Jump to content


Photo

Conservapedia Atheism Article


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10 replies to this topic

#1 PeterMoore

PeterMoore

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Medina, NY

Posted 25 September 2007 - 04:44 AM

I created most the Conservapedia atheism article located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

Any feedback would be appreciated.

#2 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 25 September 2007 - 08:28 AM

Hi Peter,

Great article. I believe the ground was well-covered.

Personally, I would go with those who say there is no such thing as an atheist. The very act of denying God means they accept there is a God to deny.

Now, an atheist may counter by saying that because I deny the existence of three-headed, Elvis-singing aliens, I really do believe in three-headed, Elvis-singing aliens. However, the big difference is that we're talking about the God of the universe here, not whimsical fancy.

As your section on "Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism" pointed out, God places in each person's heart the knowledge of the creator. One might try to evade that knowledge, shutting his eyes to it, but one cannot remove that God-shaped portion of his conscience, that wee little voice, that tells him God is real.

Atheists know God is real. That's why they work so hard to deny him.

Having said that, however, I don't believe in making a big deal out of it. I don't have any problem with non-believers wishing to use the term "atheist" to describe their state of unbelief.

But, they are only kidding themselves if they believe their denial of God is anything but a kind of whistling to themselves to keep from getting scared while walking through the dark woods at night. (Whistle, whistle) See me? I'm not scared. (Whistle, whistle) There's nothing out there. (Whistle, whistle) Gee, I hope I get to the other side without getting attacked. (Whistle, whistle)

Dave

Side note: I've been there. I used to be a card-carrying atheist.

#3 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 27 September 2007 - 01:17 PM

I would revise the "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" section. Many atheists like myself, just have not seen any evidence for a god like being.

#4 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 28 September 2007 - 07:25 AM

I would revise the "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" section.  Many atheists like myself, just have not seen any evidence for a god like being.

View Post


The reason you have not seen any evidence is because you do not want to see any evidence. You have placed yourself in a position a predisposed view. That is when entering a debate such as this atheists will fall back on their belief in "there is no God."

There is an aspect to creationism that is based on faith. We see the beauty of nature and we understand that the invisible God is clearly seen. There are atheists who have started a scientific career and after seeing the evidence have become believers in a Creator.

In the debates I have read and participated any evidence that is presented by the creationists is dismissed as irrelevant, spoke by the less educated, you are just predisposed to that view, etc. Evidence points to a creator the complexity of the genome of the created mankind, their immune systems, their biochemical structures, etc. all this points directly to a Creator.

Bob Barclay

#5 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 28 September 2007 - 01:08 PM

The reason you have not seen any evidence is because you do not want to see any evidence. You have placed yourself in a position a predisposed view. That is when entering a debate such as this atheists will fall back on their belief in "there is no God."

View Post


I'm afraid that you have that completely wrong. I do want to see evidence. I want to see data. I don't have a predisposed view, because I have no idea what form this evidence will take. As for my lack of belief in a god, that is akin to my lack of belief in unicorns. I have not seen evidence for either.

There is an aspect to creationism that is based on faith. We see the beauty of nature and we understand that the invisible God is clearly seen.  There are atheists who have started a scientific career and after seeing the evidence have become believers in a Creator.

View Post


I would go as far as to say that creationism hinges entirely on faith. I will agree with you that nature can be beautiful. When has god been invisible? He is regularly described in the bible as appearing to many people. Why does he hide from me?

I am an atheist currently engaged in a scientific career myself and see no need for a creator.

In the debates I have read and participated any evidence that is presented by the creationists is dismissed as irrelevant, spoke by the less educated, you are just predisposed to that view, etc.  Evidence points to a creator the complexity of the genome of the created mankind, their immune systems, their biochemical structures, etc. all this points directly to a Creator.

View Post


Complexity does not equal proof of a creator god. The inability to understand how something like the Einstein field equations works doesn't put natural phenomena like gravity in the hands of a god. Life is complex, I agree. But this by itself does not point to a creator.

