Talk:Atheist hypocrisy

Hey Conservative, I think the page/article could do with a bit better formatting. I think that maybe each of the individual section/areas in which you wrote about Atheist Hypocrisy could/should be a separate section. I also believe having the HERE, HERE and HERE isn't really something that should be in an article as it looks a wee bit unprofessional. Nice article though. In Jesus, PennyS PennyS 08:00, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for the input on the formatting. I took your suggestion. Conservative 12:02, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

Nice article but I think a new title would suit it better, perhaps atheism and poor lifestyle choices. An obese or sexist atheist is not so much a hypocrite but more of a product of his poor lifestyle as a result of his atheism. What do you think?--JerryCa 15:18, 6 January 2014 (EST)

JerryCA, you are incorrect. Atheists often say their ideology is more scientific and that they think more scientifically (see also: Scientism). Science indicates that excess weight/obesity is unhealthy. Furthermore, science provides best practices for losing weight (low calorie, low fat diet (good omega fats and a proper omega 3 vs. omega 6 diet is healthy) and plenty of exercise.

Secondly, the Bible condemns sloth/gluttony, while atheism has no condemnation of these practices within its ideology. Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter and Paul - all slim! See also: Jesus Christ, the apostles and the Mediterranean diet/Mosaic diet. 3 out of 5 of the New Atheists have had excess weight issues! See: Atheism and obesity. Conservative 15:26, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

Isn't it a sign of sloth to wait over a year to give an answer to a user whom you yourself have blocked 10 months ago? --AugustO 15:49, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

AugustO, considering I just noticed his comment and various atheists appear to closely watch my/our every edit, your comment was rather petty.

Second, even if I/we noticed his talk page edit earlier, I think you are confusing prioritization with sloth. Have you heard of the Eisenhower method of time management? If I am not mistaken, it was invented by the American creationist general who defeated the German evolutionary racist generals in WWII.[1] Conservative 16:19, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

I'm no witness to your internal processes - I can only observe your actions. Personally, I think that responding to such an old comment without any further explanation is just bad manners. --AugustO 16:27, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

I think you are spoiling for a fight and being needlessly contentious. I suggest engaging in character improvement or joining an online debate forum. Conservative 16:35, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

•LOL• --AugustO 16:41, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

Quickness to hate God

I removed the following section:

In debates with atheists, the popular YouTube video maker Shockofgod often asks atheists, "Is God evil?". Invariably, so-called atheists quickly say yes. Then Shockofgod informs the "atheist" that they admitted that God exists. Shockofgod also declares that he never heard anyone accuse leprechauns of being evil.

My reasoning, as stated in the edit summary, was "leprechauns aren't evil, but Voldemort is, and he doesn't exist", the point being that something doesn't need to exist for you to describe it. Why, then, was my edit undone?

Voldemort cannot be evil because he doesn't exist. "Nothing" cannot be evil. The fictional character Voldemort can only be portrayed as evil.

By the way, if a main justification for your worldview is the "leprechaun objection", it is time to abandon your worldview. Atheism is madness! Conservative 16:05, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

But if the question is being asked to an atheist, obviously they will answer under their assumption that God does not exist. Their opponent is expected to understand this.

The point of the leprechaun argument is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You need to remember that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. What's so special about your book saying that your own guy in the cloud is real? This isn't proof against Christianity, but it does prove that the Bible isn't sufficient evidence for Christianity. In the language of pure mathematics and probability theory, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Therefore atheism (the absence of a god) is the default worldview until there is more evidence.

"Obviously they will answer under their assumption that God does not exist?" You didn't show it was obvious. See: Atheists doubting the validity of atheism and Denials that atheists exist

Secondly, I am aware that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. See: Atheism is a religion. However, unlike the religion of atheism which has a total lack of proof and evidence that it is true, Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence that it is true. See: Evidence for Christianity.

Thirdly, using the definition of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy use for the word atheism (see: Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism), please provide us proof and evidence that atheism is true.Conservative 19:39, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

Religious people can doubt their faith, but I wouldn't call them atheists. Why would an atheist doubting atheism make them not an atheist?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What's the best evidence you have? If your evidence is less than extraordinary, then the lack of extraordinary evidence is evidence for atheism. Darwon 18:29, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

Darwon, poseur atheists are not atheists.[2]

Atheism is a religion and you have no extraordinary evidence for a naturalistic origin of life.

