Poll: http://www.conservapedia.com - people really agree with this?

[Cakes]

First of all, I believe atheism is the denial of God because it's the denial of religion.

No it's not. There are atheist religions. Buddhism, some forms of Taoism, etc.

If you don't believe in God but think there's some greater force in the universe at work, or some similar idea, than you're agnostic, not atheistic.

Wrong again. An agnostic says "we can't know for sure either way".

Lastly, one of the greatest arguments for creationists is, "There's no scientific evidence for it! Creationism has more evidence and therefore is more viable!"

Which is proven bullshit constantly.

Well what they argue for is the free use of the scientific method (a person has a theory and tests it to find the truth within the matter).

Which creationism fails in because there's no evidence at all.

In their zealous argument to prove their point, they become the victim of the very thing they're arguing against, proving themselves hypocrites.

What?

If Creationism should be considered a valid argument, so should evolution.

Again, what? Creationism isn't considered a valid argument.

Personally, I believein Creationism

There's your problem. This isn't a matter of faith, it's claiming to be science, which it isn't.

because there's more scientific evidence for it

Evolution has nearly the entire scientific community on its side. Much of Biology simply doesn't make sense without evolution. Sorry, your religious beliefs/pseudo-science doesn't count for shit.

and many of scientist who developed theories for evolution have stated that a motivation for them in discovering certain aspects of their ideas was the abolition of religion.

Really? I think I'd like a source for that tid-bit. Then, of course, there's all the religious folk who accept evolution as well. They don't have to exclude each other.

With such an obsurd, needless bias, I find much of their theories hard to believe.

False, for one thing. And creationists don't have a bias at all? Particularly of the fundie-christian nature?

However many of evolutions ideas are based on good facts, and the theories presented are very relevant and usually make sense. Not to mention, particularly in the realm of genetics, there is some interesting ideas and proofs of adaptations and evolution that had to have occurred over ions of time.

Correct.

Basically, what I'm saying is, as someone who's objectively studied both, I see validity in both ideas and think we should consider them equal.

Wrong. Creationism has been found entirely unscientific, time and time again. It deserves no place alongside evolution, or science of any kind.

Besides, why are people so afraid of researching the idea of intelligent design?

Because you can't research intelligent design.
I quote the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

Would it really be a bad thing to discover God actually exists?

Not in the slightest, but since you can't via science, keep it to philosophical arguments.

And it's not really like evolution or creation negatively effects the overall scientific community

Of course not, because evolution has helped us gain a better understanding of the world, and creationism is so laughable no serious scientists bothers with it.

- ultimately they both present interesting and solid theories on the ancient livelihood of animals; even often times theorizing that the same truths are possible (certain animals are plant eaters, others or carnivores).

Where did diets of the animal kingdom suddenly come into this?

The only difference really is in the origins of the various species - but that idealogy doesn't really change the facts of what we know about any particular animal;

It changes a lot about what we know of any particular animal, if you're at all interested in how they became how they are.

ie, I see no harm in creationism or evolution and think they should both be studied.

Sure, as long as creationism stays out of science class, where it does not belong.

 

[Deadarm]

I keep thinking, discussing with people, musing over... why is it that if atheists believe that there is absolutely nothing, WHATSOEVER after this life, they are still alive? I'm simply wondering, not ordering you all to go out and commit suicide (please don't)... but if nothing you do here matters, why do any of it? why deal with the pain? etc, etc... seriously someone give me a decent answer...

I eventually came to the, perhaps misguided, opinion that because of this, all atheists are either idiots, cowards, or not really athiest...

again... please don't commit suicide...!

Fear.

 

[Skeleon]

to seriously say that there's a point to something that is insignificant seems a little strange...

Wow, you really got me to answer again.

I said several times already that just because it's not an endless existence (that's what an afterlife would be, after all), it's not a pointless one.
We will never agree on this, because you don't seem to see goals in life itself but only seem to see life as a way to reach your goals for after your life.

Last paragraph: We don't think it's ultimately pointless. We end to exist, yes. But that does not diminish the value of said existence.

 

[KhakiHat]

Wait, its not a joke? I was havening a good time writing the Hitler / Communism node....

 

[Agema]

conservapedia is very funny, mostly because ppl take it seriously. you guys should check out liberalpedia, its a knock off of conservapedia but says stuff that is actually true while adding sarcasm and humor to it

wouldn't a conservative say the same thing to you?

