Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Undo revision 1070954 by Bbob (talk))
(→‎Armed Forces Press)
 
(158 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
<!-- =============DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS TEXT WHEN ARCHIVING=================== -->
 
<!-- =============DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS TEXT WHEN ARCHIVING=================== -->
  
−
== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==
+
== New Book ==
  
−
Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:
+
The editors of this page may be interested in a new book entitled ''The Triumph of Faith'' by Rodney Stark. The book relies on the Gallup (the real Gallup, not Gallup International) World Polls as well as other resources to show that the world is more religious now than ever. I know this page is specific to atheism but I thought more people might see this post if I put it here. Anyway, here's a link about the book: http://www.baylorisr.org/2015/10/19/baptist-standard-book-review-isrs-starkthe-triumph-of-faith/ 
  
−
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020
+
The article says that the book will be published November 16th, but Amazon says you can digitally download the book on the 3rd.  
  
−
http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/
+
Great article, keep it up! <small>(''unsigned contribution by [[User:TBarnes|TBarnes]]'')</small>.
 +
:Thanks for the book recommendation TBarnes. Stark does quality work and I did not hear about this latest book of his. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:16, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
 +
::TBarnes, I found a summary of Stark's book http://www.movements.net/2015/11/03/rodney-starks-next-book-the-global-religious-awakening.html plus I found this at Google Books: [https://books.google.com/books?id=owS6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT268&lpg=PT268&dq=The+triumph+of+faith+:+why+the+world+is+more+religious+than+ever+review&source=bl&ots=zOgdEARIVh&sig=ACoPvERZbNxDowOymfyWcMu6je8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIx5zy5ZKJyQIVReYmCh0oSga2#v=onepage&q=The%20triumph%20of%20faith%20%3A%20why%20the%20world%20is%20more%20religious%20than%20ever%20review&f=false  The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark - Google Books]
  
−
Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)
+
::Thanks again for telling me about this book. I plan on reading it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (EST)
  
−
==Politics==
+
:::You're welcome <small>(''unsigned contribution by [[User:TBarnes|TBarnes]]'')</small>.
−
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here?  Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts?  [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
+
−
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.
+
  
−
:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html]  And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]
+
== Thought this was funny... ==
  
−
:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
+
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US#q=atheist%2C%20ear%20wax&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4
 +
::That was an encouraging graph. Searches for the keyword "atheist" are now below pre-[[New Atheism]] levels in the USA. Of course, we all know what this means. The righteous, American Christians prevailed over the wicked and proud British-born atheists [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Christopher Hitchens]] and their American atheists allies like the now disgraced [[David Silverman]] and [[Lawrence Krauss]]. See: [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Desecularization]]
 +
[[File:Clog-dancer.gif|right|thumb|[[Jacques Berlinerblau]], an atheist, declared "the Golden age of Secularism has passed"]]
 +
::The atheists had the wind at their back with mainstream stream media putting wind in their sails, but the American, Christian sharpshooters took [[Atheist apologetics|their "arguments"]] [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|down one by one]].  [[Atheism and morality]], shot down.  [[Atheism and logic]], shot down. [[Atheism and intelligence]], shot down, etc. etc. This was [[Battle of Saratoga]] 2.0! Such a glorious victory by American Christendom! And thanks to [[Donald Trump]] trust in the "[[fake news]]" media establishment has been considerably lowered. So the likelihood of a Very New Atheism springing up to take its place is exceedingly small because people have very little trust in very fake news!
  
−
::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging.  [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
+
::By the way, in terms of global searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G, with much of the atheist population now aging and having below replacement levels of births (see: [[Global atheism and aging populations]]) and with aging Western populations having more incidences of built up ear wax, do not be surprised if the keyword "atheist" continues to plummet in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G and the keyword "ear wax" sees a temporary rise in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Jesus.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:48, 14 January 2020 (EST)
−
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life?  What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]?  Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools?  Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?
+
:Thanks for that little chuckle. It happens that I've been ribbing Cons over all his atheism articles, suggesting "atheism and maple syrup" and "atheism and rocking chairs" as topics that he hasn't yet written about. Well, Cons is quite a wit, and he actually came back with some observations on these topics. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#to:_RobS.2C_do_you_wish_to_edit_CP_again.3F] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#Re:_your_article_idea].  But he hasn't yet written articles on those topics.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:04, 4 December 2015 (EST)
 +
::SamHB, Conservapedia does have a lot of articles relating to atheism.  
  
−
Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the  extensive Conservapedia article on atheism.  Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see:  [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).
+
::And as far as "Atheism and rocking chairs", I realize you were jesting, but nevertheless you are not far off when it comes to [[Global atheism]]. Please see: [[Global atheism and aging populations]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::Re: "Atheism and maple syrup": See: [[Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food]].  Maple syrup is not bland! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:09, 8 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::SamHB, as far as some of the "atheism and ...." articles, I created a number of informative articles which deal with matters that people are interested in.  The articles have empirical evidence/social science studies regarding these topics. For example, I created the [[Atheism and morality]] article which has received over 87,000 page views;  the [[Atheism and women]] article which has received over 70,000 page views and the [[Atheism and anger]] article which has received over 26,000 page views.  
  
