Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(474 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
 
−
 
−
==Attention atheists ==
 
−
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]]. 
 
−
 
−
Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].
 
−
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]]<br>
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]]<br />
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]]<br />
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
 
−
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]
 
−
 
−
 
 
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
 
{| 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|List of Archives]]
 +
|}
 
__TOC__
 
__TOC__
−
<br />
 
 
<!-- =============DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS TEXT WHEN ARCHIVING=================== -->
 
<!-- =============DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS TEXT WHEN ARCHIVING=================== -->
−
=='Attention atheists' message==
 
−
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
 
−
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
 
−
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
 
−
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
 
−
Best regards,
 
−
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::Someone had changed the message.  I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]
 
  
 +
== New Book ==
  
−
== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==
+
The editors of this page may be interested in a new book entitled ''The Triumph of Faith'' by Rodney Stark. The book relies on the Gallup (the real Gallup, not Gallup International) World Polls as well as other resources to show that the world is more religious now than ever. I know this page is specific to atheism but I thought more people might see this post if I put it here. Anyway, here's a link about the book: http://www.baylorisr.org/2015/10/19/baptist-standard-book-review-isrs-starkthe-triumph-of-faith/ 
  
−
Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:
+
The article says that the book will be published November 16th, but Amazon says you can digitally download the book on the 3rd.  
  
−
Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.
+
Great article, keep it up! <small>(''unsigned contribution by [[User:TBarnes|TBarnes]]'')</small>.
 +
:Thanks for the book recommendation TBarnes. Stark does quality work and I did not hear about this latest book of his. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:16, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
 +
::TBarnes, I found a summary of Stark's book http://www.movements.net/2015/11/03/rodney-starks-next-book-the-global-religious-awakening.html plus I found this at Google Books: [https://books.google.com/books?id=owS6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT268&lpg=PT268&dq=The+triumph+of+faith+:+why+the+world+is+more+religious+than+ever+review&source=bl&ots=zOgdEARIVh&sig=ACoPvERZbNxDowOymfyWcMu6je8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIx5zy5ZKJyQIVReYmCh0oSga2#v=onepage&q=The%20triumph%20of%20faith%20%3A%20why%20the%20world%20is%20more%20religious%20than%20ever%20review&f=false  The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark - Google Books]
  
−
In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.
+
::Thanks again for telling me about this book. I plan on reading it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (EST)
  
−
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
+
:::You're welcome <small>(''unsigned contribution by [[User:TBarnes|TBarnes]]'')</small>.
−
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
 
  
 +
== Thought this was funny... ==
  
−
True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
+
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US#q=atheist%2C%20ear%20wax&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4
 +
::That was an encouraging graph. Searches for the keyword "atheist" are now below pre-[[New Atheism]] levels in the USA. Of course, we all know what this means. The righteous, American Christians prevailed over the wicked and proud British-born atheists [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Christopher Hitchens]] and their American atheists allies like the now disgraced [[David Silverman]] and [[Lawrence Krauss]]. See: [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Desecularization]]
 +
[[File:Clog-dancer.gif|right|thumb|[[Jacques Berlinerblau]], an atheist, declared "the Golden age of Secularism has passed"]]
 +
::The atheists had the wind at their back with mainstream stream media putting wind in their sails, but the American, Christian sharpshooters took [[Atheist apologetics|their "arguments"]] [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|down one by one]]. [[Atheism and morality]], shot down. [[Atheism and logic]], shot down. [[Atheism and intelligence]], shot down, etc. etc. This was [[Battle of Saratoga]] 2.0! Such a glorious victory by American Christendom! And thanks to [[Donald Trump]] trust in the "[[fake news]]" media establishment has been considerably lowered. So the likelihood of a Very New Atheism springing up to take its place is exceedingly small because people have very little trust in very fake news!
  
−
:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
+
::By the way, in terms of global searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G, with much of the atheist population now aging and having below replacement levels of births (see: [[Global atheism and aging populations]]) and with aging Western populations having more incidences of built up ear wax, do not be surprised if the keyword "atheist" continues to plummet in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G and the keyword "ear wax" sees a temporary rise in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Jesus.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:48, 14 January 2020 (EST)
−
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.  
+
:Thanks for that little chuckle. It happens that I've been ribbing Cons over all his atheism articles, suggesting "atheism and maple syrup" and "atheism and rocking chairs" as topics that he hasn't yet written about.  Well, Cons is quite a wit, and he actually came back with some observations on these topics.  See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#to:_RobS.2C_do_you_wish_to_edit_CP_again.3F] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#Re:_your_article_idea].  But he hasn't yet written articles on those topics. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:04, 4 December 2015 (EST)
−
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::SamHB, Conservapedia does have a lot of articles relating to atheism.
  
−
::"...from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have..." Thanks for the chuckle. My grandfather and mother were Swedish, and believe me, they had a temper. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
+
::And as far as "Atheism and rocking chairs", I realize you were jesting, but nevertheless you are not far off when it comes to [[Global atheism]]. Please see: [[Global atheism and aging populations]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::Re: "Atheism and maple syrup": See: [[Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food]]. Maple syrup is not bland! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:09, 8 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::SamHB, as far as some of the "atheism and ...." articles, I created a number of informative articles which deal with matters that people are interested in.  The articles have empirical evidence/social science studies regarding these topics. For example, I created the [[Atheism and morality]] article which has received over 87,000 page views;  the [[Atheism and women]] article which has received over 70,000 page views and the [[Atheism and anger]] article which has received over 26,000 page views.
  
 +
::::In addition, many people are concerned about the welfare of animals and [[secular Europe]] has had to enact some laws to curb the carnal desires of some of the more perverse members of their irreligious societies.  The [[Atheism and bestiality]] remains a popular article at Conservapedia and has received over 60,000 page views. And Conservapedia's [[Bestiality and Britain]] article ranks #1 for this search at Google USA and #2 at Google UK.
 +
:::::60,000?  Another 1,990,000 and you will match [[counterexamples to relativity]].  And "Bestiality and Britain" strikes me as an incredibly obscure thing to search for, and thus easily manipulated by "clickbots" or whatever.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::I realize the empirical evidence showing that evolutionism degrades the moral fabric of societies is disheartening to you since you are an evolutionist (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]). Nevertheless, the [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] remains popular at Conservapedia also and it has racked up over 19,000 page views. Why is it that the countries with the highest belief in evolution have had the most significant problems curbing their populaces from engaging in perverse practices with animals?  I realize that many evolutionists consider men to be mere animals and that animals are the relatives of mankind, but evolutionists/atheists need to stop trying to make sheep, horses and poodles their kissing cousins![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:26, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::I'm not the least bit disheartened by evolution, other than the fact that there are still significant minorities that reject it.  Far from it; I take great delight in scientific truth, whether of the demonstrable-by-experiments-that-can-be-replicated "hard science" type or the not-subject-to-experiments-but-nevertheless-backed-by-extremely-compelling-evidence "soft science" type.  I am not aware of a demonstrable causal connection between evolution and moral degradation, or between evolution and bestiality.  In the latter case, I doubt that there is anyone else on the planet who comes anywhere near to your interest on the topic.  I'm proud to know the world's leading expert on this.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::::re: "soft science": You can trust evolutionary biologists because physicists get amazingly precise results. Sad! Evolutionists are so pathetically desperate to believe their wicked bunk that they cling to "soft science". So many liberal cities are rat-infested, enclaves filled with drug addicts and homelessness because they were founded on ill-conceived soft, social "sciences". “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." - Jesus[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:21, 14 January 2020 (EST)
 +
"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.
 +
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.
  
