Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-08T01:56:20Z

LeopoldRex: /* Mathematical Outline for such a theory */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: What about Andy's hypothesis as to causality? We never heard what that was. It got me thinking though. If such an increase in cancer does exist, could it be because the "Hollywood" women generally have stressful jobs/lives? Are they merely a part of a greater group of stressed women who have a higher cancer risk? Or perhaps God just hates Hollywood and is smiting them. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 21:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims

2008-05-08T01:55:47Z

LeopoldRex: /* Mathematical Outline for such a theory */

==Solved?==

There may be a solution to this, the '''average''' age for being diagnosed with breast cancer is 64, but this doesn't mean that people cannot get breast cancer until they are 64.

You have named five cases where breast cancer has been contracted at a younger age, out of a pool of possibly tens of thousands of subjects (noting that you have expanded the definition of Hollywood to include relatively minor Australian celebrities and musicians). This is well in check with broader society, sadly many people do suffer from breast cancer at a young age. Unless the proportion of young people in general suffering breast cancer is different to the proportion of young "Hollywoodians" suffering breast cancer then there really isn't a mystery here to solve.

The only way that anyone will be able to demonstrate the possibility that Hollywood promotes breast cancer is by using statistics which show that the average age of breast cancer in Hollywood is significantly lower than that of society in general. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:18, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Medline, one of the largest databases relating to medical articles, returned just two articles for a search of ""Breast Neoplasms (exp)" and "Hollywood". One of these only referenced Hollywood because to establish a timeframe (it was translated from Japanese, and used the term "Hollywood syndrome" in its title) whereas the other referred to the geographic location of a clinic. I think this establishes that there is no medical evidence supporting the claim that Hollywood somehow increases the likelihood of breast cancer. If you have alternative search terms or databases you want me to use post them here and I will. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia is not limited to [[liberal]] medical journals. We are smart enough, I submit, to observe facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions. We do not simply regurgitate readily available information here. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Medline reports from almost all major medical journals, it does not discriminate based on political ideology. All you have done is listed a few cases and suggested that being famous and connected to Hollywood somehow increases the risk of breast cancer. You have not provided any evidence that the average age of breast cancer amongst stars is any less than the broader average. It is an unfortunate fact that young people do get breast cancer, but there is nothing to suggest that rate of young people in Hollywood being diagnosed with breast cancer is any different to the rate of young people in broader society. Until you refute this point you cannot claim that there is a mystery. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Mr. Schlafly, as I can see it, you seem to be a fan of false causality. X happened to this person and that person meets Y criteria therefore the event X is related to the criteria Y. If 5 people with brown hair contracts testicular cancer, does that mean that having brown hair predisposes you to testicular cancer? Just because someone meets one criteria and also fits another criteria does not mean they are related. That is exactly why medical studies are done, to establish if there is '''repeated''' and '''explainable''' links between any two things. You have no idea of these individuals medical history. There are no sources whatsoever to back this claim. Individuals can claim anything they want, it is only statistics and studies that can help justify them.
- [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==A Demonstration==

It is suggested that Belinda Emmett being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 24 shows that Hollywood increases the risk of breast cancer.

There are around 20 million people in Australia, it's safe to assume that 10 million of those will be female. Using the statistics on the page 1 in 19,608 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25, this is approximately 0.0051%. At this rate about 510 Australia women will have been diagnosed with breast cancer by the time they're 25.

Belinda Emmett is one person out of 510 who has been diagnosed with Breast cancer, this is a rate of about 0.2%. Now, film and television in Australia employs about 50,000 people [http://www.afact.org.au/factsheets/AFACT_Consumer_Guides_Internet.pdf] (the best figure I could find for now), this is approximately 0.5% of the population. Assuming that camerawomen and writers have also been diagnosed with breast cancer then I see no reason why the rate of women connected with "Hollywood" and who have been diagnosed with breast cancer is any lower than that of the broader population.

The reason Hollywood seems to have so many young stars being diagnosed with breast cancer is because these cases are very well publicised, but the sad truth is that many young women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and that their cases are largely forgotten. There is no mystery here, and there won't be until someone shows that the average age of breast cancer amongst Hollywood stars is any different to the rest of society. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Good sir, we don't repeat readily known facts here! This is a crusade, good sir, and we're here to EXPOSE the FACT that HOLLYWOOD causes BREAST cancer IN starlets! [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 00:55, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==
When are you going to realise that you cannot base statistical conclusions upon a non-random sample? You are selecting a category of people who are by definition, far, far younger than the normal population (actresses and pop stars being typically in an age range from 18-45). Therefore, any incidences of breast cancer you find within that population will of course appear to trend younger. Please, take Statistics 101 before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions - you're simply making a fool of yourself. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, you're clueless. The 18-45 population of [[Hollywood]] certainly can be compared with the 18-45 general population as to incidence of disease. I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical [[liberal style]] in trying to intimidate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure it can be compared Andy, but you haven't done that. If you compare the number of young Hollywood breast cancer victims (of course you might want to define what you mean by that first) to the rest of the population in the same age group, fine. You haven't done that. You might also want to clarify where you got your 500 from - clearly an estimate, but based on what? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: The [[Hollywood]] community is a well-understood population that consists of performers and entertainers in movies, television and music. Any ambiguity about that population is insignificant. The incidence of breast cancer in the general population by age is known, and an estimate of a population of 500 female [[Hollywood]] types under age 35 or so who would admit to having breast cancer due to performance demands or openness is a reasonable estimate within a factor of 2 or so.

: You're free to make suggestions on improving the accuracy. But the attempts below to censor the inquiry altogether are, of course, absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schalfly, actually, I am a professional statistician with both graduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject, and also a 34 year professional career as a statistician working for the official statistics bureau of a major nation. Now, ''of course'' you can compare the 'Hollywood' 18-45 population to the general 18-45 population, but first you have to define that population. How are you defining ''your'' population? Is it that they are living in "Hollywood" - in which case it might be interesting to examine geographical factors upon the incidence of disease? No - as I see you are including Australians who live in the UK, people born in six different countries, and it seems none of the members of your data set are actually ''from'' the geographical region of ''Hollywood'', and in fact many of them do not even live there either. So how are you defining members of your data set?

::: Bongabill, we don't fall for the unproven claims of credentials here. Wikipedia might be a better home for you. Your claim is absurd that no conclusions can be drawn from comparing disease incidence among [[Hollywood]] types to the general population. Tell me, did you work for the tobacco industry also in denying that cigarettes cause cancer?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Secondly, I note that your article does not compare your data set to the general 18-45 population, but instead compares it to the general population of 'all ages', quoting an ''average'' age of diagnosis of 64 - which is clearly outside your terms of reference. I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing correct here with any of your reasoning, which not only fails Statistics 101, but fails it in the first semester. This article is specious nonsense. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:59, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, I'm glad you're not a professor then. Or are you going to claim that also??? Your "know nothing" approach and [[liberal denials]] are nonsensical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Just to point out, Mr. Schlafly, you fell back on your "record" of statistical courses as evidence to your statistical competency. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK] 15:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Yes, I did, in response to [[credential bullying]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually ASchalfly, it was indeed you who first raised the issue of credentials in this thread - your comment "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses I have" came after Bongabill's first and only comment on Conservapedia, and which never mentioned his or her credentials. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

All right Andy, I'll make a couple of suggestions. I suggest clarifying the basis of the estimate that there are 500 Hollywood women under 35 who would admit to having breast cancer. I don't understand where the number comes from - what was the method or source used to come up with 500? If that's a good estimate, your comparison is potentially legitimate. Then, I would suggest you do an actual statistical test to determine whether the numbers are significantly different. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:48, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Female rock stars likely to admit to breast cancer (e.g., due to a performance schedule) number on the magnitude of, at most, 50; female movie stars under 35 are perhaps a 100-200, at most; and other female actresses are perhaps another 100-200. Just look at how many albums and movies are released each year. Also, note that many stars go out of their way to conceal and deny health problems, understandably so. If you dispute any of these numbers, then I'd like to hear why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'm not disputing them, I'm asking where they came from. So you looked up how many albums and movies are typically released in a year and extrapolated from that? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: That provides a ballpark estimate. Given that the incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community is an order of magnitude larger than the general population, ballpark estimates are enough to reveal a problem.

::: Note that a ballpark estimate would have -- and should have -- demonstrated that cigarettes cause lung cancer a half century before people accepted it. Millions of lives would have been saved by acting on the evidence available rather than demanding unnecessary statistical detail. Surely you don't defend that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Andy, my man, a "ballpark estimate" is one thing. Pulling numbers out y'arse is quite another. If this really means something to you, then go and do some ''proper'' research. Lord knows you've got enough time on your hands. Reliable numbers may or may not be forthcoming, but at least you'll have tried and you'll be able to argue from a much stronger position if you succeed. Meanwhile, I'd quietly retreat from this one if I were you.
::::Sincerely, --[[User:OscarPeterson|OscarPeterson]] 20:24, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder how many of those who were included in the list of breast cancer cases would be included in the list of 500. If that 500 is based on albums and movies released, it appears that many of those women shouldn't be included. Shirley Temple is the only movie star there. Most appear to be television actresses, and I suspect many more fall into that category than movie actresses. So I suspect that 500 is a pretty big underestimate. Either way though, if you want to make the case, you should include a real statistical analysis. For example, in the last sentence, you could say ''There is likely no more than 1000 in the population of Hollywood types under age 35 who would have publicly disclose breast cancer. The list above has 8 cases (and growing). The expected rate is only 1.5 out of 1000 in that age group. A chi-square test of proportions indicates that the difference between these groups is not statistically significant, X2 (1 df) = 3.62, p = .109.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why stop at age 35? Try applying your approach to age 30.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::Mainly because I think the numbers given in the article have no basis in reality. The 500 is said to be based on the number of movies and albums released each year. According to [http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/feb/2007/s.a.delre/c5.pdf] there are 473 movies each year - I think it's safe to say that nearly all have multiple women who would be included in this list if they had the misfortune to get breast cancer. And taking a look at the list, it's clear that the article is also referring to television actresses, in the US and across the world. So I think 500 is a gross underestimate. Even if the true population of female "Hollywood types" under 30 was 1000 (and I suspect it's more than that), the difference is not significant. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::: The difference is significant, even if the 500 estimate is low. Realize that the estimate of 500 is not for all female singers and actresses, but only those who have performance schedules requiring disclosure of a personal health problem. A soap opera actress would be an example, of which there are perhaps only 50 in the relevant age group.

::: Multiple occurrences of a rarely occurring event are statistically significant, and it's incorrect to claim otherwise. There is nothing special about a baseball pitcher who throws only one no-hitter, but there is something special about one who throws three no-hitters, which is analogous to the data here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, see, there's a couple of problems with that analysis. Let's assume for the moment that your guesstimate of 500 actresses/singers at any one time whose schedules would necessitate an illness disclosure is roughly accurate. Problems: 1)Your examples are not drawn from a single point in time, but from over a period of decades (which would stretch the 500 to thousands). 2)Many of these women, while well-known, were ill at a time in their life when disclosure would not have been necessary (that is, when they were no longer active, and not part of the 500). 3) Many of your examples are deeply obscure, and certainly not part of the 500.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::::No, there's definitely something special about a pitcher who throws a no-hitter. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 23:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: No,

:Murry you are compeletly wrong. You are using frequentist statistics which was created by that godless, evolution believing, eugenics supporting, [[liberal]] Fisher. It is inherently [[deceit|deceitful]]. You should instead use that devinly inspired Bayesian satitical methods. I suggest an uniform distribution aprior for your parameter. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:54, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==An example of why this is fallacious reasoning==
# The incidence of homosexuality in the general population is about 2-3%[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html].
# Evangelical preachers Ted Haggard, Paul Barnes, and Roy Clements were found to be homosexuals.
# Our study shows incidence of homosexuality in Evangelical preachers is far, far greater than the general population and is instead 100%.
# Therefore, all Evangelicial preachers are gay.

Except there's just one thing - we know that's not true. So what's wrong with the reasoning? Selective sampling, that's what's wrong. And which is what you're doing in this article. [[User:Bongabill|Bongabill]] 14:33, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Bongabill, your reasoning is so absurd that it does not merit a response. Learn how to spell "fallacious" and return only if you can figure that out. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you point out logical discrepancies between your logic and his? Refusing to respond does not give you credit, it makes you seem even more wrong. If your argument is correct, then why can you not point out problems in his? And by the way, taunting someone regarding one simple spelling error is puerile. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, duh, the incidence of homosexuality among evangelical preachers is 3 divided by thousands. Should I do the arithmetic for you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Andy to try and translate Bongabill's reasoning into simpler terms: '''Selection bias/selective sampling is where the sample you choose for your study is rigged to give an inaccurate result'''. For example, let us suppose that Planned Parenthood did a study into teens and promiscuity and ecluded teens with STDs and tried to use that study to show teens were having "safe sex". Obviously this would be false since the sample was not ''representative'' of the teenage population. '''Likewise your sample (the list) is inaccurate since it only includes "hollywood" women who ever got breast cancer'''. Also to ignore Bongabill's point and to point out his spelling mistakes smacks of a childish ''ad homniem'' attack, to repeat AndrasK.[[User:Luder|Luder]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

This article is utter nonsense. The reasoning is absurd. It is just laughable. So you can name twenty well-known women who have had breast cancer. I can name twenty women I know who have had breast cancer. Does this mean women of my acquaintance are particularly susceptible? No, it's just a meaningless series of cases, anecdotal evidence of nothing whatsoever. This article is the same. Conservapedia really is a parody of itself! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, your objections are incoherent. The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population. I realize that [[deliberate ignorance]] is a trademark [[liberal style]], but you're in the wrong place if you think you're going to censor attempts to compare those rates. It can and should be done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::''The incidence of breast cancer in the [[Hollywood]] culture can and should be compared to its incidence in the overall population.'' So where is this done? It is simple (the number of Hollywood types that have breast cancer)/(the number of hollywood types) vs. (the number of the overall population that have breast cancer)/(the number of the overall population). You have failed to provide even the simple mean, neverless the variance in order to conduct a hypothesis test. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 18:38, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::DanielB, you're correct, but that's not all - you would also need to conduct a Chi-Squared Test on the result to see whether or not the variance in the data actually had any statistical significance. Different values are not necessarily statistically significant. There is no valid or relevant statistical analysis in this article, none whatsoever. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 18:44, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: When the rates are vastly different, as in the case of lung cancer and cigarettes, conclusions can and should be drawn immediately based on the vast differences in the rates. Of course further investigation is welcome, but unlikely to alter the obvious conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: Vastlty different rates could be the result of the variance of your sample. Your sample size might be too small to draw conclusions or as StatsFan said it might not be significant. Andy you should research statistical hypothesis testing of Student and Fisher instead of being [[deliberate ignorance|deliberalty ignorant]] of them. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: See my reply to the more intelligent comments by Murray above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: What does by a factor of 2 mean? Do you mean a probabilty of less than 2% that the difference in means is a result of random sampling? As you have failed to establish a population size, how do you know the degrees of freedom of your t-distribution? You appear to have a vague understanding of statistic hypothesis testing without any actual working knowledge of how it works. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:42, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Question / Cause==
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you're postulating is the cause of this apparent epidemic of breast cancer amongst the women of the entertainment industry. A paragraph or two regarding possible causation might help to round out the article.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 09:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Based on [[Breast_cancer#Risk_factors|this]], perhaps [[Hollywood values]] encompass poor eating habits and abortions as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Those who don't have an open mind about a glaring 5-10x increase in breast cancer incidence in the [[Hollywood]] community are not likely to have an open mind about causation. The cancer deniers could make a bundle working for the tobacco industry, however.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:31, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a factor of 2 to 5 to 10 times increase. These numbers are incredible and would be very impressive if you had any data what so ever to back this up. You have done no statistical analysis all you have done is make up "ballpark" numbers which suit your hypothesis. Get some data, analyse it and submit it to a medical journal if this as rock solid as you say. Otherwise there is no "mystery cause of Hollywood breast cancer" as you have failed to establish it is any higher than you might expect in the general population. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 02:01, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

So was I... on the right track then? I'd like to think I was being open-minded about causation by considering possible factors, but perhaps I've missed it anyway. :( [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::Geez, Andy, you're not going soft on us, are you? I don't think you've ever censored yourself before in deference to the closed-minded. Would you mind if I worked up a paragraph on causation, or would you rather just skip it? (I don't want to step on your toes) --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:18, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: RossC, I can't tell if you're serious or not. If you're serious, then please try to improve the entry. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: I am indeed serious (but don't fret--I get that a lot). I'll whip up a paragraph on possible causation when I have a bit more time (tomorrow, hopefully).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 13:13, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You probably "get that a lot" because most of your edits, like your recent one on the Main Page, are not to be taken seriously. Try some substantive edits. You'll benefit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:27, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Your argument is hardly convincing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::This does seem like a story that's not being covered in the MSM, and I think you've uncovered a real 'sleeper' news story with this original research. Do you have a press agent who can help you publicize it - can you get this into the news 'wires'? I'm sure various Hollywood press organs would be VERY interested in this story - why don't you try and get this to the LA Times, or Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter? This is Front Page material! [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Please tell them for us, RobCross. As you can see, the [[liberals]] are not happy about this, which means the publications you cite will not publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, its not that 'liberals are unhappy with this' hence it wont get published any where. Its that if you tried to publish this you'd get laughed at because your methodology is so poor. If the was a causation somewhere do you really think you'd be the first person to spot it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, there's that [[liberal]] over-reliance on mockery, point 25 of [[liberal style]]. You follow your style book well, AdenJ. Fortunately, not everyone is afraid of being "laughed at," particularly when the mockery is done to conceal causation of a deadly disease. It's not very funny when you realize what you're trying to conceal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhhh, again Aschlafly you dont know anything at all about me so I wouldn't throw around the liberal rubbish. Not that I have to prove anything to you however I will advise that in my countrys elections I vote for the right. Anyways my point is that this 'article' is not all convincing to anyone.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

What is the hypothesis about causation? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Other factors and questions ==

I would first like to ask if 'Hollywood' is appropriate in the title. How many of these are Hollywood stars? Soap operas, British singers, etc. Shirley Temple retired from movies at 21 in 1949. She had been out of Hollywood for 20 years when she was diagnosed. And is 40 'young'? That also brings up the time frame question - does including a person who was diagnosed with cancer about 40 years ago fit in with trying to correlate it with people from today?

