Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism

2012-07-01T14:36:46Z

AngrySkyWizard:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== Definitely not good news for atheists ==
[[File:Carcharodon carcharias.jpg|thumbnail|400px|right|The [http://creation.com/question-evolution 15 razor sharp teeth] of the [[Question evolution! campaign]], are going to publicly rip [[evolution]]ary [[pseudoscience]] and atheism to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBRpZhk_vA open water] conditions (please see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].) ]]
The information about atheism contained in this article is definitely not good news for militant atheist evangelists: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/creation-and-earth-history-museum-and.html The Creation and Earth History Museum and the Question Evolution! Campaign are teaming up!] I think it is time for [[Essay: Evolutionists, prepare to have your pseudoscience ripped to shreds and devoured|evolutionists to get used to the idea of their pseudoscience being ripped to shreds and devoured.]] Things definitely do not look for atheism and evolutionism.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:24, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

== Decline of atheism further research ==

Decline of atheism, further research: http://churchintoronto.blogspot.com/2012/01/atheism-in-decline.html

Find original sources for these additional stats. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:45, 21 May 2012 (EDT)

/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page. 

== An Atheist ==
That would be me. Using a shark, which evolved to be one of the most efficient predators in thee world, does not help you. 
Religion, any religion, should not affect education at all. That page on reddit? Yeah, good luck. The internet is not really a "pro religion" place. 
As for the decline in Atheism. In the US, Perhaps. But There is much discrimination against atheists, Evidenced by every single page that has the word Atheism on it right here. 
Let me lay some stats on you. The percentage of atheists in countries. 
'''Australia and New Zealand''': AU: 22.3% Atheism, 9.4% didn't answer, many answered with religions such as "Jedi". NZ: 34% Atheism, 12.2% didn't answer. Thats actually a substantial growth in recent years. 
'''Asia:''' Israel: 23%. China: 59%. Japan: 50-85%. The others are not able to be really calculated, but you can see a trend. 
'''South America:'''Uruguay: 17.2%. Argentina: 11.3%. Chile: 8.3%. Brazil: 8%. Columbia, Peru and Paraguay: Less Than 2% 
'''North America:'''2%-estimate. Canada: 23%-estimate. Mexico: 4.9% 
'''United Kingdom:''' 51-61% 
'''Europe:''' 45%-estimate. 
'''Russia:''' 22% confirmed, 60% are extremely lazy with their religion. 
So theres an estimated(rounding down, going from lowest estimates) 21.5% of the world that don't believe in God. 
I bet a hundred years ago that was less than 10%. So a decline...probably not. In America, sure. But thats probably more due to peer pressure rather than anything. Most Atheists in America are your scientists too. You don't want them to change their minds. You would go from technologically on par with the rest of the world, to a third world country owned by China, because no one would give a crap about you anymore. Lets see God save you from Nuclear destruction. Oh well, you all go to Heaven. So why even bother trying to be safe? Or not start wars? Starting wars would be consistent with history.--[[User:AngrySkyWizard|AngrySkyWizard]] 10:36, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and suicide

2012-07-01T12:50:17Z

AngrySkyWizard: /* Unlock? */

==Bill Muehlenberg==

What on earth does his quote have to do with atheism and suicide? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Can we please unlock this article? Are the first quotes from an article written over 100 years ago valid any more? Why is 75% of this article comprised entirely of block quotes? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. A quote from 1894 is questionable at best. Please unlock. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::Do you believe that man has grown smarter in the last one hundred years, despite the evidence of increased Naziism, Darwinism, Communism, etc.? Perhaps you had better study before you request permission to vandalize/censor again, as you did in your last earlier edit! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:35, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Of course we've become smarter...Why would you even ask that? We no longer die from "unseen forces" or "the devil", we die from diseases, viruses and man. 
:::Naziism is extreme, but then again...so is Christianity. Darwinism is completely fine. Communism is fine in theory, but in practice people are too greedy and lazy to do it.--[[User:AngrySkyWizard|AngrySkyWizard]] 08:39, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== 1894 vs. 2004, "Real" Atheism ==

The article quotes both a dated 1894 study and various stuff from the 2000s. The 2004 source refers to "religiously unaffiliated" people. I've always been a Catholic, but I would imagine that "real" atheism would value life in a "live a happy life today because you might die tomorrow" type way.

By "real" atheism I mean that the person has made a conscious decision that God doesn't exist, as opposed to most people you meet today who just say "I'm an atheist" because they don't want to be bothered going to church or praying. I've known both types of atheists and there is a difference.

The "suicidal atheist converts to Christ" article seems to be just describing a person's journey to Christianity from his childhood atheism. I cannot say whether he fits the definition of "real" atheism above, but with his doctor vs. murderer comparison, he is referring to atheism's lack of an objective moral standard, but atheists can take an evolutionary psychology perspective I mentioned above.

