Talk:Atheism

Set 2 of Archives

Set 1 of Archives

Is atheism protected by the First Amendment?

I think this issue needs to be researched and clarified in the page. Thank you. JoeSmithson117 18:53, 4 December 2011 (EST)

I am not a lawyer who specializes in U.S. Constitutional law. Setting the issue of the law aside, I can tell you that there will be no protecting atheism from the Question evolution! campaign which will rip it to shreds.

The 15 razor sharp teeth of the Question evolution! campaign, are going to publicly rip evolutionary pseudoscience and atheism to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in open water conditions (please see: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.)

Ooh, what a scary shark. Too bad in a real debate, big pictures with unfunny captions don't convince anybody. Of course, if all you care about is getting attention from your intellectual superiors, keep on doing what you're doing, you might not get Dawkins to mention you in his next book, but maybe some Atheist on YouTube looking for an easy target might take 5 minutes to inform his viewers what a unique personality you are. News Flash: Creation scientists do not "win" debates, they lose miserably and declare victory anyway, if they don't block the release of the debate video, of course. RachelW 11:59, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Has Richard Dawkins debated William Lane Craig yet? (see: Atheism and cowardice). Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the Question evolution! campaign will further demonstrate the man is a clown. Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach). In addition, Dawkins claimed Rabbi Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: Atheism and deception). Conservative 18:10, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Atheism shrinking is accelerating; the religious shall inherit the earth

Atheist researcher of demographics of atheism says that the shrinking of atheism is expected to accelerate: Religious shall inherit the earth Conservative 22:54, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Agnostic Dawkins

Other articles now say that Dawkins is an agnostic, not an atheist. Should this one be amended accordingly?--CPalmer 10:25, 28 February 2012 (EST)

I made some changes to the article. Second, it occurred to me recently that effectively in the Anglosphere atheism is dead in terms of having prominent adherents on the public stage. Who is a prominent proponent of strong atheism? Conservative 11:26, 7 March 2012 (EST)

You do seem to have got most of them. I think there's one reference remaining to "atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins" though.--CPalmer 11:33, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Let me know what section it is in. Conservative 11:34, 7 March 2012 (EST)

It is in section 12.2, "The claim that atheists tend to be quarrelsome and socially challenged men".--CPalmer 11:36, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Investigate the issue of atheism and infanticide in light of recent events

Investigate the issue of atheism and infanticide in light of recent events: http://creation.com/abortion-after-birth and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpOhSEA9Yb8

Create this article: Atheism and infanticide Conservative 23:33, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

Misrepresentation and Misspelling of Ninian Smart

"Religion scholar Ninian Smartt identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion."

The first sentence is talking about Ninian Smart, religious scholar. As written, it is easy to see the second sentence as a misspelling suggesting that Ninian Smart intended his scheme to be used as criteria, but as you can see here on page 2, he meant for his scheme to be descriptive; these are seven things to look at when defining any worldview, secular or religious, and not a means of determining if something is or isn't a religion. The second sentence is talking about Daniel Smartt (two ts), pastor, who is interpreting (and misinterpreting, I believe) Ninian Smart's scheme, mistaking them for criteria. Read the reference and let me know if you agree.

SPPS Survey

Apparently the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science has a new survey that shows that atheists are more compassionate and generous than highly religious people. Does anyone have access to this? Here's the story on the UC Berkley news page - http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/ Interesting. Darkmind1970 12:27, 6 May 2012 (EDT)