lol, wow. That whole page is pretty embarrassing. I would hope it's a joke/level, but I doubt it.

It definitely is not a joke.

^^^

From the conservapedia article on wikipedia:

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia founded by entrepreneur and atheist Jimmy Wales and philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. Despite its official "neutrality policy", Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias."

For unbiased information, conservapedia is the clear choice.

i think this picture from the "Atheism and Suicide" section really says it all...

I would expect a typical atheist to me be "more morally depraved" than a typical theist.

That page was pretty ridiculous though.

Stu

but the theist DEFINES the atheist as being morally depraved because he doesn't worship invisible man in robes.

I'm betting you don't have any empirical evidence to support the notion that atheist are morally depraved if we defined that based on something tangible (that we could agree on) like murder/theivery/wife beating, etc. I'm fairly certain that some may have even posted stats of some sort on this forum in the past to suggest the opposite, though I fully admit I'm not motivated enough to research it myself.

In the eyes of a theist I am most likely much more morally deprived than most Christians would ever admit to.

And that gives me great comfort.

I'm basing my entire opinion in this matter on Mrs Garrisons affair with Richard Dawkins.

Stu

"Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states.[5] He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country."

"Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President George Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him 'George Bush'."

"[Obama] He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."


Lol ... and i'm a strong conservative.

I guess when InTheDark isn't gracing this forum with his presence, he's writing articles for Conservapedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
we should send them an email with the definition of the word "evidence"

i would have to agree with this. not because it is right.

but more or less because this is the only reasoning that kurto is able to conceptualize

Or making a really poor case against marijuana.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...=262958&page=3

Right, so... writing articles for Conservapedia.

Actually, the Conservapedia article for Marijuana is fairer than InTheDark:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Marijuana

In my opinion, this is the biggest problem. It's not that people want to believe things without evidence. Most people, including the religious, can recognize that that's an irrational position. As Sam Harris has said, "Nobody wants to be an enemy of reason." It seems to me that the vast majority of religious people(including the nutty ones) think they are basing their beliefs on evidence. The problem is what they think is evidence isn't evidence at all. They need to be taught that appeals to tradition, authority, and revelation are not evidence. They need to understand logical fallacies like the argument from personal incredulity, and they need to understand why pascal's wager is such a pathetic reason to believe.

I've always wondered why elementary logic isn't taught as part of a compulsory education. Is it because governments don't want to encourage critical thinking among the masses? (ala George Carlin)? I suspect there is a much more simpler/better explanation since all I've really offered here is a conspiracy theory, but I can't think of one right now. Anyone else have any ideas/conjectures why logic isn't taught in school?

I live in the United States, so I'm really speaking for U.S. schools, but I've always assumed the lack of formal teaching of logic was a universal problem.

You are probably over-estimating the aptitude of the people behind schooling. Most "possible conspiracies" are by-products of incompetence.

"Currently, there is an ongoing debate on whether atheism was a causal factor for Friedrich Nietzsche's insanity or whether it was caused purely through disease."

Probably true. I can see how lazy thinking can lead me to over-estimate the aptitude of people in areas I know little about. I certainly don't have a clue on the administrative dynamics of the schooling process. This is probably why I couldn't think of a plausible hypothesis.


This is a useful aphorism I plan on never forgetting.

I take offense to that and there's no evidence with that argument. (It's what the religious would want you to think)

He is religious. That's why he thinks that way.

the random american going through high school barely gets through math, science, language, history and english. most of the public school system's job is to make sure people get through what is already necessary, they aren't trying to pile on more.