There is also the question of diagnosis. Early diagnosis is the key to identifying and surviving a battle with cancer. People who are wealthy tend to go to the doctor more often, routine check ups and preventive care rather than going to the emergency room. The people listed tend to be in the upper end of the pay spectrum and thus would go to and have access to better medical resources. As such, they would detect cancer at a younger age than those that don't have access to these resources.

The Mayo clinic suggests starting breast self exams at age 20.[http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/WO00026] I am curious if the women here would speak up about the age they started doing breast self exams and the age range that their doctors have informed them that breast cancer can develop along with the risk factors.

Another important factor is identifying family history. Do any of these individuals have a family history of cancer that would make them predisposed to it?

There is also the selection of data. Actresses are famous and everything they do or is done to them tends to find itself in the media. These are the things one would read at a supermarket check out (why is it even here - isn't it the liberal media and National Enquirer that is supposed to have an obsession with celebrities?). This ignores the millions of non-newsworthy men and women and the chances that they get cancer. The young woman down the street who is fighting breast cancer - thats not news and so it doesn't show up beyond a number somewhere. It is just easier to find a list and news reports of famous people.

If there is any statistical significance of this, the math should be shown by the person making the claim. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:34, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: The rates of breast cancer by age in the general population are well-known, and the rates in [[Hollywood]] are 5-10x times higher. You don't work for tobacco companies, do you? We don't need to deny the obvious and await 30 more years of [[censorship]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Could you point to any study or news article akin to [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/30/BA70131.DTL]? Have you ruled out other known risk factors? Where is the data to support this? I would be interested to see the data (rather than an list of 20 singers, actresses, and notables that at some time resided in Los Angeles) that supports the assertion. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't think that Mr Schlafly has to eliminate other risk factors. The claim is only that breast cancer is more prevalent amongst young 'Hollywood types' than others, not that the state of being a 'Hollywood type' causes breast cancer. He doesn't even claim that this this difference is statistically significant. To establish his claim all he has to do is come up with clear definitions of 'Hollywood type' and 'young', determine the size of this group (presumably fewer than the 546,969[http://www.imdb.com/database_statistics] actresses in the imdb database), take a representative sample thereof, determine the rate of early breast cancer within that group and compare it to the general population. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 17:24, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: If anyone would like to work from some data - [http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/quickprofiles/profile.pl?06&055#incidence] has a table for breast cancer deaths by county in California. Orange county slightly above the mean in California for incidence, but is certainly not at the top of the list. I have yet to see any data suggesting the National Cancer Institutes's data is incorrect. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[Liberal Denial]] ==

The above [[liberal denial]]s are almost as interesting as the entry itself. Observe how no one objected to "Rutm"s observation that breast cancer deaths are higher in Orange County, yet every [[liberal]] here objected to the possibility that breast cancer rates are higher among [[Hollywood]] types. Ever here the expression "he protests too much"? It applies with full force here. There is nothing logical to the protests above, which merely underscores how important it is to publicize this information. The more it is irrationally denied, the more persuasive it becomes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy: (a) Hollywood isn't in Orange County. LA County is below the state average, according to Rutm's link. Even if it were higher, that says nothing about the rate in Hollywood, or among "Hollywood types". (b) Some of the comments above may be a bit strident. However, they raise challenges that haven't been answered. If you want to make this case, it would be better to show your methods and to actually do the math. The current approach is not convincing to those who understand statistics. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Andy the protest above are not about your conclusions they are about your compelete lack of data. What you are lacking is data. Rutm's observations are valid because they are based on data, something you lack. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:08, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Murray and DanielB miss the point. I don't think we've seen such emotional denials of a health problem since the tobacco executives denied their products cause cancer, and they kept insisting on more and more and more data. The odds of finding three women victimized by breast cancer in their 20s is astronomically small, and requires a very large population sample. Three examples from the small community of [[Hollywood]], along with many other striking examples of young breast cancer victims, suggests a problem.

::: However, judging by the emotional denials, it's clear your minds are not open about this. You're not investigating further yourself; instead, the deniers are resorting to put-downs (e.g., "not convincing to those who understand statistics"). As is said, "you protest too much."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: Is it a small community? Do you have the exact number of people in this community or do you just have this strange 100-200 numbers from nowhere? You are making numbers up on gut instinct and calling it a sample. You would not get an arguement if you even had properly collected statistics.

:::: As for the tabbaco companies thay argued that correlation dose not equal causation. Something you yourself argued on many occasion, because it is true. Life expectancy goes up with the rate of TV ownership in a country, would you advocate giving third world nations TVs to increase there lifespan? [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::Demanding scientific evidence and accurate statistics is not protesting too much, it is common sense. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The put-downs are on both sides, Andy ("emotional denial", "your minds are not open"). How about a compromise - if you will explain how you derived your sample size, a productive discussion can take place about whether or not this indicates an increased risk of breast cancer. Also, did you note above that the breast cancer rate in the county that Hollywood is in is actually lower than the state average? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

: My comments are not put-downs in the same sense as yours. Observing that a denial is emotional is not bullying, for example.

: Let's see if any of the deniers here will admit that, yes, it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the [[Hollywood]] community than the general population. It's irrational if that admission is not forthcoming. (By the way, the physical county in which the town of Hollywood is located is obviously irrelevant because the issue is the lifestyle.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

::I disagree that your comments are not put-downs in the same sense, but we can disagree there. I apologize for the comment. I pointed out that Hollywood is not in Orange County because your comment above used the rate in Orange County to support your argument. Sure, I will happily admit that it is ''possible'' that the breast cancer rate in the Hollywood district of Los Angeles is higher than in the general population. It would be a powerful statement if it could be shown, given that the rate in all of LA County is lower than the rest of the state. However, I am not convinced by the arguments currently put forth here. As I mentioned above, it would be helpful to explain your methods, particularly the method for determining the size of the sample. It would also be useful to define "Hollywood types", because it appears that many of those in the list, including 1 in the under 30 section, did not live in Hollywood. Research in any field is heavily dependent on explanations of how variables were defined and measured, and on descriptions of how the sample was derived and who it was composed of. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I also happily admit that "it is quite possible that breast cancer incidence is higher in the Hollywood community than the general population", and I'd be very happy to see Aschlafly's hypothesis proven, or disproven, or indeed to see any meaningful data one way or the other. My objection to this sort of pseudo-science is not emotional, and does not represent liberal or any other sort of denial. It's simply that the "conclusion" does not arise from any data. It's a misuse of epidemiological and statistical methods, an appeal to "science" merely to support a prejudice. For a start, you cannot make any comment on prevalence without first defining the population you are using as the denominator. I suggest that should be the first step. If you then ask a suitable question, and apply suitable methods to answer that question, that would be a couple more steps in the right direction. And if you can find anything that suports the contention that breast cancer is more prevalent among "Hollywood types" I'm sure even the "liberal medical journals" would be very interested in the study. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 01:38, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schlafly, we will ''happily'' admit that breast cancer ''might'' be higher in 'Hollywood' - if you can show that is the case, it is certainly really interesting, and some decent , substantiated research with figures you can stand over would make for a really major news story - and your work would be celebrated. '"Women working in the entertainment industry develop breast cancer at a much higher rate than normal'" is indeed headline news. We can help you to make a rock-solid case. Here's how to make your case watertight:

1. Define the population. It seems you're not really intending ''Hollywood'' to be a geographical term here, instead I believe you wish it to refer to 'women between 18-45 working in the entertainment business' - regardless of physical location. Nothing wrong with this so far, that's a perfectly reasonable population to analyse. Please correct my definition if you you think I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly. 
2. Determine the size of that population. This is where it starts to get tricky. A global figure for young women between the ages of 18-45 could be estimated easily enough, but the number of people involved in the entertainment business may be harder to determine. Do you wish your research to include, for example, hairdressers, make-up artists, production designers and art directors, as they would all work with the actors and singers and presumably work in a similar 'moral milleu'. One problem here is that these women would typically work in the presence of chemicals, some of which may or may not be carcinogenic, which would need to be factored into the equations. Another issue is - where does one include women from? Are young Chinese actresses as likely to succumb to the perceived 'moral milleu' of the film business of Hong Kong (not known for its strict moral code either). Might they be similarly affected? What about Indian girls in Bollywood? I notice that you are including Australians and UK residents, but what about French, German, Italians, etc? 
3. Assuming you can eventually determine the total size of the population, then determine the rates of breast cancer in that total population. This will be difficult, lengthy research, but it should be possible. It would likely take many years of research though, as you will require data from health monitoring organizations around the globe. 
4. Now factor in family medical histories, ethnic predispositions, working conditions, lifetime exposure to carcinogens, birth patterns, etc - and filter your data for these. 
5. Compare the breast cancer rates of your study to the breast cancer rates of the global population in general. Again, this shouldn't be too hard. 
6. Test any differences in your discovered cancer rates for statistical significance. Where you discover a trend, dig deeper into that data to ensure you are correct. 
7. Publish, and celebrate good research! 

Your hypothesis is interesting, but as yet unproven. But if we can be of any assistance, let us know. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:58, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reply to the above ==

First, Murray, the popular term "Hollywood" refers to an ''industry'', not a place. Yes, I know, there is a small town called "Hollywood", but that is not what anyone means when they speak of the culture, lifestyle, values and industry of "Hollywood", as we are here. I'm astonished, frankly, that you take such a narrow, literal meaning of the word.

Second, I'm gratified to have wrestled out an admission for all here that, yes, Hollywood types may have higher and younger incidence of breast cancer than the general population. So why all the fuss? Read the comments above and anyone objective would see a determination to censor a discussion and investigation of something that all now admit is quite possible.

Third, looking at the data from a small population of successful, performing female pop singers, who number no more than 100, the rate of young breast cancer is astounding and many times, even orders of magnitude, higher than the rate in the general population. It's unmistakable.

Fourth, there are medical reasons why one would expect, without seeing any data, that Hollywood actresses would have higher rates of breast cancer. An astute, objective observer would expect it without seeing a single patient or reviewing data about a single case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I interpreted your reference to the "small community" as referring to the town itself. Apparently I misinterpreted. Nobody is attempting to censor any discussion. I am in fact trying to have a discussion. I will ask again, would you please explain the methods that you used to derive these numbers, particularly the sample sizes but also the number of cancer diagnoses? If you are correct, there is nothing to lose, and you can only gain from being transparent. I have my doubts as to whether the population is truly as small as you say. However, if you can show that it is, then your hypothesis is correct. This is a matter of statistics, not of ideology. An intro stats text will go into detail about why it is important to be clear and detailed about methodology, and that is what is missing here.

:Out of curiosity, what are those medical reasons? Regardless of what one would expect, one needs to show that the data back up the expectation.

:Finally, the "fuss" is not about the possibility. It is about making a claim and showing data that are not clear. It's possible that any community has a higher rate of breast cancer. Ashkenazi Jewish women, for example, are at greater risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations that are associated with breast cancer. But we know that because clear, detailed data have been published. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::Mr.Schlafly, regarding your points:
::*First, yes, I understand you are referring to an industry and not a geographic location. There's nothing inherently wrong about you attempting to do so. '''Except''' that if you are defining it so, you need to define the 'what', 'how' and 'where' of that industry. Geographical locations make research easy, as essentially you can simply start by analysing data within US zip codes. But defining members of an industry is hard, particularly since the industry is global, and contains many people in many roles. Sadly, the UN, WHO, or any other organization doesn't break out its health, age, income, etc statistics into 'pop singers' and 'actresses', so we must instead do the work ourselves. So - how do you intend to define your population?
::*Secondly, it is one thing to admit that a possibility exists. But is entirely another to admit that that possibility is indeed the case. Would you be prepared to admit that web workers like yourself are more prone to testicular cancer? If I can find thirty people who work on the web and have testicular cancer, will you believe me? It may be so, and of course it's possible, but IS it so? Only proper research can tell. But if I claim it, you have every right to disagree with me.
::*Thirdly, here is where I must begin to disagree with you, and for very simply reasons. No, it is NOT possible to make assumptions based upon a non-random data set comprising members you have selected who have shown the condition. The population sample you provide is statistically biased, as it is non-random, and therefore does not properly represent the total population - all actresses and pop stars, including those who ''both do '''and do not''''' have breast cancer. You have selected it to only include actresses and pop singers with breast cancer. This sample does not include the very many pop singers and actresses who did ''not'' develop breast cancer. This common mistake has a name in statistical analysis, and is referred to as '[[Selection Bias]]'. Using the same method, I could equally list twenty CEO's of technology companies who are bald and claim that being a CEO causes baldness. But it would not make it true. I refer you to the famous 'joke' statistic that the rise and fall of the population of penguins in the Arctic is extremely tightly correlated with the UK Conservative party holding Government office (or Arts funding - the stories vary). These examples and others are used to show that [[Correlation]] '''never''' automatically implies [[Causation]]. As a result of your selection bias, it is false to say that your conclusion "is unmistakeable" - though it doesn't for a second mean we shouldn't investigate your claim.
::*Finally, what are those medical reasons? What is your proposed theory of causation?' Why would an acute observer expect it? If you can be a little more clear, it would help.

::Your case remains completely unproven speculation, but is nevertheless interesting. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 14:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

==Mathematical Outline for such a theory==

If I understand your theory correctly, the maths for your theory would work as follows (please correct me if I am wrong): 

First, evaluate Global Breast Cancer Incidence in the [[Control Population]], i.e. the 'world at large': 
A=Global Population of women aged 18-45 
B=Total number of women belonging to Set A diagnosed with breast cancer 
B/A = Y (Average Global percentage of breast cancer incidence in young women aged 18-45) 
 
Note that since our hypothesis is that 'Hollywood' or 'lifestyle values' are what we are testing for (since we assume you don't intend to prove that there are, for example, more carcinogens in movie trailers than elsewhere), it would be important to exclude from 'B' those breast cancers caused by hereditary, environmental factors and other non-lifestyle factors. 
 
Next, evaluate 'Hollywood' Breast Cancer Incidence: 
W=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 
X=Global population of Actresses and Pop Singers aged 18-45 diagnosed with breast cancer 
X/W = Z (Average Global percentage of breast cancer in 'Hollywood' women) 
 
(From this data set, we would also have to exclude those 'non-lifestyle' breast cancers as above).
 

If Z > Y, and passes the Chi Square Test, you're definitely onto something, and quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research. But with A, B, W and X as yet undefined, as here, we don't have proof yet of the trend. But at least we have defined the numbers we are looking for, and we can continue to study your theory. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 17:57, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Your symbols add nothing here, and your conclusion that "quite likely a large amount of funding would immediately be available for further research" is absurd. The same hysterically [[liberal]] reaction posted on this talk page by others above would great any application for funding of this hypothesis. Such application would find the trashcan before a closed-minded recipient looked beyond its first page.

: That is all the more amusing when one realizes that there is a fundamental reason why [[Hollywood]] types must have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public. Get past the symbols and look at this with an open mind, and you'll see it too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::If you disagree with the methodology described above, what mathematical methodology do you instead propose? And what is this "fundamental reason" you refer to? I'm just curious as to how to prove this hypothesis. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 19:54, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't object to the methodology, but I don't think it adds anything meaningful to the issue. If I asked whether a pitcher of unknown name who has thrown at least three no-hitters should likely be in the Hall of Fame, your methodology is not going help answer the statistical question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The methodology allows other people to reproduce it and not require having an open mind or a statement from an authority. In making the claim "Hollywood types have higher breast cancer incidence than the general public" you are making a statement that can be tested. Thus, people want to know how you came to that conclusion and how to test it for themselves so they can see if it is true or not. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::::OK, great - we're on the same path then! I'm delighted we can see eye-to-eye on something at last. As to your analogy, it is interesting, but kind of irrelevant to this discussion. So, if you agree with the math, then let's get to work!

