1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Is this an accurate portrayal of atheism?

 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 14:18
 

In doing my research for some of the projects I am working on in this forum, I ran across this website, which portrays atheism in a different light.

Here is my challenge to atheists:  Read the entire page, reflect on it, take an honest look in the mirror, and ask yourself:  Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15256
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 16:05
 

What a pile of shit that was! I will bet that it is some fundie nut group that funds this crap!

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  15256
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 19:10
 

I’m with you on this one,teuchter.

IS I too think you being dishonest and that you have an agenda here.

 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 19:24
 
teuchter - 02 December 2008 10:13 PM
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

No.
It is a dishonest, worse-than-World-Nut Daily piece of intelligent design promoting, red-baiting (by some moron utterly ignorant about dialectical materialism) piece of shit.

Please explain the following, from your authoritative web site:

There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:
Moral depravity
Rebellion
Superficiality
Error
State churches
Poor relationship with father
Division in religion
Learned times, peace, and prosperity
Negative experiences with theists
Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God.

Even the non-pejorative (but utterly meaningless) “scientism” is merely a fundie canard, relied upon to argue that the 1st Amendment proscription against government establishment of religion requires “teaching the controversy,” for example, of ID vs evolution, or else the government is privileging what the fundies call “the religion of secularism” over the religion of jeezuz.  Science is only a god in the minds of ignorant fundamentalists who want to be able to argue that their god has as much right to be taken seriously as the “science god.”  It is a cynical and dishonest construct, and you, Immediate Supression, by vouching for this web site, have revealed yourself as a cynical and dishonest twit.

Not to mention tedious, humorless, dull-witted, and wimpy.

Did I say “please explain” something? Forget it.  Go fuck yourself, have a cigarette, and come back if that gets you over your hysteria.

What hysteria?  I simply asked if you thought it was an honest assessment of atheism.  And by no means did I ever vouch for the website, I simply said it portrays atheism in a different light.

I don’t feel a need to explain anything about the website, since I never implied I agreed with anything on it.  The part of it that implies atheists don’t really exist perplexed me. 

GAD - 02 December 2008 09:55 PM

You came here started splitting atheism into groups that are along mainly theist lines, gods, guiding hands, souls, afterlives, fundies etc.. Then you post a link to a nut job website and ask, do we really want to be like this. As if you presupposing that we are like that and implying that we to be fixed (to be more like theists?)!

That is not a correct analysis, GAD.  I’m not splitting atheism into groups, I’m merely analyzing and describing different types of atheists and their tendencies.  My goal is certainly not go get atheists to be more like theists.  I am more interested in addressing some of the fundamentalist behavior in this forum regarding tolerance and certainty, and discussing different types of atheists.

 
 
Argonaut
 
Avatar
 
 
Argonaut
Total Posts:  30
Joined  02-12-2008
 
 
 
02 December 2008 20:08
 

Hey, this is the second thread I’ve viewed on this site. More entertaining than the first but still very low on intellectual content. I guess you can’t do much with this OP. Glad to see you can speak your minds but did it really deserve the effort of any comment at all? I’ll keep searching.

 
mpbrockman
 
Avatar
 
 
mpbrockman
Total Posts:  1536
Joined  23-06-2007
 
 
 
03 December 2008 01:05
 
Argonaut - 03 December 2008 01:08 AM

Hey, this is the second thread I’ve viewed on this site. More entertaining than the first but still very low on intellectual content. I guess you can’t do much with this OP. Glad to see you can speak your minds but did it really deserve the effort of any comment at all? I’ll keep searching.

Wow, two whole threads Argo? Nothing like contempt before thorough investigation…

Back to the OP.

I find Conservapedia to be a riot. Try looking up your favorite generally accepted scientific terms/theories or historical accounts. You’ll get the drift of the site pretty quickly.

My favorite of the “reasonable explanations for atheism” is Francis Bacon’s “Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion.” The obvious corollary? “Quick, make everyone ignorant and miserable so they’ll turn to religion!”

Groucho Marx was once approached at dinner by a priest who thanked him “for bringing so much joy into the world”, Marx shot back “And I’d like to thank you for taking so much out.”

Marketing 101: make your customer feel like he’s missing something from his life that only you can provide.

No, IS. The article is a sloppily constructed collection of apologia, propaganda and biased quotations of “research” written in an attempt to paint atheists as confused, in denial, morally unbalanced and destined to lead short, unhappy lives. Whereas many of us, or at least myself, have found in the act of rejecting theism a grounding of self, a wealth of freedom (with concomitant responsibility) and a sense of contentment previously absent.

Ultimately, though, I get the feeling that the compilers of this pile of excrement are those who would return to their chains in Plato’s allegory of the cave. Uncomprehending, they grasp at straws.

Whew! I’m winded (and windy) tonight. Insomnia - a terrible disease.