#6 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 01 October 2007 - 03:11 PM

I do want to see evidence.  I want to see data.  I don't have a predisposed view, because I have no idea what form this evidence will take.  As for my lack of belief in a god, that is akin to my lack of belief in unicorns.  I have not seen evidence for either.
I would go as far as to say that creationism hinges entirely on faith.  When has god been invisible?  He is regularly described in the bible as appearing to many people.  Why does he hide from me? 
I am an atheist currently engaged in a scientific career myself and see no need for a creator.
Complexity does not equal proof of a creator god.  The inability to understand how something like the Einstein field equations works doesn't put natural phenomena like gravity in the hands of a god.  Life is complex, I agree.  But this by itself does not point to a creator.

View Post


You say you want to see evidence but you restrict it to data then you say you have no idea of the form that data will take. Maybe the problem is not that the evidence has not been provided maybe it is the restrictions you have put on how you will receive it. Evidence can take on many forms and come from many different places we just have to be open to it.

You acknowledge evolution as fact but that takes faith. Since know one was there when the earth was formed a person has a choice to put faith in a materialistic beginning or a supernatural beginning. The Big Bang believers have no proof that this is the way it began neither do the Steady State believers. They base their faith on untestable and unprovable assumptions there is no data to support it. You say the evidence provided by nature does not point to God yet I disagree and believe that it does. Again it is how you view and understand the evidence.

I have read Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and find the evidence he put forth points to a creator. He is not saying complexity points to a God and neither am I (if this is the way you understood my post I apologize for the misunderstanding I some times get carried away and think faster than I type). What he is saying is there is evidence that can not be resolved by evolutionary thought the immune system and others in the human body are just a few examples and they display Intelligent Design. How they work can be explained but how they came it existence can not be explained by the gradual step by step process of evolution; however, I believe that were created by God.

I have read Gould's Panada's Thumb, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, his article Hopeful Monsters, I have also read other evolutionist writtings including Darwin's Origin of Species. In all of these I have not read one convincing argument for evolution. After reading posts from this forum I still have not read any convincing proof or evidence for evolution.

I do want to thank you for your comments. I do not want to be become a person that puts all evolutionists or any other group into a one size fits all and apologize for doing so to you. Your comments have helped me see this I thank you for that.

Bob Barclay

#7 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 01 October 2007 - 06:15 PM

The reason you have not seen any evidence is because you do not want to see any evidence. You have placed yourself in a position a predisposed view. That is when entering a debate such as this atheists will fall back on their belief in "there is no God."

There is an aspect to creationism that is based on faith. We see the beauty of nature and we understand that the invisible God is clearly seen.  There are atheists who have started a scientific career and after seeing the evidence have become believers in a Creator.

In the debates I have read and participated any evidence that is presented by the creationists is dismissed as irrelevant, spoke by the less educated, you are just predisposed to that view, etc.  Evidence points to a creator the complexity of the genome of the created mankind, their immune systems, their biochemical structures, etc. all this points directly to a Creator.

Bob Barclay

View Post

for the record, when I was younger, I believed in God. I went to a Jewish preschool, went to hebrew school for 8 years and have worked as a teachers aide there for 4 years. I have also gone to a Jewish summer camp for 6 years culminating in my trip this summer in which I went for a week in Poland and 6 weeks in Israel. I am a member of a Jewish youth organisation (BBYO). I was raised in an all Jewish family and about half of my friends are jewish. Neither of my parents are very religious, but they couldnt be classified as atheists or agnostics, so I had the opportunity to create my own opinions. I went about not really thinking about god until I was about 13 or 14, and then I began to learn more about things like evolution and cosmology. I began to be very interested in science, and by myself, I realized that while I couldnt discount the idea of a god, i did not see any compeelling reason that there should be one. i later came across the term agnostic, and that is what I currently describe myself as. Only after i became an agnostic did I begin to get involved in Evolution v. creationism and scientific skepticism. I think that agnosticism is the logical conclusion, and i came across it by my self, so why do you say that I do not wish to see the evidence?