::::We know that C = approx. 1 in 93, from the NCI figures. But those numbers refer to all women below 45. The rate for women between 18-45 would be higher, we could make a reasonable guess at, say, 1 in 70 (since the rate for women below 50 is 1 in 50). And you suggest a rate that is an order of magnitude higher than normal, correct? That would be, say, 1 in 7. Now, we need to establish the value of both W and X, the total population of women 18-45 who are in the entertainment business, and those within that population who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. How do we obtain those numbers? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:08, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:::::Do note that this is the number of women in the entertainment business at some point in their lives (Shirley Temple was retired from the industry for 20 years when she was diagnosed) over the past 80 years (Shirley Temple was born in 1928). This would include singers (country? bluegrass? pop? rock? musicals? vaudeville?), actresses (stage? TV? movies?). Also be sure to include people from around the world in this - Australian soap opera star, Puerto Rican actress, Norwegian actress. It would help to know what the hypothesis being tested is beyond the vague "people in entertainment." --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy, I have 2 questions for you. First, will you share your methods for determining the size of the sample and the number of cases? Second, what is your hypothesis as to causality? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:35, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''': We have the data that we have. We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects. We never will. Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here. Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer? Of course not. Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it. Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]]. Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed. If determined enough, one can often claim that. The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available. Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I take it you are refusing to share your methods, though it would be nice if you would just say that. ''We have the data that we have.'' True enough, but you're the only one who knows what it looks like. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly. But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it. I doubt you'd disagree with that? For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women? I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

One other note - the point you make about "watch your smoker relatives drop dead" is an excellent example of selective sampling. I had two uncle's who smoked until they died in their nineties, neither of smoking-related illnesses. It doesn't prove for a moment though that smoking does not kill - it simply shows the effects of selective bias. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: StatsFan, of course counterexamples (your uncles) do not disprove causation. But examples often do indicate causation when it is a rarely expected phenomenon.

: Again, I ask you: is it likely that an unnamed pitcher who threw three no-hitters had an overall career worthy of the Hall of Fame? That is a statistical question that you should be able to answer, but your incessant demand for more data is not going to help you solve it. There is no further specific data to be disclosed in that question, nor is additional data necessary to answer it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::I am indeed confused by your metaphor. For me to know the answer to that I would need to know if it was common for a pitcher to throw three no-hitters, and if many Hall f Famers had thrown three no-hitters? If I'm correct (and I apologize if I am confused by your analogy), you are suggesting that since the data you present is 'obvious', then young Hollywood women do indeed contract breast cancer at higher rates, yes? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 21:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

::: StatsFan, the only info you need is the obvious one that no more than a few no-hitters occur each baseball season.

::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: What about Andy's hypothesis as to causality? We never heard what that was. It got me thinking though. If such an increase in cancer does exist could it be because the "Hollywood" women generally have stressful jobs/lives? Are they merely a part of a greater group of stressed women who have a higher cancer risk? Or perhaps God just hates Hollywood and is smiting them. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 21:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Trust

2008-05-08T01:48:29Z

LeopoldRex:

A '''trust''' is a legal device used to manage real or personal property, established by one person (granter or settlor) for the benefit of another (beneficiary). See also [[trustee]].

The trust is the most important innovation of [[Equity|equity]]. A trust is an arrangement whereby one person (the trustee) may hold the legal title to property on behalf of another person (the beneficiary) who holds the equitable title. A trust does not interfere with the legal position; at law the title is held by the trustee in the normal way. However, equity recognizes that the trustee does not hold the title for his or her own benefit and the benefits of the ownership will accrue to the beneficiary.

In the [[United States]] a trust is also defined as any sort of business dealing in which the end result in a total monopoly of a single industry. These types of trusts arose around the mid-19th century and proceeded to strangle the U.S. economy for approximately fifty years before serious federal laws (now referred to as antitrust laws) were enacted to fight them. Corporations broken up or fined under antitrust laws include U.S. Steel, AT&T, and Microsoft.
[[Category:Law]]

The Golden Compass

2008-05-06T23:54:22Z

LeopoldRex: /* Feature film */

'''''The Golden Compass''''' is the first in a trilogy of novels by [[Philip Pullman]] that deals with ultimately tracking down and killing the Judeo-Christian God ("Yahweh" is used in the book). It is promoted as reading for children. Recently released in a film adaptation starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and is being advertised during Christmas specials on Lifetime. Plot summary (from [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com]):

*In the epic trilogy [[His Dark Materials]], Philip Pullman unlocks the door to worlds parallel to our own. Dæmons and winged creatures live side by side with humans, and a mysterious entity called Dust just might have the power to unite the universes--if it isn't destroyed first. The three books in Pullman's heroic fantasy series, published as mass-market paperbacks with new covers, are united here in one boxed set that includes The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. Join Lyra, Pantalaimon, Will, and the rest as they embark on the most breathtaking, heartbreaking adventure of their lives. The fate of the universe is in their hands. (Ages 13 and older)

== Criticism ==
Allegations of an atheist agenda present both in Pullman's writing as well as the film adaptation have been raised by numerous conservative groups. Reporting on the issue has ranged from mainstream news outlets like [[FOX News]] and [[CNN]] to left-leaning blogs like [http://2log.audienceoftwo.com/?blog_id=141 2log]. While Pullman has watered down his rhetoric before the release of his movie, his interviews over the years have not been as guarded. <blockquote> ""I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people - mainly from America's Bible Belt - who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."<ref>
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/philip_pullman_realizes_underm.html</ref></blockquote>

Brian Rittmeyer of the ''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'' wrote:
*St. Alphonsus Catholic Church in Pine describes the movie as "atheism for kids," and Pullman as a "militant atheist and secular humanist" whose objective is to bash Christianity and "kill God in the minds of children."
*"While 'The Golden Compass' movie itself may seem mild and innocent, the books are a much different story," the church bulletin says. "Each book in the trilogy gets progressively worse regarding Pullman's hatred of Jesus Christ." <ref>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_541577.html</ref>

It should be noted the books have drawn a level of support from Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], who believes the book series by Pullman can be used to help address the "inadequacies" of some religious education courses which only teach pupils about religious festivals, and not the deeper theological issues of Christianity. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/10/npull10.xml</ref> <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>.

==Feature film==
The film based on the first book of the trilogy grossed only $25,783,232 its opening weekend,<ref>http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goldencompass.htm</ref> however, as of May 6, 2008, its worldwide gross totaled $371,494,868. The film cost an estimated $180 million to make.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Movies]]

The Golden Compass

2008-05-06T23:53:58Z

LeopoldRex: /* Feature film */ Update figures

'''''The Golden Compass''''' is the first in a trilogy of novels by [[Philip Pullman]] that deals with ultimately tracking down and killing the Judeo-Christian God ("Yahweh" is used in the book). It is promoted as reading for children. Recently released in a film adaptation starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and is being advertised during Christmas specials on Lifetime. Plot summary (from [http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com]):

*In the epic trilogy [[His Dark Materials]], Philip Pullman unlocks the door to worlds parallel to our own. Dæmons and winged creatures live side by side with humans, and a mysterious entity called Dust just might have the power to unite the universes--if it isn't destroyed first. The three books in Pullman's heroic fantasy series, published as mass-market paperbacks with new covers, are united here in one boxed set that includes The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. Join Lyra, Pantalaimon, Will, and the rest as they embark on the most breathtaking, heartbreaking adventure of their lives. The fate of the universe is in their hands. (Ages 13 and older)

== Criticism ==
Allegations of an atheist agenda present both in Pullman's writing as well as the film adaptation have been raised by numerous conservative groups. Reporting on the issue has ranged from mainstream news outlets like [[FOX News]] and [[CNN]] to left-leaning blogs like [http://2log.audienceoftwo.com/?blog_id=141 2log]. While Pullman has watered down his rhetoric before the release of his movie, his interviews over the years have not been as guarded. <blockquote> ""I'm a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people - mainly from America's Bible Belt - who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven't got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I've been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God."<ref>
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/philip_pullman_realizes_underm.html</ref></blockquote>

Brian Rittmeyer of the ''Pittsburgh Tribune-Review'' wrote:
*St. Alphonsus Catholic Church in Pine describes the movie as "atheism for kids," and Pullman as a "militant atheist and secular humanist" whose objective is to bash Christianity and "kill God in the minds of children."
*"While 'The Golden Compass' movie itself may seem mild and innocent, the books are a much different story," the church bulletin says. "Each book in the trilogy gets progressively worse regarding Pullman's hatred of Jesus Christ." <ref>http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_541577.html</ref>

It should be noted the books have drawn a level of support from Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], who believes the book series by Pullman can be used to help address the "inadequacies" of some religious education courses which only teach pupils about religious festivals, and not the deeper theological issues of Christianity. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/10/npull10.xml</ref> <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>.

==Feature film==
The film based on the first book of the trilogy grossed only $25,783,232 its opening weekend,<ref>http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goldencompass.htm</ref> however, as of May 6, 2008, its worldwide gross totaled only $371,494,868. The film cost an estimated $180 million to make.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Movies]]

User talk:LeopoldRex

2008-05-06T01:35:56Z

LeopoldRex:

LeopoldRex can you please not edit right now I am trying to condense this article -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 21:35, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
:Sure, I'll leave you to it. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 21:35, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Atheism

2008-05-06T01:35:10Z

LeopoldRex: /* Atheism and Questions of Origins */ and again

[[Image:Atheist-symbol.png‎|right|thumbnail|right|225px|An Atheist Symbol <ref>http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp</ref>]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref name="SEP">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref name="cw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>
The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]] at large which will be elaborated on shortly. In regards to individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered.
==Types of Atheism==
There different types of atheism, based on different answers to the following questions:
* What God or gods does the atheist deny?
* Why does the atheist deny?
* How does the atheist's denial manifest itself?
=== Which God or gods? ===
[[Image:Socrates.jpg|thumb|right|150px|The [[Greece|Greek]] philosopher [[Socrates]]]]
Since atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods, it is important first to identify in which God and/or gods the atheist denies. In ancient times, for example, Christians were accused of being atheists because of their denial of the pagan gods, even though they believed in the ''Christian'' God.<ref>Athenagoras, ''A Plea for the Christians, 2d century A.D.[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html]</ref> [[Socrates]] was also accused of Atheism, although references to God run throughout his recorded statements.<ref>Plato, Apol., 26,c.</ref> Also, [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Baruch Spinoza]] professed belief in "God," but they defined "God" as the cosmos as a whole, and without personality.
=== Why do the atheists state they disbelieve?===
Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of God and/or disbelief in God: the conviction that there is positive evidence or argument that God does not exist ([[Strong atheism]] which is also sometimes called positive atheism), and their claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted ([[Weak atheism]]).

=== Manifestations ===
There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:
* [[Militant atheism]] which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in [[Communism|Communist]] countries.
* Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, ''believing'' that God does not exist.
* Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, ''living'' as though God does not exist. <ref>Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] in his sermon ''A letter to American Christians'' spoke of "practical atheism".[http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln10117.html]</ref>
==Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism==
Since 1979 proponents of atheism have often been attempting to dilute the [[definition of atheism]] to mean a mere [[agnosticism|lack of belief]] there is a God or gods.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>
One of the reasons why some proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism is to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. <ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which is one of the principle websites for atheists, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet, states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." <ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is a merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered.<ref name="DivCon" /> The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref name="SEP" /><ref name="cw"/><ref name="DivCon" />

== Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism ==
[[Image:134t.gif|thumb|200px|left|The psalmist [[David]] wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"]]
The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ([[Genesis]] 1:1). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp</ref>

Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - [[Psalms]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])

The psalmist David also stated that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalms 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - [[Romans]] 1:19-20 (NKJV)

==Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent Atheist==
[[Image:Sartre1.gif|thumb|150px|right|[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]]]
The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:
{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.<ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|120px|left|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] which is a type of atheist.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref><ref>American Scientist May 1977:323</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

== Claims of the Conditionality and Nonconditionality of Atheism ==
[[Plato]] wrote that "Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not
compel them to the acknowledgment of a divine power."<ref name="ls">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&L=ads-l&P=15696</ref> Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for stating that "[[There Are No Atheists in Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]."<ref name="ls"/> Chaplain F.W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, stated "I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist. At least there isn't in a front line trench."<ref name="ls"/> On he other hand, the news organization MSNBC featured a story in which atheist veterans claimed that there are atheists in foxholes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/</ref>

==Atheism and [[Communism]] ==
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|[[Vladimir Lenin]]]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people," <ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html</ref> and also wrote: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction." <ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]]
The [[theory of evolution]] played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3054/</ref><ref name="icr">http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].<ref name="Lysenkoism">http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>. Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]]. <ref name="bb">http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.<ref name="bb"/> Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under Stalin and Mao caused famines and the death of millions.<ref name="Lysenkoism"/>.

The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref name="ny">http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref name="jjl">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref name="china">http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

In regards to atheism, [[North Korea]] is a repressive communist state and is officially atheistic.<ref>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IE12Dg01.html</ref> The North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="ny"/><ref name="jjl"/>

[[China]] is a communist country that is also officially atheistic.<ref>http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1253071</ref> In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "[[China]] has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of [[Bible]]s in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref name="china"/>

==Criticism==

===Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism ===
[[Image:Anselm.jpg|thumbnail|right|150px|[[Anselm of Canterbury]] was the originator of the [[ontological argument]]]]
In regards to theism vs. atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and have a number of arguments against atheism. [[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that [[First Cause]] is God.
* [[Ontological argument]]: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as [[Christian apologetics|Christian historical apologetics]] and archaeological evidence such as [[Bible Archaeology|Bible archaeology]];
* Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition. According to philosopher [[Alvin Plantinga]] belief in the existence of God exists is a "properly basic" belief and not based on inference from other beliefs but is rationally justified due to one's circumstances of immediate experience of God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth01.html</ref>
*[[Presuppositional Apologetics]]

===Christian Apologetics Specifically Addressing the Issue of Atheism===
In respect to [[Atheism and Christianity|atheism and Christianity]], while there have been numerous notable books by [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] addressing the various issues in regards to atheism and [[Christianity]] ([[Creation Science]], Bible Archaeology, etc.) there also number of books that have addressed the general issue of atheism in relation to Christianity. A notable book of this type is Dr. [[Norm Geisler]]'s and Frank Turek's book entitled ''[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist]]''.<ref>http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=1029</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38125</ref> In addition, two notable works were produced by [[Ravi Zacharias]] entitled ''A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism'' and ''Can Man Live Without God?''<ref>http://satisfiedinjesus.org/resources/reviews/pdf/Zacharias%20-%20The%20Real%20Face%20of%20Atheism.pdf</ref> Also, [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart coauthored a work entitled ''Understanding Secular Religions ''.<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref> Lastly, Alister McGrath wrote a book entitled ''The Twilight of Atheism''.<ref>http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/mcgratha.htm</ref>

===Atheism and Mass Murder===

[[Image:Stalin.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In respect to [[Atheism and Mass Murder|atheism and mass murder]], Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world.
There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."<ref name="Koukl">Koukl, Gregory, [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527 The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?], 1994</ref>
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes which advocated atheism.<ref name="Koukl" />

Koukl summarized by stating:
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.<ref name="Koukl" />}}
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|left|[[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]]]
[[Nobel Prize]] winner [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn stated the following in relation to atheism:
{{cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen [[Russia]]: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.''

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>}}

===Atheists in America and Charity===
In regards to [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|atheism and uncharitableness]], charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the [[Barna Group]]:
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.<ref>[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians] ''The Barna Update'', 2007.</ref>}}
[[Image:112006top.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Atheists and agnostics in America generally give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theists]].]]
Arthur C. Brooks wrote in ''Policy Review'' regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the [[Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]]):
{{cquote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.<ref>Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious faith and charitable giving] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.</ref>}}

ABC News reported the following in respect to atheism:
{{cquote|...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."<ref>Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina [http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2 Who Gives and Who Doesn't?] ABC News, November 28, 2006</ref>}}

===Atheism and Immoral Views===
In regards to [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]], the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]]. <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>

Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] states the following regarding the comments of debater Dr. [[Kai Nielson]] who advocates atheism:
{{cquote|He doesn’t really defend his point there, but he says, "I have a reason why we should be moral." He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." I was really surprised to hear that coming from him. That sort of purely self-interested motivation for morality is, I think, fatal to the atheistic position because for someone who is sufficiently powerful not to be worried about what others do, self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism. It leads to the kind of life of a Marcos, a Papa Doc Duvalier, a Mbbutu, and so forth. Self-interest will never be able to justify an ethic of compassion. And so I think that was a fatal admission on Dr. Nielsen’s part for the atheistic worldview.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen2.html</ref>}}

Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding atheism and [[Moral relativism|moral relativism]]:
{{cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] preached that a group of "supermen" must arise with the courage to create their own values through their "will to power." Nietzsche rejected the "soft" values of [[Christianity]] (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man's creativity and potential....
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Bertrand Russell]]]]
Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872-1970) once wrote, "Outside human desires there is no moral standard." [[A. J. Ayer]] believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one's subjective feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], a French [[existentialism|existentialist]], believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.