−
In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism.  Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?".  However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article).  In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?
+
::::In addition, many people are concerned about the welfare of animals and [[secular Europe]] has had to enact some laws to curb the carnal desires of some of the more perverse members of their irreligious societies.  The [[Atheism and bestiality]] remains a popular article at Conservapedia and has received over 60,000 page views. And Conservapedia's [[Bestiality and Britain]] article ranks #1 for this search at Google USA and #2 at Google UK.
 +
:::::60,000?  Another 1,990,000 and you will match [[counterexamples to relativity]]. And "Bestiality and Britain" strikes me as an incredibly obscure thing to search for, and thus easily manipulated by "clickbots" or whatever.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::I realize the empirical evidence showing that evolutionism degrades the moral fabric of societies is disheartening to you since you are an evolutionist (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]). Nevertheless, the [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] remains popular at Conservapedia also and it has racked up over 19,000 page views. Why is it that the countries with the highest belief in evolution have had the most significant problems curbing their populaces from engaging in perverse practices with animals?  I realize that many evolutionists consider men to be mere animals and that animals are the relatives of mankind, but evolutionists/atheists need to stop trying to make sheep, horses and poodles their kissing cousins![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:26, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::I'm not the least bit disheartened by evolution, other than the fact that there are still significant minorities that reject it.  Far from it; I take great delight in scientific truth, whether of the demonstrable-by-experiments-that-can-be-replicated "hard science" type or the not-subject-to-experiments-but-nevertheless-backed-by-extremely-compelling-evidence "soft science" type. I am not aware of a demonstrable causal connection between evolution and moral degradation, or between evolution and bestiality.  In the latter case, I doubt that there is anyone else on the planet who comes anywhere near to your interest on the topic.  I'm proud to know the world's leading expert on this.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::re: "soft science": You can trust evolutionary biologists because physicists get amazingly precise results. Sad! Evolutionists are so pathetically desperate to believe their wicked bunk that they cling to "soft science". So many liberal cities are rat-infested, enclaves filled with drug addicts and homelessness because they were founded on ill-conceived soft, social "sciences". “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." - Jesus[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:21, 14 January 2020 (EST)
 +
"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.
 +
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.
  
−
By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]
+
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution]
  
−
Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
+
I also suggest reading the article [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
 +
:Nope, Hitler pic.  Sorry.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::I understand. History is often a sore subject with evolutionists.  See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
=== Google trends USA data from 2004 to January 2020 ===
  
−
:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.  
+
''See also:'' [[Internet atheism]] and [[Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms]] and [[Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists]]
  
−
:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.
+
[[File:Google trends atheism & agnostic terms 1-14-2020.png|thumbnail|center|600px|According to Google trends, in the [[United States]], the Google searches for the terms atheist, atheism, agnostic and agnosticism were lower in January 2020 than it was in January 2004.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
Much to the dismay of atheist, keyboard warriors, [[internet atheism]] has been an abysmal failure! On the other hand, Christian [[internet evangelism]] goes from one glorious victory to another! Hallelujah! For more information, please see: [[Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists]] and [[Global atheism statistics]] ]]
 +
{{Clear}}
 +
[[File:Google trends world Jesus and God 1-14-2019.png|center|600px|thumbnail|According to Google Trends, worldwide the searches at Google for the terms God and Jesus were higher in January 2020 than in January 2004. See also: [[Atheism vs. Christianity]] ]]
 +
{{Clear}}
  
−
:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
+
== Christian Growth in China ==
−
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. 
+
  
−
::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
+
Here's a good article on Christianity's growth in supposedly atheist China...http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/
−
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
+
TX Digger
 +
::TZ Digger, thanks for sharing that exciting article. I thought this portion of the article was especially exciting: "One sign of the advancing state of Christianity in China is that it is reaching out to the larger world. Nine hundred Chinese pastors gathered in Hong Kong this fall for the Mission 2030 Conference. Their goal: To send out 20,000 missionaries from mainland China by 2030."[http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
  
−
Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)
+
== Many atheists are conservative and pro-capitalistic; Many theists are left wing and anti-capitalistic ==
 +
Many atheists, based on their values are conservative and pro-capitalistic. The characteristic which best determines whether or not, you are a conservative is the degree to which you support pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, and the economist, Milton Friedman, were both solid atheists. They were also solid supporter of a free and unregulated market. The atheists who follow the teachings of Rand and Friedman are solidly pro-capitalistic.
  
−
:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
Many religious people on the other hand are left wing and anti-capitalistic.  For example, Roman Catholics tend to support socialism and government provided welfare.  Christ himself seems to have been a left winger because for one thing he said, "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". He also said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, what clothes ye shall wear". Devout Christians follow these teachings and are thereby left wingers with an anti-capitalistic outlook on life. - User:RobertHBiggadike
  
−
::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist?  I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?
+
:RobertHBiggadike, the article has a section for "Atheism and politics/history" which can be found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_politics.2Fhistory  and it offer resources on atheism/politics/history. 
  
−
::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent.  By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
+
:As a result of your feedback, I added a link to our [[Secular right]] article. Thank you for your feedback.
−
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
+
  
−
::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.
+
:Next, historically and presently, a majority of atheists have tended to lean towards the left/socialism/communism. See: [[Atheism and politics]] and [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]].   
  
−
::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.  
+
:Next, please review our [[Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]] and [[Atheism and sloth]] articles.  
  
