Page 1 of 4

Atheism article at American Wiki

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:57 am
by markg
Has anyone seen this article on atheism yet which is hosted at at an American Wiki ?

Any comments?

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:14 am
by Ygern
Without even clicking on the link I can tell its drivel. Conservapedia is the US fundementalist answer to wikipedia, seeing as wikipedia is an evil, liberal, left-wing, commie bastard, god-hating repository of lies to confuse the minds of innocent Christians.

Not exaggerating, I wish I were :?

So their mission is to correct the evil lies by spreading the 'Truth'. Check out their moronic entry on evolution
where they have headings such as Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms and The Issue of Whether the Evolutionary Position Qualifies as a Scientific Theory (they say no) and a special section on how evolution led to Nazism.

In other words, a goldfish is a better source of knowledge than Conservapedia.

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:39 am
by adamd164
Currently, there is an ongoing debate on whether atheism was a causal factor for Friedrich Nietzsche's insanity or whether it was caused purely through disease.

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:07 am
by MichaelNugent
Some extracts from my favourite section, where Conservapedia strays into the unchartered territory of attempting to use reason:
Conservapedia wrote:Reasonable Explanations for Atheism

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:

Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism. In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward.

Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence.

Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.

Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts.

State churches: Rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States).

Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one towards holding the position of atheism.

Division in religion: According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism."

Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."

Negative experiences with theists.

Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God.

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:20 pm
by Ygern
I'm torn between 'moral depravity' and 'error'... :)

Another truly excellent page that demonstrates the depth of their research is this one on Biblical accuracy where they say:
Although biblical accuracy is often questioned and dismissed by sceptics, there is much evidence of the Bible being a very accurate document.

They then prove their point by giving absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever (a cunning tactic that only depraved atheists would have the nerve to point out). But they do have two opinions quoted from bible scholars of the 19th century. So it must be true then.

This is also the same bunch who are trying to smear Barack Obama, claiming he is really an unpatriotic closet Muslim and a Marxist leftist.

Also, their entry on the kangaroo states:
...modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. ...After the Flood, these kangaroos, bred from the Ark passengers, migrated to Australia.
In short, only read their pages if you are looking for a cheap laugh. The authors have only a fleeting acquaintance with the notion of 'facts' and 'truth', and they have evidently decided that lying for Jesus is better.

PS you have better things to do with your life than wonder about what 'baramin' means.
Oh alright, if you must.
No sniggering.
a group of organisms who share a genetic relationship through common descent from an organism originally created by God during the Creation Week.

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:17 pm
by bipedalhumanoid
I remember when this wiki was first introduced to the world. One of the things they claimed was wrong with wikipedia is that they don't spell the proper american way. That the 'liberals' were bending over backwards to please the rest of the world by using various international spelling.

... and yet they are not using the american spelling fo the word 'sKeptic'.

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:00 pm
by CelticAtheist
It's regularly ridiculed, ignore it.

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:46 pm
by markg
I noticed there was not a cogent rebuttal offered for any of the criticisms of atheism in the article. I would remind forum posters that appeal to ridicule is a logic fallacy.

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:25 pm
by Ygern
markg wrote:I noticed there was not a cogent rebuttal offered for any of the criticisms of atheism in the article. I would remind forum posters that appeal to ridicule is a logic fallacy.

Are you honestly taken in by a word of what Conservapedia has to say?

Conservapedia makes no genuine criticisms; it merely insinuates by smear-campaigns, lies, unsubstantiated rumour-mongering and misinformation. There's nothing there worth dignifying with a rebuttal, anymore than Barack Obama should bother rebutting the lies in the entry on him.

But I'll make you a deal.

You make any 'criticism' of atheism that you think deserves a rebuttal; and I'll eviscerate it for you.

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:40 pm
by adamd164
Ah, didn't realise the OP was a wum, my bad. "American wiki" should have been the tip-off...*serious caps on*.

How on earth do you provide a straight-faced critique of a website that offers this bile as a selection of supposedly choice and unbiased quotes on the nature of homosexuality, for instance?

If you wish to associate yourself with bigots and frauds then my all means, sign up, they'll give you admin rights in no time if you demonstrate a sufficient degree of intolerance and vendetta.