Talk:Atheism

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

File:Clog-dancer.gif

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. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 18:23, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

Obsession

User:Conservative: What is your obsession with running clickbots on this article? RobS^{Zelensky 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. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 01:41, May 29, 2025 (EDT)

1 year+. No answer. I will reinsert the link to Armed Forces Press. RobS^{WWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war?} 02:00, June 28, 2026 (EDT)

User:Conservative

User:Conservative posted: "I think RobS is at heart an Personal remark removed who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him." User:Conservative has never apologized or been disciplined for the statement.

Two editors with opposing views carrying on a civil discussion is a "desire for respect" worthy of deysopping and banning?

User:Conservative's dime-store psychoanalysis and psychotic trolling on atheism needs to be nipped in the bud if he thinks he's going to return to this subject because of a Topic ban on other subjects. RobS^{WWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war?} 01:49, June 28, 2026 (EDT)

Secondly, respecting God does not give one the right to disrespect other people, as User:Conservative has implead for years and years and has taught to homeschoolers. RobS^{WWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war?} 02:50, June 28, 2026 (EDT)