Atheism Conservapedia Style

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I would be interested in seeing a survey carried out on the percentage of atheists and xtians that have read the babble, cover to cover. I have a sneaking suspicion that our side would win by a hefty margin. Of course, being literate in the first place helps!

[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.

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

Not read that one. I got given the BG by some HK nutters in town. I found parts of it very interesting (mainly the mythology and battles) and others a bit meh (the theology!)

[Pappa]

Not read that one. I got given the BG by some HK nutters in town. I found parts of it very interesting (mainly the mythology and battles) and others a bit meh (the theology!)

I just think the stories are cooler than the babble.

I like the Rg Vega because it's sooooo old. Hinduism in it's earliest recorded form.

[gooseboy]

I would be interested in seeing a survey carried out on the percentage of atheists and xtians that have read the babble, cover to cover. I have a sneaking suspicion that our side would win by a hefty margin. Of course, being literate in the first place helps!

I've tried but found it too soporific. I really should try again.

Actually, part of the trouble I have is that I do most of my reading on airplanes. I can't bring myself to read the babble in public.

[irreligionist]

I would be interested in seeing a survey carried out on the percentage of atheists and xtians that have read the babble, cover to cover. I have a sneaking suspicion that our side would win by a hefty margin. Of course, being literate in the first place helps!

I've tried but found it too soporific. I really should try again.

Actually, part of the trouble I have is that I do most of my reading on airplanes. I can't bring myself to read the babble in public.

You fly in a private jet?

[gooseboy]

I would be interested in seeing a survey carried out on the percentage of atheists and xtians that have read the babble, cover to cover. I have a sneaking suspicion that our side would win by a hefty margin. Of course, being literate in the first place helps!

I've tried but found it too soporific. I really should try again.

Actually, part of the trouble I have is that I do most of my reading on airplanes. I can't bring myself to read the babble in public.

You fly in a private jet?

I've tried praying for a private jet so that I could read the bible without the risk of looking like a religious nutter, but alas no. Obviously god has plans for me that don't require me to read the bible.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I would be interested in seeing a survey carried out on the percentage of atheists and xtians that have read the babble, cover to cover. I have a sneaking suspicion that our side would win by a hefty margin. Of course, being literate in the first place helps!

I've tried but found it too soporific. I really should try again.

Actually, part of the trouble I have is that I do most of my reading on airplanes. I can't bring myself to read the babble in public.

You fly in a private jet?

I've tried praying for a private jet so that I could read the bible without the risk of looking like a religious nutter, but alas no. Obviously god has plans for me that don't require me to read the bible.

... or that require you to look like a religious nutter.

[gooseboy]

I would be interested in seeing a survey carried out on the percentage of atheists and xtians that have read the babble, cover to cover. I have a sneaking suspicion that our side would win by a hefty margin. Of course, being literate in the first place helps!

I've tried but found it too soporific. I really should try again.

Actually, part of the trouble I have is that I do most of my reading on airplanes. I can't bring myself to read the babble in public.

You fly in a private jet?

I've tried praying for a private jet so that I could read the bible without the risk of looking like a religious nutter, but alas no. Obviously god has plans for me that don't require me to read the bible.

... or that require you to look like a religious nutter.

Hmm... I specifically prayed that I didn't want to look like a religious nutter, and I'm pretty sure the babble says that all prayers get answered (although not completely sure because I feel asleep before getting to that bit) so in line with the common christian practice of concluding that god wants you to do whatever it is you already wanted to do I'll go with god has a plan for me that doesn't require me to read the bible. That sentence was way too long, wasn't it?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

God doesn't like sentences as long as that. They hurt his head and make baby jeebus cry.

[gooseboy]

God doesn't like sentences as long as that. They hurt his head and make baby jeebus cry.

Is there an entry in conservapedia to back that up?

[Rum]

Partial, biased, opinionated, conservative, close minded, pseudo-intellectual mind numbingly dreadful tripe. All that effort to appear scholarly and it is in fact nothing but opinion based propaganda. Fucking nerve.

[Feck]

No but This says prayer doesn't
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1844076.stm

[Pappa]

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Atheism
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Atheism

[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?

How would you define atheism? Out of interest.

"The lack of belief in a deity or multiple deities"

That's just me, though.

[Tails Turrosaki]

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.

Actually, I stopped reading also for the fact that I would just get angry if I kept going on. My anger is a loose cannon that turns into an uncontrollable tornado, and I'd prefer that I not get angry.