 
 
Argonaut
 
Avatar
 
 
Argonaut
Total Posts:  30
Joined  02-12-2008
 
 
 
03 December 2008 02:52
 
mpbrockman - 03 December 2008 06:05 AM

Wow, two whole threads Argo? Nothing like contempt before thorough investigation…

Saves time. Let’s see…a thread about reviewing the veracity of a website that proclaims…...

“The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that, and to impart what you have learned to others by editing here. The truth shall set you free. No other encyclopedic resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths.”

It sounds like the just the sort of intellectually honest material that deserves serious consideration. Sorry, this drivel should be left for the afterlife.

 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
03 December 2008 07:53
 
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

Here is my challenge to atheists:  Read the entire page, reflect on it, take an honest look in the mirror, and ask yourself:  Is it an honest portrayal of atheism?

Thought you said you had a challenge.

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
03 December 2008 08:38
 

Isn’t Conservapedia a parody? Or is this Poe’s Law at work?

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14002
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
03 December 2008 08:45
 

Since it seems possible to edit this website, I suggest that everybody jump in and start adding to it.  Why let the wackos have all the fun?

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
03 December 2008 10:14
 

That website has about as much credibility as the christian bible! Cool!!

Thumbs up for mythology!

 
 
mpbrockman
 
Avatar
 
 
mpbrockman
Total Posts:  1536
Joined  23-06-2007
 
 
 
03 December 2008 10:52
 
Argonaut - 03 December 2008 07:52 AM
mpbrockman - 03 December 2008 06:05 AM

Wow, two whole threads Argo? Nothing like contempt before thorough investigation…

Saves time.

Yes, I imagine it would LOL

Argonaut - 03 December 2008 07:52 AM

It sounds like the just the sort of intellectually honest material that deserves serious consideration. Sorry, this drivel should be left for the afterlife.

Yes again (sarcasm noted and appreciated). My post above was due to insomnia more than anything else. At the same time there is some reason to point out the ridiculous like Conservapedia when it shows up here. Letting garbage go by unchallenged can be construed as tacit admission of its validity.

If you’re looking for more highbrow stuff, use the search function and toss in some keywords that interest you. If you’re just checking the “latest posts” on any given day - you might find nothing but fuckwittery.

Happy hunting and welcome.

 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
03 December 2008 18:15
 
mpbrockman - 03 December 2008 06:05 AM

No, IS. The article is a sloppily constructed collection of apologia, propaganda and biased quotations of “research” written in an attempt to paint atheists as confused, in denial, morally unbalanced and destined to lead short, unhappy lives. Whereas many of us, or at least myself, have found in the act of rejecting theism a grounding of self, a wealth of freedom (with concomitant responsibility) and a sense of contentment previously absent.

This was in part what I was asking about when I asked if it was an accurate portray of atheism.  I wanted to see if atheists felt like any of the things it implied were true, in terms of personal values and morals.

 
 
mpbrockman
 
Avatar
 
 
mpbrockman
Total Posts:  1536
Joined  23-06-2007
 
 
 
03 December 2008 20:15
 
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:15 PM

This was in part what I was asking about when I asked if it was an accurate portray of atheism.  I wanted to see if atheists felt like any of the things it implied were true, in terms of personal values and morals.

Well, color me a big no - but I can only speak for me. It is interesting to note the sorts of research they didn’t cover. For example, the recent Pew survey finding that atheists as a group have one of the highest marriage success rates (especially in the liberal Northeast) while fundamentalist Xtian Southerners have among the lowest.

The lesson? Marry an atheist from Boston rather than the Baptist Sunday School teacher from Vidalia. Seems to run a bit counter to conventional wisdom, does it not?

I don’t confuse correlation with causation (a concept Conservapedia seems unfamiliar with), but it’s still interesting to note things like that if that’s the game they wish to play.

Another issue they didn’t address is an idea that theists in general often have a hell of a time with. Namely, that a moral code can exist outside of a religious framework. My stock answer is that my ethical system (such as it is) originated in my upbringing and has been modified (and continues to be modified) by experience, observation and reflection. The work of SH and many other neuroscientists is also beginning to show pretty clearly that some aspects of what we call morality or ethics are actually hardwired and that people across the whole spectrum of belief systems react in very similar ways to ethical dilemmas.

I’m galloping off again.

I just find the article so biased, so willfully ignorant of so many aspects of atheism, ethics and related issues. That I find it difficult and rather useless to discuss at length.

Although I appear to have done just that. shut eye

 
 
mpbrockman
 
Avatar
 
 
mpbrockman
Total Posts:  1536
Joined  23-06-2007
 
 
 
03 December 2008 20:20
 

P.S. Teuchter - you and I just xposted.

Damn, dude. Don’t hold back… gulp

 
 
Argonaut
 
Avatar
 
 
Argonaut
Total Posts:  30
Joined  02-12-2008
 
 
 
03 December 2008 21:02
 

Ignore the caution. This might be more satisfying.

Image Attachments
 
butt_head_against_wall.jpg
 
 
 1 2 3 >