< 1 2 3
 
   
 

Is this an accurate portrayal of atheism?

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  5948
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
04 December 2008 21:25
 
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

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?

I think your conservapedia page, what little I read of it before getting bored, portrays atheism just about as accurately as religion is portrayed by many here on this site.  Which is to say, it’s a pretty mind-bending excercise in convincing oneself of the merits of one’s own ideology.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
04 December 2008 21:43
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 05 December 2008 02:25 AM

Which is to say, it’s a pretty mind-bending excercise in convincing oneself of the merits of one’s own ideology.

Well, sure. If all you have is an ideology, everything looks like a merit/demerit.

 
 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1606
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
06 December 2008 12:04
 
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:18 PM

In doing my research for some of the projects I am working on in this forum,

You’re working on projects in this forum?  Why?

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?

How is it a portrayal of atheism at all?  It seems to consist most of apologetics—arguments in favor of theism.

For instance:

Atheism and Questions of Origins

Creationist scientists state that the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by God.[59][60][61] A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.[62][63] Creation scientists assert that the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.[64] In addition, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate. The theory of evolution has had a number of negative social effects.

Basically, this says that most of those who understand that evolution is true are atheists, but that evolution can’t be true and that creationism is the only way to avoid negative social effects.

Is this an honest portrayal of atheism?  No.  It doesn’t appear to have anything to do with atheism.  Same with the rest of the article.

 
 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1606
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
06 December 2008 12:08
 
Jefe - 02 December 2008 08:56 PM

Furthermore, don’t waste my time by trying to get me to read conservapedia.

It’s interesting how cleverly they’ve mimicked Wikipedia.  Although some of the sidebars are, well, ruining the effect.

ATHEISM

The belief that there was nothing
and nothing happened to nothing
and the nothing magically
exploded for no reason, creating
everything and then a bunch of
everything magically rearranged
itself for no reason what so ever
into self-replicating bits which
then turned into dinosaurs.

Makes perfect sense.

You won’t see something like that on Wikipedia.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
06 December 2008 14:18
 

‘nothing magically
exploded for no reason’

Thats about the dumbest statement imaginable. If anything explodes it is for a reason. It’s called physics and the properties thereof.

It’s beyond ridiculous to try and reason and discuss with such nonsense here.

IS is exceedingly childish and ignorant. We should no longer afford him the dignity from our replies.

Seriously, whats the use?

 
 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
06 December 2008 14:34
 
McCreason - 06 December 2008 07:18 PM

It’s beyond ridiculous to try and reason and discuss with such nonsense here.

IS is exceedingly childish and ignorant. We should no longer afford him the dignity from our replies.

Seriously, whats the use?

Yep! It makes a person fundamentally speechless.

 
 
 < 1 2 3