There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. [[Hedonism]] is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of [[Adolph Hitler]] as being evil.<ref>http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/refuting_moral_relativism.htm</ref>}}

===Atheism and Miracles===
In regards to [[Atheism and Miracles|atheism and miracles]], modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not [[David Hume]] was an atheist.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10</ref> With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.<ref name="cp">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation-providence.html</ref> Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[JP Holding]], and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume's position regarding miracles. <ref name="cp"/></ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html</ref><ref>http://www.ses.edu/journal/articles/2.1Hoffman.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html</ref><ref>http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html</ref> <ref>http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp</ref>

===Atheism and Questions of Origins===
''See Also'': [[Atheism and Evolution]]

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]].<ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have had the worldview of atheism.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert that the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref> In addition, they state that the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

== Reasonable Explanations for Atheism ==
''For More Information Please See'': [[Causes of Atheism]]

[[Image:Matthew-henry.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Matthew Henry]]]]
There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
* '''Rebellion:''' Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence<ref>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." —{{Bible ref|Romans|1|19-20|version=NKJV}}</ref>

*'''Moral depravity:''' Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527</ref><ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2</ref><ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> The [[Bible]] asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20gen%201:30%20;&version=49; (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)).] The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of [[Proverbs]] states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20proverbs%2014:16-18%20;&version=49; (Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)).] The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:19;&version=9; (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV))]. Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is [[deceit]]." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2014:8;&version=9; (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)).] Noted Bible commentator and clergyman [[Matthew Henry]] wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the [[earth|world]], is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the [[sun]]."<ref>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.ii.html</ref>
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|125px|left|Noted [[Ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]
*'''Superficiality:''' Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his [[Stanford]] professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.<ref name="vitz">Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of Atheism], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref>

* '''Error:''' Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts <ref>"A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." -- C.S. Lewis, ''Surprised by Joy''.</ref>

* '''State churches:''' Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118434936941966055.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

* '''Poor relationship with father:''' Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html</ref> Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.<ref name="vitz"/><ref>Anders, Kerby, [http://www.probe.org/content/view/36/91/ Atheists and Their Fathers] (Probe Ministries)</ref> Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.<ref name="vitz"/> Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref name="vitz"/>

* '''Division in religion''': According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." <ref name="pr">http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ofatheism.html</ref>

* '''Learned times, peace, and prosperity''': Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."<ref name="pr"/>
* '''Negative experiences with [[theism|theists]]'''

==Atheism and the Existence of Evil==
''For More Information Please See'': [[Atheism and the Problem of Evil]]

[[Image:Ron2.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Ron Rhodes]]
Those who advocate atheism commonly state that the existence of evil is a problem for [[theism]] which holds to a good and powerful God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html</ref> [[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of [[Job]] is used to explain the existence of evil.<ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref>The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref> Dr. [[Ron Rhodes]] of [[Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministry]] states regarding this issue regarding the existence of evil in relation to atheism:
{{cquote|...it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of [[Adolph Hitler|Hitler]]. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.<ref>http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and the Foundation of Modern Science==
[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|150px|In his essay ''Of Atheism'' Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."]]
The birth of modern [[science]] occurred in Christianized [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</ref>
[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] 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,<ref name="Origins">Williams, Alex,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ The biblical origins of science], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(2):49–52, August 2004.</ref> only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.<ref name="Origins" />
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote in his essay entitled ''Of Atheism'' the following: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>Bacon, Francis, [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html Of Atheism]</ref>

‎In ''False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science--it created it'' Stark writes in relation to atheism the following:
{{cquote|Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of [[Roman Empire|Rome]]. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian [[theology]].
Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot|Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html</ref>}}

Dr. Charles Thaxton states in relation to atheism the following:
{{cquote|P. E. Hodgson in reviewing [[Stanley Jaki]]'s ''Science and Creation'' said: "Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and Debate==
Although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of [[Atheism and Debate|atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism]]. Below are some examples which demonstrate the unreasonableness of atheist debaters.
===Doug Jesseph===

In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Doug Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> In 1996, [[John Horgan]] wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

===Gordon Stein===

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|150px|Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the ''man atheists fear most" due to Michael Martin's cancellation of their scheduled debate.]]
In 1985, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] and prominent proponent of atheism Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine regarding the positions of atheism and theism. [[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref>http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm</ref> The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>http://prosapologian.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/great-debates/</ref><ref>http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf</ref>

===Greg Bahnsen and Michael Martin===

Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the "man atheists fear most".<ref>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html</ref>
This is because [[Harvard]]-educated [[Michael Martin|Dr. Michael Martin]] was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the "eleventh hour".
A press release at the time said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that "...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, was..."<ref>Anon., [http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/press.htm Press Release]</ref>

Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html</ref>

=== Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates ===
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been holders of the world view of atheism.<ref>[[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Atheism and Debate|Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates]] and many debates have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]].

==Notable Incidences of Atheists Converting to Theism==
[[Image:Mlogo.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Ex-atheist [[Lee Strobel]]]]
In respect to the issue of [[ex-atheists]] there have been some notable incidences of atheists converting to [[theism]]. [[Lee Strobel]] converted from atheism to Christianity and then became a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]]. <ref name="disc">http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3884</ref> Before investigating the claims of Christianity Strobel had obtained a undergraduate degree in journalism and also obtained a law degree from Master of Studies in Law degree from [[Yale University|Yale]] Law School. Strobel was an award-winning legal editor of the [[Chicago Tribune]] also won [[Illinois]]’ top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from [[United Press International]].<ref name="disc"/> After a nearly a two year investigation of the evidence for Christianity Strobel became a Christian.<ref>http://www.leestrobel.com/LS_bio.htm</ref>

[[C.S. Lewis]] abandoned his atheism and became a Christian and he was very much influenced by the writings of [[George MacDonald]] and [[G. K. Chesterton]].<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n23_v47/ai_17863106</ref> In ''Surprised by Joy'' Lewis says: "''In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.''"<ref>'''Lewis''', ''Surprised by Joy'' op cit.</ref>

[[Britain|British]] philosopher [[Anthony Flew]] abandoned atheism and became an [[Deism|deist]] after as a result of the [[intelligent design]] issue. According to the news organization [[MSNBC]], Flew became a deist because he believed a super-intelligence was the only good explanation for the [[origin of life]] and the complexity of nature.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/</ref> In 2006, Flew and 12 prominent academics urged that intelligent design be taught in [[Britain|British]] government schools.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265412.ece?token=null&offset=12</ref>

The work of ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] is often cited in regards to atheism. As alluded to earlier, Dr. Vitz wrote the work ''Faith of the Fatherless''.

==Atheism and its Decline as a Theoretical Position==
According to Munich theologian [[Wolfhart Pannenberg]] "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide."<ref name="wt"> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html</ref> [[Oxford]] scholar [[Alister McGrath]] agrees and has stated that atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat."<ref name="wt"/>

== Views on Atheists ==

In regards to various [[Views on Atheists|views on atheists]], research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, those who hold the position of atheism are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:Richard_Dawkins.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] is listed as an enthusiastic bright by the [[Brights Movement]] website.]]
The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by [[Paul Geisert]] and [[Mynga Futrell]] in 2003 in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]].<ref name="fa">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1</ref> The Brights movement had a media campaign and was announced in [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] magazine (by evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]]), ''[[Free Inquiry]]'' (by Richard Dawkins), and on the ''[[New York Times]]'' op-ed page (by the philosopher and atheist [[Daniel Dennett]]).<ref name="fa"/> However, according to a 2004 ''[[Skeptical Enquirer]]'' article the movement the "Brights label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. Atheists already have a terrible rap for being coldhearted [[Rationalism|rationalists]] who attend [[Mensa]] gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref> In October of 2003 in a article in the ''[[Guardian]]'' Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref>

Chris Mooney wrote in his Skeptical Enquirer article the following:
{{cquote|..a recent attack on the Brights movement in The Wall Street Journal by the conservative thinker [[Dinesh D'Souza]] confirms my worst fears (D'Souza 2003). The article blithely ignores a key caveat that the Brights defenders have explicitly laid out-namely, that the label isn't meant to suggest that religious doubters are smarter than everyone else. But I actually think this misrepresentation ought to be blamed more on Dennett, Dawkins, and the original founders than on [[Dinesh D'Souza|D'Souza]]--for reasons I will explain.

In his original New York Times op-ed announcing the Brights label, Dennett wrote, "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: 'I'm a Bright' is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view." That's certainly nice in principle. But who did Dennett think he was kidding? How could anyone hear the label Bright and think anything but that atheists were claiming to be smarter than everyone else? As [[ABC News|ABC]] commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>}}

==New Atheism==
Dissent Magazine stated the following regarding the "[[New Atheism]]":
{{cquote|A number of prominent authors and scientists have published books in the past year that advocate a "New Atheism." The books, which include [[Daniel Dennett]]'s ''Breaking the Spell'', [[Richard Dawkins]]'s ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and [[Christopher Hitchens]]' ''God is Not Great'', have sparked considerable public controversy across the political spectrum.<ref>http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=928</ref>}}
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
Dr. [[Alfred Mohler Jr.]] describes some of the key attributes of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Now, WIRED magazine comes out with a cover story on atheism for its November 2006 issue. In "The New Atheism," WIRED contributing editor Gary Wolf explains that this newly assertive form of atheism declares a very simple message: "No heaven. No hell. Just science."...

Wolf accomplishes a great deal in his article, thoughtfully introducing the work of [[Militant atheism|militant atheists]] such as Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. At the same time, he probes more deeply into the actual meaning of the New Atheism as a movement and a message.

At the beginning of his article, he gets right to the point: "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking."<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21</ref>}}
===Impact of the New Atheism===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to atheism. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the [[Pew Forum]] on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progess by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

A prime reason for the ineffectiveness of the "New Atheism" is the shallowness of its material. For example, even atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] stated that that Richard Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'' made him "embarrassed to be an atheist".<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

The "New Atheism" largely has a unfavorable view outside the United States as well. The [[liberal]] leaning British publication the [[Guardian]] stated the following regarding the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...

These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and the Bible==
In respect to [[Atheism and the Bible|atheism and the Bible]], atheists and skeptics have been disputing the reliability of the [[Bible]] for centuries. Christian apologist [[JP Holding]] rightly states that [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and [[Bible Exposition|Bible exposition]] is a multi-disciplinary pursuit and often critics of the Bible have not done a fraction of the due diligence required when making a allegation regarding the Bible. JP Holding states the following:
{{cquote|Having now been engaged in apologetics for eight years actively and more years than that on the side, I have long since come to a conclusion that I have shared with others, but will now present in a systematic form here for the first time. My conclusion is a warning that is appropriate for any new readers (hence I link this article from my front page) and will be familiar to veteran ones.

I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.

It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrifutible Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html</ref>}}

Christian theologian and apologist [[Bernard Ramm]] wrote regarding the Bible and its critics the following in his often cited work ''Protestant Christian Evidences'':
{{cquote|A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put.

No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?

The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and studied by millions.<ref>http://www.why-the-bible.com/bible.htm</ref>}}

In regards to the proponents of atheism, Christian apologists have responded to their various claims that the Bible contains errors or contradictions.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/</ref><ref>http://www.inerrancy.org/</ref>

==Internet Infidels==
[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]]]
As mentioned previously [[Internet Infidels]] (also known as the Secular Web) is one of the principle websites for those who advocate atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] has stated regarding the website Internet Infidels the following: "The Secular Web has a few intelligent people, but overall has long been a haven for every skeptical know-it-all to pronounce judgments upon matters outside of their expertise."<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gerkin02.html</ref> Although JP Holding has written rebutals of the more well known members of the skeptical community such as [[David Hume]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html</ref>, [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nietzsche01.html</ref> and [[G.A. Wells]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wellsga01.html</ref>, Holding has also written rebuttals of lesser well known members of the secular community who publish and/or are featured on Internet Infidels such as:

*[[Earl Doherty]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.html</ref>
*[[Richard Carrier]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html</ref>
*[[Dan Barker]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-B.html</ref>
*[[Stephen Carr]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html</ref>
*[[Jeffery Jay Lowder]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-L.html</ref>
*[[Acharya S]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-A.html</ref>
*[[Kyle Gerkin]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-G.html</ref>
*Farrell Till <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html</ref>

==Atheism in Academia==
In 2001 atheist and [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Quentin Smith]] stated the following in respect to atheism:
{{cquote|[[Naturalism|Naturalists]] [atheists] passively watched as realist versions of theism … began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians…. God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."<ref>http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880</ref>}}

== Denials That Atheists Exist ==
[[Image:Vantil.gif|thumb|130px|right|Dr. Cornelius Van Til]]
Some have asserted that atheists do not exist. In regards to a biblical statement on atheism Sir [[Francis Bacon]] stated in his essay ''Of Atheism'' the following regarding atheism:
{{cquote|The [[Bible|Scripture]] saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man.<ref>http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html</ref>}}

In addition, Christian [[philosophy|philosophers]] and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] Dr. [[Cornelius Van Til]] and Dr. Greg Bahnsen argued there are no atheists and that atheists are actively suppressing their belief and knowledge of God and enigmatically engage in self-deception.<ref>http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA191.htm</ref> The [[England|English]] poet [[Edward Young]] wrote in his famous work ''Night Thoughts'' that "By night, an atheist half-believes a God."<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/100/224.html</ref>

The Christian Cyclopedia states regarding the atheism the following:
{{cquote|It is not possible for a man to be an atheist, in the commonly accepted sense, in his innermost conviction. No amount of reasoning will erase from the human heart the God-given conviction that there is a Supreme Being; those who theoretically deny God's existence replace Him with something else.<ref>http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=A&t2=t</ref>}}

== Atheist population as a percentage of various countries' populations==

''For more information please see'': [[Atheist Population]]

In regards to the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] as a percentage of various countries' populations, specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. A survey published in the 2005 ''[[Encyclopedia Britannica]]'' stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious."<ref>http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620</ref> In regards to the 2.3% figure just mentioned, the 2005 survey cited by ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' survey did not include [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] in regards to the 2.3% figure and Buddhism can be [[Theism|theistic]] or atheistic.<ref>http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm</ref><ref>http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620</ref>

== Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism ==
[[Image:Ncvjgfu.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Mao Zedong]]]]Prominent holders of the position of atheism and atheist schools of thought have been or include:
* Carvaka school: an atheistic and materialistic offshoot of [[Hinduism]] in the 6th century B.C.
* Samkhya school: an atheistic school of classical Indian philosophy, originating in the 6th century B.C.
* [[Diagoras]]: Greek philosopher who denied the existence of the Greek pantheon
* [[Lucretius]]: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that man should not believe in the gods because their ideas about the gods and their fear of death made men unhappy
* [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]: Prominent 19th century atheist philosopher
* [[Mao Zedong]]: Chinese Communist leader
* [[Benito Mussolini]]
* [[Paul Kurtz]]: founder of the Council of [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Bertrand Russell]]
* [[Ayn Rand]]
* [[Isaac Asimov]]
* [[John Dewey]]
* [[Douglas Adams]]
* [[Ernest Hemingway]]

==Atheism Quotes==

''For more atheism quotes please see'': [[Atheism Quotes]]

*"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the Earth at the right distance from the Sun to receive proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." - Sir [[Isaac Newton]]<ref>http://www.heavenly-light.com/</ref>

*"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir [[Isaac Newton]]<ref>http://www.fundamentalapologetics.org/Biographies%20of%20Great%20Scientists.pdf</ref>

*"The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]] and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Theory of evolution|materialistic theories of origins]]." - [[John Calvert]], [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] leader<ref>http://www.ohiointelligentdesign.com/Newsviews.html</ref>

[[Image:Raphael.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Plato]]]]
*"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." - [[Plato]]<ref>http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/atheism_is_a_disease_of_the_soul-before_it/166811.html</ref>

*"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - [[Francis Thompson]]<ref>http://www.afcministry.com/Atheism_Examined.htm</ref>

*"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability." - [[Voltaire]]<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volathe2.html</ref>

*"Atheists put on false courage and alcacrity in the midst of their darkness and aprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark, will sing for fear." - [[Alexander Pope]] <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=cs4eAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=atheists+and+%22alexander+pope%22+and+%22false+courage%22&source=web&ots=Fx7SL7Z7UB&sig=mYdRm6hkdBkmsF_uJW9mPv3JRhE</ref>

