(I usually provide links, but refuse in this case – I'm sure you can find it yourself – because I don't want to lend what little search-engine karma my blog has gained to the drivel on Conservapedia.)
I'm of the same philosophy as Arlo Guthrie:
I'd rather have friends who care than friends who agree with me.So I was hoping that Conservapedia would have a well-crafted, thoughtful article on Atheism. What a disappointment! It is a total hack job, written by people mostly interested in slapping each other on the back at how clever they are.
Just a few of the more outrageous parts of the article...
They start off on the wrong foot by defining Atheism "is the denial of the existence of God." Most Atheists I know make no such claim, rather, we simply see no evidence for the truly extraordinary claim that there's a magical god in the sky. Alas, Conservapedia goes on to confuse things by calling the denial-of-existence camp "strong atheism," and calling the more common theists-bear-the-proof-burden by the dismissive title of "weak atheists."
So let me get this right: Atheists deny the existence of God ... but "weak atheists" don't. Hmmm, I guess I never swallowed the Anti-Rationalism Meme, otherwise this apparent contradiction wouldn't trouble me. Doesn't anybody check this stuff?
Things really heat up a few sections down. Just take a look at these headings:
- Atheism and Communism
- Atheism and Mass Murder
- Atheism and American Charity (links to: Atheism and Uncharitableness)
- Atheism and Immoral Views
- Atheism and Suicide
- Atheism and Deception
- Decline of Atheism as an Intellectual Position
And how about this one:
Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism.It's so absurd I can't even be insulted.
It's too bad some serious intellectuals can't take control of Conservapedia and offer something challenging. I was hoping for a good argument, but not today. Just a good laugh.