−
:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:
+
:Again, thank you for your feedback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (EST)
  
−
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.   
+
:::RobertHBiggadike, Milton Friedman was not a "solid atheist", He was an agnostic. I cite: “I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected. I do not believe God has anything to do with economics. But values do.” - Milton Friedman"[http://thedailyhatch.org/2012/07/24/milton-friedmans-religious-views/]  
  
−
Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
:::Although Ayn Rand was pro-capitalism, she also thought selfishness was a virtue.[https://www.aynrand.org/novels/virtue-of-selfishness]. She wasn't a virtuous capitalist like the Christian capitalist William Colgate who was a great philanthropist. See: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]].  For this reason, I don't want to see the main atheism article have a Ayn Rand puff piece section.
−
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]].  The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]   
+
  
−
:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie?  Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test].  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
:::Please do not edit any more atheism related articles given your sloppy research. I also don't care for your encyclopedia article writing. Encyclopedias don't use phrases like "solid atheist". And given the speciousness of atheism, the term "solid atheist" is inappropriate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (EST)
 +
:::::By the way, [http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1368 Adam Smith: Selfishness or Self-Interest?].  I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (EST)
  
−
::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
You accuse me of sloppy research but you have been so sloppy that you have failed to include pro-capitalistic atheists, scientific atheists, and pro evolution atheists in what you call a list of types of atheism. And by the way, Milton Friedman was for all practical purposes an atheist despite your argument to the contrary. [[User:RobertHBiggadike|RobertHBiggadike]] ([[User talk:RobertHBiggadike|talk]]) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (EST)
−
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test].  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
::RobertHBiggadike, thank you for your input. If you read the articles [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]] and [[Protestant cultural legacies|Irreligious countries with Protestant cultural legacies]] and [[Atheism and sloth]], and if you are fair-minded, you will conclude that Protestantism has had a far greater positive effect on capitalism and economic productivity than atheism. At the same time, there are modern day libertarians of the atheistic persuasion do make some valid commentary about economics.
−
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.  
+
  
−
And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
::And thank you for your input about atheism/science. Rather than touch upon various points within the article about atheism/science which the article did, I created a special section in the article with the heading "Atheism and science" at [[Atheism#Atheism and science|Atheism and science]]. In addition, I expanded the [[Atheism and science]] article. Conservapedia also has a [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] article which is linked to in the "Atheism and science" article. A subsection of the section "Atheism and science" in the main atheism article deals with [[Atheism#Atheism and questions of origins|Atheism and questions of origins]].
−
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
+
−
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge its merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
−
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
−
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
−
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
−
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
  
−
:See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
::As a whole, I don't think atheist ideology contributed much to science. For example, ancient Greek skepticism did not produce any great leaps in science. on the other hand, the [[scientific revolution]] occurred in Christianized Europe. Please read the article [[Christianity and science]] (Christian influence had a far more greater influence than atheism during the scientific revolution.  
−
::When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
+
−
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
−
:::Gentlemen, you picked a poor place to try to start the first atheist revival. Try wearing white shirts and knocking on people's doors and telling them about atheism/agnosticism. I think it would be more effective. But before you knock on people's doors, please prepare [[Essay: The question atheists fear|some proof and evidence why atheism is true]]. That should not take long to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
−
::::I'm not atheist at all: I'm Catholic! And a conservative, too. It's you who are a liability to the cause of Christianity and conservatism because evidently you can't debate and rely on communist, liberal, weak inefficient tactics! Face what Ryansch told and answer with pertinent arguments, instead of fearingly backing like a bunny in its hole!  --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:43, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
  
−
::::Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Ergo to prove it to be true you must prove there is a lack of believe in a god. Ask me if I believe in God and we shall have proof.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 22:48, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
::Sociologist [[Rodney Stark]], an [[agnosticism|agnostic]],  investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:00, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
:He also didn't include atheists who are left-handed in the list of types...your accusations are vague and could mean anything. But so long as you oppose that suits you fine.  If your arguments had any merit you wouldn't need to misquote scripture, for example; they would stand on their own.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (EST)
  
−
:::::Ryansch said this, above: ''"See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them."''  Unfortunately, it is you, Ryan, and you, Ronald, who refuse to even look at our points or even consider them.  Since 2007 others have tried to engage in the same tactics, up to an including threats and bullying; never-mind the answers that we have posted in response.  This "debate" is over and done with.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
I have just read the chapter called, "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", by Ayn Rand.  I am so proud that I have lived my life in accordance with the moral philosophy of Objectivism and have become a multi-millionaire in so doing.  Regardless of whether you oppose or agree with Ayn Rand, Objectivism is an important type of atheism which should be inluded as a type of atheism in any document pretending to be an encyclopedia.  [[User:RobertHBiggadike|RobertHBiggadike]] ([[User talk:RobertHBiggadike|talk]]) 15:32, 1 January 2016 (EST)
−
:All right, as you wish, but I'll note this as a win against Conservative, assuming now he'll learn some debating skills. Now I go back editing about Switzerland. See you! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:55, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
:Thanks. I added Ayn Rand in the prominent atheist section.
  
