Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-07T07:29:39Z

MarkSpace: /* The ultimate underdog */ new section

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Athiesm ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== The ultimate underdog ==

I presume this means Christians are rooting for the biggest underdog of them all, Satan? After all, he's slated to compete with God, the odds-on favourite, at the battle of armageddon and very few think he's going to win. Andy, is your rooting for Satan why you mention hell so much in this article? --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 02:29, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-12T16:18:35Z

MarkSpace: /* Heresy hunting */ new section

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)