Atheist-Bashing

Scofflaw

I'm beginning to run into so many examples of this, that I thought I might as well start a thread for it...

Definition of atheism from the Conservapedia.

Stalin was killing people in the name of atheism. Who knew?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

*shrug*
plenty of atheists bash theists, sure alot of the time it is warranted but alot of it is also purely for the sake of bashing theists

more power to them (the theists)

and the url is
http://www.conservepedia.com/Atheism

-edit

rofl, I thought you had goten the url wrong but the muppets actually either registered the wrong url or mispelled the title of the site

hahahahahaha

those theists are ****ing morons

JC 2K3

Conservapedia? ROFL!

MoominPapa

lol, thats the funniest thing I've seen in ages. check out the consise entry for Stalin http://www.conservepedia.com/Stalin

I don't think wikipedia has much to worry about, looks like conservepedia is produced by one, slightly dumb, 14 year old

stevejazzx

ROFL

conservapedia wrote:

Stalin and Richard Dawkins are prominent atheists

I thought Stalin was dead?.... Oh no wait

consevapedia wrote:

and Stalin is now dead, having killed millions of people in the name of atheism

He does realise Stalin is now of course, dead. Such a bizzare duo

Stalin and Richard Dawkins....

oh this gave me a huge laugh, is this real btw?

stevejazzx

MoominPapa wrote:

lol, thats the funniest thing I've seen in ages. check out the consise entry for Stalin http://www.conservepedia.com/Stalin

I don't think wikipedia has much to worry about, looks like conservepedia is produced by one, slightly dumb, 14 year old

wow!!!

conservapedia wrote:

Josef Stalin was an atheist communist Russian dictator during World War II. He was defeated by Adolf Hitler, despite Hitler also being an atheist.
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Stalin"

I never knew that Stalin was an atheist communist, very intersting.

Dades

Hmmm...

The atheist bashing is odd considering the category "god" falls under*...

http://www.conservapedia.com/God

* Exactly where it should be.

Zillah

Ow.

humanji

This site is brilliant! On the title page it gives a link to the Bias Of Wikipedia.

Conservapedia wrote:

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Hmmm...

The atheist bashing is odd considering the category "god" falls under*...

http://www.conservapedia.com/God

* Exactly where it should be.

It's almost impossible to tell these days whether something is a parody or not. I suspect my own judgement has been seriously warped by the continuing existence of Captain Capslock....I mean, if he's real, where does one draw the line?

cordially,
Scofflaw

radiospan

http://www.conservapedia.com/Anything_Goes

"Anything Goes" is the title of a 1934 musical production written by Cole Porter. Popular songs from the musical include "You're the Top," "I Get a Kick Out of You," and "Anything Goes."

Because Porter was a homosexual, we can conclude that 'anything goes' was also his philosophy of life. Many atheists have adopted the song as a description of their "moral" code.

PoleStar

An interesting comparison on this site is to compare the tone of the articles on atheism and Islam.

Atheists are referred to as baby killers and a representative of atheism: Stalin.

The article on Islam is a fairly benign short historic account.

The irony I find is that while many hard-line American Christians view Muslims as evil and associate them with 9/11, the attitude to atheists is much more scathing, as if we can have no morals! Funny since atheists are more in touch with humanity than many religions.

And that whole moral argument? A child who by default is not religious will have some degree of moral instinct and know what is right and wrong (although i take it they might cry a bit along the way ha!). Surely this negates the whole "religion is necessary to have morals argument"? Or do the theists just say well obviosyl the childs morals were a gift from god!

5uspect

Quite possibly the best site I've seen in ages! AiG move over.

This is probably Onion inspired vandalism:

Conservapedia wrote:

Gravity

Gravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Those damn dirty evolutionists and their theory of gravity! It is a theory which suggests that all masses are attracted to each other because of invisible particles called gravitons or invisible curves in space. The idea was first developed by Isaac Newton, and has been worked on by prominent scientists like Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein.

Gravity controversy

Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory,( it is not a theory it is a law ) and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year(there are more forces then just gravity, you can pick an apple off of the ground and lift it can you not?), directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another. Yes, indeed if the theory of gravity were to be correct we would all live on one gigantic universal sized planet that consisted of all matter in the known universe. The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe.

