defenses used in debates about atheism is the tactic of "muddying the waters". That is, debaters will try to change the subject from the validity of atheism to a series of quibbles about what atheism really means, who is or is not an atheist, how mean you are to persecute innocent, public-minded men like Socrates, etc.

We need to stick to the point here and describe what atheism is before addressing anything else. --Ed Poor Talk 09:33, 16 February 2008 (EST)

"Humorless bunch, aren't they?"

Are atheists the only ones who take their "religion" seriously? Wouldn't a Christian (rightly) be offended by a similar joke aimed at him? HelpJazz 10:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Atheism isn't a religion.(Dirian 15:19, 21 March 2008 (EDT))

A Refutation of "Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism"

  • Teleological argument: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an intelligent designer.

From an objective perspective, the arrangement of atoms in our universe is no more spectacular than any other arrangement. Even if it could be somehow objectively proven that the universe was designed for a specific purpose, that does not imply an omnipotent being. It would be far more rational in that instance to believe that, for instance, the universe is a computer simulation, according to Occam's razor.

  • Cosmological argument: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause distinct from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that First Cause is God.

We simply can't extrapolate our laws of physics to the beginning of time; causality may well have not existed. Even assuming that causality did exist, Occam's razor states that a cyclical universe, computer simulation or similar explanation is infinitely more rational than an omnipotent being.

  • Ontological argument: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;

This also applies to anything that I define as existing. If I imagine in my mind a 'heffalump-that-exists' it must exist, according to this argument.

  • Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as Christian historical apologetics and archaeological evidence such as Bible archaeology;

If we are to use this proof, we must treat every one of the other myriad messianic figures in history in the same way. Seen this way, Jesus is not a particularly special case. The only reason his particular religion is so popular is because of the Roman Empire.

  • Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition. According to

philosopher Alvin Plantinga belief in the existence of God exists is a "properly basic" belief and not based on inference from other beliefs but is rationally justified due to one's circumstances of immediate experience of God.[41]

These are better explained with neurology. When we experience a Deja vu, we don't immediately infer that we have foresight. We use the more rational explanation that there is a minor fault in our minds. When we 'see a UFO', we should first be perfectly sure it is not a weather balloon. God is an option of absolute last resort, and should be treated as such.

Snypylo 14:22, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Bohr Model

Atheism does not associate itself with the Bohr model of the atom. Please remove the symbol or replace it with a more accurate "electron cloud" model.

Here is the United States Government using the atheist symbol that is located in the beginning of the article in respect to gravestones: Conservative 04:14, 13 March 2008 (EDT)