−
:::::Karajou, I have looked at every point given to me. Even when Markman called me a parodist I addressed the point even though it was false. Conservative has addressed few of my points and refuses to do so. I will Help User Conservative by showing him the points that he missed and looked over, (maybe he didn't mean to), But karajou, I want to know...what point has Conservative or anyone else said that I have not considered or discussed?
+
:Second, I think there was a spurt of interest in objectivism due to a movie based on one of Rand's books. However, interest in objectivism seems to have significantly waned [https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=objectivism according to Google trends] so I am against making objectivism any more prominent in the article. People can click on "Atheism and politics" "secular right" and now that can click on "Ayn Rand" also.
  
−
1."I do hold many values that would be socially conservative." I have made this point and Conservative refuses to even discuss it.
+
:But maybe I am wrong about declining interest. Given the choices of Hillary/Trump there is increased interest in the libertarian party which has a lot of secular right people associated with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
−
2."I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not" throughout our last debate, Conservative repeatedly labeled me a Darwinist and attempted to do so again.
+
::Yesterday I added Ayn Rand to the [[Atheism and women]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
−
3. The gumball Analogy which defined my position, which Conservative refuses to even acknowledge as a position. (actually, he effectively ignored the whole paragraph)
+
−
4. The idea that not all Atheists are on the left (I am living proof that they are not)
+
−
5. The accusation of sweeping generalization I have made.
+
−
6. What I am called, according to his own standard.
+
  
−
Karajou I have always held high respect for you in the past as you tend to actually answer any points raised to you. Of course we disagree on religious matters but surely you know that I have went down every irrelevant route he opened, even the link to the good person test. Tell me any point that I refuse to look at and consider and I will do so now, right here. If I did so, it was not my intention. You have treated me fairly in the past, especially when Markman attempted to ban me for my name, I ask that you do so again. To be honest, I would rather have this discussion with you. Then it would be an intellectual discussion and not the barrage of mud-slinging that this has descended to. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 23:04, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
+
==Re: Atheism and moral relativism==
−
:Ryancsh, also,your gumball analogy failed. Scientific proof/arguments is not the only kind of evidence/arguments (for example, historical evidence/arguments, logical arguments, etc.).  Biblical creation belief [http://creation.com/creation-answers has sound historical evidence and arguments].  
+
I've studied philosophical ethics a good deal in my free time, and the following is my litmus test for whether a branch of it is moral or not: can it justify rape and the Holocaust?  The answer is yes in both cases- if rape occurs in a country where it's a given risk to dating (I spoke to an Italian about this), it's okay there, but obviously wrong according to the Bible and common sense. For the latter, if one were a member of the SS in Nazi Germany, the Holocaust would be moral given the social prevalence around. For those reasons, I believe moral relativism is rubbish, and such examples ought to be expounded upon in the article.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
:I appreciate your feedback.  
  
−
:Second, you wrote: "The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true)." If you only made decisions based on conclusive proof, you wouldn't eat/drink at restaurants unless you had a food/drink taster lest the food/drinks were poisoned, etc. etc.  Historical arguments are probabilistic. I know you don't live your life's decisions solely on conclusive proof. Your atheistic/agnostic argumentation is weak. I am glad I have the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_apologetics_website_resources strong proofs and evidence of Christianity/creation] and I am not reliant on weak argumentation.  
+
:Second, could you please create an article entitled [[Atheism and moral relativism]].  The reason I ask this is that given the current length of the article, I don't want to expand it. I can tweak it and update it though. Given the absurdity of atheism and its deleterious effects on societies/individuals (which the article extensively points out), the article is very popular. For example, the article has nearly has 6,000 Facebook likes and the [[PNN News and Ministry Network]] did a video on the article which praised the article (see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3paAT8AO2Gk Viral article deals major blow to atheism]).  
  
−
:Lastly, you are still dodging. You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Again, children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument still failed from the gitgo.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
:Third, if you do create such an article, I can feature it on the main page. In addition, some of my friends may wish to promote it elsewhere on the internet if they like your article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
−
::Karajou, it is now apparent that Conservative wants to keep debating! May we answer him. His arguments can be easily disproved and his communist-like, liberal and inefficient tactics rebuked. May I? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 18:14, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
 
−
:::Karajou, I almost feel sorry for Ryancsh. He wants to be a true conservative but he needs to pass all three litmus tests: fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and religious conservatism. The secular religions of agnosticism and atheism clearly do not pass the third test.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
+
::I can do that.  I'm about to call today off (after sleeping and taking care of my mother post-op), but I have a full day in front of me I've learned that non-Christian attempts at following morality are inevitably corrupt.  Moral relativism has an obvious liberal bias; as such, under what parameters can I cite Wikipedia as examples of such a bias?--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:20, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::Pious, would you like to contribute articles to the [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia Atheism Project]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::Absolutely. I'm particularly keen on the Faith and reason page.  Having said that, one step at a time- I keep too busy praising my Jesus to die, but I also keep too busy with my job in order to pay tithes and my bills.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:42, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
OK. Thanks! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Descriptions of partial belief in God from the Middle Ages==
 +
 
 +
Have you seen this before, Conservative?  It's by [[Thomas Aquinas]] in the 1260s-1270s, who quotes [[Saint Augustine]] from the ancient world.  I thought it might interest you, since I've seen you write about agnosticism before. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 02:51, 11 June 2019 (EDT)
 +
 +
Art. 2 - Whether the act of faith is suitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God and believing in God?
 +
Objection 1: It would seem that the act of faith is unsuitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God, and believing in God. For one habit has but one act. Now faith is one habit since it is one virtue. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that there are three acts of faith.
 +
 