−
Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).
+
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution]
  
−
I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.   
+
I also suggest reading the article [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
 +
:Nope, Hitler pic.  Sorry.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::I understand. History is often a sore subject with evolutionists.  See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
=== Google trends USA data from 2004 to January 2020 ===
  
−
As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.
+
''See also:'' [[Internet atheism]] and [[Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms]] and [[Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists]]
  
−
Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.  
+
[[File:Google trends atheism & agnostic terms 1-14-2020.png|thumbnail|center|600px|According to Google trends, in the [[United States]], the Google searches for the terms atheist, atheism, agnostic and agnosticism were lower in January 2020 than it was in January 2004.
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
Much to the dismay of atheist, keyboard warriors, [[internet atheism]] has been an abysmal failure! On the other hand, Christian [[internet evangelism]] goes from one glorious victory to another! Hallelujah! For more information, please see: [[Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists]] and [[Global atheism statistics]] ]]
 +
{{Clear}}
 +
[[File:Google trends world Jesus and God 1-14-2019.png|center|600px|thumbnail|According to Google Trends, worldwide the searches at Google for the terms God and Jesus were higher in January 2020 than in January 2004. See also: [[Atheism vs. Christianity]] ]]
 +
{{Clear}}
  
−
--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
+
== Christian Growth in China ==
  
−
== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==
+
Here's a good article on Christianity's growth in supposedly atheist China...http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/
 +
TX Digger
 +
::TZ Digger, thanks for sharing that exciting article. I thought this portion of the article was especially exciting: "One sign of the advancing state of Christianity in China is that it is reaching out to the larger world. Nine hundred Chinese pastors gathered in Hong Kong this fall for the Mission 2030 Conference. Their goal: To send out 20,000 missionaries from mainland China by 2030."[http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
  
−
I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
+
== Many atheists are conservative and pro-capitalistic; Many theists are left wing and anti-capitalistic ==
−
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
+
Many atheists, based on their values are conservative and pro-capitalistic. The characteristic which best determines whether or not, you are a conservative is the degree to which you support pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, and the economist, Milton Friedman, were both solid atheists. They were also solid supporter of a free and unregulated market. The atheists who follow the teachings of Rand and Friedman are solidly pro-capitalistic.
−
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
 
−
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
 
−
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him.  [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again.  I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military.  I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion?  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
== MIS-ATTRIBUTED MLK, JR quote ==
+
Many religious people on the other hand are left wing and anti-capitalistic.  For example, Roman Catholics tend to support socialism and government provided welfare.  Christ himself seems to have been a left winger because for one thing he said,  "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".  He also said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, what clothes ye shall wear".  Devout Christians follow these teachings and are thereby left wingers with an anti-capitalistic outlook on life. - User:RobertHBiggadike
  
−
"We must remember that it's possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and to deny the existence of God with your life. The most dangerous form of atheism is not theoretical atheism but practical atheism."
+
:RobertHBiggadike, the article has a section for "Atheism and politics/history" which can be found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_politics.2Fhistory  and it offer resources on atheism/politics/history.  
  
−
i cannot find the original transcription of this quotation. i found very little, at all, but the most that i could track down that i could reasonably attribute to King was:
+
:As a result of your feedback, I added a link to our [[Secular right]] article. Thank you for your feedback.
−
 
−
''[i]I decided early to give my life to something eternal and
 
−
absolute. Not to these little gods that are here today and gone
 
−
tomorrow, but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and
 
−
forever.[/i] (MLK, Jr.; from "Rediscovering Lost Values," Feb. 28, 1954)
 
−
''
 
−
AND
 
−
''
 
−
[i]... I want you to think with me this morning from the subject: "Rediscovering Lost Values." "Rediscovering Lost Values." There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong. I don't think we have to look too far to see that. I'm sure that most of you would agree with me in making that assertion. And when we stop to analyze the cause of our world's ills, many things come to mind.
 
  
−
We begin to wonder if it is due to the fact that we don't know enough. But it can't be that. Because in terms of accumulated knowledge we know more today than men have known in any period of human history. We have the facts at our disposal. We know more about mathematics, about science, about social science, and philosophy than we've ever known in any period of the world's history. So it can't be because we don't know enough.
+
:Next, historically and presently, a majority of atheists have tended to lean towards the left/socialism/communism. See: [[Atheism and politics]] and [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]].
  
−
And then we wonder if it is due to the fact that our scientific genius lags behind; that is, if we have not made enough progress scientifically. Well then, it can't be that. For our scientific progress over the past years has been [sic] amazing. Man through his scientific genius has been able to dwarf distance and place time in cha8fs, so that today it is possible to eat breakfast in New York City and supper in London, England. Back in about 1:53 [sic] it took a letter three days to go from New York City to Washington, and today youcan go from here to China in less time than that. It can't be because man is stagnant in his scientific progress. Man's scientific genius has been amazing.
+
:Next, please review our [[Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]] and [[Atheism and sloth]] articles.  
  
−
''I think we have to look much deeper than that if we are to find the real cause of man's problems and the real cause of the world's ills today. If we are to really find it I think we will have to look in the hearts and souls of men.[/i]" [b]MLK, jr.[/b]''
+
:Again, thank you for your feedback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (EST)
  
−
DOES seems to exist, but the entire section on "Manifestations of atheism" is thoroughly un-sourced. further, if i'm to understand manifestations to mean observable differences between possible reactions to athiesm, then i don't understand the distinction. i think that behaving/believing in deities are two sides of the one coin; there is no effective difference, and the quote is mis-attributed.
+
:::RobertHBiggadike, Milton Friedman was not a "solid atheist",  He was an agnostic. I cite: “I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected. I do not believe God has anything to do with economics. But values do.” - Milton Friedman"[http://thedailyhatch.org/2012/07/24/milton-friedmans-religious-views/]  
−
:::I did not write that material. However, I listened to a tape series of MLK speeches and I am 95% confident that he said it. I can try to confirm it though without listening to the whole tape series again. ;) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:12, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::I fixed it, here is the sermon: http://www.globatron.org/truth/rediscovering-lost-values-martin-luther-king-early-sermon [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:21, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::''There is something in this universe that justifies the biblical writer in saying, “You shall reap what you sow.” (Amen) This is a law-abiding universe. (Amen) This is a moral universe. It hinges on moral foundations. (Lord help him) If we are to make of this a better world, we’ve got to go back and rediscover that precious value that we’ve left behind. (Yes)''
 
  
−
:::::''And then there is a second thing, a second principle that we’ve got to go back and rediscover. (Help him) And that is that all reality has spiritual control. In other words, we’ve got to go back and rediscover the principle that there is a God behind the process. Well this you say, “Why is it that you raise that as a point in your sermon, in a church? The mere fact we are at church, we believe in God, we don’t need to go back and rediscover that. The mere fact that we are here, and the mere fact that we sing and pray, and come to church—we believe in God.” Well, there’s some truth in that. But we must remember that it’s possible to affirm the existence of God with your lips and deny his existence with your life. (Amen, Preach) The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism (Amen)—that’s the most dangerous type. (Lord have mercy) And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. (That’s right, Filled up with, Come on, Lord help him) And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. (Yes) We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. (That’s right) That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.
+
:::Although Ayn Rand was pro-capitalism, she also thought selfishness was a virtue.[https://www.aynrand.org/novels/virtue-of-selfishness]. She wasn't a virtuous capitalist like the Christian capitalist William Colgate who was a great philanthropist. See: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]].   For this reason, I don't want to see the main atheism article have a Ayn Rand puff piece section.  
  