Pure genius this.

hairyheretic

Scofflaw wrote:

It's almost impossible to tell these days whether something is a parody or not.

I'm trying to figure out which that site is myself.

JC 2K3

Aw, who "vandalised" the Athiesm article?

JC 2K3

OMG! ROFL! I just found this in "Articles for Deletion":

http://www.conservapedia.com/Taste_Test%21:_aborted_fetuses_or_chocolate_milk%3F

Zillah

5uspect wrote:

Pure genius this.

About now is when I'd like to propose my theory of "Intelligent Falling Down"...

5uspect

I'm surprised that this site hasn't popped up over in the zoo that is the creationism thread.

Conservapedia wrote:

Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East[ref: Ken Ham] and 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, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters[2].

But oddly enough evolution is good enough for parasites...

Parasitism is a form of symbiosis where the parasite benefits and the host is harmed. While it used to be thought that parasites were very simple creatures generally with little impact on their ecosystems, biologists now understand that parasites can be very sophisticated, precisely evolved to take advantage of their hosts and that parasites can have significant effects on their environment and on their host's evolution. A common parasite in humans is Toxoplasmosis..

I find the discussion of faith particularly confusing:

Faith is complete trust or confidence in an unseen, loving power. Its root is the Latin word "fidere", meaning "to trust".

Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith and it is exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament. An example is Jesus observing the powerful healing faith of a Roman centurion: "Assuredly I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!" (Matthew 8:10)

The concept of faith is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament (KJV).

In the Koran, the concept of submission to Allah is mentioned 11 times, while the concept of faith in Allah is mentioned only once.

Some (particularly non-Christians) dilute the meaning of faith, depriving it of its power and significance. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, for example, includes this watered-down definition of faith: "a system of religious beliefs."[1] Under this meaning, any and every religion has "belief" or "faith". But faith preached uniquely by Jesus obviously refers to something far more precise than any "a system of religious beliefs," and such faith has never been preached in the same way by non-Christian religions.

I can never understand why theists say that faith is more than it is? Its like a drug addict saying that its more than just an addiction, you wouldn't understand. I suppose I don't...

Zillah

5uspect wrote:

I can never understand why theists say that faith is more than it is?

Dude...they're crazy, remember? There just happens to be enough of them for it to not be grounds for commital.

MoominPapa

Conservapedia - sounds like a site for people requiring information about jam or preserves generally

hairyheretic

Zillah wrote:

About now is when I'd like to propose my theory of "Intelligent Falling Down"...

Didn't The Onion cover that one a while back?

Zillah

Rummbled. Cheese it!

5uspect

5uspect wrote:

This is probably Onion inspired vandalism:

Ahem!

Scofflaw

I love this report on the unchurched in the US. It's got the gentlest, most pervasive bias. It's like a dip in warm soothing poison after some of the acid-in-your-face atheist-bashing we've seen recently.

Favourite quotes:

“Unchurched people are not just lazy or uninformed," the researcher continued. "They are wholly disinterested in church life - often passionately so. More comfortable pews cannot compete with the easy chair or the bed that already serve the unchurched person well. "

I love it - they're not lazy, but they do spend their time in easy chairs or beds, and they would need more comfortable pews...

And while the author realises that:

"Addressing the reticence of the unchurched takes more than prayer and hard work: it requires a lot of deep reflection to see the world and the local church from a completely different angle."

he clearly thinks they're a bunch of anti-social losers:

"“The unchurched are more likely than others to be somewhat isolated from the mainstream activities of the society in which they live," he explained. "They see themselves as outsiders and often take refuge in that status. Evidence of this arms-length approach to life, beyond their refusal to participate in church life, includes lower levels of voter registration, less money donated to non-profit organizations, fewer non-profits supported, lower levels of media usage, and less engagement in community service activities."

The second distinguishing characteristic was what Barna called their non-committal nature. "You can see this emotional and intellectual distancing of themselves through their more moderate ideology, their more ambiguous theological perspectives, a lower likelihood of embracing terms used to describe oneself (such as "generous," "friendly" and "deeply spiritual"), a substantially lower level of self-professed commitment to their faith of choice, and their rejection of the idea of responsibility for nurturing other people’s faith." Barna also noted that the high proportion of atheists and agnostics among the unchurched fits this pattern of distaste for finite or irrevocable choices."

