RationalWiki’s response to Conservapedia’s Atheism article

Sophmoric and full of fallacies, the Atheism article on Conservapedia has been declared (by Conservapedia, of course) the “article of the year”. I’m not sure what it means, especially since we’re only part way through the year, but if better articles aren’t planned, it’s not going to be a very good year for them.
RationalWiki has made a companion article which (often humourously) refutes the ad hominem attacks and other fallacies of the Conservapedia article.
My favourite question answered is this one:
Q. What God or gods does the atheist deny?
A. One more than the Christian does.
Conservapedia:Atheism – RationalWiki

Atheism and Immoral Views
In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality. [30]
Response to Atheism and Immoral Views
The alleged immorality of many of the activities listed is debatable – Illegal drug use is illegal by definition, but that doesn’t make it immoral, The same with excessive drinking – alcoholism is considered a disease by the medical community. Sexual relationships outside of marriage are not necessarily immoral. Abortion is morally difficult for some, but not for all. Cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage is not immoral to many if not most people in this day and age. Obscene language, well, shucks, darn gee willikers, it could be in poor taste sometimes, but that does not make it immoral. Gambling: like at church bingo? Pornography and obscene sexual behavior are left open and undefined, and what counts as sexual immorality for one may be a harmless kink for another as long as it involves consenting adults. Engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality – nothing immoral about that.
Atheism and Miracles
In regards to atheism and miracles, modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not David Hume was an atheist.[33] With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.[34] Christian apologists William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis, JP Holding, and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume’s position regarding miracles.
Response to Atheism and Miracles
Atheists don’t believe in miracles (at least, not as anything more than a metaphor for a greatly fortuitous coincidence). The point of this particular section is lost on me, personally. The assertion that disbelief in miracles is absurd because a sophomoric apologist like C. S. Lewis says so is more absurd than the assertion it is trying to refute. The atheist world view, unlike the fundamentalist Christian world view, is built on facts. Science does not accept eyewitness accounts, for good reasons, and miracles are never more than eyewitness accounts.

Comments are closed.