Conservapedia explains the causes of atheism... in my case it was moral depravity rather than an absent or abusive father.
On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
Comments
Also, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.
Hahahahahahahaha
But don't take it from them - God Himself says he hates atheists.
I wonder if there is any awareness at all by the clowns at conservapedia of the way this list reads like a parody?
I'm surprised they have “Atheism and Morality”. It should be “Atheism and Immorality”, shouldn't it?
laughable site? It was designed by people like Ben Stein to combat Wikapedia because it holds too many non- xtian views.
Hehe
My sister, for example, is convinced I'm now a nonbeliever because our father was a jerk.
Never mind that I'm the only one of four siblings raised in the same environment who deconverted....nor the fact that I'm also the only one of those four who had a strong early interest in science---which tends to introduce one to the idea that critical thinking skills are vitally important.
No, it must have been something Freudian.
The owner of the site, Andrew Schlafly, has been in correspondence with a Prof. Lenski who has had some interesting results in a long term experiment on evolution. Schlafly and others on Conservapedia have questioned Lenski's professionalism and honesty. The correspondence resulted in Schlafly looking like a pratt, but Schlafly still wont let it lie. I suggested that he should act like a man and apologise. Result? Permanent exclusion for "Insulting behaviour".
Rationalwiki has the Schlafly/Lenski correspondence. (Lenski's second letter is almost up there with Alan Sokal) here http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair
(The entry that got me banned is on the "talk page" - f that's insulting goodness knows what would happen to someone who threw around the type of stuff Rev. Sam has to put up with!)
(For those who do not worship the ground Alan Sokal walks on read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair )