PDA

View Full Version : Conservapedia article on Atheism



benbradley
03-26-2007, 08:39 PM
Offhand I didn't see anything incorrect with this, and am surprised at how accurate it is:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
The article on the Earth, however, has several "views" - a very short Evolutionary View, and a much longer Young Earth Creationist View. I won't argue Young Earth view, but the Evolutionary view says "Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites." I'm pretty sure that second sentence is wrong.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Earth

Higgins
03-26-2007, 09:00 PM
Offhand I didn't see anything incorrect with this, and am surprised at how accurate it is:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
The article on the Earth, however, has several "views" - a very short Evolutionary View, and a much longer Young Earth Creationist View. I won't argue Young Earth view, but the Evolutionary view says "Estimates by geologists of the age of the Earth give about 4.55 billion years. This estimate is primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites." I'm pretty sure that second sentence is wrong.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Earth

Sounds reasonable. I mean, you don't have to be certifiably mad to be a
conservative, though I'm sure it will be the only way to be legally Conservative within a few years when there are 12 (very consevative and totally on ethnohallucinogens) Aztec Sun Priests on the Supreme Court.

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/May03/PSRD-SolarSystemTrigger.pdf

nancy02664
03-27-2007, 05:31 AM
Offhand I didn't see anything incorrect with this, and am surprised at how accurate it is:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

I'd have to agree -- nothing really pops out at me either, at least on the Atheism page.

The About (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About) page for Conservapedia cracked me up: "Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!" Sounds a little like FOX News to me. :)

loquax
03-27-2007, 03:22 PM
Wow, that was amazingly accurate and very fair. Also the prejudice/discrimination against Atheism section was very interesting. I was aware of Bush's quote, but not of the stats.

One thing that could be added to the "problem of evil" section is the existence of non-human evil. This destroys the argument of blaming free-will and condenses the issue to Theists' belief in the necessity for moral dualism.

small axe
04-09-2007, 08:54 AM
I've not really investigated "Conservapedia" -- I'm a little surprised to hear you think it's being fair and valid on subjects like Atheism though.

The way I'd heard it mentioned, it was sort of accusing "Conservapedia" of falling victim to crackpots at BOTH ends of the spectrum: either the radical Right cultists stating things very far beyond mere "Conservatism", or the rad Left types trying to load it full of purposefully absurd parodies of extreme-Conservative/Religious positions. Maybe that got taken care of ...

As for the age of Earth being dated by meteorites, huh. I've heard that no rock on Earth dates back to the full age of the Earth (because the surface keeps getting recycled on our young, geologically-active planet) ... but you'd think any meteorites would be recycled too?

I supposed if you could study the meteorite contents and it matched exactly with the chemical make up of the Earth, you could say "This looks like the same debris that made up the formation of the Earth, and we can date this because it's survived out in space"

Doesn't radio-carbon dating deal with organic, once-living things though? So probably it wouldn't work on meteorites?

aruna
04-09-2007, 09:26 AM
One thing that could be added to the "problem of evil" section is the existence of non-human evil. This destroys the argument of blaming free-will and condenses the issue to Theists' belief in the necessity for moral dualism.

What would you define as non-human evil, loquax?

Higgins
04-09-2007, 05:04 PM
I've not really investigated "Conservapedia" -- I'm a little surprised to hear you think it's being fair and valid on subjects like Atheism though.

The way I'd heard it mentioned, it was sort of accusing "Conservapedia" of falling victim to crackpots at BOTH ends of the spectrum: either the radical Right cultists stating things very far beyond mere "Conservatism", or the rad Left types trying to load it full of purposefully absurd parodies of extreme-Conservative/Religious positions. Maybe that got taken care of ...

As for the age of Earth being dated by meteorites, huh. I've heard that no rock on Earth dates back to the full age of the Earth (because the surface keeps getting recycled on our young, geologically-active planet) ... but you'd think any meteorites would be recycled too?

I supposed if you could study the meteorite contents and it matched exactly with the chemical make up of the Earth, you could say "This looks like the same debris that made up the formation of the Earth, and we can date this because it's survived out in space"

Doesn't radio-carbon dating deal with organic, once-living things though? So probably it wouldn't work on meteorites?

Radiocarbon ratios work for dating things in the the last 100,000 years. There are other isotopes that allow the dating of the condensation of the solar system and those are indeed found in meteorites.