#8 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 02 October 2007 - 01:38 PM

for the record, when I was younger, I believed in God. I went to a Jewish preschool, went to hebrew school for 8 years and have worked as a teachers aide there for 4 years. I have also gone to a Jewish summer camp for 6 years culminating in my trip this summer in which I went for a week in Poland and 6 weeks in Israel. I am a member of a Jewish youth organisation (BBYO). I was raised in an all Jewish family and about half of my friends are jewish. Neither of my parents are very religious, but they couldnt be classified as atheists or agnostics, so I had the opportunity to create my own opinions. I went about not really thinking about god until I was about 13 or 14, and then I began to learn more about things like evolution and cosmology. I began to be very interested in science, and by myself, I realized that while I couldnt discount the idea of a god, i did not see any compeelling reason that there should be one. i later came across the term agnostic, and that is what I currently describe myself as. Only after i became an agnostic did I begin to get involved in Evolution v. creationism and scientific skepticism. I think that agnosticism is the logical conclusion, and i came across it by my self, so why do you say that I do not wish to see the evidence?

View Post


I would like to know if this is what you believe is a description of an agnostic? In defining your understanding of what an agnostic is I will have an idea of how to continue this post.

"It does not matter whether you restrict the concept of agnosticism to merely epistemology, or if you extend that concept into the metaphysical realm, when you see evidence which demands a verdict, you will react by assigning the proper values of truth or falsehood to the conclusion being argued. However, if no such evidence exists, or if you do not yet know what is the proper conclusion which may logically be drawn from that evidence, then the agnostic principle demands that you refrain from adopting any conclusion as being the expression of ultimate truth. As this concept was so clearly set forth by Huxley, it can unequivocally be found to express the essence of agnosticism." Bill Schultz http://www.infidel.o...z/agnostic.html

or is this what you believe is an agnostic:

"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time. " Bertand Russel
http://humnum.arts.c...el/agnostic.htm

or does this definition fit you:

"An agnostic is popularly defined as a person who holds to a middle ground between atheism and theism who also believes that the existence of God is a definite possibility but it is not within the realm of one’s knowledge. The term agnostic is a combination of the Greek prefix a meaning without and gnosis meaning knowledge. Thus, an agnostic is one who confidently affirms, “I don’t know.” All About Philosophy
http://www.allaboutp...gnostic-faq.htm

As you can see telling me you came across the term agnostic is not telling me what where you stand or what you believe. Please let me know your definition of agnostic is so I can answer your post.

Bob Barclay

#9 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 02 October 2007 - 04:04 PM

sorry for npt being more specific, but I am a agnostic as Huxley defined it.

#10 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 03 October 2007 - 11:16 AM

Since you claim to be agnostic according to the definition given by Huxley you then process and sort things into to truth, untruth, or uncertain/unknown.

Your method of processing these things is through demonstrable facts and it is logical. Anything under truth has been demonstrated as facts. If anything is opposed to the demonstrable facts it is untruth. The third category of uncertain/unknown is when something can not be true or untrue because there are no demonstrable facts that support or oppose. Therefore it is beyond our understanding and must be expected or rejected on faith and faith is not acceptable to agnostics because it can not be validated by the demonstrable facts.

Your problem is amplified because you can not discount the idea of God. To combat this idea of faith in something you can not conceive as truth so you cling to evolution. The problem here is that the deeper you look at evolution the more you see it can not be validated by demonstrable facts or logic. So rather than say I do not know what is truth you have decided to go with evolution because microevolution is demonstrable and logical then all I have to do is expand it to macroevolution even though you have no demonstrable facts or logic to back it up.

So when you encounter people who do not agree with your process especially your logical conclusions you argue with them and become frustrated by what you perceive to be illogical conclusions. This is apparent in your postings when you are asked to provide hard evidence for your evolutionistic view.

What I have just written is form my perspective if I am wrong please point out where and what macroevolution evidence (like a dog becoming a cat) you have found that fulfills your criteria for truth. I would really like to know where you stand on this since you say you are an agnostic.

Bob Barclay

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 January 2011 - 05:35 AM

Another good thread to reopen. What can be gleaned from the above posts?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users