I have no psychological experience and was always a Catholic but if any atheists with more experience can edit the article that would be great. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 17:06, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and suicide

2012-07-01T12:39:47Z

AngrySkyWizard: /* Unlock? */

==Bill Muehlenberg==

What on earth does his quote have to do with atheism and suicide? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Can we please unlock this article? Are the first quotes from an article written over 100 years ago valid any more? Why is 75% of this article comprised entirely of block quotes? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:54, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. A quote from 1894 is questionable at best. Please unlock. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::Do you believe that man has grown smarter in the last one hundred years, despite the evidence of increased Naziism, Darwinism, Communism, etc.? Perhaps you had better study before you request permission to vandalize/censor again, as you did in your last earlier edit! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:35, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Of course we've become smarter...Why would you even ask that? We no longer die from "unseen forces" or "the devil", we die from diseases, viruses and man. 
Naziism is extreme, but then again...so is Christianity. Darwinism is completely fine. Communism is fine in theory, but in practice people are too greedy and lazy to do it.--[[User:AngrySkyWizard|AngrySkyWizard]] 08:39, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== 1894 vs. 2004, "Real" Atheism ==

The article quotes both a dated 1894 study and various stuff from the 2000s. The 2004 source refers to "religiously unaffiliated" people. I've always been a Catholic, but I would imagine that "real" atheism would value life in a "live a happy life today because you might die tomorrow" type way.

By "real" atheism I mean that the person has made a conscious decision that God doesn't exist, as opposed to most people you meet today who just say "I'm an atheist" because they don't want to be bothered going to church or praying. I've known both types of atheists and there is a difference.

The "suicidal atheist converts to Christ" article seems to be just describing a person's journey to Christianity from his childhood atheism. I cannot say whether he fits the definition of "real" atheism above, but with his doctor vs. murderer comparison, he is referring to atheism's lack of an objective moral standard, but atheists can take an evolutionary psychology perspective I mentioned above.

I have no psychological experience and was always a Catholic but if any atheists with more experience can edit the article that would be great. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 17:06, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution

2012-07-01T12:19:28Z

AngrySkyWizard:

== Trolling ==
Serious thought should be given to the deletion of this page and the "essays" to which it refers. In essence all these pages constitute trolling. Conservative consistently comments that anyone who criticises these pages is just a thin-skinned atheist who should therefore be ignored. I disagree. It is quite clear that these pages are a deliberate attempt to upset atheists and accordingly are just another example of trolling. The effect is that some of those offended sign up as editors in order to get their own back. They attack the unlocked pages on this site (all of these "essays" being locked).

Furthermore, none of these pages are in the least bit encyclopedic. Poking fun at a group within society is not an activity undertaken by any reputable encyclopedia of which I am aware. I believe that they lower the tone of the site and damage its reputation.

I would be interested on people's thoughts. I would also be happy to hear from Conservative if he can manage to stay on topic. --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 19:11, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
::It's probably rather a question of Original Research. CP does allow original research ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia see #10]) and this article appears properly labeled, AFAIK. But please, please, be respectful of other users. Even WP, as I understand it, considers labeling another editor "troll" can be considered a form of personal attack.
::If the primary author of this entry chooses to engage in discussion on this talk page, please restrict you comments to discusion of content & sources. But if he chooses to ignore critics on this discussion page and not respond at all, please be respectful of his right of choice in that matter, as well. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:48, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
I understand that many thin skinned and proud atheists are going to be upset about the satires. I can live with that. For all their mocking, atheists certainly have thin skins when it comes to comedy and satire. It has been said that their father has a thin skin as well. "The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." - Thomas More.

As [[global atheism]] continues to shrink and [[Global Christianity|theism continues to expand]], atheists can expect more mocking. Plus, [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?|atheism is going to shrink in America]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Global Atheism isn't going anywhere. Perhaps in America, but nowhere else. Its been a really long time since i've met anyone who was religious at all, around 2 years. My workmates are atheists, my friends, bar a few, are atheists, two are agnostic. Mock us if you wish, some of it is genuinely funny. But don't get mad when we mock you. You should also add these to your comedy, they involve atheism and religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUPbgQtYpNY&list=FL9wkmg8LWlwirVH6pebTiLQ&feature=mh_lolz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H9BuxeNro0&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2xATgzPqI&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3X5f3gY4iw&feature=plcp
[[User:AngrySkyWizard|AngrySkyWizard]]

Talk:Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution

2012-07-01T12:13:56Z

AngrySkyWizard:

Talk:Atheism is a religion

2012-07-01T12:06:13Z

AngrySkyWizard:

Suggest retitling to "Atheism as a religion" and request for proof that the theory of evolution is an Atheist doctrine. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:40, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby --[[User:Hadron|Hadron]] 05:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== If atheism is a religion... ==

...does that mean that it's impossible for a person to not have a religion? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Smartt's "Criteria" ==

Daniel Smartt suggests that Ninian Smart's list can be used as criteria which define worldviews as religions. This seems like a misreading of Smart, who instead offers the list as the things we should look at when analyzing worldviews, religious or secular. In other, he meant for his list to be applied to secular worldviews as a way of understanding them, but not so that we can define them as religions. You can read it [http://books.google.com/books?id=14j2UrLCi64C&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=ninian+smart+narrative&source=bl&ots=Hq3WwG_mVT&sig=j-8FpwSdqohURYodSdcl46erSJY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FgybT6zxIc-_gAe864X6Dg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ninian%20smart%20narrative&f=false here] on page 2:.

