Atheism vs. Christian

[PaulA135711]

There is an article on Atheism vs. Christianity at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

Once again, Jesus wins!

The article declares:

According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."

Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."

Atheism is an idea which goes against common sense. Hence, its most notable spread was by militant atheists who used force/violence to spread it.

 

[Davian]

There is an article on Atheism vs. Christianity at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

Once again, Jesus wins!

Interestingly, the article is countered by another entry on Conservapedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[keith99]

Actually once again Jesus loses.

When those claiming to be the followers of Jesus spread unsupported claims they make Him look bad. Lying for Jesus is like screwing for virginity.

EDIT: I find something Gandhi said crossing my mind more and more. I rather like Your Christ, it is your Christians...

Though I do find I like some Christians and those I like I like a lot.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is an article on Atheism vs. Christianity at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

Once again, Jesus wins!

The article declares:

According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."

Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."

Atheism is an idea which goes against common sense. Hence, its most notable spread was by militant atheists who used force/violence to spread it.

Lol conservapedia?

What's the tagline for that site anyway?

"Catering to your distorted perspective for the last 5 years!"

 

[durangodawood]

Of course they were "militant" atheists!
They were fighting for the new religion: state communism.

 

[Gene2memE]

Hi. Welcome to the forum.

There is an article on Atheism vs. Christianity at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

Oh dear, not off to the best start, I see. The legitimacy and honesty of Conservapedia is questionable, at best.

One of the critical element of literary theory is known as source criticism. Source criticism involves evaluating an information source for biases. So, you should evaluate the biases of your source before introducing it for comment.

Conservapedia is written from an explicitly US conservative, Biblical literalist perspective, describing itself as a "conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia" that "seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity" and take a "[URL='http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative']conservative approach to education"[/URL]. Its self-description includes notes like "We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here," and its founder notes that it is "impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader."

So, when you read Conservapedia next time, consider the deliberate bias that it cultivates.

Read widely, read often, read sources that both agree with your biases and also disagree with them. Challenge your own assumptions by reading sources that challenge your accepted preconceptions.

You'll be a better educated, better rounded and wiser human as a result.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Conservapedia. Fair and balanced.

Yup.

Atheism is an idea which goes against common sense. Hence, its most notable spread was by militant atheists who used force/violence to spread it.

That is deeply flawed reasoning.

Belief in New Age spirituality, UFOs, and Bigfoot are attractive ideas to many people, and they spread entirely without violence. That doesn't make them true. "Common sense" fails here.

There is no law of sociology that true ideas quickly and automatically gain popularity over false ideas. True ideas don't have to conform to "common sense".

Christianity got a big boost when the Roman Empire adopted it as their state religion. Various atheistic ideas may have gotten a big boost when the communists promoted them. However, since then both Christianity and atheistic ideas have spread to a large extent without violence. That doesn't prove anything about how true those ideas are, but the picture isn't as simplistic as you are portraying.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

There is an article on Atheism vs. Christianity at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

Once again, Jesus wins!

A steak knife set?

The article declares:

According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."

So?

Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."

Now, what does that tell you about non-militant atheists?
And what does all that tell you about today´s atheists?

Atheism is an idea which goes against common sense.

Christianity is an idea which goes against common sense.
See how easy it is to appeal to a concept which is just a thinly veiled version of "I personally find it implausible".

Hence, its most notable spread was by militant atheists who used force/violence to spread it.

Now you are arguing circularly.

 

[Oafman]

I'm still to be convinced that Conservapedia is not a brilliantly constructed piece of satire.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheism is an idea which goes against common sense. Hence, its most notable spread was by militant atheists who used force/violence to spread it.

Atheism is not an idea.

Theism is the idea.
Atheism is the dismissal / unebelief of that idea.

 

[Albion]

Atheism is not an idea.

Theism is the idea.
Atheism is the dismissal / unebelief of that idea.

...only according to the recent redefinition of the term made by atheists themselves in order to present their unbelief as somehow being a neutral position.

That's supposed to make Atheism seem intellectual or (for some atheists) more than simply a rejection of someone else's belief.

 

[quatona]

...only according to the recent redefinition

When has "atheism" ever denoted anything else but the rejection of the idea that a God exists? What else did the word mean back then?

of the term made by atheists themselves

When the vast majority of atheists say "this is my position" you better work from it. Or else you are addressing positions hardly anybody holds.

in order to present their unbelief as somehow being a neutral position.

That doesn´t even make sense. The rejection of a claim is neither a neutral position nor does it appear as such.

That's supposed to make Atheism seem intellectual

No, it´s supposed to describe my position accurately. How I or others arrived there is an entirely different question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

...only according to the recent redefinition of the term made by atheists themselves in order to present their unbelief as somehow being a neutral position.

That's supposed to make Atheism seem intellectual or (for some atheists) more than simply a rejection of someone else's belief.

It's atheism with a lower-case a.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, it´s supposed to describe my position accurately. How I or others arrived there is an entirely different question.

Sadly, most don't care to ask that question or they presume to already know the answer.

 

[Albion]

When has "atheism" ever denoted anything else but the rejection of the idea that a God exists? What else did the word mean back then?

What I was saying is that it has meant a belief that there is no God...but that, lately, some atheists have been insisting that it means only that there's no way of knowing. This is supposed to make calling oneself an "atheist" refer to a person who doesn't flatly reject or scorn belief in God but just one who hasn't made a commitment to the idea that there IS a God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What I was saying is that it has meant a belief that there is no God...but that, lately, some atheists have been insisting that it means only that there's no way of knowing. This is supposed to make calling oneself an "atheist" refer to a person who doesn't flatly reject or scorn belief in God but just one who hasn't made a commitment to the idea that there IS a God.

Why wouldn't the term "atheist" be appropriate for describing someone doesn't believe in a god? The trouble seems to be that some theists want the term to mean much more than it actually does.

 

[KCfromNC]

What I was saying is that it has meant a belief that there is no God...

When and by who?

This is supposed to make calling oneself an "atheist" refer to a person who doesn't flatly reject or scorn belief in God but just one who hasn't made a commitment to the idea that there IS a God.

OK. And? Are you complaining that people get to accurately describe their own position on a subject?

 

[quatona]

What I was saying is that it has meant a belief that there is no God...but that, lately, some atheists have been insisting that it means only that there's no way of knowing.

I don´t think that´s the case. Quote me one single atheist who said that "atheism" means "there´s no way of knowing". That´s what we call "agnosticism" - totally different category.

This is supposed to make calling oneself an "atheist" refer to a person who doesn't flatly reject or scorn belief in God

Of course they reject this belief.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why wouldn't the term "atheist" be appropriate for describing someone doesn't believe in a god? The trouble seems to be that some theists want the term to mean much more than it actually does.

That pathetic excuse for a movie, God's Not Dead, makes abundantly clear what some Christians think the term "atheist" represents.

 

[Albion]

Why wouldn't the term "atheist" be appropriate for describing someone doesn't believe in a god? The trouble seems to be that some theists want the term to mean much more than it actually does.

Put another way, some atheists want to use atheist to mean agnostic.

(and you have just explained in a separate post why they might want to do so, just as Liberals now want to be called Progressives. )