−
:::::''And I think, my friends, that that is the thing that has happened in America. That we have unconsciously left God behind. Now, we haven’t consciously done it; we have unconsciously done it. You see, the text, you remember the text said that Jesus’ parents went a whole day’s journey not knowing that he wasn’t with them. They didn’t consciously leave him behind. (Well) It was unconscious; went a whole day and didn’t even know it. It wasn’t a conscious process. You see, we didn’t grow up and say, “Now, goodbye God, we’re going to leave you now.” The materialism in America has been an unconscious thing. Since the rise of the Industrial Revolution in England, and then the invention of all of our gadgets and contrivances and all of the things and modern conveniences—we unconsciously left God behind. We didn’t mean to do it.
+
:::Please do not edit any more atheism related articles given your sloppy research. I also don't care for your encyclopedia article writing. Encyclopedias don't use phrases like "solid atheist". And given the speciousness of atheism, the term "solid atheist" is inappropriate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (EST)
−
:::::''... we need [various worldly things] ; all of that’s important to live. But whenever they become substitutes for God, (Yes) they become injurious. (Amen)
+
:::::By the way, [http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1368 Adam Smith: Selfishness or Self-Interest?]. I rest my case! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (EST)
−
:::::''... And may I say to you this morning, (Lord help him) that none of these things can ever be real substitutes for God.
 
−
:::::''... And I say to you this morning in conclusion (Lord have mercy) that I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in things. I’m not going to put my ultimate faith in gadgets and contrivances. As a young man with most of my life ahead of me, I decided early (Oh yeah) to give my life to something eternal and absolute. (All right) Not to these little gods that are here today and gone tomorrow, (Come on) but to God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Amen, Amen)
 
  
−
:::::''Not in the little gods that can be with us in a few moments of prosperity, (Yes) but in the God who walks with us through the valley of the shadow of death, (That’s right) and causes us to fear no evil. (All right) That’s the God. (Come on)
+
You accuse me of sloppy research but you have been so sloppy that you have failed to include pro-capitalistic atheists, scientific atheists, and pro evolution atheists in what you call a list of types of atheism.  And by the way, Milton Friedman was for all practical purposes an atheist despite your argument to the contrary. [[User:RobertHBiggadike|RobertHBiggadike]] ([[User talk:RobertHBiggadike|talk]]) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (EST)
−
:::::... [after this it gets a bit psychedelic;p]:::::
+
::RobertHBiggadike, thank you for your input. If you read the articles [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]] and [[Protestant cultural legacies|Irreligious countries with Protestant cultural legacies]] and [[Atheism and sloth]], and if you are fair-minded, you will conclude that Protestantism has had a far greater positive effect on capitalism and economic productivity than atheism. At the same time, there are modern day libertarians of the atheistic persuasion do make some valid commentary about economics.
  
 +
::And thank you for your input about atheism/science. Rather than touch upon various points within the article about atheism/science which the article did, I created a special section in the article with the heading "Atheism and science" at [[Atheism#Atheism and science|Atheism and science]]. In addition, I expanded the [[Atheism and science]] article. Conservapedia also has a [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] article which is linked to in the "Atheism and science" article. A subsection of the section "Atheism and science" in the main atheism article deals with [[Atheism#Atheism and questions of origins|Atheism and questions of origins]].
  
 +
::As a whole, I don't think atheist ideology contributed much to science. For example, ancient Greek skepticism did not produce any great leaps in science. on the other hand, the [[scientific revolution]] occurred in Christianized Europe. Please read the article [[Christianity and science]] (Christian influence had a far more greater influence than atheism during the scientific revolution.
  
−
i also found the speech here, on google books:
+
::Sociologist [[Rodney Stark]], an [[agnosticism|agnostic]],  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, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:00, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
:He also didn't include atheists who are left-handed in the list of types...your accusations are vague and could mean anything.  But so long as you oppose that suits you fine.  If your arguments had any merit you wouldn't need to misquote scripture, for example; they would stand on their own.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (EST)
  
 +
I have just read the chapter called, "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", by Ayn Rand.  I am so proud that I have lived my life in accordance with the moral philosophy of Objectivism and have become a multi-millionaire in so doing.  Regardless of whether you oppose or agree with Ayn Rand, Objectivism is an important type of atheism which should be inluded as a type of atheism in any document pretending to be an encyclopedia.  [[User:RobertHBiggadike|RobertHBiggadike]] ([[User talk:RobertHBiggadike|talk]]) 15:32, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 +
:Thanks. I added Ayn Rand in the prominent atheist section.
  
 +
:Second, I think there was a spurt of interest in objectivism due to a movie based on one of Rand's books. However, interest in objectivism seems to have significantly waned [https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=objectivism according to Google trends] so I am against making objectivism any more prominent in the article. People can click on "Atheism and politics" "secular right" and now that can click on "Ayn Rand" also.
  
−
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uwi_HJUbJUMC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=%22The+most+dangerous+type+of+atheism+is+not+theoretical+atheism,+but+practical+atheism%22&source=bl&ots=YSE23jsEZY&sig=b6e3gkMcP-b_36uMuaIKNtjyiWw&hl=en&ei=9H8nTuGLEZCgtwfvhdG7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20most%20dangerous%20type%20of%20atheism%20is%20not%20theoretical%20atheism%2C%20but%20practical%20atheism%22&f=false
+
:But maybe I am wrong about declining interest. Given the choices of Hillary/Trump there is increased interest in the libertarian party which has a lot of secular right people associated with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
::Yesterday I added Ayn Rand to the [[Atheism and women]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
  
 +
==Re: Atheism and moral relativism==
 +
I've studied philosophical ethics a good deal in my free time, and the following is my litmus test for whether a branch of it is moral or not: can it justify rape and the Holocaust?  The answer is yes in both cases- if rape occurs in a country where it's a given risk to dating (I spoke to an Italian about this), it's okay there, but obviously wrong according to the Bible and common sense.  For the latter, if one were a member of the SS in Nazi Germany, the Holocaust would be moral given the social prevalence around.  For those reasons, I believe moral relativism is rubbish, and such examples ought to be expounded upon in the article.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
:I appreciate your feedback.
  
 +
:Second, could you please create an article entitled [[Atheism and moral relativism]].  The reason I ask this is that given the current length of the article, I don't want to expand it. I can tweak it and update it though.  Given the absurdity of atheism and its deleterious effects on societies/individuals (which the article extensively points out), the article is very popular. For example, the article has nearly has 6,000 Facebook likes and the [[PNN News and Ministry Network]] did a video on the article which praised the article (see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3paAT8AO2Gk Viral article deals major blow to atheism]).
  
