Atheism Conservapedia Style

[maiforpeace]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

[Pappa]

# Theoretical atheism: atheism of the mind -- that is, believing that God does not exist.
# Practical atheism: atheism of the life - that is, living as though God does not exist

[Tails Turrosaki]

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the denial of the existence of God.

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

1. It was written by an idiotic, irrational fundamentalist.
2. It's just gonna try and disprove atheism.

Thus it's bullshit. Yeah, as if that definition is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY and the Routledge Encyclopedia of PHILOSOPHY.
Philosophy is atheist's best subject. So there is no way they'd write that down.
Way to make up information. c:

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, The Stanford Encyclopedia DOES say that, albeit as part of a far more detailed description. The conservapedia is guilty of quote mining, not lying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Responding to a fallacious statement with a blanket, "They wouldn't say that - it's a lie!" is as bad as their quote-mining. Saying that to them would undermine your own arguments from the off. It took me a minute to google the reference above. Had you taken a similar amount of time, you would have been in a better position to debunk what you perceive as an inaccurate statement.

[Feck]

I was going to get angry, but I like the fact we scare the conservatives ...they think we are all serial killers ....Good

[gooseboy]

First time I've seriously looked at conservapedia - it's not actually as bad as I had feared it would be. (That's not to say it's good.)

[Tails Turrosaki]

Actually, The Stanford Encyclopedia DOES say that, albeit as part of a far more detailed description. The conservapedia is guilty of quote mining, not lying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Responding to a fallacious statement with a blanket, "They wouldn't say that - it's a lie!" is as bad as their quote-mining. Saying that to them would undermine your own arguments from the off. It took me a minute to google the reference above. Had you taken a similar amount of time, you would have been in a better position to debunk what you perceive as an inaccurate statement.

Well, I didn't think Stanford (which I thought was a college that supported atheism) would write that.
Can we go sue people now?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

Do you realise just how much like a fundie xtian that sounds?

Playing them at their own game is never going to achieve anything. When they say proudly that they have never read The God Delusion and never will, you should reply, equally proudly that you have read The Babble, and the Qu'ran, and the Baghavad Gita, etc. That way, you are arguing from a position of knowledge and they from a position of ignorance.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Actually, The Stanford Encyclopedia DOES say that, albeit as part of a far more detailed description. The conservapedia is guilty of quote mining, not lying.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Responding to a fallacious statement with a blanket, "They wouldn't say that - it's a lie!" is as bad as their quote-mining. Saying that to them would undermine your own arguments from the off. It took me a minute to google the reference above. Had you taken a similar amount of time, you would have been in a better position to debunk what you perceive as an inaccurate statement.

Well, I didn't think Stanford (which I thought was a college that supported atheism) would write that.
Can we go sue people now?

How would you define atheism? Out of interest.

[Pappa]

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

Do you realise just how much like a fundie xtian that sounds?

Playing them at their own game is never going to achieve anything. When they say proudly that they have never read The God Delusion and never will, you should reply, equally proudly that you have read The Babble, and the Qu'ran, and the Baghavad Gita, etc. That way, you are arguing from a position of knowledge and they from a position of ignorance.

The God Delusion's shit though, and not much worth reading.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

Do you realise just how much like a fundie xtian that sounds?

Playing them at their own game is never going to achieve anything. When they say proudly that they have never read The God Delusion and never will, you should reply, equally proudly that you have read The Babble, and the Qu'ran, and the Baghavad Gita, etc. That way, you are arguing from a position of knowledge and they from a position of ignorance.

The God Delusion's shit though, and not much worth reading.

So's the qu'ran and most of the babble. My point was that judging a book by its cover leaves you open to talking bollocks about its contents.

[maiforpeace]

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

Do you realise just how much like a fundie xtian that sounds?

Playing them at their own game is never going to achieve anything. When they say proudly that they have never read The God Delusion and never will, you should reply, equally proudly that you have read The Babble, and the Qu'ran, and the Baghavad Gita, etc. That way, you are arguing from a position of knowledge and they from a position of ignorance.

Not only that, it's so much easier to lead them into traps.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

[Feck]

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

Do you realise just how much like a fundie xtian that sounds?

Playing them at their own game is never going to achieve anything. When they say proudly that they have never read The God Delusion and never will, you should reply, equally proudly that you have read The Babble, and the Qu'ran, and the Baghavad Gita, etc. That way, you are arguing from a position of knowledge and they from a position of ignorance.

The God Delusion's shit though, and not much worth reading.

I bet I have read more bible stuff than they have Fuckem They can rewrite it as many times as they like it will never say what they want it to .

[gooseboy]

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

Do you realise just how much like a fundie xtian that sounds?

Playing them at their own game is never going to achieve anything. When they say proudly that they have never read The God Delusion and never will, you should reply, equally proudly that you have read The Babble, and the Qu'ran, and the Baghavad Gita, etc. That way, you are arguing from a position of knowledge and they from a position of ignorance.

The God Delusion's shit though, and not much worth reading.

True, but it's less shit than the babble.

[Pappa]

I stopped reading after the bold.
I can already tell:

Do you realise just how much like a fundie xtian that sounds?

Playing them at their own game is never going to achieve anything. When they say proudly that they have never read The God Delusion and never will, you should reply, equally proudly that you have read The Babble, and the Qu'ran, and the Baghavad Gita, etc. That way, you are arguing from a position of knowledge and they from a position of ignorance.

The God Delusion's shit though, and not much worth reading.

So's the qu'ran and most of the babble. My point was that judging a book by its cover leaves you open to talking bollocks about its contents.

The Baghavad Gita on the other hand is an interesting read. Though, I prefer the Rg Veda.