Difference between revisions of "Talk:Causes of atheism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Really, Ken?)
(Really, Ken?: @Conservative)
Line 66: Line 66:
 
Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
 
Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
 +
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
 +
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.
 +
 +
:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.
 +
 +
:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.
 +
 +
:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...
 +
 +
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 13:10, 27 September 2011

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anyprophet (talk)

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. Feebasfactor 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely there is one more reason?

There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this: The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God. Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

What, you expect that Ken - sorry, User:Conservative - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the Conservapedia Commandments. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of lunatics. voiceoftruth2006 --LeonardS 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

In Need of Editing

Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--Reasonless 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I feel like I need to say something

  • The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -CSGuy 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -CSGuy 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)


unlock this article

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Added another reason

Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

Section to add to entry

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. Bricology 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Logical Necessity

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

Really?

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - User:Mager

You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. JacobB 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.
Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. conservative 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. conservative 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Really, Ken?

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. voiceoftruth2006 --LeonardS 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Have you read Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder yet? There is hope and healing available. Conservative 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found here). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term.
On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) together. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have a full schedule in the following 90 days or not.
You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.
But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.
Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...
RonLar 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)