−
so now it's well sourced, but i think MLK Jr is talking about materialism rather than modern atheism. i think it's explicit, even. "That's a dangerous type of atheism." would seem to imply logically that there are benign forms of atheism, or at least neutral, morally.
+
:Third, if you do create such an article, I can feature it on the main page. In addition, some of my friends may wish to promote it elsewhere on the internet if they like your article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
  
 +
::I can do that.  I'm about to call today off (after sleeping and taking care of my mother post-op), but I have a full day in front of me I've learned that non-Christian attempts at following morality are inevitably corrupt.  Moral relativism has an obvious liberal bias; as such, under what parameters can I cite Wikipedia as examples of such a bias?--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:20, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::Pious, would you like to contribute articles to the [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia Atheism Project]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::Absolutely.  I'm particularly keen on the Faith and reason page.  Having said that, one step at a time- I keep too busy praising my Jesus to die, but I also keep too busy with my job in order to pay tithes and my bills.--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 00:42, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
 +
OK. Thanks! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
  
 +
==Descriptions of partial belief in God from the Middle Ages==
  
−
MLK Jr isn't really discussing atheism, at all. the insinuation that MLK Jr was particularly concerned with atheism is, afaik, unfounded, so the quote is still mis-attributed; it's also misapplied as an argument. but i would like to see any relevant documentation, otherwise. it think it sounds too much like original research, but maybe that's the point of this wiki;p
+
Have you seen this before, Conservative?  It's by [[Thomas Aquinas]] in the 1260s-1270s, who quotes [[Saint Augustine]] from the ancient world. I thought it might interest you, since I've seen you write about agnosticism before. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 02:51, 11 June 2019 (EDT)
−
::::MLK mentions atheism/practical atheism and consumerism/materialism in the sermon I cited. I don't know if he spoke about "practical atheism" in the original sermon that was cited by another editor. I think you are either reading the sermon sloppily and/or merely being contentious at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
+
−
 
+
Art. 2 - Whether the act of faith is suitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God and believing in God?
−
== Requested Addition  ==
+
Objection 1: It would seem that the act of faith is unsuitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God, and believing in God. For one habit has but one act. Now faith is one habit since it is one virtue. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that there are three acts of faith.
−
 
 
−
I have written this paragraph and recommend its incorporation in the article as well as [[Atheism and uncharitableness|this article]]:
 
−
 
 
−
A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor [[Robert Putnam]] found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> The study revealed that forty percent of [[service of worship|worship service]] attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref> Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).<ref name="Relgion & Charity">{{cite web|url = http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx|title =Religious people make better citizens, study says |publisher = [[Pew Research Center]]|quote=The scholars say their studies found that religious people are three to four times more likely to be involved in their community. They are more apt than nonreligious Americans to work on community projects, belong to voluntary associations, attend public meetings, vote in local elections, attend protest demonstrations and political rallies, and donate time and money to causes -- including secular ones. At the same time, Putnam and Campbell say their data show that religious people are just "nicer": they carry packages for people, don't mind folks cutting ahead in line and give money to panhandlers.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref><ref name="Relgion and Charity">{{cite web|url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm|title =Religious people are 'better neighbors'|publisher = [[USA Today]]|quote=However, on the other side of the ledger, religious people are also "better neighbors" than their secular counterparts. No matter the civic activity, being more religious means being more involved. Take, for example, volunteer work. Compared with people who never attend worship services, those who attend weekly are more likely to volunteer in religious activities (no surprise there), but also for secular causes. The differences between religious and secular Americans can be dramatic. Forty percent of worship-attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly, compared with 15% of Americans who never attend services. Frequent-attenders are also more likely than the never-attenders to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%). The same is true for philanthropic giving; religious Americans give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans. And the list goes on, as it is true for good deeds such as helping someone find a job, donating blood, and spending time with someone who is feeling blue. Furthermore, the "religious edge" holds up for organized forms of community involvement: membership in organizations, working to solve community problems, attending local meetings, voting in local elections, and working for social or political reform. On this last point, it is not just that religious people are advocating for right-leaning causes, although many are. Religious liberals are actually more likely to be community activists than are religious conservatives.|accessdate = 2007–10–18}}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===References===
 
−
{{reflist}}
 
−
 
 
−
:::Anupam, I added the material.  However, given the size of this article/web page, I deleted all the notes in the footnotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:06, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Conspiring Atheists ==
 
  
−
Atheists supposedly conspired against Youtube Users, Nephilimfree, and ShockofGod. The medium claim to be used is voxli, more specificlly the following website, [http://www.voxli.com/pointmanzero]
+
Objection 2: Further, that which is common to all acts of faith should not be reckoned as a particular kind of act of faith. Now "to believe God" is common to all acts of faith, since faith is founded on the First Truth. Therefore it seems unreasonable to distinguish it from certain other acts of faith.
−
:::Sounds like a small fry YouTube soap opera. It does appears that some atheists have cried wolf before. Shockofgod allegedly engaging in phishing (yet no YouTube atheist accounts seem to have been shutdown). From what I have seen, there appears to be a lot of strange atheists channels at YouTube (guy posing as a woman, atheist guy who had a weird relations with his teddy bear. etc. etc. etc.). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:20, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] Hey I read somewhere that Atheists were more likely to be unemployed then Christians or too have lower paying jobs. I can't remember where I read it but I know it's true. We might want to add that in, maybe in the same paragraph as the one on being uncharitable.
+
Objection 3: Further, that which can be said of unbelievers, cannot be called an act of faith. Now unbelievers can be said to believe in a God. Therefore it should not be reckoned an act of faith.
−
:I don't know how anybody can look at a beautiful woman and not believe there is a God. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Length of Page ==
+
Objection 4: Further, movement towards the end belongs to the will, whose object is the good and the end. Now to believe is an act, not of the will, but of the intellect. Therefore "to believe in God," which implies movement towards an end, should not be reckoned as a species of that act.
  
−
Is it possible to split this material up at all?  I noticed on the Penn Jillette article that you claim that this is 53 pages of written text.  If that is true I believe that dividing this page in some way would make it more accessible (Its really difficult to parse 53 pages of information and most people don't have an hour to read a wiki article). Anyway just a suggestion. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 20:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
On the contrary is the authority of Augustine who makes this distinction (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxi---Tract. xxix in Joan.).
−
::Thanks for the feedback.  I will take your feedback into consideration. Have trimmed atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles recently. I will look into your suggestion in the fall perhaps. Feel free to offer suggestions on possible trimming. I generally put the most important/interesting material closer to the top of the page plus table of contents helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::I'll look into the page and try to offer up some suggestions in the coming weeks.  It's just a little intimidating coming to a page and having my scroll bar almost disappear ( I have a small screen so this is definitely partly to blame). --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
== statement by John Calvert ==
+
I answer that, The act of any power or habit depends on the relation of that power or habit to its object. Now the object of faith can be considered in three ways. For, since "to believe" is an act of the intellect, in so far as the will moves it to assent, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), the object of faith can be considered either on the part of the intellect, or on the part of the will that moves the intellect.
  