I personally don't trust anything that forthrightly claims to be biased in either way. Both twist facts to make their arguments sound better. It's all bull shit to me.

not really. liberpieda has sources

A piece of information having sources does not mean it is correct.

1) Are those sources representative of all the data out there?
2) Are those sources reliable?

There may be 20 equally reputable publications on a particular hypothesis: "A is bigger than B", 10 for and 10 against. Someone could write up an article saying "A is bigger than B" citing the 10 sources for. It looks very authoritative. However, it's also misleading and possibly wrong, because there's an equal amount of evidence A is not bigger than B.

In the second case, you write an article stating "A is bigger than B", and your sources are The 'Supporters of A' Campaign Newsletter, a friend's opinion when drunk, and a politician who gets re-elected if more people believe A is bigger than B. Sure, you've got sources, but they are all unreliable.

The nice thing about Wikipedia is everyone can argue, so biased or inaccurate sourcing will eventually be found and removed by people believing the opposite, which drives articles to accuracy on the balance of evidence.

 

[murlo360]

im atheist but personally i think any religion especially Christians are fucking crazy cult members why worship some fucking dude that you have no evidence even becoming a god just because he died for our so called sins oohhhh wahhh wahh cry me a fucking river soldiers die every day for us and i dont see you worshiping them

 

[Sovvolf]

And what is the point of it being enjoyable at the time?! this is the point i've been trying to make! ULTIMATELY, if nothing that anyone does will be remembered by anyone, if it holds no significance over anything, if as soon as you die, that moment passes into oblivion as well as how you FELT at that moment, what is the point?!

Christ Eisenfaust you truly do talk shit, the problem here is that your so pretentious you think your intelligent.. your not you just have your head crammed so far up your own arse that you seem blinded by your own shit, every one here as explained it to you time and time again and you just don't seem to get it an you really are just repeating your self over and over again, it's like trying to convince a member of the KKK that Black people aren't the devil or trying to convince a militant terrorist that blowing them selves up to kill people may not be the right way of going about things, you just look down on us as if your on the moral high ground, well again your not, most Christians (Including you) don't really have a moral high ground because they do things only for them selves, even if it's looks like it's selfless it isn't, your only helping out to score points with God, not to help out, not out of feeling that you should because it would make the other persons day a little easier or life better, no it's just to score points with God(and if you really %100 believe in such things then that's technically bribery and bribery is a sin so see you in hell ), while most people here do things because they care, not because there going to get a big reward at the end, but because they just want to do the decent thing. They'd help a old women across the road to help out, possibly out of pity, Christians do it because they think there's going to be a big reward at the end of it.

I'm agnostic so I'm on middle ground I don't know if there is a God or if there isn't I don't say there is or isn't but when I help some one out it isn't because maybe I'le get into heaven, it's because I pity the person needing help so I help them.

You mentioned some thing about "nothing you'll ever do will be remembered so why bother", Well how do you mean??, I remember Juilias Ceaser, I remember Charles Darwing, Gehngis Kahn, Winston Churchil, Geronimo, Henry the 8th, Henry the 5th, King James of Scotland, Elizabeth the first, Thomas Rowntree, Thomas Edison, Issac Newton, Leonides, Achiles, Mark Anthony, Caster and Pollox, Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, Tomas Cook, William Wallace, J.R Tolken, Stalin, Alexander and many many more, we remember them for there actions, for what they did while there alive, there's an entire class at school based on this, so how do you mean nothing you do will ever be remembered by any one?? is this one of you cryptic metaphors from a argument that you keep twisting and turning.

when you wake up and can't remember the night before, it's as if it never happened
... when you wake up, you know nothing of what happened... the night before might have been the most fun night of your life, but you don't remember it... so assuming you knew you wouldn't remember, why did you do it? what was the point? to have fun? YOU CAN'T REMEMBER THE FUN! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE EXPIERENCE WAS LIKE! you would have said at the time "because i can, so i might as well"... BUT WHY?! YOU DON'T FREAKING REMEMBER! you'll never ever know about it ever again, and the expierence of doing it at the time is just as meaningless..i know you say you don't do it to remember it but WHAT ELSE IS THERE?! ULTIMATELY, whatever you do will be irrelevant... so why do it? no one has given a logical answer to it (NO, NONE OF YOU DAMN WELL HAVE! -- see the word LOGICAL!) It makes no damn sense!

