Refuting Conservapedia’s “Atheism” Page – HD version
Written by admin on March 3, 2009 – 11:08 am -
Conservapedia.com says they’re more impartial than Wikipedia. Yeah, right! This is a high-definition version of my video which debunks their bogus arguments against atheism.
The page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
My earlier video I referenced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO3oFNsQnRw
The guy doing the mind-reading trick is Banachek: http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/index.htm
The TAM3 DVD: http://www.randi.org/joom/jref-store/44.html
My original (non-HD) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9oh-_lU2yk
Duration : 0:7:3
Tags: arguments, atheism, atheist, conservapedia, Conservative, refuted
Posted in Atheist Definition | 25 Comments »
By hellshade2 on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
all i can say is …
all i can say is wow!
5*
By hellshade2 on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Hail Nedrick!!!
Hail Nedrick!!!
By bads06 on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
true true… ***** …
true true… ***** 5 Stars
;3
By shanedk on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
“God by definition …
“God by definition is necessary.”
Uh-huh. And by definition, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is necessary, therefore he exists.
You can’t just DEFINE something as necessary and say it’s proven.
I also say it’s POSSIBLE that there is a “maximally-great” 200-foot emperor penguin names Nedrick, and since it’s possible, therefore it exists. All praise Nedrick!
By montrealpsycho on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Then again, almost …
Then again, almost all their references are from religious organizations, or organizations well known for their right wing position without any kind of peer reviews.
By montrealpsycho on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Christian just …
Christian just flaunt their christianity around more than us while sending money. That’s a well known fact. They need to be the selfrighteous people they claim to be! So if they don’t yell how generous they are, and how christians they are, nobody will ever notice them.
By montrealpsycho on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Oh yeah and there …
Oh yeah and there is more:
Agnosticism and Uncharitableness
Per capita atheists and agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists.
WTF!!!
By montrealpsycho on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
I just went to …
I just went to check out what they say about agnostics. While its definition seems quite relevant, there is something that ticks me off. And it is when they explain our view of a ‘god’, they refer that god to ‘God’, which is usually referred as the Christian God. It ticks me off because it is quite clear that agnostics believe the Christian God doesn’t exist. Our vision of a possible god has nothing to do with any god from any cult, since we believe religions are all liars.
By godlesspatriot on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
social conservatism …
social conservatism, in this case with regards to atheism, is fascist nonsense.
these fools are NOT real political/economic conservatives. they’re just censoring assholes. they want no free flow of ideas. just social, political, and economic dominance.
By HotHam44 on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
The universe may …
The universe may not be a result of cause and effect as we know. Causality is only there after the Big Bang.
By migkillerthree on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
“The latter doesn’t …
“The latter doesn’t logically follow from the former.”
Well not really. God by definition is necessary. After all, since God is a maximally great being, or “that which nothing greater can be concieved”, in the words of Descartes, it can be greater by existing in all rather than some possible worlds. a maximally great being, in other words, is necessary by definition. Since we know that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist (there’s nothing contradictory), therefore it exists.
By migkillerthree on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
But I never use the …
But I never use the Thomistic argument, Aristotilean metaphysics with its assumption of mind/body dualism and the mind as the unmoved mover is now very controversial.
“same argument, same problems” not really. The universe needs a cause because it began to exist. Out of nothing, nothing comes. But I already said it, and it is certainly worth repeating here: God does not need a cause because God never began to exist.
By migkillerthree on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
“you assume that an …
“you assume that an infinite regression is impossible with no evidence of it.”
well that’s not quite true. An infinite temporal past creates a vicious infinite regress, hence we should not be here right now. Furthermore, I want to ask if you’ve ever heard of Hilbert’s Hotel, or “hilbert’s” library? these thought experiments show rather nicely that actual infinites are self-contradictory.
Finally, the creator does not need a cause because no one says that the creator began to exist.
By AdrianIsaacs on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
It’s funny that …
It’s funny that rabid right-wingers think everything has a “liberal bias.” They label anything they don’t like as “liberal,” like the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, the Separation of Church and State, etc.
By shanedk on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
His big problem was …
His big problem was the “it’s possible that it’s necessary, therefore it’s necessary” leap. The latter doesn’t logically follow from the former.
By shanedk on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
It’s really the …
It’s really the same response: you assume that an infinite regression is impossible with no evidence of it. Our universe’s Big Bang could really have been a Big Bounce caused when another universe collapsed, ad infinitum.
Also, if you’re going to say that the creator didn’t have a cause, you could just save a step and say the universe didn’t have a cause.
Same argument, same problems.
By migkillerthree on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
“have rejected this …
“have rejected this argument since St. Thomas aquinas”
I would LOVE to see your response to Plantinga’s defense of the Ontological argument
By migkillerthree on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
and your argument …
and your argument in response to the Cosmological argument may commit a category error (although I would love to see your response to the Kalam argument)
By migkillerthree on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
“liberal censorship …
“liberal censorship”
bullshit. I’ve already posted my defenses of the Cosmological argument on their page about the Kalam argument and they still have yet to be taken down.
oh BTW, I saw your video on the design argument, and it was just laughable to be honest. Your entire video commits a category error.
By creationismignorance on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Well,done indeed.I …
Well,done indeed.I was looking at thier site and so I decided to campare it to wikipedia and it is all critisism and no facts.That is just crazy.All it is,is a one sided conservitive rant.with no real debate.
By TheScienceFoundation on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
From my brief time …
From my brief time at conservapedia (before i was banned for correcting ignorance) I gathered that it is entirely peopled AND moderated by trolls.
By Akatam0t0ma on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
Could you elaborate …
Could you elaborate, oh Desertphile buddy? I would go there myself to check it out, but I am quite allergic to bullshit…
By Akatam0t0ma on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
“Steven Colbert …
“Steven Colbert said “reality has a liberal bias”
Steven Colbert is a Catholic
By neveruse513 on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
I think it’s just …
I think it’s just another window into this type of person’s mind and I find it fascinating.
It’s shocking and saddening, but eye opening nonetheless. These people are our neighbors.
By Immevu on Mar 3, 2009 | Reply
that is really …
that is really funny!