Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism"

Revision as of 16:59, April 14, 2013

13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism

13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism

Reddit atheism

/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.

create a Reddit atheism article if you want. Conservative

Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored?

There have been atheist right-wingers like Ayn Rand who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--TheQuestioner 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Is she being ignored? See this section of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the fallacy of exclusion? Conservative 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Biggest blow to hit world atheism

World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline

First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.

Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. Karajou 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E

Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. RaymondZ 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)

I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.williagz 9:29, 12 February 2013

I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. Karajou 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.williagz 16:04, 12 February 2013

Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation. Karajou 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.williagz 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --MrSnowman 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[1] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[2]

But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.williagz 19:57, 27 December 2012

Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[3] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[4]

By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[5] RobTurkel 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. williagz 16:10, 12 February 2013

A problem with the definition of atheism stated

if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity. So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? KatieKomori 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. Conservative 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)

So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? KatieKomori 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. Onestone 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Onestone, fear? What is there to fear? What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true? Christianity has all the evidence. See: Christian apologetics. In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: Atheism and cowardice. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. Conservative 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect user:Conservative. This site links it to a host of different attacks:

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_suicide http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_uncharitableness_and_depression http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity (there are other studies that suggest religious people are more prone to obesity, but of course you cherry pick your studies) http://conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_sadism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_rape http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_pederasty_and_NAMBLA http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_slavery http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_satanic_deception http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_moral_depravity http://conservapedia.com/Atheist_leaders_and_immoral_relationships t this is pretty much almost every article within Conservapedia about atheism attempts to show atheism in a negative light.

Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out, the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

North Korea and Laos

Hello can you please refer to the articles: Religion and Atheism in North Korea and Religion and Atheism in Laos --Alex00 15:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

Suggested fixes

The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:

1) I think the author means that atheism is inversely proportional to eduction, not indirectly. 2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.

--DHouser 12:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)