 +
Objection 2: Further, that which is common to all acts of faith should not be reckoned as a particular kind of act of faith. Now "to believe God" is common to all acts of faith, since faith is founded on the First Truth. Therefore it seems unreasonable to distinguish it from certain other acts of faith.
 +
 
 +
Objection 3: Further, that which can be said of unbelievers, cannot be called an act of faith. Now unbelievers can be said to believe in a God. Therefore it should not be reckoned an act of faith.
 +
 
 +
Objection 4: Further, movement towards the end belongs to the will, whose object is the good and the end. Now to believe is an act, not of the will, but of the intellect. Therefore "to believe in God," which implies movement towards an end, should not be reckoned as a species of that act.
 +
 
 +
On the contrary is the authority of Augustine who makes this distinction (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxi---Tract. xxix in Joan.).
 +
 
 +
I answer that, The act of any power or habit depends on the relation of that power or habit to its object. Now the object of faith can be considered in three ways. For, since "to believe" is an act of the intellect, in so far as the will moves it to assent, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), the object of faith can be considered either on the part of the intellect, or on the part of the will that moves the intellect.
 +
 
 +
If it be considered on the part of the intellect, then two things can be observed in the object of faith, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]). One of these is the material object of faith, and in this way an act of faith is "to believe in a God"; because, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) nothing is proposed to our belief, except in as much as it is referred to God. The other is the formal aspect of the object, for it is the medium on account of which we assent to such and such a point of faith; and thus an act of faith is "to believe God," since, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) the formal object of faith is the First Truth, to Which man gives his adhesion, so as to assent to Its sake to whatever he believes.
 +
 
 +
Thirdly, if the object of faith be considered in so far as the intellect is moved by the will, an act of faith is "to believe in God." For the First Truth is referred to the will, through having the aspect of an end.
 +
 
 +
Reply to Objection 1: These three do not denote different acts of faith, but one and the same act having different relations to the object of faith.
 +
 
 +
This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.
 +
 
 +
Reply to Objection 3: Unbelievers cannot be said "to believe in a God" as we understand it in relation to the act of faith. For they do not believe that God exists under the conditions that faith determines; hence they do not truly believe in a God, since, as the Philosopher observes (Metaph. ix, text. 22) "to know simple things defectively is not to know them at all."
 +
 
 +
Reply to Objection 4: As stated above (FS, Q[9], A[1]) the will moves the intellect and the other powers of the soul to the end: and in this respect an act of faith is "to believe in God."
 +
:I am familiar with Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for the existence of God from his book [[Summa Theologica]]. On the other hand, I never went beyond that when it came to Aquinas.
 +
 
 +
:As far as faith/will/[[fall of man]] and the doctrine of total depravity, at this point, I agree with [[John Wesley]] on this matter. See: [https://chadelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/the-breadth-of-a-hair-wesley-on-total-depravity/ The Breadth Of A Hair: John Wesley On Total Depravity].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:29, 11 June 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I am leaning towards 4 or 5 point Calvinism now. I need to study this issue more. Romans 9 appears to be more in line with a more Calvinistic and not Arminian view of Scripture. This is one of the more difficult issues of the Bible. [http://www.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html I just read some historical information] about this theological matter that is interesting.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:00, 14 January 2020 (EST)
 +
:::I am no longer leaning toward 4 point Calvinism. I am now an [[Arminian]] who is doing further study. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:29, December 31, 2022 (EST)
 +
 
 +
==External links==
 +
The links under '''Other articles on atheism:''' are not external links. A classic bait and switch. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Give Peace a Chance!'']]</sup> 18:23, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==[[Obsession]]==
 +
[[User:Conservative]]: What is your [[obsession]] with running clickbots on this article? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 12:36, April 20, 2025 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Armed Forces Press==
 +
Why does [[User:Conservative]] object to inclusion of a link to the [[conservative]] [https://armedforces.press/recruitment-ads-from-usa-and-russia-are-strikingly-different/ Armed Forces press]? The rule is discuss before reverting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:41, May 29, 2025 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 05:41, May 29, 2025

List of Archives

New Book

The editors of this page may be interested in a new book entitled The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark. The book relies on the Gallup (the real Gallup, not Gallup International) World Polls as well as other resources to show that the world is more religious now than ever. I know this page is specific to atheism but I thought more people might see this post if I put it here. Anyway, here's a link about the book: http://www.baylorisr.org/2015/10/19/baptist-standard-book-review-isrs-starkthe-triumph-of-faith/

The article says that the book will be published November 16th, but Amazon says you can digitally download the book on the 3rd.

Great article, keep it up! (unsigned contribution by TBarnes).

Thanks for the book recommendation TBarnes. Stark does quality work and I did not hear about this latest book of his. Conservative (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
TBarnes, I found a summary of Stark's book http://www.movements.net/2015/11/03/rodney-starks-next-book-the-global-religious-awakening.html plus I found this at Google Books: The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark - Google Books
Thanks again for telling me about this book. I plan on reading it. Conservative (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (EST)
You're welcome (unsigned contribution by TBarnes).

Thought this was funny...

