Conservapedia explains the causes of atheism... in my case it was moral depravity rather than an absent or abusive father.
(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
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 )