(This is another person) I agree with the person above me; the criteria are obviously meant for both religious and secular worldviews, so anything that fills the criteria is not necessarily a religion. If it were just for religion, it would be missing something sort of...uh...important for religions: belief in something supernatural? Without that, you could could argue almost anything as a "religion"; Boy Scouts of America, for example. It has Narrative (campfire stories, mission statement, camp history), Experiential (there's a lot of personal experience to be had in the organization, which can be life-changing or personality-changing things), Social (BSoA has leaders), Ethical (from the BSoA website: "A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent." sounds like they encourage ethical behavior to me), Ritual (graduation ceremony), and Material (Camp grounds are a gathering place, American Flag is respected). Nothing doctrinal (at least nothing concerning the "nature of reality") but hey, 6 out of 7 isn't bad, eh, since you don't need all 7 to qualify. I believe my Public School also qualifies as a religion, since we have narrative (school history, we have a wall dedicated to artifacts and stories from the beginnings of the school), experiential (I have life changing experiences here), Social (We have the principal and faculty as leaders), Ethical (we have a code of character and conduct that is stressed every day, etc.), Doctrinal (We have a philosophy class where we discuss the nature of the universe or whatever), Ritual (Graduation), and Material (the school building where we gather, as well as the monument to the school founder and the artifacts on the history wall). The point is that there are plenty of things that qualify that don't involve the supernatural, which is one of the key points of religion. But as I said, those criteria aren't meant as qualifiers for a religion, but a worldview.

That said, Atheism doesn't even qualify as a worldview, as none of the things you mentioned are actually valid qualifications for each criterion. The difference between the qualifiers used for religions (rituals, beliefs, narratives, ethics, etc.) and the ones you used for Atheism, is that the religious ones are part of the religion by definition. The ethics outlined in the bible are the official "Christian" ethics, the rituals and narratives are all essential parts of Christianity. Alternatively, Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God. Anything else beyond that can be described as "Atheistic" in the sense that they don't involve God, but they are not purely Atheist things to do and are not essential parts of Atheism. If you are Atheist you do not have to believe the theory of evolution is true, and not all Atheists do. You do not have to reject God to be an Atheist. That assumes you believe in God in the first place. A person raised as a hermit in the woods would never have the experience of "rejecting God". So you could believe evolution is false, never "reject God", not go to Atheist gatherings (or even know that they occur), never know about any prominent Atheists, never spend time considering the ultimate nature of reality or convincing yourself of the non-existence of God or that faith is illegitimate, never get married, not be concerned about the religion vs. secular nature of your funeral, and not believe that nature is sacred, and you can still be an Atheist. The only thing involved in Atheism is not believing religious claims of a God. Yes you can argue that some things are Atheistic, but that ultimately just means they don't involve God, not that they are a "part of Atheism" or what have you. In essence, you don't have to do anything to be an Atheist. There are no positive beliefs, rituals, or experiences that are a central part of Atheism. If you are not religious, you are Atheist by default.

—Glenwing

P.S. Here's another way of thinking about it. What if you don't believe in Christanity or any other religion. And then you also reject Atheism as well. You don't believe evolution, don't attend any Atheist conventions, etc. What are you then? Nothing? Yes. We have a term for that. It's called Atheism. Without Theism. Without Religion. Yes it's true that many atheists share beliefs on topics, but that is ultimately meaningless as those things still aren't essential to what atheism really is and what it is to be an atheist.
::::User: Williagz's suggestions re: Smartt were added. See material [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism/archive21#Misrepresentation_and_Misspelling_of_Ninian_Smart HERE] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:58, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

== Atheism cannot be a religion==
A religion requires belief in something there is no proof for. Atheism is a total lack of belief, we don't believe in anything. The guy above highlighted it pretty damn well. You may as well call fanclubs or role playing game groups religions if you include atheism. Evolution and science itself exist separate from an atheist's lack of belief. Many people are still religious but believe evolution is correct. They are christian, catholic, etc etc. Because they believe a god did it, somewhere, somehow. But the more you delve into science, the less likely a god becomes. Science itself is not the domain of atheists. It is the domain of those who understand a small bit of the universe and learn more every day. Eventually we may find the origin of the universe. But its not a god.