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US#q=atheist%2C%20ear%20wax&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

That was an encouraging graph. Searches for the keyword "atheist" are now below pre-New Atheism levels in the USA. Of course, we all know what this means. The righteous, American Christians prevailed over the wicked and proud British-born atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and their American atheists allies like the now disgraced David Silverman and Lawrence Krauss. See: Decline of the atheist movement and Desecularization
Jacques Berlinerblau, an atheist, declared "the Golden age of Secularism has passed"
The atheists had the wind at their back with mainstream stream media putting wind in their sails, but the American, Christian sharpshooters took their "arguments" down one by one. Atheism and morality, shot down. Atheism and logic, shot down. Atheism and intelligence, shot down, etc. etc. This was Battle of Saratoga 2.0! Such a glorious victory by American Christendom! And thanks to Donald Trump trust in the "fake news" media establishment has been considerably lowered. So the likelihood of a Very New Atheism springing up to take its place is exceedingly small because people have very little trust in very fake news!
By the way, in terms of global searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G, with much of the atheist population now aging and having below replacement levels of births (see: Global atheism and aging populations) and with aging Western populations having more incidences of built up ear wax, do not be surprised if the keyword "atheist" continues to plummet in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G and the keyword "ear wax" sees a temporary rise in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Jesus.Conservative (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks for that little chuckle. It happens that I've been ribbing Cons over all his atheism articles, suggesting "atheism and maple syrup" and "atheism and rocking chairs" as topics that he hasn't yet written about. Well, Cons is quite a wit, and he actually came back with some observations on these topics. See [1] and [2]. But he hasn't yet written articles on those topics. SamHB (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2015 (EST)
SamHB, Conservapedia does have a lot of articles relating to atheism.
And as far as "Atheism and rocking chairs", I realize you were jesting, but nevertheless you are not far off when it comes to Global atheism. Please see: Global atheism and aging populations. Conservative (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
Re: "Atheism and maple syrup": See: Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food. Maple syrup is not bland! :) Conservative (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, as far as some of the "atheism and ...." articles, I created a number of informative articles which deal with matters that people are interested in. The articles have empirical evidence/social science studies regarding these topics. For example, I created the Atheism and morality article which has received over 87,000 page views; the Atheism and women article which has received over 70,000 page views and the Atheism and anger article which has received over 26,000 page views.
In addition, many people are concerned about the welfare of animals and secular Europe has had to enact some laws to curb the carnal desires of some of the more perverse members of their irreligious societies. The Atheism and bestiality remains a popular article at Conservapedia and has received over 60,000 page views. And Conservapedia's Bestiality and Britain article ranks #1 for this search at Google USA and #2 at Google UK.
60,000? Another 1,990,000 and you will match counterexamples to relativity. And "Bestiality and Britain" strikes me as an incredibly obscure thing to search for, and thus easily manipulated by "clickbots" or whatever. SamHB (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I realize the empirical evidence showing that evolutionism degrades the moral fabric of societies is disheartening to you since you are an evolutionist (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution). Nevertheless, the Evolutionary belief and bestiality remains popular at Conservapedia also and it has racked up over 19,000 page views. Why is it that the countries with the highest belief in evolution have had the most significant problems curbing their populaces from engaging in perverse practices with animals? I realize that many evolutionists consider men to be mere animals and that animals are the relatives of mankind, but evolutionists/atheists need to stop trying to make sheep, horses and poodles their kissing cousins!Conservative (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I'm not the least bit disheartened by evolution, other than the fact that there are still significant minorities that reject it. Far from it; I take great delight in scientific truth, whether of the demonstrable-by-experiments-that-can-be-replicated "hard science" type or the not-subject-to-experiments-but-nevertheless-backed-by-extremely-compelling-evidence "soft science" type. I am not aware of a demonstrable causal connection between evolution and moral degradation, or between evolution and bestiality. In the latter case, I doubt that there is anyone else on the planet who comes anywhere near to your interest on the topic. I'm proud to know the world's leading expert on this. SamHB (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
re: "soft science": You can trust evolutionary biologists because physicists get amazingly precise results. Sad! Evolutionists are so pathetically desperate to believe their wicked bunk that they cling to "soft science". So many liberal cities are rat-infested, enclaves filled with drug addicts and homelessness because they were founded on ill-conceived soft, social "sciences". “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." - JesusConservative (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2020 (EST)

"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community. The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[3]

I also suggest reading the article Social effects of the theory of evolution.Conservative (talk)

Nope, Hitler pic. Sorry. SamHB (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I understand. History is often a sore subject with evolutionists. See also: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation. Conservative (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

Google trends USA data from 2004 to January 2020

See also: Internet atheism and Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms and Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists

According to Google trends, in the United States, the Google searches for the terms atheist, atheism, agnostic and agnosticism were lower in January 2020 than it was in January 2004.

Much to the dismay of atheist, keyboard warriors, internet atheism has been an abysmal failure! On the other hand, Christian internet evangelism goes from one glorious victory to another! Hallelujah! For more information, please see: Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists and Global atheism statistics
According to Google Trends, worldwide the searches at Google for the terms God and Jesus were higher in January 2020 than in January 2004. See also: Atheism vs. Christianity

Christian Growth in China

Here's a good article on Christianity's growth in supposedly atheist China...http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/ TX Digger

TZ Digger, thanks for sharing that exciting article. I thought this portion of the article was especially exciting: "One sign of the advancing state of Christianity in China is that it is reaching out to the larger world. Nine hundred Chinese pastors gathered in Hong Kong this fall for the Mission 2030 Conference. Their goal: To send out 20,000 missionaries from mainland China by 2030."[4] Conservative (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Many atheists are conservative and pro-capitalistic; Many theists are left wing and anti-capitalistic

Many atheists, based on their values are conservative and pro-capitalistic. The characteristic which best determines whether or not, you are a conservative is the degree to which you support pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, and the economist, Milton Friedman, were both solid atheists. They were also solid supporter of a free and unregulated market. The atheists who follow the teachings of Rand and Friedman are solidly pro-capitalistic.

