Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism

2012-02-21T04:39:49Z

RickFossett: /* Debate */ new section

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Atheism/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


==Is atheism protected by the First Amendment?==
I think this issue needs to be researched and clarified in the page. Thank you. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:53, 4 December 2011 (EST)
::I am not a lawyer who specializes in U.S. Constitutional law. Setting the issue of the law aside, I can tell you that there will be no protecting atheism from the [[Question evolution! campaign]] which will rip it to shreds.
[[File:Carcharodon carcharias.jpg|thumbnail|400px|right|The [http://creation.com/question-evolution 15 razor sharp teeth] of the [[Question evolution! campaign]], are going to publicly rip [[evolution]]ary [[pseudoscience]] and atheism to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBRpZhk_vA open water] conditions (please see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].) ]]
::: Ooh, what a scary shark. Too bad in a real debate, big pictures with unfunny captions don't convince anybody. Of course, if all you care about is getting attention from your intellectual superiors, keep on doing what you're doing, you might not get Dawkins to mention you in his next book, but maybe some Atheist on YouTube looking for an easy target might take 5 minutes to inform his viewers what a unique personality you are. News Flash: Creation scientists do not "win" debates, they lose miserably and declare victory anyway, if they don't block the release of the debate video, of course. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 11:59, 20 February 2012 (EST)
::::Has [[Richard Dawkins]] debated [[William Lane Craig]] yet? (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]). In addition, Dawkins claimed Rabbi Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 20 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheism shrinking is accelerating; the religious shall inherit the earth ==

Atheist researcher of demographics of atheism says that the shrinking of atheism is expected to accelerate: [http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-kaufmann-shall-religious-inherit.html Religious shall inherit the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:That's a pretty disturbing book. Have you read it? --[[User:RickFossett|RickFossett]] 23:31, 20 February 2012 (EST)

== Debate ==

Anyway Ken, seeing as Anger Bear doesn't seem to be here to block me, how about we arrange a debate? I am YouTube atheist voiceoftruth2006; you may be familiar with my videos, which include "Why radioisotope dating is probably correct" and "A rational look at the flood myth." If not, you should watch them. In any case I'd prefer a video debate that we could put on a new YouTube channel, but if you don't fancy that I'm sure Terry F*ckwit would let us do a written one on his blog. What do you say? --[[User:RickFossett|RickFossett]] 23:39, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-02-21T04:34:53Z

RickFossett: /* Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? */

*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]


== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)
:::Vox Day wrote: "It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] Second, the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 for evolutionist] show that no progress has been made advancing credible evidence for Darwinism. Third, the atheist population is chock-full of corrupt people who are often clearly second stringers and Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this. See: [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]] and [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]] and [[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Plus, see: [[Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::Well, Conservative, first of all thank you so much for that very relevant and intelligent response. How could I forget the 15 questions for evolutionists, which we were totally talking about and are not irrelevant to this subject? I was under the impression that evolutionary biology had been improving and advancing for the last century and a half, I guess it's a good thing I have CMI around to set the record straight! And of course, even if there were some progress made, it can be safely ignored because atheists are "second stringers," which is totally a word people use outside of football. Tell me, Conservative, what other pieces of relevant wisdom do you have to share with us? Care to shoehorn feminism or obesity into the argument as well? Why not replace Dawkins' picture with a matador? Or a hundred matadors? ¡Ole ole ole! [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I wonder where the creationist responses to the Evolutionist arguments are on the 15 Questions debate page... Seems they're still missing. User:Conservative, with your seemingly and suspiciously constant essays and commentary on evolution and atheism, I assume that you can easily respond to the Evolutionist answers personally - that means no quotes! - and if not, then it is you, sir, who is the inept fraud. I have given you plenty of time and my own patience, but you insist on either ignoring me or changing the subject. Prove to us that Evolution is the fraud that you so want us to believe. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 13:54, 19 February 2012 (GMT)
:::Richard Dawkins was called a clown in the press in 2010 and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will further demonstrate the man is a clown. I do find it telling that Dawkins said "Oh, God" during the debate exchange (a debate exchange that he clearly lost and made a fool of himself in). It is not surprising Richard Dawkins ducked his debate with [[William Lane Craig]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, he initially denied debating Rabbi Boteach in a videotaped debate the audience felt he lost (see: [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach]]). In addtion, Dawkins claimed Boteach shrieked like Adolf Hitler during the debate. How could you possibly forget debating a rabbi who supposedly shrieked like Adolf Hitler which leads me to the conclusion that Richard Dawkins is a fraud and a liar (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)

== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==

There's no such thing as supernatural beings. I knew that before I'd ever heard of Dawkins, and I still know that even though I've never read a word that he's written. You can discount him and attack him and send all the sharks and dogs and whatever else you want at him, but it won't change the fact that he has nothing to do with the non-existence of deities, spirits, ghosts, demons, devils, or gods. [[User:GarryG|GarryG]] 18:33, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:Then prove your assertion, ScottDG. I would love to see an atheist prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
[[File:Richard dawkins alexa 2012.png|right|400px]]
:::GarryG, first of all, do you know that atheism is true? What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? I do know that [[Christian apologetics|there is an abundance of evidence supporting Christianity]] and that [[global atheism]] is shrinking while [[global Christianity]] is seeing tremendous growth. Third, does Richard Dawkins mean so much to someone at Conservapedia? Are you a mind reader? Lastly, it appears people are caring less and less about what Richard Dawkins has to say according to: the web traffic tracking company Alexa (see graph to the right), the web traffic tracking company Compete (see: [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/richarddawkins.net/ Compete graph]) and according to Google Trends as can be seen [http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Richard+dawkins HERE] (relative to latter part of 2006). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 20 February 2012 (EST)
GarryG, by the way, why do you care so much about who may or may not be important to me? Do you have [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]? :) I suggest getting taking up a hobby. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:15, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I'd suggest you take up one yourself. If you don't think there's proof and evidence that atheism is true and correct, well, start proving evidence that religion is true and correct better. You don't have to undermine atheism to prove religion. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:45, 20 February 2012 (EST)
In order to "undermine" something, it first needs to have a foundation. Here is what an atheist said about atheism: "Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard." [http://liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 20 February 2012 (EST)
:I really don't know how to reply to that, considering you ignored the main part of my argument, where I said you kept criticizing atheism and you could prove religion without mocking and satirizing atheism. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 22:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)
::Don't expect him to pay any attention to your argument; he'll just give you one of half a dozen standard lines, which usually involve the Question Evolution! campaign. To his credt, though, he rarely blocks people who disagree with him. I expect he's disappointed that Karajou always does it for him and shuts down the debates that Conservative loves. I mean, how can he debate anyone when Anger Bear kicks out all his opponents? If I was Conservative I'd complain to Aschlafly that Karajou is cramping his style. --[[User:RickFossett|RickFossett]] 23:34, 20 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Atheism

2012-02-21T04:31:04Z

RickFossett: /* Atheism shrinking is accelerating; the religious shall inherit the earth */