Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-06-20T17:43:52Z

RobWW: /* Please note edits! */

{{protect|TK}}

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, this page is completely biased. If you want this site to rival Wikipedia in any way, shape or form you should probably remove the quotes around "documentary" when referring to "Sicko" (which by the way has won praise from conservatives as well as liberals. Not to mention under the picture it is captioned "Michael Moore, ranting". Hardly unbiased at all as you claim this site to be. Nor is it trustworth.

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --[[User:Element|Element]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Moore High School Photo==
[[Image:Mmoore.png|right|thumb|Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.]]

== Why the second photo? ==

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!"
--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary ==
I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But then you're pre-emptively judging his next film Sicko without even knowing what it claims by putting the word Documentary in "Sarcastic quotes". Yes, he should be, and is, scrutinized for what he says, but so then is everything. As brainslug says, people will always claim that documentaries present inaccurate facts or interpretations, but whatever the results of such scrutinous challenges, this doesnt make them not documentaries. Its enough to say, as the article does, that people challenge his claims without having to invent a word like "pseudo-documentary" (a term which seems to apply to ficticious movies like Spinal Tap) to describe a movie that the site finds disagreeable.
::--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: In addition to what Rex said above, we already have a small paragraph in which he's accused of using deceit and so on. We might as well expand that. More facts are better than fewer facts; speaking in detail about his errors is better than insinuating without detail. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Default sort ==

Please add <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}</nowiki> to the article before the categories. The article is locked. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 02:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I did, but wish I knew why we do this...--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== POlitics requires a minimum of brains? ==
I can conclude from this that RobS knows NOTHING about politics, and has never met an actual politician. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be careful with your accusations. Andy once ran for office. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 22:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement. Categroizing Michael Moore as a "political person" is an insult to people who generally are informed, and are concerned about public policy, and public discourse. I'm not sure "satirist" would apply, and if so, not a very good one. "Comedian" might offend real comedians, too. Perhaps "film maker" or some such garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Political people can be buffoons, too. Sometimes it seems like a job requirement. OTOH, I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't listed as a "Political Person", either. But I get the impressing Moore '''is''' informed and concerned--he just happens to think Conservatives are doing a terrible job. Oh, and he's fat, so there's no point in listening to him. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Good point. Do we really want to ''elevate'' Limbaugh to a political person? OTOH, Al Franken is probably running for Senate; once he's a real candidate, he should qualify for awhile, unless he wins then he can enter the Pantheon with all our other failed icons. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

2007-05-08T17:21:44Z

RobWW: /* The Problem of Origins */

'''Atheism''' defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (one of the foremost philosophy reference works) is the denial of the existence of any [[God]]. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Definitions of "atheism" used in debate ==

There are ''active'' and ''passive'' senses in which the term "atheism" can be used - because of the nature of the term the active sense is the original and by far the most common. However, in debate the sense in which atheism is defined may shift from "the active denial of the existence of God", to merely "the passive lack of belief in the existence of God". This can be seen as an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the atheist to disprove the existence of God, on to the theist to prove the existence of God.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref> Recently a number of atheists have attempted to redefine the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of God because they wish to shift the burden of proof in regards to the question of the existence of God. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

These ''active'' and ''passive'' senses are ''logically'' equivalent because they both equate to '''"God exists = False"''', but they are ''pragmatically'' distinct, because denying the existence of ''X'', and ''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of, are different psychological states. The argument for them being different psychological states is that if "''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of" were psychologically equivalent to the denial of the existence of ''X'', then one would have to hold an infinite number of beliefs in the non-existence of all logically possible ''X''s, but since the human mind is finite, this cannot be the case.

