Talk:Atheism

2013-01-29T14:05:35Z

Collypops:

{| 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__


== 13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/13-grim-events-for-darwinism-that.html 13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism]
<br /><br />
[[File:Death.png|right|100px]]
{{clear}}

== Reddit atheism ==
/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.

:create a [[Reddit atheism]] article if you want. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored? ==

There have been atheist right-wingers like [[Ayn Rand]] who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Is she being ignored? See [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Other_well_known_proponents_of_atheism this section] of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Biggest blow to hit world [[atheism]] ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/worlds-biggest-atheist-population-about.html World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline]

[[File:China location.png|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

== First Amendment ==

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.
:Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --[[User:MrSnowman|MrSnowman]] 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[http://creation.com/15-questions]

::Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html]

::By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm] [[User:RobTurkel|RobTurkel]] 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Information / Opinion Balance ==
I'm concerned that this article is based more on biased opinions and serves primarily as a propaganda tool, rather than a source for learning and enlightenment. It begins with a very short definition of the term, then continues to devote 95% of the content to the negative aspects of Atheism, not to mention its utter failure to mention a single one of the positive aspects. I'm worried that visitors will be put off by the editorial style of writing (as cleverly disguised as it is) because it may not let them evaluate Atheism in an honest manner. A lot of hard work has gone into producing and editing this content and I'd hate to see it discarded as a piece of fiction, written exclusively for those who are fearful of what they don't understand, rather than those who come here to actually learn something. The world is full of religious and non-religious people, and the last thing we want to do is act like they can't coexist by insinuating that they cant and shouldn't. You are an encyclopedia. I have faith that you're better than this.

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism