Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Britain's hatred of the underdog)
(Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge)
Line 81: Line 81:
Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences with a link to a silly website that you insist is a source...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 08:35, 7 February 2012

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? Curiousity 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)

There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. JLefkowitz 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Britain's hatred of the underdog

Since when? --JohnSpheniscidae 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)

I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --JohnSpheniscidae 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)
John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? DaveE 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--PhilipN 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Here is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget Susan Boyle. IvanC 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Weak argumentation

I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --PhilipN 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Survival of the fittest

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

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

--JohnSpheniscidae 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

IQ and Atheism

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

That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--Andy Schlafly 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) Conservative 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)
Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average IQ was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. Wikipedia agrees, but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --JustinD 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Faith and hope

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --JohnSpheniscidae 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? DaveE 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. JLefkowitz 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. DaveE 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. JLefkowitz 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope per se. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --JohnSpheniscidae 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Do Atheists dislike underdogs?

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

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

You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.
As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [1] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--Andy Schlafly 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --DamianJohn 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? Bobson 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Is this serious?

If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. Davidspencer 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the little man - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed Karate Kid or Rocky to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than Apollo Creed - the movie could ever have been.

The whole mystery seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

  • Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
  • Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of North Korea).
  • Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me, another gem is thrown in:

  • Stalin was an atheist.
  • Stalin probably didn't like underdogs-
  • Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side. AugustO 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences with a link to a silly website that you insist is a source...". Baobab 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)