See for example:

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/May03/PSRD-SolarSystemTrigger.pdf

loquax
04-09-2007, 07:19 PM
What would you define as non-human evil, loquax?Pain and suffering caused by the natural world. Disease, and natural disasters. Needless to say, when nature is good to people, there's an incentive to thank God. The converse "blame" for the existence of droughts and famines is a lot harder to shift onto humans.

pink lily
04-10-2007, 07:28 PM
The problem with Conservapedia is that it is the frequent target of vandalism. When it first became popular, I saw threads on no less than 4 message boards, where silly people were joking about the ridiculous edits they'd made to Conservapedia entries.

The funniest thing is that it's hard to distinguish the parodies from the genuine entries.

I recommend disregarding Conservapedia entirely, since it's so prone to invasion and vandalism.

small axe
04-11-2007, 10:20 AM
Originally Posted by loquax http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1222403#post1222403)
One thing that could be added to the "problem of evil" section is the existence of non-human evil. This destroys the argument of blaming free-will and condenses the issue to Theists' belief in the necessity for moral dualism.




Originally Posted by aruna http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1253638#post1253638)
What would you define as non-human evil, loquax?



Pain and suffering caused by the natural world. Disease, and natural disasters. Needless to say, when nature is good to people, there's an incentive to thank God. The converse "blame" for the existence of droughts and famines is a lot harder to shift onto humans.

Some Theists might point to the concept of "Fallen Nature" though, that Sin introduced a non-Paradise/non-Divine Plan world into the equation.

In that way, natural disasters aren't necessarily seen as morally Good or Evil, they're just a result of being off-Plan. A sort of "God didn't want you to go stand in the rain and get hit by lightning ... but He can't handcuff you from walking out the door either. And oh yeah ... the rain that drowns you may end the drought and starvation a thousand miles away."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point, however. Bad natural events can be in themselves neither Good nor Evil, but Man's being subject to them resulted from Fallen Nature. (A more mundane example might be: AIDS is neither good nor evil, but a self-destructive lifestyle may reap a result of infection? A rapist who caught AIDS from a victim?)

Others might point to Karma as being not necessarily Good or Bad, but keeping the Soul trapped in Illusion, etc.

But ... maybe I'm being all non sequitur n' shite. :)

loquax
04-11-2007, 03:17 PM
I don't see how "Fallen Nature" can fit into the plan of a God that is both omniscient (i.e. aware of all the pain nature will eventually cause), and omnipotent (i.e. able to stop it), as well as Loving. Nature does not have free will, so there is no good reason why god shouldn't intervene. I mean, we thank God for a good harvest, right? God did that! Then who did the bad stuff? Ummmm... satan?

And calling disease "punishment" is walking on VERY thin ice. Think about that for a moment!


Needless to say, Theists can only excuse, not explain, such is the "mystery" of God's Divine Will. Religion has a habit of answering the "what" and "who" questions, and leaving us humans to fumble over finding the infinitely trickier "why".

I find it best, in circumstances like these, for Theists to sink into their shells and proclaim "don't question my faith!"

I can't argue with that one.

small axe
04-18-2007, 07:52 AM
I don't see how "Fallen Nature" can fit into the plan of a God that is both omniscient (i.e. aware of all the pain nature will eventually cause), and omnipotent (i.e. able to stop it), as well as Loving. Nature does not have free will, so there is no good reason why god shouldn't intervene. I mean, we thank God for a good harvest, right? God did that! Then who did the bad stuff? Ummmm... satan?

And calling disease "punishment" is walking on VERY thin ice. Think about that for a moment!


Needless to say, Theists can only excuse, not explain, such is the "mystery" of God's Divine Will. Religion has a habit of answering the "what" and "who" questions, and leaving us humans to fumble over finding the infinitely trickier "why".

I find it best, in circumstances like these, for Theists to sink into their shells and proclaim "don't question my faith!"

I can't argue with that one.


I can't argue with that one.

No, you can't. :)


I don't see how "Fallen Nature" can fit into the plan of a God that is both omniscient (i.e. aware of all the pain nature will eventually cause), and omnipotent (i.e. able to stop it), as well as Loving. Nature does not have free will, so there is no good reason why god shouldn't intervene.
Omniscient only means God KNOWS what will happen, Omnipotent that God COULD correct "Fallen Nature" ... but as per His motive of allowing FREE WILL God chooses to allow Nature remain Fallen, and Man to remain in Sin or accept Grace.

