Conservapedia's Entry on Atheism

[LAGC]

Unlike Wikipedia's relatively short entry covering atheism, these guys hold nothing back as they "objectively" and "without bias" critique it:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.<1><2><3> Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.
..
..
Manifestations of Atheism

There are three ways that atheism manifests itself:

* Militant atheism which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today especially in Communist countries.
* Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, believing that God does not exist.
* Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, living as though God does not exist.<7>
..
..
Atheism often relies on asserting fragile assumptions that are contrary to the existing evidence (see also: Evidence for Christianity ).<10><11><12><13> In addition, atheists/skeptics do have a tradition of making assumptions that later have proved errant.<14> Also, prominent atheists, such as Charles Darwin (see: religious views of Charles Darwin ), have experienced doubts concerning the validity of atheism.

I wonder how many brainwashed fundie Bible thumper's kids who are home-schooled and only allowed to use Conservapedia for homework "research" are going to take that at face value? I can't help but think they lay it on so thick, that any half-way inquisitive kid is going to research further... they may be doing themselves no favors having such a biased entry. They might have been better off, from their own ideological perspective, of just not covering the topic at all.

[Demeter]

1. Don't They Know You CAN'T Prove a Negative?

Even the Jesuits know that, for Christ's sake!

[zbdent]

4. come now ... they haven't proven that the majority of TEA Party members are NOT child molesters

who have blackmailed their victims into silence ...

[laconicsax]

6. Nor has Glenn Beck proven that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990. n/t

[darkstar3]

2. So THAT'S where all the idiocy about atheism is coming from... n/t

[cleanhippie]

21. The line about "militant atheism" seems very, very familiar......

Oh yeah, one poster here spews that shit almost daily...

[jobycom]

3. That's just about what I grew up being taught.

Where I went to kindergarten, we all know that the woman in the corner house was an atheist, and that no kid should ever walk by her house alone. Everyone know someone who knew a kid that disappeared walking in front of her house. We were all told (by each other, not by grownups) that the best thing to do was throw rocks at the house if we ever had to walk by it. I know someone's parent had to have started that story and the advice because none of us was even sure what an atheist was.

And yeah, I'm serious. That's how I grew up. I was afraid to admit I was an atheist even after I stopped believing in gods. That's one reason I get so mad at the handful of atheists who try to turn that same type of pressure and hatred back against believers. No one should be afraid to believe what they believe.

[laconicsax]

5. Darwin was a prominent atheist?

And here I thought he was a Christian who struggled with doubts about his faith.

[dimbear]

9. Darwin...........

Although he was a believer during the years when he wrote his great works, in his later years he became an agnostic.

A quiet agnostic. It is complete folly to imagine he was ever a prominent atheist.

Well, actually, it is a purposeful lie, but that's another issue.

[pokerfan]

7. Conservapedia is a parody site, right?

Is it just a slightly more subtle version of ObjectiveMinistries? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law">Poe's Law makes it hard to tell.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=38726">How to stump an atheist

http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/">

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. The answer is not that simple. It began as a straight-as-hell RW initiative...

...and then it started being flooded by satirist editors. Due to Poe's Law, the admins can't tell the difference. :rofl:

[pscot]

8. That's hilarious

No sense of irony.

[onager]

10. Pretty close to what I can sometimes read right in this forum.

Needs more Stalin/Mao/Hitler, though.

I did LOL at the definition of apologetics as "a large body of sound evidence." More like "a large body of wishful thinking pulled out of Josh MacDowell's butt."

[Goblinmonger]

11. This quotation seems like a few people in here

"The historical militancy of the atheist/evolutionist community and the ideas their ideologies have often engendered provides more than enough explanatory power to explain the origin of the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheists/evolutionist population (see: militant atheism and social effects of the theory of evolution )."

[cleanhippie]

22. It all seems so familiar, huh?

Where have I seen this nonsense before?


Oh yeah! Its posted daily in this forum by you-know-who.....

[PVnRT]

13. +1

[trotsky]

14. I was gonna say,

sure sounds similar to what some like to spew in here. Not surprised those individuals would agree with Conservapedia.

[rrneck]

12. How much evidence

is required to support the statement, "I don't believe in God."? Exactly the same amount required to support an expression of that same belief.

None.

[struggle4progress]

15. It seems to me yet another silly and tendentious bundle of babble on the subject

I expect that the authors of the Conservapedia article would be quite unhappy, for example, to hear that it was precisely my materialist views, and my sympathy for a certain flavor of Marxian analysis, that brought me back to Christianity after a certain indifference and hostility; that I do not think there can be an ordinary scientific evidence for the existence of G-d; that I think much of Christian ethics actually requires me in many ways to act as though I were an atheist, the poor and the weak being our immediate material concern and not merely the concern of an abstract deus absconditis; that "faith" means, not intellectual assent to a literal interpretation of old stories but the completely irrational view that Love and The Word can triumph against mere indifference and hatred and physical violence ...

[laconicsax]

16. Do want to wrap up that sentence?

You ended it with an ellipsis, implying that there's more; maybe you could conclude your remarks.

[struggle4progress]

17. Maybe I could. eom

[darkstar3]

18. Read your post again, from beginning to end, and tell me if you see the irony. n/t

[edhopper]

20. This is the funny part;

"Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology."

When you go to those entries there is absolutely no proof or evidence for Christianity offered. Only the old tired philosophical arguments that have been easily refuted for centuries.

And the how to stump the atheist thing would only work of a rather dumb atheist.