Why is it that you constantly need to use cap locks??, any ways your argument here fails because as said above others will remember it, if you made an arse of your self the night before the people you were with will tell you about it, if you wake up in a jail cell then you can be damn sure that what ever happened last night happened, ever thing we do in this word echo's and effects every one and every thing else, it may be the tiniest of things but it will effect every one maybe not as direct but indirectly it effects us all so nothing any one does is irrelevance. Here how bout I ask you some thing, say you bump your head today on something and you forget you ever posted on this thread, does that mean that you never post??, the answer is of course not, because we can still remember it, ever one who as replied to you has remembered it, so you did post despite the fact that you can't remember ever posting.

Before you reply to me think your argument through please,don't use cap locks to get your point across there's no need for them, they give people the impression that your screaming at the screen because you can't seem to get your way.

 

[Cakes]

im atheist but personally i think any religion especially Christians are fucking crazy cult members why worship some fucking dude that you have no evidence even becoming a god just because he died for our so called sins oohhhh wahhh wahh cry me a fucking river soldiers die every day for us and i dont see you worshiping them

Calm down angstheist. You make the rest of us look bad.

 

[similar.squirrel]

im atheist but personally i think any religion especially Christians are fucking crazy cult members why worship some fucking dude that you have no evidence even becoming a god just because he died for our so called sins oohhhh wahhh wahh cry me a fucking river soldiers die every day for us and i dont see you worshiping them

Calm down angstheist. You make the rest of us look bad.

Yeah. Down in front. Please try to research and learn to spell before you go on atheistic tirades.
Not nice to be associated with fanatics, no offense.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I don't think 'disbelief' and 'denial of the existence' are quite the same thing.
Either way, both are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to politics. Or they should be.

 

[hippykiller]

well im a Roman Catholic,Republican,Conservative ect. i think you get the point. so yes i do side with the conservative guys who link Adolf Hitler to evolution (even though that dose sound rather weird)

Being Roman Catholic doesn't have to exclude evolution. Hell, John Paul II said "stop being stupid and ignoring science, evolution happened". Not quite in those words, but you get the point. Also, linking the Holocaust to evolution is a really cheap shot...Hitler was one evil ************, plain and simple. It makes no difference if he was Christian, Atheist, etc. Stupid people will kill each other for stupid reasons. No need to turn it into a "Well your group killed THIS many" argument.

Amen. now lets leave it at that before someone gets enogh balls to start an argument eh.

 

[Berethond]

snip

Honestly, dude, you're sure as hell not going to change anyone's opinion.

Why even bother?

 

[scotth266]

For those of you who might be surprised with the number of "Yes!" responses, look no further: this is the cause. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.133486?page=5#3026606] Militant atheists like these (who are actually anti-theists) give normal athiests a bad rep by associating themselves with the ideology. Kind of like how the Fundamentalists give normal Catholics a bad name.

Atheism is NOT the denial of a God/gods, it is merely a lack of belief in them. In other words, not active opposition but rather passive denial.

 

[Cakes]

snip

Honestly, dude, you're sure as hell not going to change anyone's opinion.

Why even bother?

He was wrong about nearly everything he said, then I corrected him. Don't see the problem here.

 

[Berethond]

snip

Honestly, dude, you're sure as hell not going to change anyone's opinion.

Why even bother?

He was wrong about nearly everything he said, then I corrected him. Don't see the problem here.

You didn't have to resort to personal attacks, though.

 

[Cakes]

You didn't have to resort to personal attacks, though.

Eh? What are you on about?

 

[Berethond]

You didn't have to resort to personal attacks, though.

Eh? What are you on about?

Just the way you said some things is all.
Something to think about, though: No scientific theory ever proposed can account for the beginning of life.

 

[Cakes]

Just the way you said some things is all.
Something to think about, though: No scientific theory ever proposed can account for the beginning of life.

Well sure, I was a bit of a hard-ass about it, but that doesn't really = personal attacks. And, of course not. We can make educated guesses, but that's probably it. Evolution, however, is perfectly accounted for. Ignoring it is kind of ridiculous.