All of you Atheists are evading a LARGE body of evidence supporting Christianity!

Or so we're being told by Conservapedia.

"Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology. As a result,
atheism often relies on asserting fragile assumptions that are contrary
to the existing evidence.[8][9][10][11] In addition, atheists/skeptics do have a tradition of making assumptions that later have proved errant.[12] . . ."

Because Christianity doesn't have any history at ALL of their assumptions being proven errant. They never believed in Geocentrism, didn't you know?

Apparently we also dilute the definition of Atheism. Original link for the excerpt:

Views: 76

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, for me it depends on what kind of God we are talking about. If it's a Deistic God, like an overall creator, I'm at a 6, because I don't really know what's outside the Universe- It could be there, could not be, who knows, who cares, really. I don't think It cares, provided It exists.

However, if we're talking about a Theistic god, like the one from the Bible. I am absolutely, one hundred percent sure that Yahweh or Allah does not exist. 7.0
I don't care with 'probabilities of belief'. I can only say I'm 100% certain I'm an atheist, but I have no basis to claim "I know there is no God", so I'd never say such a thing. So where do I fit on this scale?
doone: Is there a point to their article?

Since it's a Conservapedia article, I assume this is a rhetorical question?
Your comment actually made more sense than the article. At least you've proven you're a master alchemist - one who can make gold out of shit ;-)
Atheism assumes that God does not exist. That does NOT mean we can prove it. It only means we're comfortable with the assumption.
im sorry...I wasn't aware we had an ideology. I must be doing it wrong.
Exactly . . . NOT the "I must be doing it wrong" part but the lack of ideology part. :-)
So, they have a proof that the Moon is a light? Interesting.

Anyway, the sad thing for religion is that logic cannot be used to support it's claims, since logic is empirical. It is subject to change in the light of new empirical evidences. So, the only evidence I accept is empirical evidence. The history of science has seen common sense fail countless times.
Well, this was rather cute:

Teleological argument: When you find a watch in the sand, you infer that it is designed, even if you do not see the designer, because it is complex, has a definite purpose, and could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent causes. Therefore, when we observe a complex, purposeful universe which could not have come to be through any known non-intelligent cause, it is reasonable to infer the existence of a designer, aka God.

This is related to the anthropic principle, which is sometimes misused by atheists such as Richard Dawkins. The fact that so many details had to be just so, including physical constants, to allow us to be here, argues for an intelligent designer.


Then, on the subject of the anthropic principle:

Although they were not the first to suggest the idea, three separate versions of the Anthropic Principle were proposed by Barrow & Tipler (1986); these versions come in Weak, Strong and Final forms. ...

The Strong Anthropic Principle

In this version of the Principle, Barrow & Tipler suggest that regardless of whether or not we are here to observe the fact, the Universe must (by necessity) have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.
In other words, in this principle, it is no coincidence that we are here; the Universe is expressly configured so as to enable and encourage the prospects of our existence.

The Final Anthropic Principle

In the most extreme version of the principle, Barrow & Tipler suggest that intelligent life (or something akin to it) is a necessary feature of the universe, and once it is created it can never be become extinct.
This version of the principle seems almost to imply that the sole purpose of the Universe is to create & sustain intelligent life; not only are the values of constants arranged to do this, but there seems almost to be some unseen force driving the Universe towards its goal.


So, they didn't like the original definition and simply cherry-picked the one that suited them most? Why does that accusation sound oh so familiar? Then again, hypocrisy at the level of Conservapedia is a bit of an art.
Ah, conservapedia.
The scariest place on earth.
Dig around there, and you're sure to find horrors for intellectuals.
Sad for those who dig there and think they struck gold.


Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service