Many religious people on the other hand are left wing and anti-capitalistic. For example, Roman Catholics tend to support socialism and government provided welfare. Christ himself seems to have been a left winger because for one thing he said, "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". He also said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, what clothes ye shall wear". Devout Christians follow these teachings and are thereby left wingers with an anti-capitalistic outlook on life. - User:RobertHBiggadike

RobertHBiggadike, the article has a section for "Atheism and politics/history" which can be found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_politics.2Fhistory and it offer resources on atheism/politics/history.
As a result of your feedback, I added a link to our Secular right article. Thank you for your feedback.
Next, historically and presently, a majority of atheists have tended to lean towards the left/socialism/communism. See: Atheism and politics and History of atheism.
Next, please review our Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Atheism and sloth articles.
Again, thank you for your feedback. Conservative (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (EST)
RobertHBiggadike, Milton Friedman was not a "solid atheist", He was an agnostic. I cite: “I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected. I do not believe God has anything to do with economics. But values do.” - Milton Friedman"[5]
Although Ayn Rand was pro-capitalism, she also thought selfishness was a virtue.[6]. She wasn't a virtuous capitalist like the Christian capitalist William Colgate who was a great philanthropist. See: Atheism and uncharitableness. For this reason, I don't want to see the main atheism article have a Ayn Rand puff piece section.
Please do not edit any more atheism related articles given your sloppy research. I also don't care for your encyclopedia article writing. Encyclopedias don't use phrases like "solid atheist". And given the speciousness of atheism, the term "solid atheist" is inappropriate. Conservative (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (EST)
By the way, Adam Smith: Selfishness or Self-Interest?. I rest my case! Conservative (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (EST)

You accuse me of sloppy research but you have been so sloppy that you have failed to include pro-capitalistic atheists, scientific atheists, and pro evolution atheists in what you call a list of types of atheism. And by the way, Milton Friedman was for all practical purposes an atheist despite your argument to the contrary. RobertHBiggadike (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (EST)

RobertHBiggadike, thank you for your input. If you read the articles Atheism and politics and Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Irreligious countries with Protestant cultural legacies and Atheism and sloth, and if you are fair-minded, you will conclude that Protestantism has had a far greater positive effect on capitalism and economic productivity than atheism. At the same time, there are modern day libertarians of the atheistic persuasion do make some valid commentary about economics.
And thank you for your input about atheism/science. Rather than touch upon various points within the article about atheism/science which the article did, I created a special section in the article with the heading "Atheism and science" at Atheism and science. In addition, I expanded the Atheism and science article. Conservapedia also has a Atheism and the suppression of science article which is linked to in the "Atheism and science" article. A subsection of the section "Atheism and science" in the main atheism article deals with Atheism and questions of origins.
As a whole, I don't think atheist ideology contributed much to science. For example, ancient Greek skepticism did not produce any great leaps in science. on the other hand, the scientific revolution occurred in Christianized Europe. Please read the article Christianity and science (Christian influence had a far more greater influence than atheism during the scientific revolution.
Sociologist Rodney Stark, an agnostic, investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[7] Conservative (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
He also didn't include atheists who are left-handed in the list of types...your accusations are vague and could mean anything. But so long as you oppose that suits you fine. If your arguments had any merit you wouldn't need to misquote scripture, for example; they would stand on their own. VargasMilan (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I have just read the chapter called, "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", by Ayn Rand. I am so proud that I have lived my life in accordance with the moral philosophy of Objectivism and have become a multi-millionaire in so doing. Regardless of whether you oppose or agree with Ayn Rand, Objectivism is an important type of atheism which should be inluded as a type of atheism in any document pretending to be an encyclopedia. RobertHBiggadike (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks. I added Ayn Rand in the prominent atheist section.
Second, I think there was a spurt of interest in objectivism due to a movie based on one of Rand's books. However, interest in objectivism seems to have significantly waned according to Google trends so I am against making objectivism any more prominent in the article. People can click on "Atheism and politics" "secular right" and now that can click on "Ayn Rand" also.
But maybe I am wrong about declining interest. Given the choices of Hillary/Trump there is increased interest in the libertarian party which has a lot of secular right people associated with it. Conservative (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
Yesterday I added Ayn Rand to the Atheism and women article. Conservative (talk)

Re: Atheism and moral relativism

I've studied philosophical ethics a good deal in my free time, and the following is my litmus test for whether a branch of it is moral or not: can it justify rape and the Holocaust? The answer is yes in both cases- if rape occurs in a country where it's a given risk to dating (I spoke to an Italian about this), it's okay there, but obviously wrong according to the Bible and common sense. For the latter, if one were a member of the SS in Nazi Germany, the Holocaust would be moral given the social prevalence around. For those reasons, I believe moral relativism is rubbish, and such examples ought to be expounded upon in the article.--Pious (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