A GOD who fixes every bad choice WE make, turns us into enslaved robots who cannot reap the consequences of their own choices. (Though, maybe he DOES: we sin, and the life we live after that is just a blink of Eternity, then we awake to what we've learned? We may be souls who spend an Eternity playing "Let's see what lifetime happens when I do it this way? now this way? Now THIS? etc")

Nature doesn't have free will, Nature doesn't suffer for being Fallen. Nature uses Volcanoes and Hurricanes and Dino-decimatin' Asteroid hits like foreplay and sexual climax. If people get squashed, that's a Soul that will live for Eternity ... laughing over a beer in Paradise saying "Remember the time we got squashed by the Asteroid? Cool."

Really, you might investigate Hindu philosophy to understand the (possible) motives of God.

If (I'll give you an IF if you allow me one too) we're souls, and God's God ... we're like ants trying to judge how much "rational sense" Quantum Physics makes ... with little ant brains scolding the Univese. "Makes no sense to us!" the Ants howl in protest!

Yeah. The universe is in big twouble NOW! :D

small axe
04-18-2007, 08:02 AM
Needless to say, Theists can only excuse, not explain, such is the "mystery" of God's Divine Will. Religion has a habit of answering the "what" and "who" questions, and leaving us humans to fumble over finding the infinitely trickier "why".


And ... can you do any better?

I suggest that if you CANNOT, then you're merely saying that Theists are (at worst) the same as you.

And who knows how much "better" than you, if they're RIGHT? :)

MacAllister
04-18-2007, 08:20 AM
Don't make this personal, Small Axe. This is the last warning you'll get about that.

small axe
04-18-2007, 09:16 AM
Don't make this personal, Small Axe. This is the last warning you'll get about that.

Having as much disgust as I do for people who make personal attacks ... yeah, okay. My apologies to whoever you're saying I fouled.

I just figured it was a quote and a rhetorical question. Sorry.

MacAllister
04-18-2007, 09:47 AM
And ... can you do any better?

I suggest that if you CANNOT, then you're merely saying that Theists are (at worst) the same as you.

And who knows how much "better" than you, if they're RIGHT? :)

No one was making value judgments about good/bad or better/worse until you did, here. It's uncalled for, and takes this discussion, in rhetorical terms, from the realm of the hypothetical into the realm of the personal.

Now, the other posters have exercised enormous patience with you--more than I'd be inclined to, if I were a participant in this conversation--you've pretty customarily responded with thinly-veiled sneering and insults. Stop it.

Zoombie
04-18-2007, 10:29 AM
As an Atheist (and a former Boy Scout) I have to say that I never heard of the G.W Bush quote. If it's real, my reaction is "HEY!" and if it's not...well...it's hard to get mad about things that aren't real.

But anything called "Conservapedia" makes me immediately leery.

So do nation wide quizzes. How are those done, anyway? And how many people just flat out lie? Without knowing that, I'm not gonna trust it.


PS: Funny story about my family. My mom is atheist, my dad is atheist, my brother is atheist, I am atheist...and my big sister is Mormon. It wasn't a break, it wasn't an argument and it wasn't a troubling thing. We all went to the baptisem, we all supported her and my sister's still my sister...she just goes to church and seems happier. Maybe it's a integral bias, but I think a Christian family would have a harder time letting one of it's children become atheist. Am I right, or am I just being prededjuiced?

If I am, please tell me. I really HATE being predejuiced.

PPS: Funny story about the Boy Scouts. One day, near the end of my time in the Scouts, our troop was supposed to clean out a Chuch and the surrounding buildings for community service. Guess who showed up? Me and my crotchety father. That was it. I felt kinda bummed and quit the Scouts a few months later because it seemed like I was the only one who cared. And sitting on the Church floor for meetings was VERY uncomfortable. I kept asking why we coulden't use the damn Pews, and they kept tell me to not say damn in a Church...

loquax
04-18-2007, 03:09 PM
And ... can you do any better?

I suggest that if you CANNOT, then you're merely saying that Theists are (at worst) the same as you.

And who knows how much "better" than you, if they're RIGHT? :)The point here is that I don't need to. You, however, need to excuse your beliefs if I am to take you seriously in your faith. You don't have to explain to me, of course. But then I'll never take you seriously. If you ask me "why", I'll reply, "I don't know, sorry." This answer isn't entirely acceptable when talking about faith and life-devotion.