−
''The Supreme Court of the United States  held that corporates are persons and therefore they can marry.'' (see [[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]])
+
If it be considered on the part of the intellect, then two things can be observed in the object of faith, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]). One of these is the material object of faith, and in this way an act of faith is "to believe in a God"; because, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) nothing is proposed to our belief, except in as much as it is referred to God. The other is the formal aspect of the object, for it is the medium on account of which we assent to such and such a point of faith; and thus an act of faith is "to believe God," since, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) the formal object of faith is the First Truth, to Which man gives his adhesion, so as to assent to Its sake to whatever he believes.
  
−
This is of course as wrong as the statement:
+
Thirdly, if the object of faith be considered in so far as the intellect is moved by the will, an act of faith is "to believe in God." For the First Truth is referred to the will, through having the aspect of an end.
  
−
''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.''
+
Reply to Objection 1: These three do not denote different acts of faith, but one and the same act having different relations to the object of faith.
  
−
In the first case there was a verdict that a corporate has to be treated like a person under the First  Amendment, while in the second case it was found that ''atheism'' has to be treated like a religion, again only under the First Amendment. (See [http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20051097419F3d678_11025.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY 419 F.3d 678 (2005)])
+
This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.
  
−
Conservative, you can't be blamed for the deceitful reasoning of John Calvert, but you should have learned over the time that you have to be careful with second-hand quotations - you should go to the original source!
+
Reply to Objection 3: Unbelievers cannot be said "to believe in a God" as we understand it in relation to the act of faith. For they do not believe that God exists under the conditions that faith determines; hence they do not truly believe in a God, since, as the Philosopher observes (Metaph. ix, text. 22) "to know simple things defectively is not to know them at all."
  
−
To make it as clear as possible: '''The Seventh Judicial Circuit Of the Court of Appeals of the United States said nothing about the promotion of atheism by a public school''', though this is implied by John Calvert.
+
Reply to Objection 4: As stated above (FS, Q[9], A[1]) the will moves the intellect and the other powers of the soul to the end: and in this respect an act of faith is "to believe in God."
 +
:I am familiar with Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for the existence of God from his book [[Summa Theologica]]. On the other hand, I never went beyond that when it came to Aquinas.
  
−
Could someone remove John Calvert's deceptive statement, please?
+
:As far as faith/will/[[fall of man]] and the doctrine of total depravity, at this point, I agree with [[John Wesley]] on this matter. See: [https://chadelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/the-breadth-of-a-hair-wesley-on-total-depravity/ The Breadth Of A Hair: John Wesley On Total Depravity].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:29, 11 June 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I am leaning towards 4 or 5 point Calvinism now. I need to study this issue more. Romans 9 appears to be more in line with a more Calvinistic and not Arminian view of Scripture. This is one of the more difficult issues of the Bible. [http://www.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html I just read some historical information] about this theological matter that is interesting.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:00, 14 January 2020 (EST)
 +
:::I am no longer leaning toward 4 point Calvinism. I am now an [[Arminian]] who is doing further study. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:29, December 31, 2022 (EST)
  
−
Thanks,
+
==External links==
−
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
+
The links under '''Other articles on atheism:''' are not external links. A classic bait and switch. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Give Peace a Chance!'']]</sup> 18:23, September 19, 2023 (EDT)
−
::Motion dismissed. I suggest you appeal your case to [[User:Aschlafly|a Harvard Law School alumni]]. I don't think he will respond and he probably will refuse to hear your case. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:38, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
:An [[appeal to authority]]?
+
==[[Obsession]]==
−
:Could you please explain how the statement ''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.'' is not deceptive?
+
[[User:Conservative]]: What is your [[obsession]] with running clickbots on this article? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 12:36, April 20, 2025 (EDT)
−
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:53, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::I reread the quote.  Calvert's website has an email address. It shouldn't be hard to get him to slightly alter the quote to provide some additional clarification although technically the sentence is not incorrect. I did provide some previous footnotes to Calvert in that section, which if memory serves, clarifies matters.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:55, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::''technically the sentence is not incorrect'': that's not good enough for an encyclopedia. You have to ask yourself whether a typical reader (i.e., a high-school student) will interpret this sentence correctly. I dare to say that a significant number will get the impression that the court decided that atheism cannot be promoted by a public school.
 
−
::Good luck with getting a less misleading quote from John Calvert. Until then, the least you should do is to add a clarification!
 
−
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:56, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Quote has been changed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
:::That is very strange: Which sentence was ''really'' written by John Calvert? ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.'' or ''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 materialistic theories of origins.''
+
==Armed Forces Press==
−
:::Or did he write both statement on different occasions?  
+
Why does [[User:Conservative]] object to inclusion of a link to the [[conservative]] [https://armedforces.press/recruitment-ads-from-usa-and-russia-are-strikingly-different/ Armed Forces press]? The rule is discuss before reverting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 01:41, May 29, 2025 (EDT)
−
:::You are citing a secondary source - that is something which should be avoided. But this secondary source ''' is a blog'''. And it doesn't state where the quote comes from, but seemingly feels free to alter it, as you linked it for '''both'' versions. That doesn't sound trustworthy to me.
+
:1 year+. No answer. I will reinsert the link to Armed Forces Press. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|WWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war?]]</sup> 02:00, June 28, 2026 (EDT)
−
:::So, either you find a reliable source for John Calvert's statement, or you shouldn't use it at all.
 
−
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:11, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::Given that [[Shockofgod]] is such a big thorn in the side of internet atheist and has won over 50 debates with atheists, a quote from his blog certainly suffices. Why just recently an atheist dentist converted to Christianity after [[Shockofgod]] co-labored with God. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6xhKQT4XCc VIDEO] At the same time, I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website also. There is certainly no hurry though as the shockofgod blog citation is more than sufficient. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
::::Given that his states the same quote in two versions without any explanation for the change, such a quote certainly '''doesn't suffice''' - notwithstanding  all his other work.
+
==[[User:Conservative]]==
−
::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
+
[[User:Conservative]] posted: [https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal/archive2#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website "I think RobS is at heart an Personal remark removed who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him."] [[User:Conservative]] has never apologized or been disciplined for the statement.
−
::::::Two versions?  Can you show me the other version on the internet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:51, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::In this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&direction=next&oldid=898225 revision] you state Shockofgod as a source for the first version of the quote. So, did you misquote Shockofgod? Or did Shockofgod had the first version, too? Both possibilities are disturbing.
 
−
:::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:09, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::I feel bad that this is so disturbing to you. I hope you don't work yourself into a frenzy and have sleepless nights over this matter. I can tell you that I am not going to lose any sleep over this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::You shouldn't feel bad for me. You should feel bad for the article. The above is proof that you are working sloppily and/or that you are using dubious sources.
 
−
::::::Generally that isn't that problematic at a wiki, as such errors can be corrected by other editors. But this article is your chiefdom, and the usual mechanisms of quality control don't work.
 