We're not "friendly", then, or "generous". We have a "pattern of distaste". And so:

" It will take radically new settings and experiences to effectively introduce unchurched individuals to biblical principles and practices."

Yes, I rather think it will...particularly given the weird beliefs the unchurched don't hold:

"Among the theological differences uncovered were that unchurched adults are less likely than others to believe the Bible is accurate, that Jesus was sinless, that Satan is real, that salvation is through the grace of God, and that God is the creator and present-day ruler of the universe."

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

he he. "present day ruler of the universe" suggests to me that He may one day lose that particular seat. Perhaps to Ming the Merciless. I hear he's been lusting after the "ruler of the universe" title for a good while.

Scofflaw

Nearly straight to the top slot - and unsurprisingly from those marvellous folks at Answers in Genesis - evolutionary theory is responsible for the Columbine massacre (and others).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Nearly straight to the top slot - and unsurprisingly from those marvellous folks at Answers in Genesis - evolutionary theory is responsible for the Columbine massacre (and others).

I really really didn't want to read something like that right now. Why do I do this to myself?

The Bible is the source of human morality, therefore if the Bible isn't true then we have no morality. Evolution is survival of the fittest so you should start eating people like evolutionists want you to. The body is very complex, therefore God made it.

I hate.

I'm going to bed.

mickoneill30

Zillah wrote:

The Bible is the source of human morality, therefore if the Bible isn't true then we have no morality. Evolution is survival of the fittest so you should start eating people like evolutionists want you to. The body is very complex, therefore God made it.

Was that a serious statement or sarcastic? I hope the millions of Hindus / Muslims / Buddhists / whatever don't realise that they've no morality. Any links to show us where evolutionist want us to eat people? Nah it must have been sarcastic.

Talliesin

Hmm. The Atheism article currently there seems a lot less biased, with considerable criticism of the citations of Stalin and Pol Pot (in other versions that have been up) in the discussion page. At the time when they had those two cited as examples of Atheists they also had Einstein cited, which is more inaccurate (he was a Theist) and Einstein is generally a well-respected figure (so much so that some Atheists have similarly tried to cite him as an example of an Atheist).

It is true that Stalin killed millions of people in the name of a philosophy which holds Atheism as a central component. You simply can't have Dialectic Materialism without Atheism - Christian Marxists and others that combine Communist political views with religious views other than Atheism (even Agnostic Communists) are not of the same philosphical view as Dialect Materialist Marxists such as espoused by Lenin and Stalin and in particular do not have the same basis for arguing that a Worker's Republic is historically inevitable.

It's not true that we know Stalin was definitely an Atheist (there is some historical evidence that he did not believe in the Atheism he espoused; though it is very thin it does cast a slight doubt) but he certainly espoused it as part of the same philosophy which justified his genocides.

The question is; does this tell us something about Atheism, or does this tell us something that people will do in the name of any given philosophy? Any survey of Atheists will find that the vast majority have not engaged in genocides. Any survey of genocides will show that the perpetrators do not have much commonality in the philosophy they espouse but do in how they apply that philosophy.

The fruitful lesson is that no religious philosophy guarantees moral behaviour on the part of those who espouse it.

Since most Atheists do not hold that Atheism has a spiritual value which will inevitably and mystically impart morality upon its believers it should not surprise them to find that some of their number have committed attrocities in its name.

The only thing lost is the ability of those Atheists who are Evangelical to use similar bad logic in blaming genocides on religion. Atheists who do not wish to have a better recourse to bad logic an lazy thinking for Evangelical purposes cannot complain about the fact that Stalin is cited as an Atheist who committed genocide.

Dr Pepper

mickoneill30 wrote:

Was that a serious statement or sarcastic? I hope the millions of Hindus / Muslims / Buddhists / whatever don't realise that they've no morality. Any links to show us where evolutionist want us to eat people? Nah it must have been sarcastic.

Yes I think that was sarcasm! But, if you really want to be frightened, click on the link 'Dig Deeper, watch the video' on the linked page above. It's a lengthy Ken Ham lecture. He gives his adult audience only very slightly more intellectual credit than the (poor) children I've seen him preach to in the past (which is probably more than they deserve!).