Nature doesn't have free will, Nature doesn't suffer for being Fallen. Nature uses Volcanoes and Hurricanes and Dino-decimatin' Asteroid hits like foreplay and sexual climax. If people get squashed, that's a Soul that will live for Eternity ... laughing over a beer in Paradise saying "Remember the time we got squashed by the Asteroid? Cool."I'm confused. You're just explaining what nature does, but not why it is moral in the eyes of a loving god. Are you saying that people in heaven will look down on earth and smile over a beer at their grieving family? What about those born with genetic diseases and mental disability? Those not yet dead, but living their life in pain?

Science can easily explain why these things occur, because morality doesn't come into it.

small axe
04-18-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by small axe http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1274482#post1274482)
Nature doesn't have free will, Nature doesn't suffer for being Fallen. Nature uses Volcanoes and Hurricanes and Dino-decimatin' Asteroid hits like foreplay and sexual climax. If people get squashed, that's a Soul that will live for Eternity ... laughing over a beer in Paradise saying "Remember the time we got squashed by the Asteroid? Cool."




I'm confused. You're just explaining what nature does, but not why it is moral in the eyes of a loving god.

I'm suggesting that the "why" is that God's perspective (and our soul's) looking down from Eternity ... may be totally beyond mortal understanding. Perhaps our mortal lives are one quick "blink" of mortal confusion and pain, surrounded by an Eternity of Bliss.

"Ow! Why'd you slap me!?" one explorer asks the other.
"You had a poisonous spider on your neck." his friend answers.
"Thank you for saving me" the first explorer says.

Oh. We're the spider, we don't understand the higher good, yet. Someday maybe we will. :)



Are you saying that people in heaven will look down on earth and smile over a beer at their grieving family? What about those born with genetic diseases and mental disability? Those not yet dead, but living their life in pain?

Yes.

I'm NOT saying how wonderful it is, to suffer this mortal life. I am suggesting that the Christian suffering this mortal life isn't going thru anything better or worse than anyone else, whether the Christian is right or wrong. (Please, no one take that personally, it's a general statement)

I'm mostly suggesting that a Christian (any Faith will do for our example) might have it slightly better, if s/he has HOPE of an afterlife (yes, I'll die tonight, but i'll be with my family in Heaven tomorrow) and if their Faith gives their suffering MEANING (if only in their own minds)

The SUFFERING is the same for every mortal, but some have the benefits of HOPE and MEANING from their suffering.

But no, neither of us "knows" ...



Science can easily explain why these things occur, because morality doesn't come into it.


So can many Faiths: GOD'S morality comes into it.

And, I'd argue that Science doesn't explain WHY things happen at all. Science explains HOW things happen.
(But "why" and "how" do sort of blend in meaning, I'll admit)
Science tells us HOW a tumour grows ... not why, not the meaning.

Again, all mortals are experiencing the same thing "Science" is explaining anyway. Faith provides the comforts of Hope (of an afterlife) and Meaning too (where secular thoughts may or may not)

Let's not argue whose Meaning or Hope is superior (the Christian's or the Atheist's) ... we can agree that each is free to CHOOSE which appeals to them more.

I'd suggest that if an Atheist believed Heaven exists, Heaven would be a happier destination than whatever end Atheists look forward to. But if NOT ... that's okay with me.

loquax
04-18-2007, 05:34 PM
And, I'd argue that Science doesn't explain WHY things happen at all. Science explains HOW things happen.
(But "why" and "how" do sort of blend in meaning, I'll admit)
Science tells us HOW a tumour grows ... not why, not the meaning.
Science CAN tell you why a tumour grows. Especially if you smoke, and the tumour in in your lungs.

So called "meaning" has nothing to do with it, and only comes into the equation when you hypothesise a premeditating God; in which case, there is a meaning to why people get tumours. But this is your question to answer, not mine.

I think your claim of religion providing "hope" is a very subjective thing. There's no greater hell, in my mind, than living forever - be it in agony or bliss. So not only do I not believe in heaven, I don't want one to exist either.

Knowing there is no afterlife only makes me treat THIS life with more respect.

Melisande
04-18-2007, 06:51 PM
Knowing there is no afterlife only makes me treat THIS life with more respect.

Thank you, loquax. Many a time have I sought a way to explain how I feel about the so called hereafter. You nailed it right to the point! Thanks. I will quote you on that if you don't mind.

Devil Ledbetter
04-18-2007, 07:17 PM
Knowing there is no afterlife only makes me treat THIS life with more respect.I agree. I find it amazing to think that the physical matter we are made of has existed as long as the universe, but only for this relative blink of time do these particles come together and experience an intellectual consciousness that can look back out on the universe and contemplate it.