*"An atheist’s most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something,but can’t think of anyone to thank for it." - [[Mary Anne Vincent]] <ref>http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/quotes_by_author_uv.htm</ref>

*If there were no God there would be no atheists." - [[G. K. Chesterton]] (1874 - 1936) <ref>http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/atheism/</ref>

*"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - [[Heywood Broun]]

* "Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." - [[Tom Stoppard]]<ref>http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/atheismquotes.htm</ref>

*"I gave in, and admitted that God was God." - ex-atheist [[C.S. Lewis]], On relinquishing atheism at age 31 in 1929<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/95/4195.html</ref>

*"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Sir [[Francis Bacon]] <ref name="jjj">http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/atheism_quotes.html</ref>

*In his essay rebutting a work of atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]] [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] wrote the following: "...I find that there is no such thing as "reasonable nonbelief." The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective "reasonable"."<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lowdstrob.html</ref>

*"An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident." — [[Francis Thompson]]<ref>http://forthardknox.com/2007/06/02/the-10-best-quotes-to-counter-an-atheist/</ref>

[[Image:Joseph-addison-3-sized.jpg‎|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Joseph Addison]]]]
*"To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to recieve all the great truths which atheism would deny." - [[Joseph Addison]], The Spectator, Mar. 8, 1711 <ref name="jjj"/>

*"It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan." - [[Calvin Coolidge]], speech, Jul. 25, 1924 <ref name="jjj"/>

*"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?" - [[John Updike]] <ref name="jjk">http://www.just-quotes.com/atheism_quotes.html</ref>

*"God never wrought miracles to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it." - Sir [[Francis Bacon]] <ref name="jjk"/>

*"The habit of arguing in support of atheism, whether it be done from conviction or in pretense, is a wicked and impious practice." - Marcus Tullius [[Cicero]] (106–43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher, statesman<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/66/50/12450.html</ref>

*"How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." — Source Unknown <ref>http://forthardknox.com/2007/06/02/the-10-best-quotes-to-counter-an-atheist/</ref>

*"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays." - [[Henny Youngman]]<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/79/4779.html</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Second generation atheist]]
*[[Agnosticism]]
*[[History of Atheism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]]

==Online Videos Regarding Atheism==
*[[Online Videos Regarding Atheism]]

==External links==
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html Atheism and the Scientific Community]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2008-05-06T01:34:23Z

LeopoldRex: /* Atheism and Questions of Origins */ Remove unsourced editorial comment

[[Image:Atheist-symbol.png‎|right|thumbnail|right|225px|An Atheist Symbol <ref>http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp</ref>]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref name="SEP">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref name="cw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>
The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]] at large which will be elaborated on shortly. In regards to individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered.
==Types of Atheism==
There different types of atheism, based on different answers to the following questions:
* What God or gods does the atheist deny?
* Why does the atheist deny?
* How does the atheist's denial manifest itself?
=== Which God or gods? ===
[[Image:Socrates.jpg|thumb|right|150px|The [[Greece|Greek]] philosopher [[Socrates]]]]
Since atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods, it is important first to identify in which God and/or gods the atheist denies. In ancient times, for example, Christians were accused of being atheists because of their denial of the pagan gods, even though they believed in the ''Christian'' God.<ref>Athenagoras, ''A Plea for the Christians, 2d century A.D.[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html]</ref> [[Socrates]] was also accused of Atheism, although references to God run throughout his recorded statements.<ref>Plato, Apol., 26,c.</ref> Also, [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Baruch Spinoza]] professed belief in "God," but they defined "God" as the cosmos as a whole, and without personality.
=== Why do the atheists state they disbelieve?===
Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of God and/or disbelief in God: the conviction that there is positive evidence or argument that God does not exist ([[Strong atheism]] which is also sometimes called positive atheism), and their claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted ([[Weak atheism]]).

=== Manifestations ===
There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:
* [[Militant atheism]] which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in [[Communism|Communist]] countries.
* Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, ''believing'' that God does not exist.
* Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, ''living'' as though God does not exist. <ref>Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] in his sermon ''A letter to American Christians'' spoke of "practical atheism".[http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln10117.html]</ref>
==Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism==
Since 1979 proponents of atheism have often been attempting to dilute the [[definition of atheism]] to mean a mere [[agnosticism|lack of belief]] there is a God or gods.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>
One of the reasons why some proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism is to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. <ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which is one of the principle websites for atheists, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet, states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." <ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is a merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered.<ref name="DivCon" /> The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref name="SEP" /><ref name="cw"/><ref name="DivCon" />

== Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism ==
[[Image:134t.gif|thumb|200px|left|The psalmist [[David]] wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"]]
The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ([[Genesis]] 1:1). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp</ref>

Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - [[Psalms]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])

The psalmist David also stated that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalms 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - [[Romans]] 1:19-20 (NKJV)

==Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent Atheist==
[[Image:Sartre1.gif|thumb|150px|right|[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]]]
The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:
{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.<ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|120px|left|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] which is a type of atheist.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref><ref>American Scientist May 1977:323</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

== Claims of the Conditionality and Nonconditionality of Atheism ==
[[Plato]] wrote that "Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not
compel them to the acknowledgment of a divine power."<ref name="ls">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&L=ads-l&P=15696</ref> Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for stating that "[[There Are No Atheists in Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]."<ref name="ls"/> Chaplain F.W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, stated "I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist. At least there isn't in a front line trench."<ref name="ls"/> On he other hand, the news organization MSNBC featured a story in which atheist veterans claimed that there are atheists in foxholes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/</ref>

==Atheism and [[Communism]] ==
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|[[Vladimir Lenin]]]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people," <ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html</ref> and also wrote: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction." <ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]]
The [[theory of evolution]] played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3054/</ref><ref name="icr">http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].<ref name="Lysenkoism">http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>. Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]]. <ref name="bb">http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.<ref name="bb"/> Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under Stalin and Mao caused famines and the death of millions.<ref name="Lysenkoism"/>.

The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref name="ny">http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref name="jjl">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref name="china">http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

In regards to atheism, [[North Korea]] is a repressive communist state and is officially atheistic.<ref>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IE12Dg01.html</ref> The North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="ny"/><ref name="jjl"/>

[[China]] is a communist country that is also officially atheistic.<ref>http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1253071</ref> In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "[[China]] has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of [[Bible]]s in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref name="china"/>

==Criticism==

===Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism ===
[[Image:Anselm.jpg|thumbnail|right|150px|[[Anselm of Canterbury]] was the originator of the [[ontological argument]]]]
In regards to theism vs. atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and have a number of arguments against atheism. [[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that [[First Cause]] is God.
* [[Ontological argument]]: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as [[Christian apologetics|Christian historical apologetics]] and archaeological evidence such as [[Bible Archaeology|Bible archaeology]];
* Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition. According to philosopher [[Alvin Plantinga]] belief in the existence of God exists is a "properly basic" belief and not based on inference from other beliefs but is rationally justified due to one's circumstances of immediate experience of God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth01.html</ref>
*[[Presuppositional Apologetics]]

===Christian Apologetics Specifically Addressing the Issue of Atheism===
In respect to [[Atheism and Christianity|atheism and Christianity]], while there have been numerous notable books by [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] addressing the various issues in regards to atheism and [[Christianity]] ([[Creation Science]], Bible Archaeology, etc.) there also number of books that have addressed the general issue of atheism in relation to Christianity. A notable book of this type is Dr. [[Norm Geisler]]'s and Frank Turek's book entitled ''[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist]]''.<ref>http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=1029</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38125</ref> In addition, two notable works were produced by [[Ravi Zacharias]] entitled ''A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism'' and ''Can Man Live Without God?''<ref>http://satisfiedinjesus.org/resources/reviews/pdf/Zacharias%20-%20The%20Real%20Face%20of%20Atheism.pdf</ref> Also, [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart coauthored a work entitled ''Understanding Secular Religions ''.<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref> Lastly, Alister McGrath wrote a book entitled ''The Twilight of Atheism''.<ref>http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/mcgratha.htm</ref>

===Atheism and Mass Murder===

[[Image:Stalin.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In respect to [[Atheism and Mass Murder|atheism and mass murder]], Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world.
There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."<ref name="Koukl">Koukl, Gregory, [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527 The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?], 1994</ref>
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes which advocated atheism.<ref name="Koukl" />

Koukl summarized by stating:
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.<ref name="Koukl" />}}
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|left|[[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]]]
[[Nobel Prize]] winner [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn stated the following in relation to atheism:
{{cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen [[Russia]]: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.''

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>}}

===Atheists in America and Charity===
In regards to [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|atheism and uncharitableness]], charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the [[Barna Group]]:
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.<ref>[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians] ''The Barna Update'', 2007.</ref>}}
[[Image:112006top.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Atheists and agnostics in America generally give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theists]].]]
Arthur C. Brooks wrote in ''Policy Review'' regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the [[Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]]):
{{cquote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.<ref>Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious faith and charitable giving] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.</ref>}}

ABC News reported the following in respect to atheism:
{{cquote|...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."<ref>Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina [http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2 Who Gives and Who Doesn't?] ABC News, November 28, 2006</ref>}}

===Atheism and Immoral Views===
In regards to [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]], the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]]. <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>

Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] states the following regarding the comments of debater Dr. [[Kai Nielson]] who advocates atheism:
{{cquote|He doesn’t really defend his point there, but he says, "I have a reason why we should be moral." He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." I was really surprised to hear that coming from him. That sort of purely self-interested motivation for morality is, I think, fatal to the atheistic position because for someone who is sufficiently powerful not to be worried about what others do, self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism. It leads to the kind of life of a Marcos, a Papa Doc Duvalier, a Mbbutu, and so forth. Self-interest will never be able to justify an ethic of compassion. And so I think that was a fatal admission on Dr. Nielsen’s part for the atheistic worldview.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen2.html</ref>}}

Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding atheism and [[Moral relativism|moral relativism]]:
{{cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] preached that a group of "supermen" must arise with the courage to create their own values through their "will to power." Nietzsche rejected the "soft" values of [[Christianity]] (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man's creativity and potential....
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Bertrand Russell]]]]
Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872-1970) once wrote, "Outside human desires there is no moral standard." [[A. J. Ayer]] believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one's subjective feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], a French [[existentialism|existentialist]], believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.

There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. [[Hedonism]] is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of [[Adolph Hitler]] as being evil.<ref>http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/refuting_moral_relativism.htm</ref>}}

===Atheism and Miracles===
In regards to [[Atheism and Miracles|atheism and miracles]], modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not [[David Hume]] was an atheist.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10</ref> With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.<ref name="cp">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation-providence.html</ref> Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[JP Holding]], and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume's position regarding miracles. <ref name="cp"/></ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html</ref><ref>http://www.ses.edu/journal/articles/2.1Hoffman.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html</ref><ref>http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html</ref> <ref>http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp</ref>

===Atheism and Questions of Origins===
''See Also'': [[Atheism and Evolution]]

[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]].<ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have had the worldview of atheism.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert that the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref> In addition, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

== Reasonable Explanations for Atheism ==
''For More Information Please See'': [[Causes of Atheism]]

[[Image:Matthew-henry.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Matthew Henry]]]]
There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
* '''Rebellion:''' Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence<ref>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." —{{Bible ref|Romans|1|19-20|version=NKJV}}</ref>

*'''Moral depravity:''' Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527</ref><ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2</ref><ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> The [[Bible]] asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20gen%201:30%20;&version=49; (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)).] The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of [[Proverbs]] states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20proverbs%2014:16-18%20;&version=49; (Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)).] The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:19;&version=9; (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV))]. Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is [[deceit]]." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2014:8;&version=9; (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)).] Noted Bible commentator and clergyman [[Matthew Henry]] wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the [[earth|world]], is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the [[sun]]."<ref>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.ii.html</ref>
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|125px|left|Noted [[Ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]
*'''Superficiality:''' Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his [[Stanford]] professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.<ref name="vitz">Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of Atheism], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref>

* '''Error:''' Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts <ref>"A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." -- C.S. Lewis, ''Surprised by Joy''.</ref>

* '''State churches:''' Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118434936941966055.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

* '''Poor relationship with father:''' Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html</ref> Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.<ref name="vitz"/><ref>Anders, Kerby, [http://www.probe.org/content/view/36/91/ Atheists and Their Fathers] (Probe Ministries)</ref> Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.<ref name="vitz"/> Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref name="vitz"/>

* '''Division in religion''': According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." <ref name="pr">http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ofatheism.html</ref>

* '''Learned times, peace, and prosperity''': Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."<ref name="pr"/>
* '''Negative experiences with [[theism|theists]]'''

==Atheism and the Existence of Evil==
''For More Information Please See'': [[Atheism and the Problem of Evil]]

[[Image:Ron2.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Ron Rhodes]]
Those who advocate atheism commonly state that the existence of evil is a problem for [[theism]] which holds to a good and powerful God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html</ref> [[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of [[Job]] is used to explain the existence of evil.<ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref>The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref> Dr. [[Ron Rhodes]] of [[Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministry]] states regarding this issue regarding the existence of evil in relation to atheism:
{{cquote|...it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of [[Adolph Hitler|Hitler]]. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.<ref>http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and the Foundation of Modern Science==
[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|150px|In his essay ''Of Atheism'' Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."]]
The birth of modern [[science]] occurred in Christianized [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</ref>
[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] 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,<ref name="Origins">Williams, Alex,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ The biblical origins of science], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(2):49–52, August 2004.</ref> only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.<ref name="Origins" />
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote in his essay entitled ''Of Atheism'' the following: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>Bacon, Francis, [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html Of Atheism]</ref>

‎In ''False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science--it created it'' Stark writes in relation to atheism the following:
{{cquote|Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of [[Roman Empire|Rome]]. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian [[theology]].
Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot|Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html</ref>}}

Dr. Charles Thaxton states in relation to atheism the following:
{{cquote|P. E. Hodgson in reviewing [[Stanley Jaki]]'s ''Science and Creation'' said: "Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and Debate==
Although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of [[Atheism and Debate|atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism]]. Below are some examples which demonstrate the unreasonableness of atheist debaters.
===Doug Jesseph===

In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Doug Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> In 1996, [[John Horgan]] wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

===Gordon Stein===

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|150px|Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the ''man atheists fear most" due to Michael Martin's cancellation of their scheduled debate.]]
In 1985, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] and prominent proponent of atheism Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine regarding the positions of atheism and theism. [[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref>http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm</ref> The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>http://prosapologian.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/great-debates/</ref><ref>http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf</ref>

===Greg Bahnsen and Michael Martin===

Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the "man atheists fear most".<ref>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html</ref>
This is because [[Harvard]]-educated [[Michael Martin|Dr. Michael Martin]] was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the "eleventh hour".
A press release at the time said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that "...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, was..."<ref>Anon., [http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/press.htm Press Release]</ref>

Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html</ref>

=== Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates ===
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been holders of the world view of atheism.<ref>[[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Atheism and Debate|Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates]] and many debates have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]].

==Notable Incidences of Atheists Converting to Theism==
[[Image:Mlogo.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Ex-atheist [[Lee Strobel]]]]
In respect to the issue of [[ex-atheists]] there have been some notable incidences of atheists converting to [[theism]]. [[Lee Strobel]] converted from atheism to Christianity and then became a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]]. <ref name="disc">http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3884</ref> Before investigating the claims of Christianity Strobel had obtained a undergraduate degree in journalism and also obtained a law degree from Master of Studies in Law degree from [[Yale University|Yale]] Law School. Strobel was an award-winning legal editor of the [[Chicago Tribune]] also won [[Illinois]]’ top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from [[United Press International]].<ref name="disc"/> After a nearly a two year investigation of the evidence for Christianity Strobel became a Christian.<ref>http://www.leestrobel.com/LS_bio.htm</ref>

[[C.S. Lewis]] abandoned his atheism and became a Christian and he was very much influenced by the writings of [[George MacDonald]] and [[G. K. Chesterton]].<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n23_v47/ai_17863106</ref> In ''Surprised by Joy'' Lewis says: "''In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.''"<ref>'''Lewis''', ''Surprised by Joy'' op cit.</ref>

[[Britain|British]] philosopher [[Anthony Flew]] abandoned atheism and became an [[Deism|deist]] after as a result of the [[intelligent design]] issue. According to the news organization [[MSNBC]], Flew became a deist because he believed a super-intelligence was the only good explanation for the [[origin of life]] and the complexity of nature.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/</ref> In 2006, Flew and 12 prominent academics urged that intelligent design be taught in [[Britain|British]] government schools.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265412.ece?token=null&offset=12</ref>

The work of ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] is often cited in regards to atheism. As alluded to earlier, Dr. Vitz wrote the work ''Faith of the Fatherless''.

