From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Atheists and divorce

Self-proclaimed Christians divorce more than self-proclaimed atheists. The article points out that this is because of fake Christians who are really not religious at all. Drochld 10:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the study that is cited turned out to be flawed. It failed to account for lower rates of marriage, and therefore divorce, among non-Christian groups who had higher rates of cohabitation without marriage. When this was accounted for, divorce rates were lower for Christians, but only marginally so. Learn together 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Barna's research on supposed "born again Christians" and divorce cannot be used as a valid argument against conservative Christianity. I am talking about this study: This is because only 9% of supposed "born again Christians" have a biblical worldview as can be seen here:

Here what a biblical worldview is: "For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings." see:

The whole divorce issue is going to be covered in the article at a later time.

Conservative 17:07, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

staying neutral

Is Conservapedia supposed to be completely neutral, or is it supposed to be more pro-conservative, to counter Wikipedia which Conservapedia claims is mostly pro-liberal? I was wondering, after reading the article about atheism, since it is not at all neutral. it doesn't focus on any positive things about atheism, but only negative things (murder, suicide etc.). The part of the article titled "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" is just so wrong. Who's to say which explanations are "reasonable" and which are not? The last part of the article is just a bunch of pro-religion quotes. The whole article is simply filled with attacks on atheism, with almost nothing defending it. If the article is supposed to be conservative, then you've all done a very good job, otherwise not at all. Kordox 12:28, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I believe what you are asking for is giving affirmative action to atheists tripe in the article which is not going to happen. Relevance is what is being stressed and not the inane excuses for atheism. By the way, have you read the atheism and deception section which was recently added to the article. Conservative 21:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
I just read the article now, and I found several things wrong with it. It blames all of atheism for the actions of a few people, and It several times uses nothing but quotes as evidence against the words and actions of the atheists and scientists mentioned in the article. It is filled with claims, but lack any evidence. Kordox 23:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Kordex, I would like to say additionally that the Conservapedia atheism article does link to the arguments of the man who was called by a founder of Internet Infidels the most impressive atheist debater to date. I am speaking of Doug Jesseph and so I find your complaint about the article offering hardly any defenses of atheism a rather false claim. Conservapedia cannot help it if atheist debaters such as Doug Jesseph are unreasonable and offer inane and false arguments. Conservative 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Kordex, I don't think the selfishness of atheists relative to theists is due to a few people. Conservative 00:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I am with Kordox on this one. The page simplifies atheism and leaves out many of its logical conclusions. As a secular conservative, I find the comparison made on this page between atheism and communism insulting. In fact, it is my opinion that communism has more in common with religious principles like compulsory self-sacrifice, tithing, dogmatic worship of leaders, etc., while atheism is more in line with the conservative values of financial responsibility, economic freedom, etc. (if the link between nonbelief and charitableness is any indication). I think this is because atheism (unlike both religion and communism) requires, by its very nature, allowing no one but yourself to direct your own life--and this is more like conservative economic policies than anything else. Stirlatez 15:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Atheism was a central part of marxist-leninist ideology. Fact of history as cited in the article. You can find it as insulting as you wish but history is not at your command. Conservative 23:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
We are in agreement that atheism is a central tenet of communism--insofar as it allowed the communist leaders to put themselves in the place of God. The point I am trying to make, however, is that this article represents non-belief as though the only political ideology it produces is communism/totalitarianism. It is my opinion that the actual, logical progression of atheism is not state-run economy but in fact the realization of economic principles that every conservative of every belief (or nonbelief!) holds dear--working hard for oneself, benefiting from one's own work, and not letting anyone else hold you back. I would like to see this point added to the article on atheism because it is not a minority opinion. Many famous advocates of conservative values were in fact atheists or agnostics (Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman, author and philosopher Ayn Rand, and many more) because I feel the two philosophies go hand in hand. I think it is very clear that those who tend to have the intelligence and individuality to reject belief also tend to have the intelligence and individuality to reject the intrusive welfare state. This is my two cents. --Stirlatez 15:31, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Stirlatez, atheistic communism is the biggest killer in world history. There are plenty of worthy charities and I find your defense of atheist per capita uncharitableness despicable and wanting. Conservative 20:50, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm very sorry. I am not advocating uncharitableness (I apologize if it sounds like I was). I am, however, denouncing government-funded charitableness. Giving only means something if people do it because they want to, not because it is taken out of their income. Of course a free market can and SHOULD have private charities! Nor I am not denying the atrocities committed in the name of atheistic communism. It is obvious that very many atheists have done many, many horrible things. This does not change the fact that a very significant portion of conservatives advocate a free market because of their lack of belief, not in spite of it (the two I have mentioned previously are just an example). This is a significant enough group of people that I would like to see their ideology added to the article on atheism. Christian conservatives agree with secular conservatives on every single economic issue. And this is very important because I think many atheists feel like they are bound by some unwritten law to become liberals or socialists or communists if they are nonbelievers; this is not the case at all. Conservapedia should strive to fight liberal ideology--not divide conservatives on religious issues. --Stirlatez 22:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Stirlatez, I don't think the atheism article is a place to delve into the details of economics or economic policies. However, feel free to edit the CP articles that focus on economics. Conservative 15:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Why the emphasis on the atheism aspect of Communism, though? Surely it was the totalitarian, authoritarian, and other anti-individualistic aspects of Communism which were heinous; were any immoral acts committed in the name of atheism, or because of lack of belief in God? --woozle 21:59, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Woozle, if you could make an actual assertion in regards to the main point you are attempting to make and support that assertion with factual material it would be more constructive. I don't believe you can do that, however.Conservative 22:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)
Woozle's assertion is that secular leadership does not necessarily produce totalitarian states, nor does religious leadership produce a free state. Iran, for example, is a very religious state but could by no means be considered a free state. This is why the emphasis on dictatorships within the atheism article is very curious. --Stirlatez 04:22, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Deceit of Evolutionists and the Public

This section appears to be misnamed, since it is simply a statement of de

Nice article.

Everytime I look at this article, I want to laugh, and moreso, vomit. It seems as if the trustworthy encyclopedia has become untrustworthy with all the hate it uses when it comes to varying subjects. This is something that wikipedia tries not to do. It supports both sides of a subject with real sources and facts. Probably I should convert to the "liberal god-hating" encyclopedia, but before I do, I wish to leave my mark on this extremely biased article.

This article states everything that can possibly go wrong with atheism. Well, why not we try to turn this boat and list some good things about atheism as well?

How about the fact that atheists on average have a higher IQ score than beleivers, statistically speaking?

How about the fact that atheists tend to be less rascist than non-beleivers?

How about the fact that atheists are less likely to perform acts of abuse and crimes than theists?

How about the fact that atheists are victimized by theists more than theists by non-theists?

How about the fact that atheists are more likely to promote civil rights than theists?

This article has gotten way out of hand, and in a sense, has become a trashbag for people that are pissed off about the existance of atheism, and have come to this page simply to rant like madmen about how athiesm is going to somehow "doom" the earth. I would rather beleive the uncyclopedia article on athiesm rather than this posh. No wonder the rest of the world, including wikipedia pokes fun at your slanderous "encyclopedia".