−
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
Conservative, you should really try to treat our little exchanges like a debate. Above you can see how you have lost just another argument: You made an error and you were found out. Which audience would judge favorably your reaction: ''I don't lose any sleep over this matter''?
+
Two editors with opposing views carrying on a civil discussion is a "desire for respect" worthy of deysopping and banning?
−
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::RonLar, instead of feeling sorry for article, I would feel sorry for the atheist community. For example, YouTube atheists have never produced a comprehensive video or series of videos on the current Conservapedia atheism article.  Shane Killian's poorly done YouTube video on the Conservapedia atheism article was based on a much earlier version of the article and didn't discuss much of the article if memory serves. YouTube atheist and the Conservapedia atheism article: [http://eword10.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/deer_in_headlights1.gif Click HERE] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::Why would a youtuber want to make a video on this atheism article when their medium is ''video''. They debate/rebut other youtubers. There is no reason to come to Conservapedia. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:56, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::Max, for a non-atheist, you sure are interested in my activities relating to atheism at CP. Plus, I established you don't know your Bible and said something unbiblical.  Are you sure you are not an atheist? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::I find it extremely offensive that you'd question my Christianity. You, sir, are acting in a most unchristian manner with your taunts, jeers, name-calling and the added dishonest claims about no one answering your 15 questions. If I felt you were representative of the conservapedia community then I'd leave without regret however I find Andy, Karajou and RobSmith most pleasant to deal with. Also Iduan. NKeaton and others have been a pleasure to work with. Please do not question my faith in Christ again. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:36, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along." (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::::I don't understand what you are getting at but I have given my life to Christ. You sir, are insulting and rude. How dare you question my faith. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:12, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
If you don't understand the Ephesians verses Read this: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html  Look at some commentaries on the Ephesians verses: http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:I don't need your help to be a Christian. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:30, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::All statements must be true and verifiable.  There is no record on the internet that Calvert ever made a deceptive statement.  Show me it.  Changed heading accordingly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Then how about your statements that the 15 questions have not been answered? That is not true because they have been answered! Whether or not the answers are correct or not is another issue.  [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
  
−
== Organisation ==
+
[[User:Conservative]]'s dime-store psychoanalysis and psychotic trolling on [[atheism]] needs to be nipped in the bud if he thinks he's going to return to this subject because of a [[Topic ban]] on other subjects. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|WWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war?]]</sup> 01:49, June 28, 2026 (EDT)
  
−
This page is very long, and has been added to at many different times, with the result that it is somewhat disorganised. I suggest making the information easier to access by grouping related topics together using the following headings:
+
:Secondly, respecting God '''''does not''''' give one the right to '''''disrespect''''' other people, as [[User:Conservative]] has implead for years and years and has taught to [[homeschooler]]s. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|WWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war?]]</sup> 02:50, June 28, 2026 (EDT)
−
*About atheist beliefs
 
−
*History of atheism
 
−
*Atheism today
 
−
*Other beliefs associated with atheism
 
−
*Atheism in the media
 
−
*Notable atheists
 
−
*Additional resources and further reading.
 
−
Could the page be unlocked so that I can carry out this reorganisation, or could an administrator perhaps undertake it on my behalf?
 
−
I am happy to discuss the exact subdivisions, but it's clear that the current structure could be improved. For example, section 35, on the proportion of people who are atheists, should come before and near to related material such as section 18, on people leaving atheism.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
:::Feel free to create [[User: CPalmer/Atheism]].  Please be aware that due to other priorities, I unfortunately will not be looking at it until 2012. However, I am going to make a change in the article in a few minutes based on your recommendation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:27, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
::::Conservative, if you are too busy to work on incorporating other people's suggestions for five months, perhaps you should consider unlocking the article so it can be improved, regarding the flow and the occasionally spotty writing quality.  This could be a masterpiece if you let those who admire you directly contribute to the article. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:59, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
 

Latest revision as of 06:50, June 28, 2026

List of Archives

New Book

The editors of this page may be interested in a new book entitled The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark. The book relies on the Gallup (the real Gallup, not Gallup International) World Polls as well as other resources to show that the world is more religious now than ever. I know this page is specific to atheism but I thought more people might see this post if I put it here. Anyway, here's a link about the book: http://www.baylorisr.org/2015/10/19/baptist-standard-book-review-isrs-starkthe-triumph-of-faith/

The article says that the book will be published November 16th, but Amazon says you can digitally download the book on the 3rd.

Great article, keep it up! (unsigned contribution by TBarnes).

Thanks for the book recommendation TBarnes. Stark does quality work and I did not hear about this latest book of his. Conservative (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
TBarnes, I found a summary of Stark's book http://www.movements.net/2015/11/03/rodney-starks-next-book-the-global-religious-awakening.html plus I found this at Google Books: The Triumph of Faith by Rodney Stark - Google Books
Thanks again for telling me about this book. I plan on reading it. Conservative (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (EST)
You're welcome (unsigned contribution by TBarnes).

Thought this was funny...

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US#q=atheist%2C%20ear%20wax&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

That was an encouraging graph. Searches for the keyword "atheist" are now below pre-New Atheism levels in the USA. Of course, we all know what this means. The righteous, American Christians prevailed over the wicked and proud British-born atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and their American atheists allies like the now disgraced David Silverman and Lawrence Krauss. See: Decline of the atheist movement and Desecularization
File:Clog-dancer.gif
Jacques Berlinerblau, an atheist, declared "the Golden age of Secularism has passed"
The atheists had the wind at their back with mainstream stream media putting wind in their sails, but the American, Christian sharpshooters took their "arguments" down one by one. Atheism and morality, shot down. Atheism and logic, shot down. Atheism and intelligence, shot down, etc. etc. This was Battle of Saratoga 2.0! Such a glorious victory by American Christendom! And thanks to Donald Trump trust in the "fake news" media establishment has been considerably lowered. So the likelihood of a Very New Atheism springing up to take its place is exceedingly small because people have very little trust in very fake news!
By the way, in terms of global searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G, with much of the atheist population now aging and having below replacement levels of births (see: Global atheism and aging populations) and with aging Western populations having more incidences of built up ear wax, do not be surprised if the keyword "atheist" continues to plummet in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G and the keyword "ear wax" sees a temporary rise in searches at a popular search engine that begins with a G. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Jesus.Conservative (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2020 (EST)
Thanks for that little chuckle. It happens that I've been ribbing Cons over all his atheism articles, suggesting "atheism and maple syrup" and "atheism and rocking chairs" as topics that he hasn't yet written about. Well, Cons is quite a wit, and he actually came back with some observations on these topics. See [1] and [2]. But he hasn't yet written articles on those topics. SamHB (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2015 (EST)
SamHB, Conservapedia does have a lot of articles relating to atheism.
And as far as "Atheism and rocking chairs", I realize you were jesting, but nevertheless you are not far off when it comes to Global atheism. Please see: Global atheism and aging populations. Conservative (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
Re: "Atheism and maple syrup": See: Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food. Maple syrup is not bland! :) Conservative (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, as far as some of the "atheism and ...." articles, I created a number of informative articles which deal with matters that people are interested in. The articles have empirical evidence/social science studies regarding these topics. For example, I created the Atheism and morality article which has received over 87,000 page views; the Atheism and women article which has received over 70,000 page views and the Atheism and anger article which has received over 26,000 page views.
In addition, many people are concerned about the welfare of animals and secular Europe has had to enact some laws to curb the carnal desires of some of the more perverse members of their irreligious societies. The Atheism and bestiality remains a popular article at Conservapedia and has received over 60,000 page views. And Conservapedia's Bestiality and Britain article ranks #1 for this search at Google USA and #2 at Google UK.
60,000? Another 1,990,000 and you will match counterexamples to relativity. And "Bestiality and Britain" strikes me as an incredibly obscure thing to search for, and thus easily manipulated by "clickbots" or whatever. SamHB (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I realize the empirical evidence showing that evolutionism degrades the moral fabric of societies is disheartening to you since you are an evolutionist (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution). Nevertheless, the Evolutionary belief and bestiality remains popular at Conservapedia also and it has racked up over 19,000 page views. Why is it that the countries with the highest belief in evolution have had the most significant problems curbing their populaces from engaging in perverse practices with animals? I realize that many evolutionists consider men to be mere animals and that animals are the relatives of mankind, but evolutionists/atheists need to stop trying to make sheep, horses and poodles their kissing cousins!Conservative (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I'm not the least bit disheartened by evolution, other than the fact that there are still significant minorities that reject it. Far from it; I take great delight in scientific truth, whether of the demonstrable-by-experiments-that-can-be-replicated "hard science" type or the not-subject-to-experiments-but-nevertheless-backed-by-extremely-compelling-evidence "soft science" type. I am not aware of a demonstrable causal connection between evolution and moral degradation, or between evolution and bestiality. In the latter case, I doubt that there is anyone else on the planet who comes anywhere near to your interest on the topic. I'm proud to know the world's leading expert on this. SamHB (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
re: "soft science": You can trust evolutionary biologists because physicists get amazingly precise results. Sad! Evolutionists are so pathetically desperate to believe their wicked bunk that they cling to "soft science". So many liberal cities are rat-infested, enclaves filled with drug addicts and homelessness because they were founded on ill-conceived soft, social "sciences". “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." - JesusConservative (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2020 (EST)