==Atheism and its Decline as a Theoretical Position==
According to Munich theologian [[Wolfhart Pannenberg]] "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide."<ref name="wt"> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html</ref> [[Oxford]] scholar [[Alister McGrath]] agrees and has stated that atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat."<ref name="wt"/>

== Views on Atheists ==

In regards to various [[Views on Atheists|views on atheists]], research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, those who hold the position of atheism are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:Richard_Dawkins.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] is listed as an enthusiastic bright by the [[Brights Movement]] website.]]
The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by [[Paul Geisert]] and [[Mynga Futrell]] in 2003 in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]].<ref name="fa">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1</ref> The Brights movement had a media campaign and was announced in [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] magazine (by evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]]), ''[[Free Inquiry]]'' (by Richard Dawkins), and on the ''[[New York Times]]'' op-ed page (by the philosopher and atheist [[Daniel Dennett]]).<ref name="fa"/> However, according to a 2004 ''[[Skeptical Enquirer]]'' article the movement the "Brights label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. Atheists already have a terrible rap for being coldhearted [[Rationalism|rationalists]] who attend [[Mensa]] gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref> In October of 2003 in a article in the ''[[Guardian]]'' Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref>

Chris Mooney wrote in his Skeptical Enquirer article the following:
{{cquote|..a recent attack on the Brights movement in The Wall Street Journal by the conservative thinker [[Dinesh D'Souza]] confirms my worst fears (D'Souza 2003). The article blithely ignores a key caveat that the Brights defenders have explicitly laid out-namely, that the label isn't meant to suggest that religious doubters are smarter than everyone else. But I actually think this misrepresentation ought to be blamed more on Dennett, Dawkins, and the original founders than on [[Dinesh D'Souza|D'Souza]]--for reasons I will explain.

In his original New York Times op-ed announcing the Brights label, Dennett wrote, "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: 'I'm a Bright' is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view." That's certainly nice in principle. But who did Dennett think he was kidding? How could anyone hear the label Bright and think anything but that atheists were claiming to be smarter than everyone else? As [[ABC News|ABC]] commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>}}

==New Atheism==
Dissent Magazine stated the following regarding the "[[New Atheism]]":
{{cquote|A number of prominent authors and scientists have published books in the past year that advocate a "New Atheism." The books, which include [[Daniel Dennett]]'s ''Breaking the Spell'', [[Richard Dawkins]]'s ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and [[Christopher Hitchens]]' ''God is Not Great'', have sparked considerable public controversy across the political spectrum.<ref>http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=928</ref>}}
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
Dr. [[Alfred Mohler Jr.]] describes some of the key attributes of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Now, WIRED magazine comes out with a cover story on atheism for its November 2006 issue. In "The New Atheism," WIRED contributing editor Gary Wolf explains that this newly assertive form of atheism declares a very simple message: "No heaven. No hell. Just science."...

Wolf accomplishes a great deal in his article, thoughtfully introducing the work of [[Militant atheism|militant atheists]] such as Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. At the same time, he probes more deeply into the actual meaning of the New Atheism as a movement and a message.

At the beginning of his article, he gets right to the point: "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking."<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21</ref>}}
===Impact of the New Atheism===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to atheism. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the [[Pew Forum]] on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progess by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

A prime reason for the ineffectiveness of the "New Atheism" is the shallowness of its material. For example, even atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] stated that that Richard Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'' made him "embarrassed to be an atheist".<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

The "New Atheism" largely has a unfavorable view outside the United States as well. The [[liberal]] leaning British publication the [[Guardian]] stated the following regarding the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...

These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and the Bible==
In respect to [[Atheism and the Bible|atheism and the Bible]], atheists and skeptics have been disputing the reliability of the [[Bible]] for centuries. Christian apologist [[JP Holding]] rightly states that [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and [[Bible Exposition|Bible exposition]] is a multi-disciplinary pursuit and often critics of the Bible have not done a fraction of the due diligence required when making a allegation regarding the Bible. JP Holding states the following:
{{cquote|Having now been engaged in apologetics for eight years actively and more years than that on the side, I have long since come to a conclusion that I have shared with others, but will now present in a systematic form here for the first time. My conclusion is a warning that is appropriate for any new readers (hence I link this article from my front page) and will be familiar to veteran ones.

I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.

It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrifutible Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html</ref>}}

Christian theologian and apologist [[Bernard Ramm]] wrote regarding the Bible and its critics the following in his often cited work ''Protestant Christian Evidences'':
{{cquote|A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put.

No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?

The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and studied by millions.<ref>http://www.why-the-bible.com/bible.htm</ref>}}

In regards to the proponents of atheism, Christian apologists have responded to their various claims that the Bible contains errors or contradictions.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/</ref><ref>http://www.inerrancy.org/</ref>

==Internet Infidels==
[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]]]
As mentioned previously [[Internet Infidels]] (also known as the Secular Web) is one of the principle websites for those who advocate atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] has stated regarding the website Internet Infidels the following: "The Secular Web has a few intelligent people, but overall has long been a haven for every skeptical know-it-all to pronounce judgments upon matters outside of their expertise."<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gerkin02.html</ref> Although JP Holding has written rebutals of the more well known members of the skeptical community such as [[David Hume]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html</ref>, [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nietzsche01.html</ref> and [[G.A. Wells]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wellsga01.html</ref>, Holding has also written rebuttals of lesser well known members of the secular community who publish and/or are featured on Internet Infidels such as:

*[[Earl Doherty]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.html</ref>
*[[Richard Carrier]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html</ref>
*[[Dan Barker]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-B.html</ref>
*[[Stephen Carr]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html</ref>
*[[Jeffery Jay Lowder]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-L.html</ref>
*[[Acharya S]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-A.html</ref>
*[[Kyle Gerkin]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-G.html</ref>
*Farrell Till <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html</ref>

==Atheism in Academia==
In 2001 atheist and [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Quentin Smith]] stated the following in respect to atheism:
{{cquote|[[Naturalism|Naturalists]] [atheists] passively watched as realist versions of theism … began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians…. God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."<ref>http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880</ref>}}

== Denials That Atheists Exist ==
[[Image:Vantil.gif|thumb|130px|right|Dr. Cornelius Van Til]]
Some have asserted that atheists do not exist. In regards to a biblical statement on atheism Sir [[Francis Bacon]] stated in his essay ''Of Atheism'' the following regarding atheism:
{{cquote|The [[Bible|Scripture]] saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man.<ref>http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html</ref>}}

In addition, Christian [[philosophy|philosophers]] and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] Dr. [[Cornelius Van Til]] and Dr. Greg Bahnsen argued there are no atheists and that atheists are actively suppressing their belief and knowledge of God and enigmatically engage in self-deception.<ref>http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA191.htm</ref> The [[England|English]] poet [[Edward Young]] wrote in his famous work ''Night Thoughts'' that "By night, an atheist half-believes a God."<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/100/224.html</ref>

The Christian Cyclopedia states regarding the atheism the following:
{{cquote|It is not possible for a man to be an atheist, in the commonly accepted sense, in his innermost conviction. No amount of reasoning will erase from the human heart the God-given conviction that there is a Supreme Being; those who theoretically deny God's existence replace Him with something else.<ref>http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=A&t2=t</ref>}}

== Atheist population as a percentage of various countries' populations==

''For more information please see'': [[Atheist Population]]

In regards to the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] as a percentage of various countries' populations, specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. A survey published in the 2005 ''[[Encyclopedia Britannica]]'' stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious."<ref>http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620</ref> In regards to the 2.3% figure just mentioned, the 2005 survey cited by ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' survey did not include [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] in regards to the 2.3% figure and Buddhism can be [[Theism|theistic]] or atheistic.<ref>http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm</ref><ref>http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620</ref>

== Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism ==
[[Image:Ncvjgfu.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Mao Zedong]]]]Prominent holders of the position of atheism and atheist schools of thought have been or include:
* Carvaka school: an atheistic and materialistic offshoot of [[Hinduism]] in the 6th century B.C.
* Samkhya school: an atheistic school of classical Indian philosophy, originating in the 6th century B.C.
* [[Diagoras]]: Greek philosopher who denied the existence of the Greek pantheon
* [[Lucretius]]: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that man should not believe in the gods because their ideas about the gods and their fear of death made men unhappy
* [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]: Prominent 19th century atheist philosopher
* [[Mao Zedong]]: Chinese Communist leader
* [[Benito Mussolini]]
* [[Paul Kurtz]]: founder of the Council of [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Bertrand Russell]]
* [[Ayn Rand]]
* [[Isaac Asimov]]
* [[John Dewey]]
* [[Douglas Adams]]
* [[Ernest Hemingway]]

==Atheism Quotes==

''For more atheism quotes please see'': [[Atheism Quotes]]

*"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the Earth at the right distance from the Sun to receive proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." - Sir [[Isaac Newton]]<ref>http://www.heavenly-light.com/</ref>

*"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir [[Isaac Newton]]<ref>http://www.fundamentalapologetics.org/Biographies%20of%20Great%20Scientists.pdf</ref>

*"The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]] and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Theory of evolution|materialistic theories of origins]]." - [[John Calvert]], [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] leader<ref>http://www.ohiointelligentdesign.com/Newsviews.html</ref>

[[Image:Raphael.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Plato]]]]
*"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." - [[Plato]]<ref>http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/atheism_is_a_disease_of_the_soul-before_it/166811.html</ref>

*"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - [[Francis Thompson]]<ref>http://www.afcministry.com/Atheism_Examined.htm</ref>

*"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability." - [[Voltaire]]<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volathe2.html</ref>

*"Atheists put on false courage and alcacrity in the midst of their darkness and aprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark, will sing for fear." - [[Alexander Pope]] <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=cs4eAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=atheists+and+%22alexander+pope%22+and+%22false+courage%22&source=web&ots=Fx7SL7Z7UB&sig=mYdRm6hkdBkmsF_uJW9mPv3JRhE</ref>

*"An atheist’s most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something,but can’t think of anyone to thank for it." - [[Mary Anne Vincent]] <ref>http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/quotes_by_author_uv.htm</ref>

*If there were no God there would be no atheists." - [[G. K. Chesterton]] (1874 - 1936) <ref>http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/atheism/</ref>

*"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - [[Heywood Broun]]

* "Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." - [[Tom Stoppard]]<ref>http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/atheismquotes.htm</ref>

*"I gave in, and admitted that God was God." - ex-atheist [[C.S. Lewis]], On relinquishing atheism at age 31 in 1929<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/95/4195.html</ref>

*"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Sir [[Francis Bacon]] <ref name="jjj">http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/atheism_quotes.html</ref>

*In his essay rebutting a work of atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]] [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] wrote the following: "...I find that there is no such thing as "reasonable nonbelief." The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective "reasonable"."<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lowdstrob.html</ref>

*"An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident." — [[Francis Thompson]]<ref>http://forthardknox.com/2007/06/02/the-10-best-quotes-to-counter-an-atheist/</ref>

[[Image:Joseph-addison-3-sized.jpg‎|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Joseph Addison]]]]
*"To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to recieve all the great truths which atheism would deny." - [[Joseph Addison]], The Spectator, Mar. 8, 1711 <ref name="jjj"/>

*"It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan." - [[Calvin Coolidge]], speech, Jul. 25, 1924 <ref name="jjj"/>

*"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?" - [[John Updike]] <ref name="jjk">http://www.just-quotes.com/atheism_quotes.html</ref>

*"God never wrought miracles to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it." - Sir [[Francis Bacon]] <ref name="jjk"/>

*"The habit of arguing in support of atheism, whether it be done from conviction or in pretense, is a wicked and impious practice." - Marcus Tullius [[Cicero]] (106–43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher, statesman<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/66/50/12450.html</ref>

*"How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." — Source Unknown <ref>http://forthardknox.com/2007/06/02/the-10-best-quotes-to-counter-an-atheist/</ref>

*"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays." - [[Henny Youngman]]<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/79/4779.html</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Second generation atheist]]
*[[Agnosticism]]
*[[History of Atheism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]]

==Online Videos Regarding Atheism==
*[[Online Videos Regarding Atheism]]

==External links==
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html Atheism and the Scientific Community]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2008-05-06T01:33:17Z

LeopoldRex: /* Atheism and Questions of Origins */

[[Image:Atheist-symbol.png‎|right|thumbnail|right|225px|An Atheist Symbol <ref>http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp</ref>]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref name="SEP">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref name="cw">http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>
The atheistic worldview has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]] at large which will be elaborated on shortly. In regards to individuals adopting an atheistic worldview, atheism has a number of causal factors that influence its origination in individuals which will be addressed. In addition, critiques of atheism will be offered and some of the historical events relating to atheism will also be covered.
==Types of Atheism==
There different types of atheism, based on different answers to the following questions:
* What God or gods does the atheist deny?
* Why does the atheist deny?
* How does the atheist's denial manifest itself?
=== Which God or gods? ===
[[Image:Socrates.jpg|thumb|right|150px|The [[Greece|Greek]] philosopher [[Socrates]]]]
Since atheism is denial of the existence of God or gods, it is important first to identify in which God and/or gods the atheist denies. In ancient times, for example, Christians were accused of being atheists because of their denial of the pagan gods, even though they believed in the ''Christian'' God.<ref>Athenagoras, ''A Plea for the Christians, 2d century A.D.[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/athenagoras-plea.html]</ref> [[Socrates]] was also accused of Atheism, although references to God run throughout his recorded statements.<ref>Plato, Apol., 26,c.</ref> Also, [[Albert Einstein]] and [[Baruch Spinoza]] professed belief in "God," but they defined "God" as the cosmos as a whole, and without personality.
=== Why do the atheists state they disbelieve?===
Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of God and/or disbelief in God: the conviction that there is positive evidence or argument that God does not exist ([[Strong atheism]] which is also sometimes called positive atheism), and their claim that theists bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted ([[Weak atheism]]).

=== Manifestations ===
There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:
* [[Militant atheism]] which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in [[Communism|Communist]] countries.
* Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, ''believing'' that God does not exist.
* Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, ''living'' as though God does not exist. <ref>Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] in his sermon ''A letter to American Christians'' spoke of "practical atheism".[http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln10117.html]</ref>
==Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism==
Since 1979 proponents of atheism have often been attempting to dilute the [[definition of atheism]] to mean a mere [[agnosticism|lack of belief]] there is a God or gods.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>
One of the reasons why some proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism is to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God. <ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which is one of the principle websites for atheists, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet, states that "I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." <ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is a merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered.<ref name="DivCon" /> The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref name="SEP" /><ref name="cw"/><ref name="DivCon" />

== Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism ==
[[Image:134t.gif|thumb|200px|left|The psalmist [[David]] wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"]]
The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ([[Genesis]] 1:1). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp</ref>

Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - [[Psalms]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])

The psalmist David also stated that "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalms 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - [[Romans]] 1:19-20 (NKJV)

==Tenuousness of Atheism in Prominent Atheist==
[[Image:Sartre1.gif|thumb|150px|right|[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]]]
The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading proponents of atheism of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:
{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.<ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|120px|left|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] which is a type of atheist.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref><ref>American Scientist May 1977:323</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

== Claims of the Conditionality and Nonconditionality of Atheism ==
[[Plato]] wrote that "Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not
compel them to the acknowledgment of a divine power."<ref name="ls">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&L=ads-l&P=15696</ref> Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for stating that "[[There Are No Atheists in Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]."<ref name="ls"/> Chaplain F.W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, stated "I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist. At least there isn't in a front line trench."<ref name="ls"/> On he other hand, the news organization MSNBC featured a story in which atheist veterans claimed that there are atheists in foxholes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/</ref>

==Atheism and [[Communism]] ==
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|[[Vladimir Lenin]]]]
[[Karl Marx]] said "[Religion] is the opium of the people," <ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html</ref> and also wrote: "[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction." <ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]]
The [[theory of evolution]] played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3054/</ref><ref name="icr">http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].<ref name="Lysenkoism">http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>. Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]]. <ref name="bb">http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.<ref name="bb"/> Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under Stalin and Mao caused famines and the death of millions.<ref name="Lysenkoism"/>.