It's so irritating the way he keeps making the argument that the Bible contains sound science and recognised scientific disciplines (geology, biology, antropology....he says it about 50 times during the lecture!) as if he is using this to say "Look, this is scientific so it must be accurate, but don't believe all that science stuff everyone is trying to brain wash you with"...
"Don't ask questions about the world and try to learn anything for yourself.. Look in the Bible for the true answers and then confirm those answers by observing the world in whatever skewed, nonsensical way is necessary to do so".
What an ass!

Vamp369

My brother once can upon a wiki type website once that I found quite funny> the article on Ireland is quite funny.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Ireland

5uspect

Almost as funny as conservapeida

Sapien

Talliesin wrote:

The only thing lost is the ability of those Atheists who are Evangelical to use similar bad logic in blaming genocides on religion. Atheists who do not wish to have a better recourse to bad logic an lazy thinking for Evangelical purposes cannot complain about the fact that Stalin is cited as an Atheist who committed genocide.

I don't understand. By denying a causal relationship between Stalin's atheism and his crimes, we do not deny that religious belief can cause a person to commit similar crimes.

Sapien

How about this:

You don't have to believe in a god to commit genocide, but it helps.

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

I don't understand. By denying a causal relationship between Stalin's atheism and his crimes, we do not deny that religious belief can cause a person to commit similar crimes.

That is, we don't deny that Stalin was an atheist who committed crimes, but we say that he did not commit those crimes for atheism, out of atheism, or in defence of atheism - neither actually nor nominally. Stalin would have committed such crimes either way - and indeed, come to that, there is a good deal of uncertainty over Stalin's personal beliefs.

The same is not the case for the Crusades/Inquisition/Albigensian Suppression etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Talliesin wrote:

Hmm. The Atheism article currently there seems a lot less biased, with considerable criticism of the citations of Stalin and Pol Pot (in other versions that have been up) in the discussion page. At the time when they had those two cited as examples of Atheists they also had Einstein cited, which is more inaccurate (he was a Theist) and Einstein is generally a well-respected figure (so much so that some Atheists have similarly tried to cite him as an example of an Atheist).

It is true that Stalin killed millions of people in the name of a philosophy which holds Atheism as a central component. You simply can't have Dialectic Materialism without Atheism - Christian Marxists and others that combine Communist political views with religious views other than Atheism (even Agnostic Communists) are not of the same philosphical view as Dialect Materialist Marxists such as espoused by Lenin and Stalin and in particular do not have the same basis for arguing that a Worker's Republic is historically inevitable.

It's not true that we know Stalin was definitely an Atheist (there is some historical evidence that he did not believe in the Atheism he espoused; though it is very thin it does cast a slight doubt) but he certainly espoused it as part of the same philosophy which justified his genocides.

The question is; does this tell us something about Atheism, or does this tell us something that people will do in the name of any given philosophy? Any survey of Atheists will find that the vast majority have not engaged in genocides. Any survey of genocides will show that the perpetrators do not have much commonality in the philosophy they espouse but do in how they apply that philosophy.

The fruitful lesson is that no religious philosophy guarantees moral behaviour on the part of those who espouse it.

Since most Atheists do not hold that Atheism has a spiritual value which will inevitably and mystically impart morality upon its believers it should not surprise them to find that some of their number have committed attrocities in its name.

The only thing lost is the ability of those Atheists who are Evangelical to use similar bad logic in blaming genocides on religion. Atheists who do not wish to have a better recourse to bad logic an lazy thinking for Evangelical purposes cannot complain about the fact that Stalin is cited as an Atheist who committed genocide.

1) Einstein was not a theist. He renounced his faith, though not particularly publically. The confusion comes from the fact that he used "god" as his shorthand for "the physical principals of the universe".

2) Stalin, though subscribing to an atheistic view, was first and formost a communist and second he was a tyrant bent on controlling his population through whatever means necessary. Ahteism has nothing to do with why so many people died and was not used as a justification for it.

3) Religion has been the driving influence behind many military and genocidal actions. Lest we forget the crusades, the wars between the Isrealities and the Caananites etc

4) Atheism does not lead to persecution on religious basis. It leads to secularism if anything at all. I defy anyone to show me an actual case where the central reason for going to war was LACK of belief.

Scofflaw

A splendidly funny joke from our friends in the US:

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, “God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I’ll give you exactly 15 minutes.” The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, “Here I am God. I’m still waiting.” It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform.

The professor was out cold. The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, “What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?”