"For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related to declining morality in the community. The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion.

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’[3]

I also suggest reading the article Social effects of the theory of evolution.Conservative (talk)

Nope, Hitler pic. Sorry. SamHB (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
I understand. History is often a sore subject with evolutionists. See also: Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation. Conservative (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

Google trends USA data from 2004 to January 2020

See also: Internet atheism and Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms and Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists

According to Google trends, in the United States, the Google searches for the terms atheist, atheism, agnostic and agnosticism were lower in January 2020 than it was in January 2004.

Much to the dismay of atheist, keyboard warriors, internet atheism has been an abysmal failure! On the other hand, Christian internet evangelism goes from one glorious victory to another! Hallelujah! For more information, please see: Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists and Global atheism statistics
According to Google Trends, worldwide the searches at Google for the terms God and Jesus were higher in January 2020 than in January 2004. See also: Atheism vs. Christianity

Christian Growth in China

Here's a good article on Christianity's growth in supposedly atheist China...http://globalplus.thearda.com/globalplus-religion-in-china/ TX Digger

TZ Digger, thanks for sharing that exciting article. I thought this portion of the article was especially exciting: "One sign of the advancing state of Christianity in China is that it is reaching out to the larger world. Nine hundred Chinese pastors gathered in Hong Kong this fall for the Mission 2030 Conference. Their goal: To send out 20,000 missionaries from mainland China by 2030."[4] Conservative (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Many atheists are conservative and pro-capitalistic; Many theists are left wing and anti-capitalistic

Many atheists, based on their values are conservative and pro-capitalistic. The characteristic which best determines whether or not, you are a conservative is the degree to which you support pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand, and the economist, Milton Friedman, were both solid atheists. They were also solid supporter of a free and unregulated market. The atheists who follow the teachings of Rand and Friedman are solidly pro-capitalistic.

Many religious people on the other hand are left wing and anti-capitalistic. For example, Roman Catholics tend to support socialism and government provided welfare. Christ himself seems to have been a left winger because for one thing he said, "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". He also said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, what clothes ye shall wear". Devout Christians follow these teachings and are thereby left wingers with an anti-capitalistic outlook on life. - User:RobertHBiggadike

RobertHBiggadike, the article has a section for "Atheism and politics/history" which can be found at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_politics.2Fhistory and it offer resources on atheism/politics/history.
As a result of your feedback, I added a link to our Secular right article. Thank you for your feedback.
Next, historically and presently, a majority of atheists have tended to lean towards the left/socialism/communism. See: Atheism and politics and History of atheism.
Next, please review our Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Atheism and sloth articles.
Again, thank you for your feedback. Conservative (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (EST)
RobertHBiggadike, Milton Friedman was not a "solid atheist", He was an agnostic. I cite: “I am an agnostic. I do not ‘believe in’ God, but I am not an atheist, because I believe the statement, ‘There is a god’ does not admit of being either confirmed or rejected. I do not believe God has anything to do with economics. But values do.” - Milton Friedman"[5]
Although Ayn Rand was pro-capitalism, she also thought selfishness was a virtue.[6]. She wasn't a virtuous capitalist like the Christian capitalist William Colgate who was a great philanthropist. See: Atheism and uncharitableness. For this reason, I don't want to see the main atheism article have a Ayn Rand puff piece section.
Please do not edit any more atheism related articles given your sloppy research. I also don't care for your encyclopedia article writing. Encyclopedias don't use phrases like "solid atheist". And given the speciousness of atheism, the term "solid atheist" is inappropriate. Conservative (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (EST)
By the way, Adam Smith: Selfishness or Self-Interest?. I rest my case! Conservative (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2015 (EST)

You accuse me of sloppy research but you have been so sloppy that you have failed to include pro-capitalistic atheists, scientific atheists, and pro evolution atheists in what you call a list of types of atheism. And by the way, Milton Friedman was for all practical purposes an atheist despite your argument to the contrary. RobertHBiggadike (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2015 (EST)

RobertHBiggadike, thank you for your input. If you read the articles Atheism and politics and Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Irreligious countries with Protestant cultural legacies and Atheism and sloth, and if you are fair-minded, you will conclude that Protestantism has had a far greater positive effect on capitalism and economic productivity than atheism. At the same time, there are modern day libertarians of the atheistic persuasion do make some valid commentary about economics.
And thank you for your input about atheism/science. Rather than touch upon various points within the article about atheism/science which the article did, I created a special section in the article with the heading "Atheism and science" at Atheism and science. In addition, I expanded the Atheism and science article. Conservapedia also has a Atheism and the suppression of science article which is linked to in the "Atheism and science" article. A subsection of the section "Atheism and science" in the main atheism article deals with Atheism and questions of origins.
As a whole, I don't think atheist ideology contributed much to science. For example, ancient Greek skepticism did not produce any great leaps in science. on the other hand, the scientific revolution occurred in Christianized Europe. Please read the article Christianity and science (Christian influence had a far more greater influence than atheism during the scientific revolution.
Sociologist Rodney Stark, an agnostic, 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, only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[7] Conservative (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
He also didn't include atheists who are left-handed in the list of types...your accusations are vague and could mean anything. But so long as you oppose that suits you fine. If your arguments had any merit you wouldn't need to misquote scripture, for example; they would stand on their own. VargasMilan (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I have just read the chapter called, "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", by Ayn Rand. I am so proud that I have lived my life in accordance with the moral philosophy of Objectivism and have become a multi-millionaire in so doing. Regardless of whether you oppose or agree with Ayn Rand, Objectivism is an important type of atheism which should be inluded as a type of atheism in any document pretending to be an encyclopedia. RobertHBiggadike (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks. I added Ayn Rand in the prominent atheist section.
Second, I think there was a spurt of interest in objectivism due to a movie based on one of Rand's books. However, interest in objectivism seems to have significantly waned according to Google trends so I am against making objectivism any more prominent in the article. People can click on "Atheism and politics" "secular right" and now that can click on "Ayn Rand" also.
But maybe I am wrong about declining interest. Given the choices of Hillary/Trump there is increased interest in the libertarian party which has a lot of secular right people associated with it. Conservative (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2016 (EDT)
Yesterday I added Ayn Rand to the Atheism and women article. Conservative (talk)

