Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Conservative Website's Article On Atheism


Guest petermoore

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    10

  • Mythra

    8

  • trashy

    5

  • Godless Wonder

    4

Has anyone seen this conservative article on atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism ? It seems to be creating quite a stir.

 

I hope the atheist and Christians alike find it informative on various points.

 

 

Looks like a load of crap to me and I'm not an atheist. "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" - please give me a break.

 

"Creationists tend to win Creation-Evolution Debates" - yeah sure, in what alternate universe?

 

So, what do you think petermoore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow

 

Horrible grammar (I already corrected a lot of the first paragraph) and completely stupefying mischaracterization of atheists - check out the section on " Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" - note that those are either totally incorrect or they represent a very small minority of atheists.

 

I gots more editing to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm dumbfounded. I muddled through most of it (it's the longest article I've ever seen in Conservapedia).

 

I'd be half tempted to walk through and rebut it's numerous flawed and outright false points, but I'm not up to spending the next several hours doing so and turning out a post too long for people to want to read.

 

Therefore, I'll just pick out one of my favorite tidbits:

 

There is a book by Richard H. Harvey, entitled "70 Years of Miracles." In it Harvey relates his experience in a Chemistry class at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania in the 1920's.

 

According to Harvey, his professor Dr. Lee was a deist who for many years had spent time with each freshman class lecturing against prayer. After a couple of sessions discussing the power of natural laws and the lack of evidence that any god interferes with those laws, Lee would announce that he would drop a flask to the floor and challenged anyone to pray that the flask would remain whole.

 

Harvey then related that one year, a student finally found the courage to stand up and volunteer to pray. Lee dropped the flask and it rolled off his shoe to the floor without damage. The class cheered and Lee no longer delivered his annual lectures against prayer.

 

They actually USED this hackneyed urban myth in their article!

 

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen this conservative article on atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism ? It seems to be creating quite a stir.

 

I hope the atheist and Christians alike find it informative on various points.

Yup. It's very accurate, on the same level as: Christians are blood thirsty cannibals, who perform human sacrifices to please the gods. Do you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen this conservative article on atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism ? It seems to be creating quite a stir.

Creating a stir? Where?

This is just propaganda for their readership, meant for reinforcing lies to the "faithful".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest petermoore

If there are any grammatical mistakes I would remind you that style over substance is a logical fallacy: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm

Try to be more logical. Lastly, please refute the atheist and charitable giving matter in relation to theist in terms of per capita giving cited in the article (both in moral depravity footnote and in another section).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is getting 700 views a day. There is a counter at the bottom of the article.

 

It's probably mostly atheists who need a good chuckle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Peter - if you'd like for some atheists to help you edit and/or balance your article, you could just ask!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Peter - if you'd like for some atheists to help you edit and/or balance your article, you could just ask!

Don't bother. Check the iidb thread I linked above (click "jonathondickenson") or just click here, to to see how that type of offer goes. He'll just try to remove any contradictions you might point out without making the article any less of a lying piece of shit attempt at anti-atheist propoganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest petermoore

The article does not need to be balanced with atheist tripe like the yarns the "most impressive atheist debator" Doug Jesseph flung out in a debate. I cite the following from the conservapedia atheism article:

 

Ineffectiveness of Atheist Debaters

 

Doug Jesseph

 

In October of 1997, atheist Jeffrey Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that "the most impressive debater to date" was Doug Jesseph.[85] Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with William Lane Craig in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).[86] In 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher Stanley Miller believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense†or “paper chemistry.â€"[87] In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."[88]

 

You see relevance and substance has a lot more importance at Conservapedia than "balance". We do not have to give inane atheist argumentation affirmative action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Barna Group also found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.

 

:scratch: The article acts like these are bad things....

 

Sounds like a fun weekend to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense†or “paper chemistry.â€"[87] In addition, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American:

 

Scientists are not yet able to thoroughly explain the origins of life????

 

Well, that settles it.

 

Jesus must be God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Peter says "I hope the atheist and Christians alike find it informative on various points." Then he says:

 

The article does not need to be balanced with atheist tripe like the yarns the "most impressive atheist debator" Doug Jesseph flung out in a debate. I cite the following from the conservapedia atheism article:

<snip>

You see relevance and substance has a lot more importance at Conservapedia than "balance". We do not have to give inane atheist argumentation affirmative action.

 

Peter, you are a two-faced hypocrit and liar. How well you represent your faith. Thank you for putting it in print in public. I will be sure and give it wide dissemination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Peter - if you'd like for some atheists to help you edit and/or balance your article, you could just ask!

Don't bother. Check the iidb thread I linked above (click "jonathondickenson") or just click here, to to see how that type of offer goes. He'll just try to remove any contradictions you might point out without making the article any less of a lying piece of shit attempt at anti-atheist propoganda.

What a total fucking moron. I can feel the ranks of atheism swelling already. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Peter - if you'd like for some atheists to help you edit and/or balance your article, you could just ask!

Don't bother. Check the iidb thread I linked above (click "jonathondickenson") or just click here, to to see how that type of offer goes. He'll just try to remove any contradictions you might point out without making the article any less of a lying piece of shit attempt at anti-atheist propoganda.

What a total fucking moron. I can feel the ranks of atheism swelling already. LOL

What's really funny is, he's over in that thread getting his ass kicked by the iidbers right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked over that article, and many other articles, and have found it to be as trustworthy, one sided, and heavily biased as faux news.

American's view of atheists

Somehow, I do not think that chart would have to same numbers had a different group polled people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to Me that Conservapedia is afraid to look the #1 reason for atheism straight in the eye:

 

No. Proof. For. Gods.

 

Whadya say, petermoore/ingersollX/jonathondickenson? Got any actual gods up your sleeve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to Me that Conservapedia is afraid to look the #1 reason for atheism straight in the eye:

 

No. Proof. For. Gods.

 

Whadya say, petermoore/ingersollX/jonathondickenson? Got any actual gods up your sleeve?

 

He says so in his avatar. But it's a feeble god who apparently can't function without hordes of human supporters, almighty and omniscient though he proportedly is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... a feeble god who apparently can't function without hordes of human supporters...

In other words... Business as usual. Their actual "god" -IS- the carefully groomed and herded mass of deluded humanity, led by charismatic assholes who don't actually need to believe anything special. A force that can be used for good, but which is far, far more often employed for nefarious ends.

 

To Me, Conservapedia appears to be an act of pure desperation on the part of some low-level Dominionist-sympathetic lackeys. Because of the recent influx of atheist-friendly best sellers, they've conceded the rational ground in favour of an ad campaign.

 

Specifically, ad populum, ad baculum and ad hominem. :lmao:

 

The good news: If this trend continues, expect a major brain drain as relatively unbiased youngsters from fundie families explore the Dark Side™.

 

The bad news: People who are losing badly and cornered may resort to violence. Let's be careful out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.