Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evangelical atheist"

Revision as of 03:14, January 1, 2008

Evangelical atheist

Hello, I was browsing through this site, and I noticed the article at http://www.conservapedia.com/Evangelical_atheist which said you are the author of that page. I am new to editing here, so I thought to check with the original author about this before editing anything. The article states "claiming that one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" as a technique used by evangelical atheists. This bring to mind something, as it seems to be claiming that only those who read the Bible can possibly be good people. But what if, for example, there was someone who followed a different religion that didn't include the Bible, but who gave money to charity, worked to improve people's lives, and did many works of good in their life. Even if they did not attend services or ever read the Bible, it seems they would be a good person just by virtue of their good deeds. Do you agree? I would appreciate it if that one phrase could be removed from the article, because it would seem to define a lot of people as "not good" on a single criterion.

Thanks,

T. Otru.

No, I don't think it should be deleted. The point is not whether it is theoretically possible for someone to be good in such a manner, but that evangelical atheists exaggerate the opportunity by insisting on it. In other words, the point is about the style and arguments of an evangelical atheist, not where there is a shred of validity to it.--Aschlafly 18:40, 31 December 2007 (EST)

If someone can be good without attending services or reading the Bible, then why is this a "technique" of evangelical atheists? It seems that them pointing this out doesn't force their beliefs on anyone else, but simply states that religion isn't required to be a good person; this is in line with atheistic beliefs, and to me it doesn't seem to infringe on religious beliefs at all. Would it not help the article to make a better case by removing such an assertion, which seems to merely restate atheists' belief system? The only problem I see in this article is that it seems to deny that there is any validity to their arguments, which you yourself said exists. -Otru

The statement, often used by evangelical atheists, that "one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" is grossly misleading. It's like a tobacco company claiming that "one can smoke a pack-a-day of cigarettes and live to be 100." Sure, one in a million can. The other 999,999 are misled by the argument.--Aschlafly 20:20, 31 December 2007 (EST)

But can't religion be equally misleading? After all, the Bible mentions and supports practices such as slavery (Leviticus 25), witch hunts (Exodus 22), and purely religion-based killing (Exodus 32), things that are now clearly considered immoral. Maybe these atheists are misleading in some ways, and religion does encourage many people to do good, but you must admit that some things that comes out of the Bible and religion are at least as morally misleading as atheism.

It seems to be a completely different situation from tobacco companies (which I am glad to see you do not support); smoking is obviously harmful, but NOT smoking (with this analogy, following the Bible literally) certainly is not a cause of poor health. Could you then at least modify the page so that it does not seem to be making contradictory claims such as this? --Otru 31 Dec. 2007

Where did "following the Bible literally" come from, or your claims that there are "immoral" things in the Bible? Those arguments are irrelevant to our discussion. The statement on the content page that "one can be good without attending religious services or reading the Bible" is often made by evangelical atheists, and you do not seem to dispute that. Case closed.

We can discuss why it is misleading, just as tobacco advertisements are. Check out young mass murderers to seem some examples, or the psych ward in a hospital. Lots of people "lose it" when they go years, and decades, without any spiritual nourishment. It's misleading to pretend otherwise.--Aschlafly 21:09, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I am not disputing whether atheists state this or not; I am concerned that the article incorrectly portrays it as misleading. The article you linked me to only lists 8 mass murderers, and I know there have been a lot more than that, many of whom were Christian. A few cases such as that is not enough to make a broad statement about a belief.

My points are quite relevant to this discussion. I pointed out the issues with following the Bible literally to demonstrate that it is misleading to claim evangelical atheists are spreading immoral practices when the Bible itself does the same. Unless you deny that slavery and killing are wrong, it's clear that the Bible does portray certain immoral things as just. If you do not wish to remove that statement, at least reword it to make it clear that it is not condemning that "technique" as purely immoral. -Otru

As to your first paragraph, you implicitly deny the correlation between mass murder and rejection of Christianity. The correlation is unmistakable and scientifically indisputable. There are many anti-Christian mass murderers, but few if any Christian ones. Line up the lists if you doubt this. It's 8-0 in our list of recent examples at young mass murderers.

As to your second paragraph, where does the entry claim that "evangelical atheists are spreading immoral practices"? And where does the Bible endorse slavery? The content page is accurate, perhaps a bit too much for your liking. But that's why Conservapedia exists.--Aschlafly 21:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)

So your contention is that there are very few "good" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Is that correct? What are the rest? Evil? SSchultz 21:40, 31 December 2007 (EST)

PS: Can you show a positive correlation between between "crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of Christianity." Are you suggesting that more Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are depressed, anxious, immoral, insane, or criminals per capita than Christians? SSchultz 21:42, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Which of your mentioned religions do you believe in SSchultz??? Your argument is a bit too cute, leaving out 95% of those in the West who have rejected Christianity.--Aschlafly 21:48, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Nice try at a side step, Andy, but you failed to answer any of my questions. My religious beliefs have no bearing on my question. So, again, can you show positive correlation that more non-Christians are depressed, anxious, immoral, insane, or criminals per capita than Christians? Also, if it is significantly less possible (or impossible) to be a "good" person without reading the Bible or attending services, then is it your contention that there are few if any "good" Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. SSchultz 21:53, 31 December 2007 (EST)

And you failed to answer my question. Which of those religions do you believe in? None, I presume, making your argument disingenuous. Why didn't you include your own belief (disbelief) system in your list, which statistically more significant in the West?--Aschlafly 22:00, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I'm Christian, Andy, now answer my question. SSchultz 22:08, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Really, with your knowledge of the Bible, it seems you'd have a copy handy to look up my reference, Leviticus 25, which is the part that endorses slavery. Except for a few cases at young mass murderers, which I notice were almost all listed by you, you haven't shown any correlation between following other religions and murderous tendencies. Though, if you were to find some good sources supporting it, it'd be more convincing. After all, isn't it one of the Commandments that's listed for this website to cite sources?

Regardless, it's fairly clear just from reading the page that it's implying evangelical atheists support or spread immoral practices. Descending into questioning my reasonability ("a bit too much for your liking") really isn't helping us to have a calm, rational discussion about this matter, though.

-T. Otru.

Quote the passage that you think endorses slavery in the Bible. It was your claim and you should be able to back it up.--Aschlafly 22:00, 31 December 2007 (EST)

"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families ... inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever." -Leviticus 25:44-46. It clearly is advocating the treatment of human beings as property, slavery by definition.

-Otru