Nevertheless, this distinction is a rhetorical device only, and does not succeed in shifting any burden of proof. This is because not only is the issue of burden of proof still, strictly-speaking, independent of the issue of the sense in which the term "atheism" is used, but it is impossible even to identify oneself as an atheist in the ''passive'' sense described above. Once one has considered the question of the existence of God (which one must do in order to describe ''oneself'' as an atheist), to be an atheist one must actively deny the existence of God. This is because, presuming agreement on the definition of God, a so-called passive atheist would be unable to describe the following sentence as either true or false: "God exists." To answer "True" is theism, to answer "False" is active atheism, and to answer "Neither" is not atheism at all, but agnosticism, and the option of ignoring the question is lost by entering the debate at all.

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality, although they may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people. For instance, it may be claimed that events in the Bible itself even encourage immoral behavior, such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning to death of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals], poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] claim, however, that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref><ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

Despite their disbelief in God, many atheists live their lives to a high ethical standard as evidenced by a divorce rate among atheists that is much lower than that of Christians or Jews.
<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm</ref>

The study of morality outside of a theistic framework falls under the [[Philosophy| Philosophical]] topic of [[Ethics]].

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.
It is also important to take account that identification with a theistic religion does not necessarily imply a belief in God; For example a poll conducted in the [[United Kingdom]] in April 2006 indicated that 63% of Christians believed in a "God or higher spiritual force" and 14% did not<ref>http://www.communicateresearch.com/poll.php?id=77 Communicate Research poll for Premier Radio and the Evangelical Alliance (April 2006)</ref>.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

However, cause does not necessarily mean any form of intelligence or God like being. God, according to atheists is a superfluous addition and completely unnecessary for the explanation of the universe.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, [[Creationism|creationists]] claim that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodyamics]] argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-05-08T01:34:02Z

RobWW: /* The Problem of Origins */

'''Atheism''' defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (one of the foremost philosophy reference works) is the denial of the existence of any [[God]]. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Definitions of "atheism" used in debate ==

There are ''active'' and ''passive'' senses in which the term "atheism" can be used - because of the nature of the term the active sense is the original and by far the most common. However, in debate the sense in which atheism is defined may shift from "the active denial of the existence of God", to merely "the passive lack of belief in the existence of God". This can be seen as an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the atheist to disprove the existence of God, on to the theist to prove the existence of God.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref> Recently a number of atheists have attempted to redefine the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of God because they wish to shift the burden of proof in regards to the question of the existence of God. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

These ''active'' and ''passive'' senses are ''logically'' equivalent because they both equate to '''"God exists = False"''', but they are ''pragmatically'' distinct, because denying the existence of ''X'', and ''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of, are different psychological states. The argument for them being different psychological states is that if "''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of" were psychologically equivalent to the denial of the existence of ''X'', then one would have to hold an infinite number of beliefs in the non-existence of all logically possible ''X''s, but since the human mind is finite, this cannot be the case.

Nevertheless, this distinction is a rhetorical device only, and does not succeed in shifting any burden of proof. This is because not only is the issue of burden of proof still, strictly-speaking, independent of the issue of the sense in which the term "atheism" is used, but it is impossible even to identify oneself as an atheist in the ''passive'' sense described above. Once one has considered the question of the existence of God (which one must do in order to describe ''oneself'' as an atheist), to be an atheist one must actively deny the existence of God. This is because, presuming agreement on the definition of God, a so-called passive atheist would be unable to describe the following sentence as either true or false: "God exists." To answer "True" is theism, to answer "False" is active atheism, and to answer "Neither" is not atheism at all, but agnosticism, and the option of ignoring the question is lost by entering the debate at all.

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality, although they may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people. For instance, it may be claimed that events in the Bible itself even encourage immoral behavior, such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning to death of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals], poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] claim, however, that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref><ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

Despite their disbelief in God, many atheists live their lives to a high ethical standard as evidenced by a divorce rate among atheists that is much lower than that of Christians or Jews.
<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm</ref>

The study of morality outside of a theistic framework falls under the [[Philosophy| Philosophical]] topic of [[Ethics]].

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

However, cause does not necessarily mean purpose as many suppose. Thus the universe may have a cause, but that does not mean it has a "purpose" in the religious sense.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, [[Creationism|creationists]] claim that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodyamics]] argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]