The atheism in [[communism|communist]] regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref name="ny">http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref name="jjl">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref name="china">http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

In regards to atheism, [[North Korea]] is a repressive communist state and is officially atheistic.<ref>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IE12Dg01.html</ref> The North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean [[Christianity|Christians]].<ref name="ny"/><ref name="jjl"/>

[[China]] is a communist country that is also officially atheistic.<ref>http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1253071</ref> In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "[[China]] has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of [[Bible]]s in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref name="china"/>

==Criticism==

===Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism ===
[[Image:Anselm.jpg|thumbnail|right|150px|[[Anselm of Canterbury]] was the originator of the [[ontological argument]]]]
In regards to theism vs. atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and have a number of arguments against atheism. [[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that [[First Cause]] is God.
* [[Ontological argument]]: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God. For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as [[Christian apologetics|Christian historical apologetics]] and archaeological evidence such as [[Bible Archaeology|Bible archaeology]];
* Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition. According to philosopher [[Alvin Plantinga]] belief in the existence of God exists is a "properly basic" belief and not based on inference from other beliefs but is rationally justified due to one's circumstances of immediate experience of God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth01.html</ref>
*[[Presuppositional Apologetics]]

===Christian Apologetics Specifically Addressing the Issue of Atheism===
In respect to [[Atheism and Christianity|atheism and Christianity]], while there have been numerous notable books by [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] addressing the various issues in regards to atheism and [[Christianity]] ([[Creation Science]], Bible Archaeology, etc.) there also number of books that have addressed the general issue of atheism in relation to Christianity. A notable book of this type is Dr. [[Norm Geisler]]'s and Frank Turek's book entitled ''[[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist]]''.<ref>http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=1029</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38125</ref> In addition, two notable works were produced by [[Ravi Zacharias]] entitled ''A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism'' and ''Can Man Live Without God?''<ref>http://satisfiedinjesus.org/resources/reviews/pdf/Zacharias%20-%20The%20Real%20Face%20of%20Atheism.pdf</ref> Also, [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart coauthored a work entitled ''Understanding Secular Religions ''.<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref> Lastly, Alister McGrath wrote a book entitled ''The Twilight of Atheism''.<ref>http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/mcgratha.htm</ref>

===Atheism and Mass Murder===

[[Image:Stalin.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.]]
In respect to [[Atheism and Mass Murder|atheism and mass murder]], Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world.
There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."<ref name="Koukl">Koukl, Gregory, [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527 The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?], 1994</ref>
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes which advocated atheism.<ref name="Koukl" />

Koukl summarized by stating:
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.<ref name="Koukl" />}}
[[Image:Solzhenitsyn.jpg‎|thumb|150px|left|[[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]]]
[[Nobel Prize]] winner [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]] was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn stated the following in relation to atheism:
{{cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen [[Russia]]: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.''

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>}}

===Atheists in America and Charity===
In regards to [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|atheism and uncharitableness]], charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the [[Barna Group]]:
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.<ref>[http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians] ''The Barna Update'', 2007.</ref>}}
[[Image:112006top.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Atheists and agnostics in America generally give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theists]].]]
Arthur C. Brooks wrote in ''Policy Review'' regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the [[Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]]):
{{cquote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.<ref>Brooks, Arthur C., [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious faith and charitable giving] ''Policy Review'', Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.</ref>}}

ABC News reported the following in respect to atheism:
{{cquote|...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."<ref>Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina [http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2 Who Gives and Who Doesn't?] ABC News, November 28, 2006</ref>}}

===Atheism and Immoral Views===
In regards to [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]], the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]]. <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>

Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] states the following regarding the comments of debater Dr. [[Kai Nielson]] who advocates atheism:
{{cquote|He doesn’t really defend his point there, but he says, "I have a reason why we should be moral." He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." I was really surprised to hear that coming from him. That sort of purely self-interested motivation for morality is, I think, fatal to the atheistic position because for someone who is sufficiently powerful not to be worried about what others do, self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism. It leads to the kind of life of a Marcos, a Papa Doc Duvalier, a Mbbutu, and so forth. Self-interest will never be able to justify an ethic of compassion. And so I think that was a fatal admission on Dr. Nielsen’s part for the atheistic worldview.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen2.html</ref>}}

Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding atheism and [[Moral relativism|moral relativism]]:
{{cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] preached that a group of "supermen" must arise with the courage to create their own values through their "will to power." Nietzsche rejected the "soft" values of [[Christianity]] (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man's creativity and potential....
[[Image:998086u.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Bertrand Russell]]]]
Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872-1970) once wrote, "Outside human desires there is no moral standard." [[A. J. Ayer]] believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one's subjective feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], a French [[existentialism|existentialist]], believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.

There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. [[Hedonism]] is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of [[Adolph Hitler]] as being evil.<ref>http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/refuting_moral_relativism.htm</ref>}}

===Atheism and Miracles===
In regards to [[Atheism and Miracles|atheism and miracles]], modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not [[David Hume]] was an atheist.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10</ref> With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.<ref name="cp">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation-providence.html</ref> Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[JP Holding]], and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume's position regarding miracles. <ref name="cp"/></ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html</ref><ref>http://www.ses.edu/journal/articles/2.1Hoffman.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html</ref><ref>http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html</ref> <ref>http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp</ref>

===Atheism and Questions of Origins===
''See Also'': [[Atheism and Evolution]]

Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]].<ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have had the worldview of atheism.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert that the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref> In addition, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

== Reasonable Explanations for Atheism ==
''For More Information Please See'': [[Causes of Atheism]]

[[Image:Matthew-henry.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Matthew Henry]]]]
There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
* '''Rebellion:''' Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence<ref>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." —{{Bible ref|Romans|1|19-20|version=NKJV}}</ref>

*'''Moral depravity:''' Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527</ref><ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref><ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2</ref><ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> The [[Bible]] asserts that "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20gen%201:30%20;&version=49; (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)).] The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of [[Proverbs]] states: "A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge."[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20proverbs%2014:16-18%20;&version=49; (Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)).] The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: "The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:19;&version=9; (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV))]. Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: "The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is [[deceit]]." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2014:8;&version=9; (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)).] Noted Bible commentator and clergyman [[Matthew Henry]] wrote regarding atheism: "A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the [[earth|world]], is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the [[sun]]."<ref>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1.ii.html</ref>
[[Image:DrVitz.jpg|thumbnail|125px|left|Noted [[Ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]]]]
*'''Superficiality:''' Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his [[Stanford]] professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.<ref name="vitz">Vitz, Paul, [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/vitz.txt The Psychology of Atheism], September 24, 1997 (lecture notes taken by an audience member).</ref>

* '''Error:''' Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts <ref>"A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." -- C.S. Lewis, ''Surprised by Joy''.</ref>

* '''State churches:''' Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118434936941966055.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

* '''Poor relationship with father:''' Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html</ref> Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled ''Faith of the Fatherless'' in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.<ref name="vitz"/><ref>Anders, Kerby, [http://www.probe.org/content/view/36/91/ Atheists and Their Fathers] (Probe Ministries)</ref> Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.<ref name="vitz"/> Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.<ref name="vitz"/>

* '''Division in religion''': According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." <ref name="pr">http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ofatheism.html</ref>

* '''Learned times, peace, and prosperity''': Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."<ref name="pr"/>
* '''Negative experiences with [[theism|theists]]'''

==Atheism and the Existence of Evil==
''For More Information Please See'': [[Atheism and the Problem of Evil]]

[[Image:Ron2.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|Dr. Ron Rhodes]]
Those who advocate atheism commonly state that the existence of evil is a problem for [[theism]] which holds to a good and powerful God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html</ref> [[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of [[Job]] is used to explain the existence of evil.<ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref>The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref> Dr. [[Ron Rhodes]] of [[Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministry]] states regarding this issue regarding the existence of evil in relation to atheism:
{{cquote|...it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of [[Adolph Hitler|Hitler]]. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.<ref>http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and the Foundation of Modern Science==
[[Image:Bacon5.jpg|thumb|right|150px|In his essay ''Of Atheism'' Sir [[Francis Bacon]] wrote: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."]]
The birth of modern [[science]] occurred in Christianized [[Europe]].<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</ref>
[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] 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,<ref name="Origins">Williams, Alex,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ The biblical origins of science], ''Journal of Creation'' 18(2):49–52, August 2004.</ref> only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.<ref name="Origins" />
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as "the Father of Modern Science", wrote in his essay entitled ''Of Atheism'' the following: "I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind."<ref>Bacon, Francis, [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html Of Atheism]</ref>

‎In ''False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science--it created it'' Stark writes in relation to atheism the following:
{{cquote|Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of [[Roman Empire|Rome]]. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian [[theology]].
Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like [[Voltaire]], [[Denis Diderot|Diderot]], and [[Edward Gibbon|Gibbon]], who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3274629/False-conflict-Christianity-is-not.html</ref>}}

Dr. Charles Thaxton states in relation to atheism the following:
{{cquote|P. E. Hodgson in reviewing [[Stanley Jaki]]'s ''Science and Creation'' said: "Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century."<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth17.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and Debate==
Although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of [[Atheism and Debate|atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism]]. Below are some examples which demonstrate the unreasonableness of atheist debaters.
===Doug Jesseph===

In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism "the most impressive debater to date" was [[Doug Jesseph]].<ref>http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html</ref> Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the [[origin of life]] had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html</ref> In 1996, [[John Horgan]] wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"<ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg</ref>

===Gordon Stein===

[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|150px|Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the ''man atheists fear most" due to Michael Martin's cancellation of their scheduled debate.]]
In 1985, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] and prominent proponent of atheism Gordon Stein had a debate at the University of California, Irvine regarding the positions of atheism and theism. [[John Frame]] wrote regarding the debate in which Dr. Bahnsen used the [[transcendental argument for the existence of God]] that "In the end, Stein walked and talked like a broken man."<ref>http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm</ref> The Greg Bahnsen-Gordon Stein debate was recorded and transcribed and was dubbed "The Great Debate".<ref>http://prosapologian.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/great-debates/</ref><ref>http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf</ref>

===Greg Bahnsen and Michael Martin===

Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the "man atheists fear most".<ref>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html</ref>
This is because [[Harvard]]-educated [[Michael Martin|Dr. Michael Martin]] was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the "eleventh hour".
A press release at the time said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that "...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, was..."<ref>Anon., [http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/press.htm Press Release]</ref>

Martin later released his [[transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] (TANG) in 1996 which was rebutted by Christian apologists.<ref>http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/martin_TAG.html</ref>

=== Creation Scientists tend to win creation-evolution debates ===
As noted earlier, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been holders of the world view of atheism.<ref>[[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Atheism and Debate|Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates]] and many debates have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]].

==Notable Incidences of Atheists Converting to Theism==
[[Image:Mlogo.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Ex-atheist [[Lee Strobel]]]]
In respect to the issue of [[ex-atheists]] there have been some notable incidences of atheists converting to [[theism]]. [[Lee Strobel]] converted from atheism to Christianity and then became a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]]. <ref name="disc">http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3884</ref> Before investigating the claims of Christianity Strobel had obtained a undergraduate degree in journalism and also obtained a law degree from Master of Studies in Law degree from [[Yale University|Yale]] Law School. Strobel was an award-winning legal editor of the [[Chicago Tribune]] also won [[Illinois]]’ top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from [[United Press International]].<ref name="disc"/> After a nearly a two year investigation of the evidence for Christianity Strobel became a Christian.<ref>http://www.leestrobel.com/LS_bio.htm</ref>

[[C.S. Lewis]] abandoned his atheism and became a Christian and he was very much influenced by the writings of [[George MacDonald]] and [[G. K. Chesterton]].<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n23_v47/ai_17863106</ref> In ''Surprised by Joy'' Lewis says: "''In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.''"<ref>'''Lewis''', ''Surprised by Joy'' op cit.</ref>

[[Britain|British]] philosopher [[Anthony Flew]] abandoned atheism and became an [[Deism|deist]] after as a result of the [[intelligent design]] issue. According to the news organization [[MSNBC]], Flew became a deist because he believed a super-intelligence was the only good explanation for the [[origin of life]] and the complexity of nature.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/</ref> In 2006, Flew and 12 prominent academics urged that intelligent design be taught in [[Britain|British]] government schools.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1265412.ece?token=null&offset=12</ref>

The work of ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. [[Paul Vitz]] is often cited in regards to atheism. As alluded to earlier, Dr. Vitz wrote the work ''Faith of the Fatherless''.

==Atheism and its Decline as a Theoretical Position==
According to Munich theologian [[Wolfhart Pannenberg]] "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide."<ref name="wt"> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html</ref> [[Oxford]] scholar [[Alister McGrath]] agrees and has stated that atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat."<ref name="wt"/>

== Views on Atheists ==

In regards to various [[Views on Atheists|views on atheists]], research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, those who hold the position of atheism are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

==Brights Movement==
[[Image:Richard_Dawkins.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] is listed as an enthusiastic bright by the [[Brights Movement]] website.]]
The [[Brights Movement]] was started in 2003 by [[Paul Geisert]] and [[Mynga Futrell]] in 2003 in order to assist in the advocacy of a [[Naturalism|naturalistic worldview]].<ref name="fa">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_1</ref><ref>http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html#1</ref> The Brights movement had a media campaign and was announced in [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] magazine (by evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]]), ''[[Free Inquiry]]'' (by Richard Dawkins), and on the ''[[New York Times]]'' op-ed page (by the philosopher and atheist [[Daniel Dennett]]).<ref name="fa"/> However, according to a 2004 ''[[Skeptical Enquirer]]'' article the movement the "Brights label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. Atheists already have a terrible rap for being coldhearted [[Rationalism|rationalists]] who attend [[Mensa]] gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_3</ref> In October of 2003 in a article in the ''[[Guardian]]'' Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.<ref>http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html</ref>

Chris Mooney wrote in his Skeptical Enquirer article the following:
{{cquote|..a recent attack on the Brights movement in The Wall Street Journal by the conservative thinker [[Dinesh D'Souza]] confirms my worst fears (D'Souza 2003). The article blithely ignores a key caveat that the Brights defenders have explicitly laid out-namely, that the label isn't meant to suggest that religious doubters are smarter than everyone else. But I actually think this misrepresentation ought to be blamed more on Dennett, Dawkins, and the original founders than on [[Dinesh D'Souza|D'Souza]]--for reasons I will explain.

In his original New York Times op-ed announcing the Brights label, Dennett wrote, "Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: 'I'm a Bright' is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view." That's certainly nice in principle. But who did Dennett think he was kidding? How could anyone hear the label Bright and think anything but that atheists were claiming to be smarter than everyone else? As [[ABC News|ABC]] commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090211/pg_2</ref>}}

==New Atheism==
Dissent Magazine stated the following regarding the "[[New Atheism]]":
{{cquote|A number of prominent authors and scientists have published books in the past year that advocate a "New Atheism." The books, which include [[Daniel Dennett]]'s ''Breaking the Spell'', [[Richard Dawkins]]'s ''[[The God Delusion]]'', and [[Christopher Hitchens]]' ''God is Not Great'', have sparked considerable public controversy across the political spectrum.<ref>http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=928</ref>}}
[[Image:Mohler.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.]]
Dr. [[Alfred Mohler Jr.]] describes some of the key attributes of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Now, WIRED magazine comes out with a cover story on atheism for its November 2006 issue. In "The New Atheism," WIRED contributing editor Gary Wolf explains that this newly assertive form of atheism declares a very simple message: "No heaven. No hell. Just science."...

Wolf accomplishes a great deal in his article, thoughtfully introducing the work of [[Militant atheism|militant atheists]] such as Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. At the same time, he probes more deeply into the actual meaning of the New Atheism as a movement and a message.

At the beginning of his article, he gets right to the point: "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking."<ref>http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21</ref>}}
===Impact of the New Atheism===
The "New Atheism" has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to atheism. In a March 10, 2008 [[USA Today]] article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the [[Pew Forum]] on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.

For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion.

Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....<ref>American Faith: A Work In Progess by Stephen Prothero, USA Today, March 10, 2008, page 11A</ref>}}

A prime reason for the ineffectiveness of the "New Atheism" is the shallowness of its material. For example, even atheist philosopher [[Michael Ruse]] stated that that Richard Dawkins' book ''The God Delusion'' made him "embarrassed to be an atheist".<ref name="TDD3">http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/?page=3</ref>

The "New Atheism" largely has a unfavorable view outside the United States as well. The [[liberal]] leaning British publication the [[Guardian]] stated the following regarding the "New Atheism":
{{cquote|Anti-[[faith]] proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure...

These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html</ref>}}

==Atheism and the Bible==
In respect to [[Atheism and the Bible|atheism and the Bible]], atheists and skeptics have been disputing the reliability of the [[Bible]] for centuries. Christian apologist [[JP Holding]] rightly states that [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and [[Bible Exposition|Bible exposition]] is a multi-disciplinary pursuit and often critics of the Bible have not done a fraction of the due diligence required when making a allegation regarding the Bible. JP Holding states the following:
{{cquote|Having now been engaged in apologetics for eight years actively and more years than that on the side, I have long since come to a conclusion that I have shared with others, but will now present in a systematic form here for the first time. My conclusion is a warning that is appropriate for any new readers (hence I link this article from my front page) and will be familiar to veteran ones.

I'll sum it up to begin: Whenever you run across any person who criticizes the Bible, claims findings of contradiction or error -- they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have to earn it from you. Here's why.

It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields....

Not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrifutible Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. (By this, I do not mean emotional or behavioral contempt, but a calculated disregard for their work from an academic perspective.) They have not even come close to deserving our attention, and should feed only itching ears with similar tastes.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html</ref>}}

Christian theologian and apologist [[Bernard Ramm]] wrote regarding the Bible and its critics the following in his often cited work ''Protestant Christian Evidences'':
{{cquote|A thousand times over, the death knell of the Bible has been sounded, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tombstone, and committal read. But somehow the corpse never stays put.