The Marine calmly replied, “God was too busy today protecting America ’s soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an a$$. So, He sent me.

What's not to like? Dissected here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kevster

Atheists are [generally] the intellectuals of society; those that are devoutly religious are not. Allow me to rephrase actually: Atheists are the people who have spent more time thinking than their religious counterparts. This does not necessarly mean that we [Atheists] are better; it's simply stating a fact.

PDN

Kevster wrote:

Atheists are [generally] the intellectuals of society; those that are devoutly religious are not. Allow me to rephrase actually: Atheists are the people who have spent more time thinking than their religious counterparts. This does not necessarly mean that we [Atheists] are better; it's simply stating a fact.

Of course it depends what you've been spending your time thinking about.

Scofflaw

Kevster wrote:

Atheists are [generally] the intellectuals of society; those that are devoutly religious are not. Allow me to rephrase actually: Atheists are the people who have spent more time thinking than their religious counterparts. This does not necessarly mean that we [Atheists] are better; it's simply stating a fact.

It might be slightly more accurate to characterise 'intellectuals' as 'those who tend to trust and use their own reasoning faculties above all else' - and I would say that these people are indeed more prone to be atheists.

However, it's worth noting that just because you "trust and use your own reasoning faculties above all else" doesn't necessarily mean you're good at using them, or that they're necessarily good faculties to begin with. It is quite possible to be a stupid intellectual - I can think of a couple of examples straight away.

I don't know whether I would necessarily claim to spend more time thinking than does, say, PDN, or Excelsior - clearly they have both thought long and hard about their respective religions (and in PDN's case, about one-liners).

cordially,
Scofflaw

indough

Scofflaw wrote:

That is, we don't deny that Stalin was an atheist who committed crimes, but we say that he did not commit those crimes for atheism, out of atheism, or in defence of atheism - neither actually nor nominally. Stalin would have committed such crimes either way - and indeed, come to that, there is a good deal of uncertainty over Stalin's personal beliefs.

The same is not the case for the Crusades/Inquisition/Albigensian Suppression etc etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The book on war was literally written by an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Wars are not fought for religion, but religion is often used as an excuse.

Scofflaw

indough wrote:

The book on war was literally written by an atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

Wars are not fought for religion, but religion is often used as an excuse.

Sun Tzu was an atheist? That's news...he was more probably an adherent of the Chinese polytheism of that era, if he existed. He might also, just about, have been a Taoist.

What leads you to conclude that he was an atheist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

hitler wasn't an atheist he was fascist!



god had a theory on gravity, who knew

Galvasean

I like how everyone who has done bad things in the past, whether the be pagan, polytheist or even in some cases Catholic* get thrown in with the bad ol' atheists so more shocking statistics can be formed.

*I saw a video on Godtube that said said Atheists were responsible for the Crusades.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

A splendidly funny joke from our friends in the US

What's not to like? Dissected here.

That's a great story, and a very interesting commentary. Nice one.

Ekancone

funny

PDN

Galvasean wrote:

I like how everyone who has done bad things in the past, whether the be pagan, polytheist or even in some cases Catholic* get thrown in with the bad ol' atheists so more shocking statistics can be formed.

*I saw a video on Godtube that said said Atheists were responsible for the Crusades.

I think we all have a tendency to form our definitions in a self-serving way. For example, according to Christopher Hitchens, Rev Martin Luther King Jr wasn't a Christian.

robindch

IIRC, Hitchens point about Martin Luther King was that he had a native respect for the fundamental equality and rights of all human beings, two things which are heavily circumscribed by the vast majority of chrisitians. It is in this sense that King was not a christian.

.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

Of course it depends what you've been spending your time thinking about.

As in, whether the Emperor's new clothes are made from aubergine taffeta with cerise embroidery, or purple damask with a crimson sateen weft. Or whether, in fact...

robindch

...at the risk of stealing thunder, the excellent and full (original?) Courtier's Reply is here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

Zombrex

indough wrote:

Wars are not fought for religion, but religion is often used as an excuse.

Wars are often fought for religion.

While someone might have an argument that the leaders of armies do not genuinely believe in the cases they instigate war for, they still at the end of the day need an army to match into battle for them.

So if you say that say the Popes started the Crusades for economic and power reasons, the men who matched under the Christian banner for them marched very much due to religious belief.