I appreciate your feedback.
Second, could you please create an article entitled Atheism and moral relativism. The reason I ask this is that given the current length of the article, I don't want to expand it. I can tweak it and update it though. Given the absurdity of atheism and its deleterious effects on societies/individuals (which the article extensively points out), the article is very popular. For example, the article has nearly has 6,000 Facebook likes and the PNN News and Ministry Network did a video on the article which praised the article (see: Viral article deals major blow to atheism).
Third, if you do create such an article, I can feature it on the main page. In addition, some of my friends may wish to promote it elsewhere on the internet if they like your article. Conservative (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
I can do that. I'm about to call today off (after sleeping and taking care of my mother post-op), but I have a full day in front of me I've learned that non-Christian attempts at following morality are inevitably corrupt. Moral relativism has an obvious liberal bias; as such, under what parameters can I cite Wikipedia as examples of such a bias?--Pious (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
Pious, would you like to contribute articles to the Conservapedia Atheism Project? Conservative (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
Absolutely. I'm particularly keen on the Faith and reason page. Having said that, one step at a time- I keep too busy praising my Jesus to die, but I also keep too busy with my job in order to pay tithes and my bills.--Pious (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

OK. Thanks! Conservative (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

Descriptions of partial belief in God from the Middle Ages

Have you seen this before, Conservative? It's by Thomas Aquinas in the 1260s-1270s, who quotes Saint Augustine from the ancient world. I thought it might interest you, since I've seen you write about agnosticism before. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 02:51, 11 June 2019 (EDT)

Art. 2 - Whether the act of faith is suitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God and believing in God? Objection 1: It would seem that the act of faith is unsuitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God, and believing in God. For one habit has but one act. Now faith is one habit since it is one virtue. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that there are three acts of faith.

Objection 2: Further, that which is common to all acts of faith should not be reckoned as a particular kind of act of faith. Now "to believe God" is common to all acts of faith, since faith is founded on the First Truth. Therefore it seems unreasonable to distinguish it from certain other acts of faith.

Objection 3: Further, that which can be said of unbelievers, cannot be called an act of faith. Now unbelievers can be said to believe in a God. Therefore it should not be reckoned an act of faith.

Objection 4: Further, movement towards the end belongs to the will, whose object is the good and the end. Now to believe is an act, not of the will, but of the intellect. Therefore "to believe in God," which implies movement towards an end, should not be reckoned as a species of that act.

On the contrary is the authority of Augustine who makes this distinction (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxi---Tract. xxix in Joan.).

I answer that, The act of any power or habit depends on the relation of that power or habit to its object. Now the object of faith can be considered in three ways. For, since "to believe" is an act of the intellect, in so far as the will moves it to assent, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), the object of faith can be considered either on the part of the intellect, or on the part of the will that moves the intellect.

If it be considered on the part of the intellect, then two things can be observed in the object of faith, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]). One of these is the material object of faith, and in this way an act of faith is "to believe in a God"; because, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) nothing is proposed to our belief, except in as much as it is referred to God. The other is the formal aspect of the object, for it is the medium on account of which we assent to such and such a point of faith; and thus an act of faith is "to believe God," since, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) the formal object of faith is the First Truth, to Which man gives his adhesion, so as to assent to Its sake to whatever he believes.

Thirdly, if the object of faith be considered in so far as the intellect is moved by the will, an act of faith is "to believe in God." For the First Truth is referred to the will, through having the aspect of an end.

Reply to Objection 1: These three do not denote different acts of faith, but one and the same act having different relations to the object of faith.

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply to Objection 3: Unbelievers cannot be said "to believe in a God" as we understand it in relation to the act of faith. For they do not believe that God exists under the conditions that faith determines; hence they do not truly believe in a God, since, as the Philosopher observes (Metaph. ix, text. 22) "to know simple things defectively is not to know them at all."

Reply to Objection 4: As stated above (FS, Q[9], A[1]) the will moves the intellect and the other powers of the soul to the end: and in this respect an act of faith is "to believe in God."

I am familiar with Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for the existence of God from his book Summa Theologica. On the other hand, I never went beyond that when it came to Aquinas.
As far as faith/will/fall of man and the doctrine of total depravity, at this point, I agree with John Wesley on this matter. See: The Breadth Of A Hair: John Wesley On Total Depravity.Conservative (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2019 (EDT)
I am leaning towards 4 or 5 point Calvinism now. I need to study this issue more. Romans 9 appears to be more in line with a more Calvinistic and not Arminian view of Scripture. This is one of the more difficult issues of the Bible. I just read some historical information about this theological matter that is interesting.Conservative (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2020 (EST)
I am no longer leaning toward 4 point Calvinism. I am now an Arminian who is doing further study. Conservative (talk) 20:29, December 31, 2022 (EST)

External links

The links under Other articles on atheism: are not external links. A classic bait and switch. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 18:23, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

Obsession

User:Conservative: What is your obsession with running clickbots on this article? RobSZelensky Must Go! 12:36, April 20, 2025 (EDT)

Armed Forces Press

Why does User:Conservative object to inclusion of a link to the conservative Armed Forces press? The rule is discuss before reverting. RobSZelensky Must Go! 01:41, May 29, 2025 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&oldid=2129084"