Okay, which one of you atheists wrote this Conservapedia entry on Atheism?

[Crunchy Frog]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

Atheism
Atheism, in common usage, means "lack of belief in any Gods". As Atheism is part of a scientific worldview which is based upon observable evidence rather than dogmatic insistence upon the veracity of superstitious claims which are unsupported by evidence, it also discounts supernatural phenomena such as the afterlife, divine revelation, ghosts, psychics, fairies, and other such ideas.

Atheism is popularly divided into Strong and Weak Atheism: Strong Atheism can be defined as a dogma in itself: The assertion that there absolutely is no God, despite the fact that the existence of the supernatural cannot be disproven. Weak Atheists acknowledge that nothing can be disproven, and while this does not suggest that there *is* a god (no more than the fact that we cannot disprove leprechauns suggests that they exist) it would nonetheless be unscientific to declare a God or godlike being impossible. Because of this distinction, many confuse Weak Atheism with Agnosticism, even persons who believe themselves to be Agnostics.

Atheism is closely tied with Secular Humanism. Popularly known Atheists include Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Stephen J. Gould, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.


Atheist morality
Atheist morality is based upon emotion, experience and empirically derived ethics, such as those promoted by secular humanism. Atheists hold that the Bible cannot be our source of morality as it contains countless calls for immoral behavior such as killing any who try to convert you, stoning homosexuals and adulterers to death, and the institution of slavery. Instead, most Christians actually rely on their own innate philanthropic sense (which has evolved as a necessary element of communal living over millions of years) to cherry pick the pleasant parts of the Bible and ignore the rest.

Atheists often subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more ethical to do what is right simply because you feel that it's right, rather than because you fear divine punishment. Such ethical behavior facilitates civilized living and improves the quality of life for everyone.

The common argument that Naziism and Stalinism were atheistic in nature and that their violence stemmed from that nature ignores more recent examples of what they actually were; Personality cults. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and more recently despots like Kim Jong Il were or are at the center of governments which enforce reverence unto them as though they were deities.

As for allegations that atheism contributes to crime, here are studies showing that in fact the opposite is true: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

Finally, evidence of the inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/religiosity-and-intelligence/

:rofl:

I don't suppose freeps understand the English language well enough to catch on to what this entry is actually saying about atheism and religion. :evilgrin:

[pnorman]

1. That site had been mentioned on DU a while back,

as a sort of"manipulated wiki". I'll have to go through it carefully a little later.

pnorman

[TheBaldyMan]

3. unfortunately it's not the only one - there is a whole bunch of banana wikis n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Can't be a DU atheist

we believers have been told time and time again not to use words like "dogma" when referring to atheism.

[TheBaldyMan]

4. since when have DUers stuck to the rules?

it seems that the definition of a rule is something that at least one DUer will transgress.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Not after the HUGE ruckus they caused

about believers using the term.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. I must have missed that day, n/t

[Goblinmonger]

6. That article does not say that atheists have dogma

Actually it says specifically that they don't.

I think the more important question would be what areas of that description of atheism do you have a problem with? What do you disagree with. I only skimmed it, but I think it is a pretty fair and accurate definition. I would be interested to hear where you see problems.

[Evoman]

11. Did you read that on this page or is that in the link?

Because I did not see atheism being called a dogma....in fact, it seemed to say that atheism was based on observable evidence and not on dogmatic insistince of the veracity of superstitious claimed. I didn't read the link, though, so you may be right.

And honestly, I don't understand the way you've been behaving lately..."causing a HUGE ruckus". So it seems to me that when we have a problem and are verbal about it, we are causing a ruckus. But when believers do (even about that graph), its somehow more legitimate. Maybe I'm reading something in your tone thats not there, and if I do, I apologize.

[Goblinmonger]

7. I don't go to freeperland often

because I then have to take a hot shower and scrub my skin raw to get "The Conservative" off of me. Also, their site platform is for shit and way too confusing to follow who is responding to whom.

....but, there are a good share of atheists there. Though, I think you are right, that entry seems almost exactly like the "same old same old" discussion about atheism that we get on here. I could see Az or trotsky or Commie or a host of others having written that.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I didn't find it through FR (which I pretty much avoid)

but while browsing through the Internet Infidels discussion board on evolution/creationism. Apparently, the Conservapedia is being "vandalized" by people with a greater than 6th grade education. There's a nice thread on the subject on Phayngula http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/a_new_way_of_learning_about_hi.php#more , where some people are seeing how outrageous a satire they can post without being figured out. I saw some pretty hysterical entries posted on both sites, but many of them have been scrubbed already. Don't know how long this Atheism one will last.

The system really does seem like it's open to abuse by people who actually know something about a subject, intruding on the alternate reality that is under construction there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Surprisingly, that has been there over a week

and has gone through one edit - someone took the following out, with the comment 'Removed allegation that Nazis were Christians':

"Nazi Germany was in fact heavily Christian, as evidenced by Hitler's own words, as shown here:http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm and photographic evidence of his ties with the church can he found here: http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm It is certainly plausible that Hitler was nonreligious and feignin religious belief in order to gain power, but even if Hitler himself was not religious, Nazis on the whole most certainly were."

Apart from the idea of the project - that Wikipedia is 'liberally biased' (as shown by things like British spelling!) and so a conservative version is needed - the scarcity of information or references to other websites in so many of the entries is appalling. They read like a 12 year old's rushed homework. Here's the entire entry on Adolf Hitler:

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was a very brutal dictator of Germany with the dream of taking over the world. He once said, "Conquest is not only a right but also a duty." The German people were so supportive of him they followed him even when he led them into World War II. He sent millions of Jews to "concentration camps" where they were killed. Gypsies (thousands of them), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and "extreme Christians", political opponents of the Nazis were also killed in the camps.

Adolf Hitler was a great orator who made the people of Germany believe that he could lead them out of their economic problems. He also inspired a strong sense nationalism in the German people.

And that took them 12 edits - followed by another 10 which are back and forth arguments about whether he was a Christian. There's not a single link to any other site, or any other Conservapedia article. So someone looking that up won't find out how he came to power, when World War 2 started, who Germany was fighting (or was allied with), how Hitler died, or how the war went. Any homeschooler using that as a reference is hopelessly screwed.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. It almost reminds me of that idea of an infinite number monkeys

eventually coming up with Hamlet. A vast number of freepers working on this will eventually come up with recognizable English sentences.

It seems that the flaw in this system is the inability to keep out trolls. either ones injecting accurate information, or doing satire. Satire is difficult to distinguish from the normal rantings of these types, and that, coupled with their intellectual deficiencies, should make quite alot of entertainment value.

As far as Wikipedia goes, they try to base it on a more or less accurate reflection of "reality", which has a well known liberal bias.:)