No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?

The Bible is still loved by millions, read by millions, and studied by millions.<ref>http://www.why-the-bible.com/bible.htm</ref>}}

In regards to the proponents of atheism, Christian apologists have responded to their various claims that the Bible contains errors or contradictions.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/</ref><ref>http://www.inerrancy.org/</ref>

==Internet Infidels==
[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]]]
As mentioned previously [[Internet Infidels]] (also known as the Secular Web) is one of the principle websites for those who advocate atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] has stated regarding the website Internet Infidels the following: "The Secular Web has a few intelligent people, but overall has long been a haven for every skeptical know-it-all to pronounce judgments upon matters outside of their expertise."<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gerkin02.html</ref> Although JP Holding has written rebutals of the more well known members of the skeptical community such as [[David Hume]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html</ref>, [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nietzsche01.html</ref> and [[G.A. Wells]]<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wellsga01.html</ref>, Holding has also written rebuttals of lesser well known members of the secular community who publish and/or are featured on Internet Infidels such as:

*[[Earl Doherty]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.html</ref>
*[[Richard Carrier]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html</ref>
*[[Dan Barker]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-B.html</ref>
*[[Stephen Carr]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-C.html</ref>
*[[Jeffery Jay Lowder]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-L.html</ref>
*[[Acharya S]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-A.html</ref>
*[[Kyle Gerkin]] <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-G.html</ref>
*Farrell Till <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html</ref>

==Atheism in Academia==
In 2001 atheist and [[Philosophy|philosopher]] [[Quentin Smith]] stated the following in respect to atheism:
{{cquote|[[Naturalism|Naturalists]] [atheists] passively watched as realist versions of theism … began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians…. God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the 1960's and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."<ref>http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880</ref>}}

== Denials That Atheists Exist ==
[[Image:Vantil.gif|thumb|130px|right|Dr. Cornelius Van Til]]
Some have asserted that atheists do not exist. In regards to a biblical statement on atheism Sir [[Francis Bacon]] stated in his essay ''Of Atheism'' the following regarding atheism:
{{cquote|The [[Bible|Scripture]] saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it, by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it....It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man.<ref>http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html</ref>}}

In addition, Christian [[philosophy|philosophers]] and [[Christian apologetics|apologists]] Dr. [[Cornelius Van Til]] and Dr. Greg Bahnsen argued there are no atheists and that atheists are actively suppressing their belief and knowledge of God and enigmatically engage in self-deception.<ref>http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA191.htm</ref> The [[England|English]] poet [[Edward Young]] wrote in his famous work ''Night Thoughts'' that "By night, an atheist half-believes a God."<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/100/224.html</ref>

The Christian Cyclopedia states regarding the atheism the following:
{{cquote|It is not possible for a man to be an atheist, in the commonly accepted sense, in his innermost conviction. No amount of reasoning will erase from the human heart the God-given conviction that there is a Supreme Being; those who theoretically deny God's existence replace Him with something else.<ref>http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=A&t2=t</ref>}}

== Atheist population as a percentage of various countries' populations==

''For more information please see'': [[Atheist Population]]

In regards to the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] as a percentage of various countries' populations, specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. A survey published in the 2005 ''[[Encyclopedia Britannica]]'' stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious."<ref>http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620</ref> In regards to the 2.3% figure just mentioned, the 2005 survey cited by ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' survey did not include [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] in regards to the 2.3% figure and Buddhism can be [[Theism|theistic]] or atheistic.<ref>http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm</ref><ref>http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620</ref>

== Other Well Known Proponents of Atheism ==
[[Image:Ncvjgfu.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Mao Zedong]]]]Prominent holders of the position of atheism and atheist schools of thought have been or include:
* Carvaka school: an atheistic and materialistic offshoot of [[Hinduism]] in the 6th century B.C.
* Samkhya school: an atheistic school of classical Indian philosophy, originating in the 6th century B.C.
* [[Diagoras]]: Greek philosopher who denied the existence of the Greek pantheon
* [[Lucretius]]: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that man should not believe in the gods because their ideas about the gods and their fear of death made men unhappy
* [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]: Prominent 19th century atheist philosopher
* [[Mao Zedong]]: Chinese Communist leader
* [[Benito Mussolini]]
* [[Paul Kurtz]]: founder of the Council of [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Bertrand Russell]]
* [[Ayn Rand]]
* [[Isaac Asimov]]
* [[John Dewey]]
* [[Douglas Adams]]
* [[Ernest Hemingway]]

==Atheism Quotes==

''For more atheism quotes please see'': [[Atheism Quotes]]

*"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the Earth at the right distance from the Sun to receive proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." - Sir [[Isaac Newton]]<ref>http://www.heavenly-light.com/</ref>

*"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Sir [[Isaac Newton]]<ref>http://www.fundamentalapologetics.org/Biographies%20of%20Great%20Scientists.pdf</ref>

*"The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]] and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Theory of evolution|materialistic theories of origins]]." - [[John Calvert]], [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] leader<ref>http://www.ohiointelligentdesign.com/Newsviews.html</ref>

[[Image:Raphael.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Plato]]]]
*"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." - [[Plato]]<ref>http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/atheism_is_a_disease_of_the_soul-before_it/166811.html</ref>

*"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - [[Francis Thompson]]<ref>http://www.afcministry.com/Atheism_Examined.htm</ref>

*"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability." - [[Voltaire]]<ref>http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volathe2.html</ref>

*"Atheists put on false courage and alcacrity in the midst of their darkness and aprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark, will sing for fear." - [[Alexander Pope]] <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=cs4eAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383&dq=atheists+and+%22alexander+pope%22+and+%22false+courage%22&source=web&ots=Fx7SL7Z7UB&sig=mYdRm6hkdBkmsF_uJW9mPv3JRhE</ref>

*"An atheist’s most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something,but can’t think of anyone to thank for it." - [[Mary Anne Vincent]] <ref>http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/quotes_by_author_uv.htm</ref>

*If there were no God there would be no atheists." - [[G. K. Chesterton]] (1874 - 1936) <ref>http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/atheism/</ref>

*"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist there is no God." - [[Heywood Broun]]

* "Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God." - [[Tom Stoppard]]<ref>http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/atheismquotes.htm</ref>

*"I gave in, and admitted that God was God." - ex-atheist [[C.S. Lewis]], On relinquishing atheism at age 31 in 1929<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/95/4195.html</ref>

*"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Sir [[Francis Bacon]] <ref name="jjj">http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/atheism_quotes.html</ref>

*In his essay rebutting a work of atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]] [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] wrote the following: "...I find that there is no such thing as "reasonable nonbelief." The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective "reasonable"."<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lowdstrob.html</ref>

*"An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident." — [[Francis Thompson]]<ref>http://forthardknox.com/2007/06/02/the-10-best-quotes-to-counter-an-atheist/</ref>

[[Image:Joseph-addison-3-sized.jpg‎|right|thumbnail|175px|[[Joseph Addison]]]]
*"To be an atheist requires an indefinitely greater measure of faith than to recieve all the great truths which atheism would deny." - [[Joseph Addison]], The Spectator, Mar. 8, 1711 <ref name="jjj"/>

*"It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan." - [[Calvin Coolidge]], speech, Jul. 25, 1924 <ref name="jjj"/>

*"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?" - [[John Updike]] <ref name="jjk">http://www.just-quotes.com/atheism_quotes.html</ref>

*"God never wrought miracles to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it." - Sir [[Francis Bacon]] <ref name="jjk"/>

*"The habit of arguing in support of atheism, whether it be done from conviction or in pretense, is a wicked and impious practice." - Marcus Tullius [[Cicero]] (106–43 B.C.), Roman orator, philosopher, statesman<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/66/50/12450.html</ref>

*"How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." — Source Unknown <ref>http://forthardknox.com/2007/06/02/the-10-best-quotes-to-counter-an-atheist/</ref>

*"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays." - [[Henny Youngman]]<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/63/79/4779.html</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Second generation atheist]]
*[[Agnosticism]]
*[[History of Atheism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]]

==Online Videos Regarding Atheism==
*[[Online Videos Regarding Atheism]]

==External links==
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/atheism.html Atheism and the Scientific Community]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Debate:Is War Murder?

2008-05-06T01:30:23Z

LeopoldRex: /* Yes */

{{Debate}}
What is war? As defined by the American Heratige Dictionary as being:

"n. 
1. 
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. 
b. The period of such conflict. 
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. 
d. A condition of active antagonism or contention: ''a war of words; a price war.'' 
e. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: ''the war against acid rain.'' 
2. 
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: ''a war of words; a price war.'' 
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: ''the war against acid rain.''

Is it murder?

==Yes==
War is nothing more than two countries that chose to kill each other over something stupid like land or religion. Wars is shooting people and ending people's lives. Isn't that murder? It is not considered murder because it is our enemies that are dead. But let's look at that for one second. That is someone's child dead. A mother's baby that was just killed. If that happens to an American solder, people dispise the Iraqui troops because a mother is crying because she has just lost her baby. However, when an Iraqui solder dies, fighting for what they believe in, we do not care, although their mother is crying in pain because her baby is not alive either. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]
:Murder has a technical legal meaning. Not all killing is murder. A soldier who kills on the battlefield in accordance with his rules of engagement cannot (generally) be guilty of murder. If you meant to ask if war was a bad thing, then the answer is yes. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 21:30, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Trust

2008-05-06T00:35:04Z

LeopoldRex:

A '''trust''' is a legal device used to manage real or personal property, established by one person (granter or settler) for the benefit of another (beneficiary). See also [[trustee]].

The trust is the most important innovation of [[Equity|equity]]. A trust is an arrangement whereby one person (the trustee) may hold the legal title to property on behalf of another person (the beneficiary) who holds the equitable title. A trust does not interfere with the legal position; at law the title is held by the trustee in the normal way. However, equity recognizes that the trustee does not hold the title for his or her own benefit and the benefits of the ownership will accrue to the beneficiary.

In the [[United States]] a trust is also defined as any sort of business dealing in which the end result in a total monopoly of a single industry. These types of trusts arose around the mid-19th century and proceeded to strangle the U.S. economy for approximately fifty years before serious federal laws (now referred to as antitrust laws) were enacted to fight them. Corporations broken up or fined under antitrust laws include U.S. Steel, AT&T, and Microsoft.
[[Category:Law]]

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-05-03T06:19:01Z

LeopoldRex: /* No */

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Octopus

2008-05-02T04:58:37Z

LeopoldRex: Correct plural

The '''octopus''' is one of a number of kinds of predatory marine [[cephalopod]] [[mollusc]]s, found in the warmer seas of the world.

Generally less actively swimming than their fellow cephalopods [[squid]] and [[cuttlefish]], octopi have eight suckered [[tentacle]]s used for attachment to rocks and to prey. To move, it may pull itself over the sea bed with its tentacles, but when in a hurry, it shoots a jet of water out of its body, thrusting it through the water.

Octopodes use [[chromatophore]]s to perfectly camouflage themselves against their background. When threatened, they can eject a cloud of ink to mask their escape.

Octopodes are highly intelligent, and are capable of opening jars-up to four at once-and solving simple jigsaw puzzles. They can compress their bodies to fit through minute apertures.

Octopodes, having engulfed their prey in their arms, inject it with venom, and some, such as the blue-ringed octopus of Australia are highly poisonous and are capable of killing a man with their bite.

The existence of giant a Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus, on a scale similar to the [[giant squid]], has been suspected for many years, but no verified specimens have yet been captured.

Octopodes are a popular seafood especially in [[Mediterranean]] cuisine, though must be cooked carefully to avoid their flesh becoming rubbery.

[[Category:Molluscs]]
[[Category:Seafood]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-23T01:06:52Z

LeopoldRex: /* Criticism */ Removed inaccurate editorialising

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in violation of the [[First Amendment]]<ref>Stein told O'Reilly, "This whole problem is about violation of the First Amendment. There are many scientists - many - who have been expelled from their jobs, who have had their web sites shut down, who have been denied grants [or] tenure because they wanted to question the limits and boundaries of Darwinism ... that's not how society has progressed." </ref> in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is co-written and hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film argues that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

==Summary==

Opponents of [[intelligent design]] have ulterior motives for suppressing any presentation of ID in classrooms or scientific journals, based on the the theory's ideological implications. If ID is true, naturalistic evolution is false, which removes the ground on which one of the most successful arguments for atheism is built. Thus, advocacy for atheism is one motive to suppress ID.

* Atheists are not the only ideological opponents of ID. [[Answers in Genesis]] has criticized the intelligent design movement for its failure to endorse Biblical [[Creationism]], although it "supports the ID movement’s efforts to promote academic freedom and to question evolution." <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp</ref>

The scientific establishment has erected a wall between [[Darwinism]] and all other alternate explanations, similar to the [[Berlin Wall]] which the Communists erected to prevent communication and movement within the city. Rather than permit students to be exposed to weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary doctrine, the establishment suppresses alternate ideas and destroys the careers of academics and even journalists who openly question it.

The film shows how opposition to ID is chiefly based on fervent (almost rabid) support for atheism and materialism. ID says that a purely naturalistic explanation of the first appearance of life is not as likely as the idea that it was designed. This leads ideologically to questions about an Intelligent Designer with supernatural powers, just as surely as Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" leads to [[Social Darwinsm]] and [[Eugenics]].

* Those who are horrified at the [[Holocaust]] perpetrated by the Nazis condemn Darwinism for provided Hitler with ideological justification for his "[[Final Solution]]".

* Those who are horrified at the prospect of a Creator condemn Intelligent Design for providing [[Young Earth Creationists]] with ideological justification for their beliefs, too.

Thus it become difficult to separate science from its social or political implications.

==Darwinism==

The movie describes Darwinism as a brilliant theory for the 19th century, when no one had any idea of the structure of the cell. In the 21st century, when we know how complex it is, ID proponents "would just like to be able to ask the questions". (Stein on O'Reilly)

Stein asks why modern scientists can't have the same freedom to believe in God as [[Einstein]], [[Newton]], and [[Darwin]] himself.

==About intelligent design itself==

Ben Stein told Bill O'Reilly,

: Intelligent design is an attempt to fill in the gaps; it might be totally wrong. [http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php film trailer]

==Eugenics==

The film shows the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]]. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied [[anthropology]] and [[paleontology]] and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The [[Nazi]] racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with [[genocide]]."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

*One academic says in the film, "While I would never want to indict a theory for how someone misused it ... [yet] views of human nature that lower our estimation of what we are have consequences to how people treat each other." [http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16681&category_id=778]

*Steven C. Meyer said, "In Darwinism there's a denial of any intrinsic dignity for human persons. We are the result of undirected natural processes that did not have us in mind"<ref>Meyer is alluding to a statement by Harvard paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]].</ref>

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film were heavily critical of its premise. [[Evolutionist]] Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called it "bizarre and hysterical",<ref>[http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it. ''[[Time magazine]]'', in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticized the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and even made claims of trying to "sneak ID into schools".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

[[NCSE]] used the film's release to launch a fresh attack on ID, repeatedly calling it "creationism" as part of their strategy to demonize scientific critiques of evolution. The gist of their defense of Caroline Crocker's dismissal was (1) she wasn't "fired" (because that means only immediate termination in their book) but merely let go at the end of the semester; and (2) each mention of intelligent design in class was an unauthorized addition to the curriculum. Apparently, only pro-evolution information is allowed in evolution class, and its weaknesses are not to be revealed if you want to get [[tenure]]. [http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crocker]

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3,000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]], a Senior Fellow at the [[Discovery Institute]], describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethell, a [[conservative]] journalist for the ''[[American Spectator]]'', wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]], the managing director for [[Creation Ministries International]], wrote:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the [[conservative]] ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'':
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. <ref>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/</ref>

== Criticism ==

The film selectively quotes Charles Darwin's ''The Decent of Man'' in an attempt to demonstrate that he supported what later became [[Social Darwinism]], which became fashionable among the dictators and intellectuals who perpetrated the [[Holocaust]]{{fact}}. Here is the quote in the movie:

<blockquote>
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
</blockquote>

Darwin's full quote conveys an entirely different meaning in relation to humans:

<blockquote>
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; ''and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.'' We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; ''and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.'' No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. ''It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself,'' hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; ''but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil''.<ref>http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=181</ref>
</blockquote>

Ben Stein's speech was done specifically for the film<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer</ref>, as in most films{{fact}}.

The movie completely omits [[theistic evolution]], which is not taught in [[public school]] and is used primarily by [[evolutionists]] to rebut their obvious correlation with [[atheism]]. Mark Mathis, an associate editor of Expelled, when asked why alleged religious evolutionists such as Catholic Kenneth R. Miller were not in the film, replied that this form of fallacious [[liberal logic]] (see point 6) "would have confused the film unnecessarily."<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]