Re: Atheism and moral relativism

I've studied philosophical ethics a good deal in my free time, and the following is my litmus test for whether a branch of it is moral or not: can it justify rape and the Holocaust? The answer is yes in both cases- if rape occurs in a country where it's a given risk to dating (I spoke to an Italian about this), it's okay there, but obviously wrong according to the Bible and common sense. For the latter, if one were a member of the SS in Nazi Germany, the Holocaust would be moral given the social prevalence around. For those reasons, I believe moral relativism is rubbish, and such examples ought to be expounded upon in the article.--Pious (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

I appreciate your feedback.
Second, could you please create an article entitled Atheism and moral relativism. The reason I ask this is that given the current length of the article, I don't want to expand it. I can tweak it and update it though. Given the absurdity of atheism and its deleterious effects on societies/individuals (which the article extensively points out), the article is very popular. For example, the article has nearly has 6,000 Facebook likes and the PNN News and Ministry Network did a video on the article which praised the article (see: Viral article deals major blow to atheism).
Third, if you do create such an article, I can feature it on the main page. In addition, some of my friends may wish to promote it elsewhere on the internet if they like your article. Conservative (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
I can do that. I'm about to call today off (after sleeping and taking care of my mother post-op), but I have a full day in front of me I've learned that non-Christian attempts at following morality are inevitably corrupt. Moral relativism has an obvious liberal bias; as such, under what parameters can I cite Wikipedia as examples of such a bias?--Pious (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
Pious, would you like to contribute articles to the Conservapedia Atheism Project? Conservative (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
Absolutely. I'm particularly keen on the Faith and reason page. Having said that, one step at a time- I keep too busy praising my Jesus to die, but I also keep too busy with my job in order to pay tithes and my bills.--Pious (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

OK. Thanks! Conservative (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

Descriptions of partial belief in God from the Middle Ages

Have you seen this before, Conservative? It's by Thomas Aquinas in the 1260s-1270s, who quotes Saint Augustine from the ancient world. I thought it might interest you, since I've seen you write about agnosticism before. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 02:51, 11 June 2019 (EDT)

Art. 2 - Whether the act of faith is suitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God and believing in God? Objection 1: It would seem that the act of faith is unsuitably distinguished as believing God, believing in a God, and believing in God. For one habit has but one act. Now faith is one habit since it is one virtue. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that there are three acts of faith.

Objection 2: Further, that which is common to all acts of faith should not be reckoned as a particular kind of act of faith. Now "to believe God" is common to all acts of faith, since faith is founded on the First Truth. Therefore it seems unreasonable to distinguish it from certain other acts of faith.

Objection 3: Further, that which can be said of unbelievers, cannot be called an act of faith. Now unbelievers can be said to believe in a God. Therefore it should not be reckoned an act of faith.

Objection 4: Further, movement towards the end belongs to the will, whose object is the good and the end. Now to believe is an act, not of the will, but of the intellect. Therefore "to believe in God," which implies movement towards an end, should not be reckoned as a species of that act.

On the contrary is the authority of Augustine who makes this distinction (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxi---Tract. xxix in Joan.).

I answer that, The act of any power or habit depends on the relation of that power or habit to its object. Now the object of faith can be considered in three ways. For, since "to believe" is an act of the intellect, in so far as the will moves it to assent, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), the object of faith can be considered either on the part of the intellect, or on the part of the will that moves the intellect.

If it be considered on the part of the intellect, then two things can be observed in the object of faith, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]). One of these is the material object of faith, and in this way an act of faith is "to believe in a God"; because, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) nothing is proposed to our belief, except in as much as it is referred to God. The other is the formal aspect of the object, for it is the medium on account of which we assent to such and such a point of faith; and thus an act of faith is "to believe God," since, as stated above (Q[1], A[1]) the formal object of faith is the First Truth, to Which man gives his adhesion, so as to assent to Its sake to whatever he believes.

Thirdly, if the object of faith be considered in so far as the intellect is moved by the will, an act of faith is "to believe in God." For the First Truth is referred to the will, through having the aspect of an end.

Reply to Objection 1: These three do not denote different acts of faith, but one and the same act having different relations to the object of faith.

This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply to Objection 3: Unbelievers cannot be said "to believe in a God" as we understand it in relation to the act of faith. For they do not believe that God exists under the conditions that faith determines; hence they do not truly believe in a God, since, as the Philosopher observes (Metaph. ix, text. 22) "to know simple things defectively is not to know them at all."

Reply to Objection 4: As stated above (FS, Q[9], A[1]) the will moves the intellect and the other powers of the soul to the end: and in this respect an act of faith is "to believe in God."

I am familiar with Thomas Aquinas's five proofs for the existence of God from his book Summa Theologica. On the other hand, I never went beyond that when it came to Aquinas.
As far as faith/will/fall of man and the doctrine of total depravity, at this point, I agree with John Wesley on this matter. See: The Breadth Of A Hair: John Wesley On Total Depravity.Conservative (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2019 (EDT)
I am leaning towards 4 or 5 point Calvinism now. I need to study this issue more. Romans 9 appears to be more in line with a more Calvinistic and not Arminian view of Scripture. This is one of the more difficult issues of the Bible. I just read some historical information about this theological matter that is interesting.Conservative (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2020 (EST)
I am no longer leaning toward 4 point Calvinism. I am now an Arminian who is doing further study. Conservative (talk) 20:29, December 31, 2022 (EST)

External links

The links under Other articles on atheism: are not external links. A classic bait and switch. RobSGive Peace a Chance! 18:23, September 19, 2023 (EDT)

Obsession

User:Conservative: What is your obsession with running clickbots on this article? RobSZelensky Must Go! 12:36, April 20, 2025 (EDT)

Armed Forces Press

Why does User:Conservative object to inclusion of a link to the conservative Armed Forces press? The rule is discuss before reverting. RobSZelensky Must Go! 01:41, May 29, 2025 (EDT)

1 year+. No answer. I will reinsert the link to Armed Forces Press. RobSWWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war? 02:00, June 28, 2026 (EDT)

User:Conservative

User:Conservative posted: "I think RobS is at heart an Personal remark removed who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him." User:Conservative has never apologized or been disciplined for the statement.

Two editors with opposing views carrying on a civil discussion is a "desire for respect" worthy of deysopping and banning?

User:Conservative's dime-store psychoanalysis and psychotic trolling on atheism needs to be nipped in the bud if he thinks he's going to return to this subject because of a Topic ban on other subjects. RobSWWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war? 01:49, June 28, 2026 (EDT)

Secondly, respecting God does not give one the right to disrespect other people, as User:Conservative has implead for years and years and has taught to homeschoolers. RobSWWJD? Would he claim 2 gay bathhouses in Russia compared to 300 in America justifies nuclear war? 02:50, June 28, 2026 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&oldid=2198190"