Next, you are being illogical. Sound historiography recognizes that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence - especially when it comes to ancient history (see: Atheism and historical illiteracy). Nevertheless, unlike the religion of atheism which has a total lack of proof and evidence that it is true, Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence that it is true. See: Evidence for Christianity.

Furthermore, good historians commonly use the practice of the inference to the best explanation in terms of analyzing the past and do not engage in self-defeating behaviors like setting evidential bars so high and retarded by mere philosophy so that no historical insights are gained. In short, evidence is paramount and not ideology.

Additionally, just because your boring/stale ideology is bereft of miracles and impotent (see: Atheism and cowardice), does not mean that miracles do not happen everyday. Have you personally visited a church where reported miracles happen with some frequency and done an investigation? If not, consider doing so. To see fish, you have to go to a pond! You could also repent if you want to experience the miraculous.

Lastly, using the definition of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy use for the word atheism (see: Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism), please provide us proof and evidence that atheism is true.Conservative 18:58, 9 March 2015 (EDT)

"RationalWiki lacks [ethnic/racial group] representation"—oh c'mon, seriously?

Is Conservapedia seriously stopping to the level of intersectional SJW goons in pointless identity politics blather? —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 14:44, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

I think they are overrepresented in the LGBT group. It's hardly mainstream. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 14:46, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

Who cares? Identity politics is for far-leftists like neo-Marxists and neo-Nazis. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 14:47, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

The denizens of that website are an example of "rules for thee, but not for me". The irony is delicious that the Rational Media board does not have a Board of Director that is Black. Conservative (talk) 14:48, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

Again, so? That's not an adequate excuse for Conservapedia to play the silly identity politics game employed as the main card by racialist neo-Communazsymp goons. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 14:50, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

They have an asexual Chinese female. Mathematically, that covers three intersectional groups and makes up about 30% of the board. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 14:52, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

Wait... did you just assume their gender? (see how pointless these games are?) —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 15:03, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

Hypocrisy literally means criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. RW engages in it relative to racial equity. Case closed. Conservative (talk) 14:56, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

If you're trying to bash RW, you're way too weak and lacking in machismo. In the one realm where you can so effectively wage a highly potent polemic, you suppressed my effort to expose their depths of wickedness two years back. It's as if you're a deep cover agent employed by RationalWiki to give an automatic terrible impression of anyone criticizing them. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 15:05, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

forgive, so that you can be forgiven. We're all human. We screw up. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:14, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

Oh, I see where you're coming from: anything else about RW can be criticized, but when it comes to their Nazi collaboration with KiwiFarms, it becomes "oh they need to be forgiven." Seig heil to you as well, Adolf! —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 15:19, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

Why do none of you care about the fact that RationalWiki appointed neo-Nazi Nathan Larson as an admin for years, and that over a dozen members voted against banning the pedophile scum when they knew of his crimes? The receipts prove it; they have a history of hanging out with Nazis, and in recent years, they're desperate to hide their activities because of the backlash against KiwiFarms.

“	It looks bad if we have a known pedo as a sysop	”
—Plutocow, October 19, 2022

For once, Plutocow actually has an excellent point. Imagine if the whole internet knew that RW made a neo-Nazi pedophile an administrator on their site.

“	And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.	”
—Jesus, John 3:19–20

—LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 15:36, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

I don't think CP has ever been RW apologists. Enumerating their crimes serves a limited purpose. And they are not beyond the love of God and repentance, either. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 17:42, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

The fact that neither you nor Conservative choose to take the hard line against RationalWiki all this time proves your amorality and lacking of machismo. And just how many people who you hope turn out like Saul are actually resembling of Caiaphas?

“	Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion. These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.	”
—Jude 11–13

—LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Friday, 19:49, May 5, 2023 (EDT)

This is the first I have heard of Nathan Larson. I periodically mock the foolish website RW. I don't follow it super closely. Conservative (talk) 21:53, May 5, 2023 (EDT)